Good simple stuff.
Monday, May 11, 2015
Negotiation in a nutshell
I find the vast majority of articles found on the web on the topic of negotiation to be shallow at best, and misguided and lacking in real world experience at worst. Here is a great one though.
Keep Time and Emotion from Killing a Negotiation
Anthony K. Tjan
JULY 21, 2014
https://hbr.org/2014/07/keep-time-and-emotion-from-killing-a-negotiation/
Time and emotion — these are the two things most often wasted during a negotiation. We simply spend too much time on items that don’t really matter, because we let our emotions override any semblance of logic. It is a natural human response to act negatively, reactively, and emotionally to any negotiation points that are counter to one’s pre-disposed positions. It is also poor negotiation practice.
The mere fact of having a position lies at the root of why we get caught up in the drama of a negotiation, rather than focusing on the plotline or ending (i.e. goal) toward which we are striving. In business school, students are sometimes taught the difference between position-based versus interest-based negotiation. When you focus on the differences between your positions rather than the commonality of your interests, little progress can be made. There is nothing necessarily wrong with having a going-in negotiating position, and we can’t really avoid having pre-existing assumptions and desires. But when we don’t get what we want and frustration ensues, what can we do? The key is to understand five areas that can both help move a negotiation forward and in doing so usually advance us to where we want to be:
Understand the common goal and common interest. Make sure you fully digest and articulate any areas of common interest. Is it simply to maximize value for the company or are there instances, for example, where the greater common goal may be to get a deal done to sell a business rather than optimize its value by waiting? One of the best ways of making this happen is to simply to have both sides articulate their goals and interests in writing and share them to ensure clarity and alignment.
Understand the underlying and ancillary motivations of the other side. Oftentimes there are conflating or conflicting interests at hand. As much as possible, you need to understand the total “motivational picture” of your counterparty. For example, at our firm we have been in negotiations where we ultimately learned that what appeared to be irrational negotiating by the other side was driven by how they were compensated for the deal. Where possible, uncover if those negotiating for other side have any personal remuneration at stake, and how that changes with different outcomes – it will drive behavior.
Be transparent and explain the why of your points. It can be surprising how seldom people explain the why of a position for which they are fighting. Take even the previous example on personal deal compensation. If something is going to impact you personally, it may be better for you to disclose it — at least the other party will understand. So often it is taken for granted that the other side fully appreciates why you are asking for a term or condition when they actually have little clue. Before you can do this, you also need to make sure you fully understand your own why for each of your points!
Calculate the materiality of each point. Much of the time sink of negotiations is unfortunately spent on elements that don’t really matter — things that will not materialize, or if they do won’t have a major impact. Legal and tax counsel is always critical and highly valuable, but can sometimes also be the tail that wags the dog. Once I was leading an important negotiation where we debated at length with legal and tax experts over “edge scenarios” that might negatively impact us. This went on for two days until I took a step back to actually calculate what our largest dollar exposure could be. It turned out to be less than the cost of of preparing a structure to avoid it and likely less than the professional and legal fees we had already accumulated thinking about it! Do the math and calculate how material a point is — then determine if it is really worth fighting for in the bigger picture.
Look for points that have an asymmetry in value. Once you understand the math of a negotiation, look where there may be asymmetry. There are always points where there is a fundamental difference in how each side perceives the value. To be effective in negotiation you need to comprehend the balance of trade on every key point. Basically, look where your currency is worth more. Consider, for example, the purchase of a house. If the eventual price is the most important currency for you, then see where there may be a different lever (a different “currency”) to trade for your desired lower price. Sometimes a seller may care more about the timing or certainty of a closing than the price. Taking out a financial contingency, or letting the close happen on whatever time frame the seller wants, may gain you disproportionate benefit in the price. Remember the bigger context and have the empathy and rationality to think about it from the other side.
Following the five rules above will eliminate a large amount of futile negotiation on things that don’t matter, or things that matter much more for one side than the other. The goal of any negotiation is to reach agreement, but unfortunately the journey there is usually painful. We find ourselves “stuck” on terms or conditions we feel are must-haves, and lose perspective as to why we want the things we think we want. It does not need to be like that. Focus on the two or three scenarios that really matter for each side and have reasonable probability of being realized, as opposed to every edge scenario. In the end it probably won’t be a contract that saves you. It will be the quality of your relationship, your rationality, and, yes, your ability to do effective subsequent negotiation (definitive documents are rarely definitive). The reality is that you are more likely to get a fair deal — and even get the opportunity, from time to time, to have your cake and eat it too — if you stay disciplined on the underlying architecture and rationality of each negotiation point. Good luck, and happy negotiating.
Keep Time and Emotion from Killing a Negotiation
Anthony K. Tjan
JULY 21, 2014
https://hbr.org/2014/07/keep-time-and-emotion-from-killing-a-negotiation/
Time and emotion — these are the two things most often wasted during a negotiation. We simply spend too much time on items that don’t really matter, because we let our emotions override any semblance of logic. It is a natural human response to act negatively, reactively, and emotionally to any negotiation points that are counter to one’s pre-disposed positions. It is also poor negotiation practice.
The mere fact of having a position lies at the root of why we get caught up in the drama of a negotiation, rather than focusing on the plotline or ending (i.e. goal) toward which we are striving. In business school, students are sometimes taught the difference between position-based versus interest-based negotiation. When you focus on the differences between your positions rather than the commonality of your interests, little progress can be made. There is nothing necessarily wrong with having a going-in negotiating position, and we can’t really avoid having pre-existing assumptions and desires. But when we don’t get what we want and frustration ensues, what can we do? The key is to understand five areas that can both help move a negotiation forward and in doing so usually advance us to where we want to be:
Understand the common goal and common interest. Make sure you fully digest and articulate any areas of common interest. Is it simply to maximize value for the company or are there instances, for example, where the greater common goal may be to get a deal done to sell a business rather than optimize its value by waiting? One of the best ways of making this happen is to simply to have both sides articulate their goals and interests in writing and share them to ensure clarity and alignment.
Understand the underlying and ancillary motivations of the other side. Oftentimes there are conflating or conflicting interests at hand. As much as possible, you need to understand the total “motivational picture” of your counterparty. For example, at our firm we have been in negotiations where we ultimately learned that what appeared to be irrational negotiating by the other side was driven by how they were compensated for the deal. Where possible, uncover if those negotiating for other side have any personal remuneration at stake, and how that changes with different outcomes – it will drive behavior.
