Arrange to exchange

In this time of the year, often called “The Season of Giving,” it is worthwhile to consider certain aspects of the giving process that can lead to desirable outcomes, not just with family and friends but also with colleagues and coworkers.

Research has long demonstrated the value of a generous spirit. After providing gifts, favors, services, or assistance to others, we become more liked, more appreciated, and even physically healthier. What’s more, those who have received from us typically stand ready to repay when we need something from them. This last benefit flows from the rule for reciprocation, which prescribes the willingness of people to pay back the form of behavior they have received. All human societies install this rule in their members from childhood for a simple reason: It confers great competitive advantages on a group it by encouraging profitable exchanges, mutually beneficial tradeoffs between group members in vital arenas of interaction such as commerce, defense, and care. In the workplace, this means that if you’ve complied with my request for help with one of my projects—let’s say by providing effort, resources, special information, etc.—I should be significantly more willing to comply with a request for help that you might make of me later on a project that’s important to you.

With so many of the reasons for being a giver securely in the plus column, it would be easy to think that a large amount of giving on the job is a sure route to success there. Alas, human psychology is almost never so simple. Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing, even in the case of assistance. Take as evidence, a study done by Frances Flynn now at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, who examined the consequences of favor-doing among employees at a large telecommunications firm. He measured the number of favors that workers did for one another along with a pair of noteworthy consequences. The first was the effect of favor-doing on the giver’s social status within the organization—the giver’s perceived worth to the company in the eyes of his or her coworkers. As we might have expected, those employees rated as more generous with their time, energy, and assistance were seen as more valuable. Achieving acknowledged social status in the workplace is no small feat and is a testament to the interpersonal gains that come from being a prodigious giver.

But the second consequence of giving that Flynn examined, productivity on the job, did not paint so sunny a picture. Eight measures of individual productivity, including assessments of both the quantity and quality of assigned work, showed that those employees with the highest rated levels of assistance were significantly less productive than their colleagues. Why? Because they were so busy lending aid to others’ projects that they were unable to pay sufficient attention to their own.

What are we to make of this state of affairs? If being a particularly openhanded giver on the job results in high social status but simultaneously reduces one’s personal productivity on assigned tasks, what are we best advised to do? It turns out that there is a clear answer, one that emerged from another component of Flynn’s study. It identified a single factor that amplified both social status and individual productivity. As we’ve seen, that optimizing factor wasn’t the number of favors done. Instead, it was the number of favors exchanged. Employees who first provided beneficial aid on coworkers’ projects and then got beneficial aid in return maximized the profitable effects of the giving process—not just for themselves but for all concerned—by rating high on status and production. Recall, this outcome is very much in keeping with the rule for reciprocity that is vital to all successful groups precisely because it fosters mutually advantageous exchanges.

The implications of these results for each of us are clear. First, we should be liberal and proactive givers on the job. If we aren’t vigorous prime movers in the process, we can’t boost the number of favor exchanges that are so central to double-barreled success in the workplace . Second, and just as importantly, we should characterize our assistance in ways that heighten the likelihood that it will be reciprocated fully. How can we do that? I have three suggestions for possible such characterizations, each to be offered upon receiving thanks for our aid from the recipient. We could reply:

1. “I was happy to help because I know how valuable it would be to get your help if I ever need it.”
2. “You’re welcome. It’s what colleagues do for one another.”
3. “Of course. I know that if the situation were ever reversed, you’d do the same for me.”
In sum, the key to optimizing the giving process in the workplace is to arrange for exchange, which involves two-steps: (1) giving favors first and (2) being sure to verbally position the favors as part of a natural and equitable reciprocal arrangement. By the way, if you found this article to be helpful, please let me say [chose here from 1-3 above].

Source: Flynn, F. J. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 539-553.

Influence techniques: Who should throw the first punch

Sometimes the first few minutes at the negotiating table are like the first few minutes in the boxing ring: Both opponents often dance around, reluctant to put themselves out there first. Just as some boxers are reluctant to throw the first punch, negotiators are often reluctant to put the first offer on the table. They may be worried that they will telegraph their strategy, or perhaps that they will reveal some sort of vulnerability. Are they right? Is it better to make the first persuasive move or let your opponent do so?

