What would happen to your company if – instead of informing people with your strategy – you started forming strategy with your people?
Intuitively, most would recognise the need for helping each other within an organisation (and life in general). Research confirms that a “Giver Culture”, a culture where team members help, share, offer mentoring, and make connections leads to highest effectiveness. In comparing top-ranked helpers with a “random non-helpers” Amabile and others found that it was the higher level of trust and accessibility for helpers, rather than competence that made the difference.
What this research also found is that helpfulness must be nurtured as it does not arise automatically. In line with the evolution of trust in individuals where one cannot be certain that any resources they provide to another person will be reciprocated later, help requires a similar commitment for uncertain returns. At the moment of providing help “it might seem like more trouble than it’s worth”.
Creating a culture of “mutual help” is tricky as it can only be inspired, not forced.
Give a little bit of help today…
Have you noticed how the most confident and outgoing people in teams not only talk the most (obviously) but often also influence the outcomes the most? Very often the more expert team members remain quiet.
Bryan Bonner and Alexander Bolinger found through team experiments that there is a simple question that can change this phenomenon:
Ask the team members to discuss what knowledge EACH brings to the table…
This will move the team from power from social influence to power from informational influence.
In team experiments teams that did this systematically outperformed teams that did not.
Make sure your teams takes a pause for this reflection.
In a recent article in the Academy of Management Journal Adam Grant, Justin Berg and Daniel Cable write about their research with the Making a Wish foundation regarding the influence of self-reflective (creating your own) job titles. It turns out that employees who can create their own job title (e.g. nurse = quick shot) have significantly less job exhaustion. There are, of course, downsides of self-reflective titles but this research indicates there are many forms of empowerment – and also this form is beneficial.
So, what would your job title be if you could create it?
A recent Stat Watch in the Harvard Business Review highlighted research indicating the effectiveness of training. If you write and reflect for 15 minutes after your training day you increase the effectiveness by 23%.
We’ve incorporated this in our workouts. However, reflecting and writing after a tough day of training is not so easy. No pain, no gain:-)
Startup companies are generally advised – and are typically celebrating – to embrace the opportunity of partnering with large companies. It is good for access to resources, and it conveys social status. Two things startup companies typically don’t have. In their research note, Vandaie and Zaheer call these partnerships “Bear Hugs”.
Their hypothesis: The positive relationship between a small firm’ s capability and growth is weaker the higher the number of large partners in the firm’ s alliance portfolio.
In their research sample of 150 independent production studios over 10 years they find strong support for this hypothesis including the moderating factor of the number of large partners (i.e. more bear hugs provide less growth relatively).
Interesting research with a common sense ring to it: bear hugs are not so good for your small company’s health.
We all do it.
When faced with opportunities, we tend to make predictions about what these futures will feel like. About how these will determine the content and the quality of our lives. Whether faced with a potential partner, a potential job or a potential move we anticipate the experience as positive or negative and we anticipate the intensity of this experience.
Research demonstrates that our affective forecasting is generally accurate when it comes to our association with an event’s positive or negative feel. However, both the impact and the intensity of our positive or negative feeling is generally overestimated.
In their recent research article, Dane and George connect this so-called affective forecasting to work situations where we do not really have a choice in whether we will do the work or we do not. One could argue that if we cannot really influence the outcome our “mental time travel” would not really make a difference.
Instead, Dane and George find that is does make a difference: it is not whether but how we approach the work – our attitude. Indeed, our affective forecasting leads us to either have a promotion focus or a prevention focus. The former is concerned with advancement, achievement and ideals, while the latter is concerned with prudence and safety.
Through our affective forecasting, when…
Our affective forecasting is influenced by the level of prestige we attribute to the organisation we work for, the strength of relationships in the teams we work in, and the level of creativity needed in completing the project (all these are linked to more promotion focus).
Question: how is your affective time travel influencing your work right now?