Be transparent and explain the why of your points. It can be surprising how seldom people explain the why of a position for which they are fighting. Take even the previous example on personal deal compensation. If something is going to impact you personally, it may be better for you to disclose it — at least the other party will understand. So often it is taken for granted that the other side fully appreciates why you are asking for a term or condition when they actually have little clue. Before you can do this, you also need to make sure you fully understand your own why for each of your points!
Calculate the materiality of each point. Much of the time sink of negotiations is unfortunately spent on elements that don’t really matter — things that will not materialize, or if they do won’t have a major impact. Legal and tax counsel is always critical and highly valuable, but can sometimes also be the tail that wags the dog. Once I was leading an important negotiation where we debated at length with legal and tax experts over “edge scenarios” that might negatively impact us. This went on for two days until I took a step back to actually calculate what our largest dollar exposure could be. It turned out to be less than the cost of of preparing a structure to avoid it and likely less than the professional and legal fees we had already accumulated thinking about it! Do the math and calculate how material a point is — then determine if it is really worth fighting for in the bigger picture.
Look for points that have an asymmetry in value. Once you understand the math of a negotiation, look where there may be asymmetry. There are always points where there is a fundamental difference in how each side perceives the value. To be effective in negotiation you need to comprehend the balance of trade on every key point. Basically, look where your currency is worth more. Consider, for example, the purchase of a house. If the eventual price is the most important currency for you, then see where there may be a different lever (a different “currency”) to trade for your desired lower price. Sometimes a seller may care more about the timing or certainty of a closing than the price. Taking out a financial contingency, or letting the close happen on whatever time frame the seller wants, may gain you disproportionate benefit in the price. Remember the bigger context and have the empathy and rationality to think about it from the other side.
Following the five rules above will eliminate a large amount of futile negotiation on things that don’t matter, or things that matter much more for one side than the other. The goal of any negotiation is to reach agreement, but unfortunately the journey there is usually painful. We find ourselves “stuck” on terms or conditions we feel are must-haves, and lose perspective as to why we want the things we think we want. It does not need to be like that. Focus on the two or three scenarios that really matter for each side and have reasonable probability of being realized, as opposed to every edge scenario. In the end it probably won’t be a contract that saves you. It will be the quality of your relationship, your rationality, and, yes, your ability to do effective subsequent negotiation (definitive documents are rarely definitive). The reality is that you are more likely to get a fair deal — and even get the opportunity, from time to time, to have your cake and eat it too — if you stay disciplined on the underlying architecture and rationality of each negotiation point. Good luck, and happy negotiating.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Negotiation - give a range, not a fixed number
Source: http://qz.com/356612/you-are-almost-certainly-starting-salary-negotiations-wrong/
First, a range shapes expectations about an acceptable counteroffer. When there’s a number explicitly framed as a floor, people assume you’re unlikely to take something below it. They don’t necessarily make the same assumption with a single number.
Second, there’s the politeness effect. People are much less likely to go way below the bottom number of a range because they feel like it would be insulting. Similar qualms aren’t nearly as strong with single-point offers. And offering a range is generally seen as a sign of flexibility, even when the actual numbers are relatively high.
The researchers conducted a series of five experiments. In each case, a bolstering range led to better counteroffers, higher estimates of the lowest price someone would take, and a resolution—whereas starting with a single extremely high number had the negative effect of simply shutting down more negotiations or having them end in an impasse.
They also found that a bracketing range, where you put a floor below the number you really want and a ceiling above, doesn’t work nearly as well.
An experiment pitting two people negotiating over the sale of a used car found that a bolstering range led to an average counteroffer nearly $200 dollars higher than a single-point offer, and a higher-end settlement ($6,985 versus $6,776). Bolstering ranges also outperformed bracket ranges and extremely high, single-point offers.
But the bigger payday isn’t the only benefit of offering a bolstering range. People sometimes forget that it’s not all about money, that the relationship with a superior afterwards matters as well.
Across the experiments, people offering the higher range weren’t seen as any more aggressive or obnoxious than those who offered a single point, even though the high end of their range was a much larger amount. They were also seen as more flexible and confident.
So if you’re not making the first offer in a negotiation, consider doing so (the research on how that anchors negotiations is well established), and once you do, make it a bolstering range.
Psych study abstract re. 1st offers:
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Oct;81(4):657-69.
First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus.
Galinsky AD1, Mussweiler T.
Abstract
Three experiments explored the role of first offers, perspective-taking, and negotiator self-focus in determining distributive outcomes in a negotiation. Across 3 experiments, whichever party, the buyer or seller, made the 1st offer obtained a better outcome. In addition, 1st offers were a strong predictor of final settlement prices. However, when the negotiator who did not make a 1st offer focused on information that was inconsistent with the implications of the opponent's 1st offer, the advantageous effect of making the 1st offer was eliminated: Thinking about one's opponent's alternatives to the negotiation (Experiment 1), one's opponent's reservation price (Experiment 2), or one's own target (Experiment 3) all negated the effect of 1st offers on outcomes. These effects occurred for both face-to-face negotiations and E-mail negotiations. Implications for negotiations and perspective-taking are discussed.
First, a range shapes expectations about an acceptable counteroffer. When there’s a number explicitly framed as a floor, people assume you’re unlikely to take something below it. They don’t necessarily make the same assumption with a single number.
Second, there’s the politeness effect. People are much less likely to go way below the bottom number of a range because they feel like it would be insulting. Similar qualms aren’t nearly as strong with single-point offers. And offering a range is generally seen as a sign of flexibility, even when the actual numbers are relatively high.
The researchers conducted a series of five experiments. In each case, a bolstering range led to better counteroffers, higher estimates of the lowest price someone would take, and a resolution—whereas starting with a single extremely high number had the negative effect of simply shutting down more negotiations or having them end in an impasse.
They also found that a bracketing range, where you put a floor below the number you really want and a ceiling above, doesn’t work nearly as well.
An experiment pitting two people negotiating over the sale of a used car found that a bolstering range led to an average counteroffer nearly $200 dollars higher than a single-point offer, and a higher-end settlement ($6,985 versus $6,776). Bolstering ranges also outperformed bracket ranges and extremely high, single-point offers.
But the bigger payday isn’t the only benefit of offering a bolstering range. People sometimes forget that it’s not all about money, that the relationship with a superior afterwards matters as well.
Across the experiments, people offering the higher range weren’t seen as any more aggressive or obnoxious than those who offered a single point, even though the high end of their range was a much larger amount. They were also seen as more flexible and confident.
So if you’re not making the first offer in a negotiation, consider doing so (the research on how that anchors negotiations is well established), and once you do, make it a bolstering range.
Psych study abstract re. 1st offers:
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Oct;81(4):657-69.
First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus.
Galinsky AD1, Mussweiler T.
Abstract
Three experiments explored the role of first offers, perspective-taking, and negotiator self-focus in determining distributive outcomes in a negotiation. Across 3 experiments, whichever party, the buyer or seller, made the 1st offer obtained a better outcome. In addition, 1st offers were a strong predictor of final settlement prices. However, when the negotiator who did not make a 1st offer focused on information that was inconsistent with the implications of the opponent's 1st offer, the advantageous effect of making the 1st offer was eliminated: Thinking about one's opponent's alternatives to the negotiation (Experiment 1), one's opponent's reservation price (Experiment 2), or one's own target (Experiment 3) all negated the effect of 1st offers on outcomes. These effects occurred for both face-to-face negotiations and E-mail negotiations. Implications for negotiations and perspective-taking are discussed.
A simple truth to leadership
Simply put, compassion makes the difference between understanding and caring. It’s the kind of love that a parent has for a child. Cultivating it more broadly means extending that to the other people in our lives and to people we encounter.
I think that in the workplace, that attitude has a hugely positive effect, whether it’s in how we relate to our peers or how we are as a leader, or how we relate to clients and customers. A positive disposition toward another person creates the kind of resonance that builds trust and loyalty and makes interactions harmonious. And the opposite of that — when you do nothing to show that you care — creates distrust, disharmony, and causes huge dysfunction at home and in business.
Source: https://hbr.org/2015/05/what-the-dalai-lama-taught-daniel-goleman-about-emotional-intelligence
I think that in the workplace, that attitude has a hugely positive effect, whether it’s in how we relate to our peers or how we are as a leader, or how we relate to clients and customers. A positive disposition toward another person creates the kind of resonance that builds trust and loyalty and makes interactions harmonious. And the opposite of that — when you do nothing to show that you care — creates distrust, disharmony, and causes huge dysfunction at home and in business.
Source: https://hbr.org/2015/05/what-the-dalai-lama-taught-daniel-goleman-about-emotional-intelligence
Monday, February 23, 2015
Monday, January 26, 2015
Office politics
LINKED IN ARTICLE.
In my view, one of life’s greatest ambitions is to remain authentic. Never underestimate the many circumstances, however, that will challenge your ability to be yourself – particularly early in your career.
Navigating office politics is one of these challenges. It is a high-ranking test of one’s character and belief.
The view of politics from the CEO’s helicopter seat is predictable and vivid. It is much easier to see personal agendas, competition, ‘backstabbing’ (a word I loathe), and false relationships at play amongst those eager to succeed. But for the less seasoned professional, workplace politics can be a costly and demoralising distraction.
So, the earlier you learn how to navigate your surrounds, the quicker the career you deserve begins. It took me longer than it should've to work this out. I incorrectly focused on the moments of politics, not the long term game to benefit my career. I was guilty of being distracted by futile, ‘in the moment’ politics. Don’t let that happen to you.
Be better than me – try these tips:
1) Learn how to influence
Influencing is an invaluable asset of leadership, but it is also complex to attain and wield. At the core of effective influencing is the art of building authentic relationships in your work environment. This involves the simple principle of being genuinely curious about people – for instance, their interests, motivations and ambitions. This curiosity should extend beyond just those that you may directly work with. My effectiveness as an influencer came from building broad and honest relationships across the business. While we didn’t always agree on issues, there was a genuine respect for each other. Legitimately getting to know people will more often than not smoke out disingenuous political agendas.
2) Don’t resent others success
This is a sleeping giant. A really important habit to get into is to play your long game – focus on your career, not that of others. In almost every work environment I have been in, the least gracious people are the most unsuccessful. You must learn to appreciate and acknowledge other’s success. I know that can be tough for highly competitive people, but be generous – people will notice. There is nothing more appealing than the genuine support of colleagues. These moments can change the nature of relationships for the better. It also sends a signal that you are above any petty jealousies.
3) Toughen up
As you know in life and business, things are not always fair and reasonable. As a CEO, I always observe people’s reactions to difficult scenarios, such as missing out on a promotion, dealing with confrontation or personality clashes. This is important because if someone exhibits calm, respectful objectivity in such circumstances, it tells me they are building the maturity for greater success into the future. They are developing objectivity. They are toughening up.
4) Ignore the pack
From the moment you walked into the schoolyard, the challenge to be yourself began. To this day, your perception of yourself is, to some extent, shaped by your experiences with people. In almost every work environment, whether it’s a result of a poor work culture, or the convenience of jumping on the bandwagon of popular opinion, pack mentality exists. The most successful people are able to manage and build relationships with many and varied individuals, without ever being pressured, coerced or influenced to join a destructive pack. Always seek to remain a collaborative individual, rather than a compliant groupie.
5) The long game
Don’t let office politics distract you from the long game. Ultimately, the goal of your long game should revolve around three things. Firstly, take every opportunity to build and maintain relationships across the business. Secondly, expose yourself to a variety of environments both within and outside your place of work (through volunteering, for instance). This will provide you with a greater capacity to work alongside people who face different issues and challenges in their respective roles. Last of all, make it your business to position yourself as the person who will help conclude a difficult project, step in to assist when disagreements arise, or provide a positive perspective when others are no longer capable of doing so. By focusing on these three long game objectives, your context and judgement will continue to improve, and you will further insulate yourself from the petty politician(s).
***
Alex Malley FCPA is the chief executive of CPA Australia and the host of the Nine Network television series The Bottom Line. Alex is also a regular contributor to The Huffington Post and he is a regular business commentator on the nationally syndicated programs The Money News on 2GB and Sky News Business.
You are an intern. Always
How to be successful in a corporate environment?
Act as if you are your boss' intern (ie. work you ass off to make his life easy, and learn everything you can). Always. Put yourself in that position, learn and grow like that.
Whether you are actually an intern, or a General Manager reporting to a board or a CEO.
Also: modesty and ambition.
Act as if you are your boss' intern (ie. work you ass off to make his life easy, and learn everything you can). Always. Put yourself in that position, learn and grow like that.
Whether you are actually an intern, or a General Manager reporting to a board or a CEO.
Also: modesty and ambition.
99% of Networking Is a Waste of Time
HBR article, by Greg McKeown. Original is here: https://hbr.org/2015/01/99-of-networking-is-a-waste-of-time
Building the right relationships — networking — is critical in business. It may be an overstatement to say that relationships are everything, but not a huge one. The people we spend time with largely determine the opportunities that are available to us. As venture capitalist and entrepreneur Rich Stromback told me in a series of interviews, “Opportunities do not float like clouds in the sky. They are attached to people.”
To say Stromback is a great networker is an understatement: he was introduced to me as “Mr.Davos” for good reason. He has spent the last ten years attending the Mecca of networking events — held by the World Economic Forum every year in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland. The New York Times described him as the “unofficial expert on the Davos party scene.” Every year, he knows where the big events will be because he has so many people feeding him information, and he makes sure to be at the center of the action. Over time, this has turned into a surreal set of relationships. When a Middle East Prince was asked to meet with some Fortune 500 CEOs, he reached out to Stromback to attend and facilitate the meeting; when the Vatican was trying to negotiate a peace treaty of sorts they asked Stromback to help.
People also come to him because they feel they’re not getting enough value at Davos. “They chase for more and get less,” says Stromback, who finds the notion almost unimaginable. “The forum is the most influential community in the world. It’s the United Nations, G20, Fortune 500, Forbes List, tech disrupters and thought leaders all brought into one.”
Much of what he has learned from a decade at Davos flies in the face of generally-accepted networking advice. Below are snippets of my conversations with Stromback about his counterintuitive advice. Use it at Davos — or any other networking event:
Don’t care about your first impression. “Everyone gets this wrong. They try to look right and sound right and end up being completely forgettable. I’m having a ball just being myself. I don’t wear suits or anything like that. I do not care about first impressions. I’d almost rather make a bad first impression and let people discover me over time than go for an immediate positive response. Curiously, research I read years ago suggests that you build a stronger bond over time with someone who doesn’t like you immediately compared to someone who does. Everything about Jack Nicholson is wrong, but all of the wrong together makes something very cool.”99 percent of any networking event is a waste of time. “99% of Davos is information or experience you can get elsewhere, on your own timeframe and in a more comfortable manner. When I had my white badge access [an official pass to the conference center] — which I don’t bother with anymore — my friends would laugh because I never went to a session. [But] that’s not where the highest value is. What you can’t get outside of Davos is the ability to have so many face-to-face interactions which either initiate or further key relationships.”
Sleep from 4-8PM every day. “I nap every day in Davos sometime between the hours of 4-8pm. It’s the most efficient time to catch up on sleep so I can be fresh when the time is opportune. The opportune moments happen while dancing at one of the nightcaps or at a chateau where only a select group of people is invited. The conversations there can go on until the early morning hours.”
The key to networking is to stop networking. “Nobody wants to have a ‘networking conversation,’ especially those who are at the highest levels of business and politics. They are hungry for real conversations and real relationships. It just has to be authentic, genuine and sincere. I don’t look at people’s badges to decide if they are worth my time. Davos is 3,000 influential people and I need to be selective, yet authentic — focused, yet open to possibilities. In the end, I put myself in the most target-rich area and then just go with the flow and spend time with who I enjoy.
You’re not required to go to the big-name parties. “I maintain a broad and deep global network of C-level relationships without wining and dining face-to-face with people 90% of the time. But you need to know where people will be. For example, one year I told someone, “Don’t go to the Bill Gates party this year.” He asked me why? And I told him, “Because no one will be there.” He went and couldn’t believe I knew ahead of time. But I just knew the party was at the wrong time in the wrong location. It’s all about understanding where to be and when.”
Live in Detroit (or somewhere like it) the rest of the year. “Most people who are focused on building relationships at the highest levels live in London, New York City and Washington, D.C. They are immersed in the scene 24-7. I prefer to be disengaged 90% of the time. I live in Bloomfield Hills, in the Detroit area, and I don’t do anything social there. I love Detroit because no one comes to visit, and there are very few distractions. This is my escape for crucial family time. Being removed from the fray 90% of the time reduces a lot of drama.”
As Stromback — a self-declared essentialist — put it, “Davos is 99% distractions; you have to know what to avoid.” When asked how he would respond to the idea that most people don’t like networking because it’s time intensive and distracting from their “real work” he said, “The answer is to be extremely efficient and focus on what is truly essential.” This jibes with my own personal point of view on the world: Almost everything in life is worthless noise, and a very few things are exceptionally valuable. This is as true in networking as it is in almost every other area of life.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
12 Things Great Employees Always Finish Before Noon
Original article is here.
So simple yet so powerful. I've been living by these rules for a while now and... it's basically a new (more enjoyable) life.
1. They make a work to-do list the day before.
2. They get a full night's rest.
3. They avoid hitting snooze.
4. They exercise.
5. They practice a morning ritual.
6. They eat breakfast.
7. They arrive at the office on time.
8. They check in with their boss and/or employees.
9. They tackle the big projects first.
10. They avoid morning meetings.
11. They allot time for following up on messages.
12. They take a mid-morning break.
So simple yet so powerful. I've been living by these rules for a while now and... it's basically a new (more enjoyable) life.
1. They make a work to-do list the day before.
2. They get a full night's rest.
3. They avoid hitting snooze.
4. They exercise.
5. They practice a morning ritual.
6. They eat breakfast.
7. They arrive at the office on time.
8. They check in with their boss and/or employees.
9. They tackle the big projects first.
10. They avoid morning meetings.
11. They allot time for following up on messages.
12. They take a mid-morning break.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
When It's Time To Walk Away, by Brian de Haaff
And here are the signs to look for in each area that may be telling you it's time to walk away. However, just because you are not aligned does not mean that you can not become so. It's important to consider how long you have been trying to find alignment and if it's likely that you will get there.
If you have been struggling for over a year in any one of these areas, it might be time to move in a new direction.
Alignment with ambitionAre you working for a company and in a role that is getting you closer to your goal? This is a fundamental question to ask yourself and unfortunately most people never do. Because without a goal it's impossible to know if you are headed in the right direction. I often recommend a "goal first" approach to business planning, but it's also the first place to start as you think about your own direction. If you have never taken the time to write down where you want to be in three, five, and 10 years, now is the time to start.
Alignment with skillsThe most enjoyable jobs fully tap our exiting skill sets and challenge us to grown new ones. Are you a master of the domain you are currently working in or are you on your way? If the answer is yes, you are probably fairly satisfied with the work you do. If the answer is no you, your confidence has likely been battered and you are constantly looking over your shoulder. Now, if you are out of your element a good boss and training can counteract any suffering and help you regain your mojo.
Alignment with reward expectationsThere are two types of rewards and both are important. Intrinsic rewards are based on the personal fulfillment you get out of a job well done. External rewards include your salary and any other material benefits you receive from your employer. Your reward expectations need to closely match reality for you to be satisfied. If there is a disconnect here for too long, you will grow disenchanted with the work you do or worse. You might not be able to pay your rent or mortgage.
Alignment with bossIt's in vogue right now to suggest that people do not leave their jobs but instead leave their bosses. As you have already read, there are many reasons for leaving a job that have nothing to do with your boss. However, I agree that an unsupportive boss is at the top of the list driving folks to update their resume. I have left bosses who: chased employees around the office, did not allow their staff to speak with other managers, and threatened retribution when someone quit. Does your boss have your best interests in mind?
If you have misalignment in any one of these areas I suggest you admit it to yourself first. Next, have a conversation with your boss or a trusted adviser in the organization who you think can help you.
I want to be clear that you are responsible for trying to overcome the challenge and owe it to yourself and the organization to try and work through it. But, if you can look at yourself in the mirror and are comfortable saying out loud that you tried, you may need to move to plan B. If there really does not appear to be a way out and your misery is increasing, it's ok to admit defeat and walk away.
Do you agree? When do you believe it's not only ok, but healthy to walk away? Add a comment.
Two Kinds of People You Should Never Negotiate With
by Judith White
http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/06/two-kinds-of-people-you-should-never-negotiate-with/
The first thing negotiation experts teach is to “separate the people from the problem.” The vast majority of the time, this is sound advice. But as a psychologist, I know that approximately 1% of the time, people are the problem. And in such cases, normal negotiation strategies just don’t work. Here’s how to recognize that rare situation and what to do about it.
First, determine what sort of person or people you’re trying to negotiate with (i.e. your counterparty).
Here are two types of counterparties you should negotiate with, even when it seems difficult.
1. Emotional counterparties. Emotion in and of itself shouldn’t preclude you from reaching a successful agreement – it’s natural for people to feel strong emotion in a conflict situation. Once the conflict is identified and addressed, and parties are allowed to vent, emotion usually dissipates. Keep in mind that some people (and cultures) simply express more feelings than others. Also, some negotiators use emotion strategically to influence the other party. Recognize the emotion, but don’t let it stop you from negotiating.
2. Unreasonable counterparties. We often think people are being unreasonable when they don’t agree with our logic and evidence. But more often, people who disagree with us are simply seeing different problems, and even different sets of facts, than we are. Even if you think the other party is being unreasonable, it’s still possible to bridge the gap and close a deal.
But here are two types of counterparties you should never negotiate with:
1. A counterparty who alternates between conciliation and provocation. People are usually more provocative, or difficult to deal with, at the outset of a negotiation. Then they become more conciliatory as the outlines of a settlement develop. Beware the person who is conciliatory at first, then becomes provocative — and then when you’re about to walk away becomes conciliatory again, and then provocative again. This behavior suggests that he will never be satisfied, nor finished, with the negotiation. What he wants is not a negotiated settlement, but control — over the process and over you. The time and energy it will take to continue will eventually outweigh any potential gains you could achieve through negotiation.
2. A counterparty who persists in seeing people in terms of absolute good and evil. Negotiation is a method for resolving conflicts of interest, not for adjudicating who is at fault. Most people, once they understand this, are willing to exchange concessions in order to satisfy their underlying interests. Watch out for someone who describes people as absolutely good and blameless, or as absolutely evil and responsible. This behavior suggests that he or she lacks the mindset necessary for negotiation. What this person wants is for evil people to be held accountable and punished, and because you are in a conflict with her, you may fall into that category. Walking away would deprive her of the opportunity to punish you. Therefore, if you negotiate, you can expect the process to be painful. You can also expect not to receive meaningful concessions, because this type of person does not believe you deserve them.
Even the best negotiators cannot reach a win-win outcome with people like this, as their underlying interests can’t be addressed with a settlement. The best negotiation advice and practice will not help you in these rare situations. Instead, here are four steps you should take:
Be realistic. This person is not going to change. There is no negotiation strategy you can use to make him or her change. Your goal should be to extricate yourself with the most gains (or least losses) possible. Let’s say you have a tenant behind on the rent. It’s worth negotiating with an emotional, even unreasonable tenant. Deep down, her primary interest is to keep the apartment. She can ultimately be trusted to act in her own interest. On the other hand, it’s not worth negotiating with an alternatively conciliatory, then provocative tenant who blames his neighbors and the property manager for his situation. Deep down, his primary interest is not the apartment; it’s his need to control the people around him.
Stop making concessions. The purpose of concessions is to reach an agreement, but since you’ll never do that (no matter how much you’re willing to give up!), don’t waste your time. That doesn’t mean you won’t incur significant losses. Your goal should be to minimize those losses. For example, if someone on your team fits the description of a no-win negotiator, you may already have made many concessions and picked up her share of the work, while she has yet to follow through on her promises to you. Enough! Do whatever is necessary to get the project finished, but stop making offers to her.
Reduce your interdependence. Take whatever steps you can to reduce your interdependence with this person. You don’t want to depend on him for anything, or owe him anything, going forward. This means, for example, that a lump sum payment for services is better than a payment plan. Working independently on separate pieces of a project is better than working together on the whole thing. If you must continue to work with this person, remember that even very immature children can still play nicely side-by-side if each is given his or her own set of toys.
Make it public, hold them accountable, and use a third party if you can. Avoid private discussions, if possible. Get everything out in the open and put everything in writing. Try to bump accountability to the next level, so someone higher up has to take action if the other party does not follow through on his or her obligations. If you can utilize a third party, like a mediator, arbitrator, or judge, then do so.
Remember, 99 times out of 100, your counterpart has rational underlying interests that you will eventually discover with patience and the right strategies. The secret to negotiating, after all, is to find out what the other party wants and how much it’s worth to him. In those rare cases when your counterparty wants to use the negotiation to control or punish you, however, it doesn’t matter how much it’s worth to him. It’s worth more to you to be free of him and able to get on with your business. Isn’t it?
by Judith White
http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/06/two-kinds-of-people-you-should-never-negotiate-with/
The first thing negotiation experts teach is to “separate the people from the problem.” The vast majority of the time, this is sound advice. But as a psychologist, I know that approximately 1% of the time, people are the problem. And in such cases, normal negotiation strategies just don’t work. Here’s how to recognize that rare situation and what to do about it.
First, determine what sort of person or people you’re trying to negotiate with (i.e. your counterparty).
Here are two types of counterparties you should negotiate with, even when it seems difficult.
1. Emotional counterparties. Emotion in and of itself shouldn’t preclude you from reaching a successful agreement – it’s natural for people to feel strong emotion in a conflict situation. Once the conflict is identified and addressed, and parties are allowed to vent, emotion usually dissipates. Keep in mind that some people (and cultures) simply express more feelings than others. Also, some negotiators use emotion strategically to influence the other party. Recognize the emotion, but don’t let it stop you from negotiating.
2. Unreasonable counterparties. We often think people are being unreasonable when they don’t agree with our logic and evidence. But more often, people who disagree with us are simply seeing different problems, and even different sets of facts, than we are. Even if you think the other party is being unreasonable, it’s still possible to bridge the gap and close a deal.
But here are two types of counterparties you should never negotiate with:
1. A counterparty who alternates between conciliation and provocation. People are usually more provocative, or difficult to deal with, at the outset of a negotiation. Then they become more conciliatory as the outlines of a settlement develop. Beware the person who is conciliatory at first, then becomes provocative — and then when you’re about to walk away becomes conciliatory again, and then provocative again. This behavior suggests that he will never be satisfied, nor finished, with the negotiation. What he wants is not a negotiated settlement, but control — over the process and over you. The time and energy it will take to continue will eventually outweigh any potential gains you could achieve through negotiation.
2. A counterparty who persists in seeing people in terms of absolute good and evil. Negotiation is a method for resolving conflicts of interest, not for adjudicating who is at fault. Most people, once they understand this, are willing to exchange concessions in order to satisfy their underlying interests. Watch out for someone who describes people as absolutely good and blameless, or as absolutely evil and responsible. This behavior suggests that he or she lacks the mindset necessary for negotiation. What this person wants is for evil people to be held accountable and punished, and because you are in a conflict with her, you may fall into that category. Walking away would deprive her of the opportunity to punish you. Therefore, if you negotiate, you can expect the process to be painful. You can also expect not to receive meaningful concessions, because this type of person does not believe you deserve them.
Even the best negotiators cannot reach a win-win outcome with people like this, as their underlying interests can’t be addressed with a settlement. The best negotiation advice and practice will not help you in these rare situations. Instead, here are four steps you should take:
Be realistic. This person is not going to change. There is no negotiation strategy you can use to make him or her change. Your goal should be to extricate yourself with the most gains (or least losses) possible. Let’s say you have a tenant behind on the rent. It’s worth negotiating with an emotional, even unreasonable tenant. Deep down, her primary interest is to keep the apartment. She can ultimately be trusted to act in her own interest. On the other hand, it’s not worth negotiating with an alternatively conciliatory, then provocative tenant who blames his neighbors and the property manager for his situation. Deep down, his primary interest is not the apartment; it’s his need to control the people around him.
Stop making concessions. The purpose of concessions is to reach an agreement, but since you’ll never do that (no matter how much you’re willing to give up!), don’t waste your time. That doesn’t mean you won’t incur significant losses. Your goal should be to minimize those losses. For example, if someone on your team fits the description of a no-win negotiator, you may already have made many concessions and picked up her share of the work, while she has yet to follow through on her promises to you. Enough! Do whatever is necessary to get the project finished, but stop making offers to her.
Reduce your interdependence. Take whatever steps you can to reduce your interdependence with this person. You don’t want to depend on him for anything, or owe him anything, going forward. This means, for example, that a lump sum payment for services is better than a payment plan. Working independently on separate pieces of a project is better than working together on the whole thing. If you must continue to work with this person, remember that even very immature children can still play nicely side-by-side if each is given his or her own set of toys.
Make it public, hold them accountable, and use a third party if you can. Avoid private discussions, if possible. Get everything out in the open and put everything in writing. Try to bump accountability to the next level, so someone higher up has to take action if the other party does not follow through on his or her obligations. If you can utilize a third party, like a mediator, arbitrator, or judge, then do so.
Remember, 99 times out of 100, your counterpart has rational underlying interests that you will eventually discover with patience and the right strategies. The secret to negotiating, after all, is to find out what the other party wants and how much it’s worth to him. In those rare cases when your counterparty wants to use the negotiation to control or punish you, however, it doesn’t matter how much it’s worth to him. It’s worth more to you to be free of him and able to get on with your business. Isn’t it?
Monday, December 23, 2013
An incredible crash course in corporate culture, management and HR.
Culture from Reed Hastings
This presentation has gone viral and created a huge amount of discussion on the web. Some love it, some hate it. I'm with the former. This is some of the most powerful business literature I have ever read.The most interesting thing about it is that in my past experiences, I have sadly gone through counter examples to nearly all of these points. This further reinforces my conviction that this document is spot on.
Anyway, highly recommended reading. On my end, I will keep this presentation in my toolkit.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Tough love
So I just read another interesting post on the HBR blog: "The fine art of tough love" by Joanne Lipman
The 5 concepts the author brings up are as follows and bolded. My comments follow.
1. Banish empty praise.
And banish empty compliments as well (which is the actual definition of tough love of course)
2. Set expectations high.
This brings us back to the "aim high" principle I am fond of. "Shoot for the moon, if you miss you'll end up with the stars".
3. Articulate clear goals – and goal posts along the way.
Yes, yes, yes. Setting attainable intermediary goal does wonders.
4. Failure isn’t defeat.
This is where the U.S. have an edge on so many other cultures. Grit, resolve in the face of failure.
5. Say thank you.
Her supervisor is spread so thin that he is putting out proverbial fires all day. “He has the time to tell us what we did wrong,” she said. “He doesn’t have time to tell us when we do something well.”
N°5 is a big one, however let me improve on it. Saying "thank you" in a management setting is actually not that great because it puts us in a "selfish" position. Thank you entails somebody did something for US, because WE asked for it.
Therefore let's replace "thank you" by "congratulations" / "good job" and similar expressions... This entails somebody did not do something because he was asked to do it, but that he did something because it had to be done and because it was for the greater good.
When I think back to best managers I ever had or have been in contact with, they all strictly applied this concept. It wasn't about them, it was about the task at hand.
Last but not least:
- tough love can only work when the manager has actual expertise and added value to bring to his team and collaborators.
- let's not forget the love part. Sounds very hippy, but without the love part, we would just be tyrants.
The 5 concepts the author brings up are as follows and bolded. My comments follow.
1. Banish empty praise.
And banish empty compliments as well (which is the actual definition of tough love of course)
2. Set expectations high.
This brings us back to the "aim high" principle I am fond of. "Shoot for the moon, if you miss you'll end up with the stars".
3. Articulate clear goals – and goal posts along the way.
Yes, yes, yes. Setting attainable intermediary goal does wonders.
4. Failure isn’t defeat.
This is where the U.S. have an edge on so many other cultures. Grit, resolve in the face of failure.
5. Say thank you.
Her supervisor is spread so thin that he is putting out proverbial fires all day. “He has the time to tell us what we did wrong,” she said. “He doesn’t have time to tell us when we do something well.”
N°5 is a big one, however let me improve on it. Saying "thank you" in a management setting is actually not that great because it puts us in a "selfish" position. Thank you entails somebody did something for US, because WE asked for it.
Therefore let's replace "thank you" by "congratulations" / "good job" and similar expressions... This entails somebody did not do something because he was asked to do it, but that he did something because it had to be done and because it was for the greater good.
When I think back to best managers I ever had or have been in contact with, they all strictly applied this concept. It wasn't about them, it was about the task at hand.
Last but not least:
- tough love can only work when the manager has actual expertise and added value to bring to his team and collaborators.
- let's not forget the love part. Sounds very hippy, but without the love part, we would just be tyrants.
Friday, December 20, 2013
When You Criticize Someone, You Make It Harder for that Person to Change
Great article by an HBR blogger
True in work and life.
When You Criticize Someone, You Make It Harder for that Person to Change
by Daniel Goleman
“If everything worked out perfectly in your life, what would you be doing in ten years?”
Such a question opens us up to fresh possibilities, to reflect on what matters most to us, and even what deep values might guide us through life. This approach gives managers a tool for coaching their teams to get better results.
Contrast that mind-opening query with a conversation about what’s wrong with you, and what you need to do to fix yourself. That line of thinking shuts us down, puts us on the defensive, and narrows our possibilities to rescue operations. Managers should keep this in mind, particularly during performance reviews.
That question about your perfect life in ten years comes from Richard Boyatzis, a professor at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western, and an old friend and colleague. His recent research on the best approach to coaching has used brain imaging to analyze how coaching affects the brain differently when you focus on dreams instead of failings. These findings have great implications for how to best help someone – or yourself — improve.
As I quoted Boyatzis in my book Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence, “Talking about your positive goals and dreams activates brain centers that open you up to new possibilities. But if you change the conversation to what you should do to fix yourself, it closes you down.”
Working with colleagues at Cleveland Clinic, Boyatzis put people through a positive, dreams-first interview or a negative, problems-focused one while their brains were scanned. The positive interview elicited activity in reward circuitry and areas for good memories and upbeat feelings – a brain signature of the open hopefulness we feel when embracing an inspiring vision. In contrast, the negative interview activated brain circuitry for anxiety, the same areas that activate when we feel sad and worried. In the latter state, the anxiety and defensiveness elicited make it more difficult to focus on the possibilities for improvement.
Of course a manager needs to help people face what’s not working. As Boyatzis put it, “You need the negative focus to survive, but a positive one to thrive. You need both, but in the right ratio.”
Barbara Frederickson, a psychologist at the University of North Carolina, finds that positive feelings enlarge the aperture of our attention to embrace a wider range of possibility and to motivate us to work toward a better future. She finds that people who do well in their private and work lives alike generally have a higher ratio of positive states to negative ones during their day.
Being in the positive mood range activates brain circuits that remind us of how good we will feel when we reach a goal, according to research by Richard Davidson at the University of Wisconsin. That’s the circuit that keeps us working away at the small steps we need to take toward a larger goal – whether finishing a major project or a change in our own behavior.
This brain circuitry — vital for working toward our goals — runs on dopamine, a feel-good brain chemical, along with endogenous opioids like endorphins, the “runner’s high” neurotransmitters. This chemical brew fuels drive and tags it with satisfying dollops of pleasure. That may be why maintaining a positive view pays off for performance, as Frederickson’s research has found: it energizes us, lets us focus better, be more flexible in our thinking, and connect effectively with the people around us.
Managers and coaches can keep this in mind. Boyatzis makes the case that understanding a person’s dreams can open a conversation about what it would take to fulfill those hopes. And that can lead to concrete learning goals. Often those goals are improving capacities like conscientiousness, listening, collaboration and the like – which can yield better performance.
Boyatzis tells of an executive MBA student, a manager who wanted to build better work relationships. The manager had an engineering background; when it came to getting a task done, “all he saw was the task,” says Boyatzis, “not the people he worked with to get it done.”
His learning curve involved tuning in to how other people felt. For a low-risk chance to practice this he took on coaching his son’s soccer team – and making the effort to notice how team members felt as he coached them. That became a habit he took back to work.
By starting with the positive goal he wanted to achieve – richer work relationships – rather than framing it as a personal flaw he wanted to overcome, he made achieving his goal that much easier.
Bottom line: don’t focus on only on weaknesses, but on hopes and dreams. It’s what our brains are wired to do.
Friday, July 27, 2012
This years "life concepts" revelations
32 years. It will have taken me 32 years for these two specific "naivety barriers" to fall.
It's strange how through friends, collegues, books, movies, TV... you can hear about a concept your whole life, perfectly understand it, find it rational and yet you still do not apply it up until when you have been abused over and over so much that you reach a breaking point.
Snap.
Why? Why? Why?
Here's the first concept I will now live by. Always ask yourself why? Why, why, why?
For those of you that play Poker, I'll use this analogy: a good player will always ask himself why is his opponent betting so small on the flop, why is he checking the turn, why is he betting so small on the river, why did he take 1 minute to make up his mind?
Hence in life, never, ever, ever, take anything at face value when interracting with another human being, whether they are friends, family and especially if they are collegues / professional relations.
You get a phone call from an ex collegue out of the blue? Even if it's only small talk, ask yourself, why? You get invited to lunch by someone you havn't talked to in years? Why? Someone is keeping in regular contact with you even though you have little in commun, why? A friend you havn't talked to in months invites you to an event out of the blue? Why? A collegue who used to be a political threat to you is now kind and helpful? Why?
Never ever take anything at face value, always dig deeper to figure out what the real motives are. Everyone has an agenda, no matter how cliché this sounds.
It is a sad state of affairs when you need to question the motives of not only colleagues but friends and loved ones, but hey... maybe after a while it becomes second nature and makes it easier.
I now understand that true trust can only be built by asking "why" repeatedly and repeatedly getting a satisfying answer. How many why's does it take will depend on your level of paranoia, and I just upped mine by 300%.
Keep your cards close to the chest / never reveal information you do not have to
Here's a very simple one, that I have not lived by up until today.
Let's start with a poker analogy again: you just won a pot before showdown, do you show your hand? No.
Never ever ever disclose information if you do not have to or if you do not have a specific reason to do so.
Do not think for one second that disclosing information to someone will create / reinforce a potential trusting/friendship relationship between the both of you. Any cynical minded person, or worst, any conscious manipulator, will take that information in and see it as a free win. You are the sucker in this case. A manipulator may even shoot back some benign information to make you feel as if you are both exchanging on the same level, while he's actually sucking you dry.
The core of this concept is: being an open, direct and straightforward guy opens you up to manipulation.
Why should I reveal this information?
What can I gain from it?
What risks am I exposing myself to?
These are questions that I need to always be asking myself.
Both of these concepts basically boil down to trust, and what I only now discovered is that trust is not given then taken away if broken, trust is built slowly and surely from the grounds up... and even then it should be considered as fragile.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Saturday, September 17, 2011
On the challenges of leadership
"Any man that leads, that does something, has against him those that would want to do the same, those that would do exactly the opposite, and most of all the large army of much harsher men, that do nothing".
- Jules Claretie (translated from French by yours truly)
The original quote, in French, is the following:
"Tout homme qui dirige, qui fait quelque chose, a contre lui ceux qui voudraient faire la même chose, ceux qui font précisément le contraire, et surtout la grande armée des gens beaucoup plus sévères, qui ne font rien."
- Jules Claretie
- Jules Claretie (translated from French by yours truly)
The original quote, in French, is the following:
"Tout homme qui dirige, qui fait quelque chose, a contre lui ceux qui voudraient faire la même chose, ceux qui font précisément le contraire, et surtout la grande armée des gens beaucoup plus sévères, qui ne font rien."
- Jules Claretie
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Some starting line thoughts on entrepreneurship
So, You Want to be an Entrepreneur
By KELLY K. SPORS
Thinking about starting a business? Make sure you're cut out for it first.
In this bleak economy, lots of people are contemplating striking out on their own -- whether they're frustrated job seekers or people who are already employed but getting antsy about their company's prospects.
For some people, entrepreneurship is the best option around, a way to build wealth and do something you love without answering to somebody else. But it's also a huge financial gamble -- and some people, unfortunately, will discover too late that it's not the right fit for them.
Building a successful business can take years filled with setbacks, long hours and little reward. Certain personalities thrive on the challenge and embrace the sacrifices. But it can be a hard switch for someone who has spent years sitting in a cubicle with a steady paycheck.
So, how can you figure out whether you're suited for self-employment? We spoke with entrepreneurship researchers, academics and psychologists to come up with a list of questions you should ask yourself before making a big leap. Entrepreneurs, of course, come from all sorts of backgrounds, with all sorts of personalities. But our experts agreed that certain attributes improve the odds people will be successful and happy about their decision.
Keep in mind that any self-analysis is only as useful as the truthfulness of the answers -- and most people aren't exactly the best judges of their own character. So, you might enlist a friend's help.
Here, then, are 10 questions to ask to see whether you're up for the challenge of entrepreneurship.
Click here for the full article.
What was recommended to me as the absolute essential reading on the topic of starting a business:
The Successful Business Plan, by Rhonda Abrams.
Forbes calls The Successful Business Plan one of the best books for small businesses.
By KELLY K. SPORS
Thinking about starting a business? Make sure you're cut out for it first.
In this bleak economy, lots of people are contemplating striking out on their own -- whether they're frustrated job seekers or people who are already employed but getting antsy about their company's prospects.
For some people, entrepreneurship is the best option around, a way to build wealth and do something you love without answering to somebody else. But it's also a huge financial gamble -- and some people, unfortunately, will discover too late that it's not the right fit for them.
Building a successful business can take years filled with setbacks, long hours and little reward. Certain personalities thrive on the challenge and embrace the sacrifices. But it can be a hard switch for someone who has spent years sitting in a cubicle with a steady paycheck.
So, how can you figure out whether you're suited for self-employment? We spoke with entrepreneurship researchers, academics and psychologists to come up with a list of questions you should ask yourself before making a big leap. Entrepreneurs, of course, come from all sorts of backgrounds, with all sorts of personalities. But our experts agreed that certain attributes improve the odds people will be successful and happy about their decision.
Keep in mind that any self-analysis is only as useful as the truthfulness of the answers -- and most people aren't exactly the best judges of their own character. So, you might enlist a friend's help.
Here, then, are 10 questions to ask to see whether you're up for the challenge of entrepreneurship.
Click here for the full article.
What was recommended to me as the absolute essential reading on the topic of starting a business:
The Successful Business Plan, by Rhonda Abrams.
Forbes calls The Successful Business Plan one of the best books for small businesses.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Passion for work can ruin your career
Harmonious vs obsessive work passion, by Scott Bary Kaufman.
Yet another original point of view on a work related myth by HBR, backed by psychologogy and data.
Those with harmonious passion engage in their work because it brings them intrinsic joy. They have a sense of control of their work, and their work is in harmony with their other activities in life. At the same time, they know when to disengage, and are better at turning off the work switch when they wish to enjoy other activities or when further engagement becomes too risky. As a result, their work doesn't conflict with the other areas of their lives.
In contrast, those with obsessive passion display higher levels of negative affect over time and display more maladaptive behaviors. They report higher levels of negative affect during and after activity engagement; they can hardly ever stop thinking about their work, and they get quite frustrated when they are prevented from working. They also persist when it's risky to do so (just like a pathological gambler). A reason for this is that their work forms a very large part of their self-concept. To protect their selves, they display more self-protective behaviors, such as aggression, especially when their identity is threatened.
Yet another original point of view on a work related myth by HBR, backed by psychologogy and data.
Those with harmonious passion engage in their work because it brings them intrinsic joy. They have a sense of control of their work, and their work is in harmony with their other activities in life. At the same time, they know when to disengage, and are better at turning off the work switch when they wish to enjoy other activities or when further engagement becomes too risky. As a result, their work doesn't conflict with the other areas of their lives.
In contrast, those with obsessive passion display higher levels of negative affect over time and display more maladaptive behaviors. They report higher levels of negative affect during and after activity engagement; they can hardly ever stop thinking about their work, and they get quite frustrated when they are prevented from working. They also persist when it's risky to do so (just like a pathological gambler). A reason for this is that their work forms a very large part of their self-concept. To protect their selves, they display more self-protective behaviors, such as aggression, especially when their identity is threatened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)