According to social psychologists Adam Galinsky and Thomas Mussweiler, you’re far better off making the first offer in a negotiation rather than letting your counterpart make the first offer. In a series of experiments, the researchers found that regardless of the person’s role in the negotiation (e.g. buyer or seller), negotiators who were given instructions to make the first offer obtained a superior outcome. For example, in one experiment, when parties looking to buy a factory made the first offer, the sellers ultimately agreed to a price of $19.7 million. On the other hand, when parties looking to sell the same factory made the first offer, the buyers ultimately agreed to a price of $24.8 million.

The reason for this effect is that the negotiator who makes the initial offer “anchors” the other party onto his or her numbers. This means that even though the other party should ideally determine the value of the negotiated items independent of the numbers provided by the initial offer, they don’t. Instead, they anchor, as a starting point, on the initial numbers provided by their counterpart and insufficiently adjust away from those numbers when they continue the negotiation. So, an initial offer of $30 million might result in a settlement of approximately $25 million, whereas an initial offer of $15 million might result in a settlement of approximately $20 million. Keep in mind, though, that if one’s initial offer is ridiculously unrealistic, getting it out there on the table first won’t be of much help to you, as your opponents are unlikely to take you as a serious negotiating partner.

In sum, this research demonstrates that it’s most beneficial to make the initial offer. If you fail to do so and let your opponent throw that first punch, you may find yourself down and out within a few minutes of the opening bell.

Source: Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 657-669.

How to improve feedback effectiveness

Giving & receiving feedback is a learnt behaviour. Simply put, it needs to be learnt :-)

A couple of years back, a summer intern (who got a PPO with L&T, based on her work on feedback processes) had prepared a note, which was based on a detailed study culled out from a 100 odd research papers on the subject. With time (and inclination), its a read worth the effort!!

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

Feedback forms an important part of Superior-Subordinate relationships in an organisation. Feedback gives employees a chance to realize the good and the bad about their performance and gives them guidance about how to improve things further. Feedback may be defined as “information about past behavior, delivered in the present, which may influence future behavior.” Also feedback is indispensable for morale, development and growth. Negative feedback tells you about the areas of improvement and positive feedback gives you confirmation about which behaviors to continue and strengthen further. Studies say that the most important purpose of feedback is “uncertainty reduction” and the three most important consequences of uncertainty are:

- Role Ambiguity: Is the role for your subordinate clear?
- Stress: Do you have a buffer? Does your employee get time for self development?
- Thoughts about leaving the job: An employee leaves a boss, not the organization.

When it comes to giving feedback, style is as important as substance. And for a final appraisal discussion, it is best that the superiors are thoroughly prepared. Preparation determines the substance of the interaction you have.

The Substance:

Preparation will help you be data based and in quoting specific examples while talking to individuals. The following framework can be helpful to people while preparing for a feedback discussion:

1. Observations: neutral facts and occurrences. These should be the focal point of your discussion. They make feedback “Real” for an employee and give him/her a chance to clarify.
2. Assessments: personal interpretations of a set of observed behavior. This is different from an observation because it is a value judgment based on your feelings and thoughts.
3. Consequences: possible or certain effects of continued behavior.
4. Development: suggestions for improvement.

The style:

It is best if feedback is one to one, is done in an atmosphere which is relaxed and where you can have a little privacy. Communicate by your words, body language and tone of your voice that your intention is to be helpful while giving feedback. Also the subordinate can be told about the meeting beforehand, so that the discussion can be informed and productive for both parties. In the following lines we will try to throw some light on the style as in the “delivery” of the feedback discussion.

1. Be focused on the behavior of the person and not the person himself: while providing feedback to an individual, be careful that you are not judgmental about the person!!! Do not criticize the person with statements like “you have a short temper”. Rather tell the person what effect his behavior has on other people.
2. Be data based and specific: when you provide facts to an individual about his behavior and results, it will help him make a proper strategy to improve his behavior. Here is where your preparation for the discussion will come handy!
3. Be prompt: feedback should be timely. It works best if it is immediately after an event, which deserves feedback from you. Also the timing should be such that the person receiving it must be in a situation to receive and implement it.
4. Give precise instructions on how to improve: if you do not tell the person in very clear terms, exactly what he should do to improve his performance, the person may end up feeling even more confused. Generally we find that superiors give either one-liners or 10 different angles to look at the situation. But do not tell what the correct angle, which will be most effective in this situation, is.
5. Have recipient’s personality in mind: When delivering criticism, it's more important to focus on what somebody will hear rather than what you will say. A lot depends on the individual who is getting the information. If you know that an individual hears best when you use words like 'we,' then use words like 'we' when providing criticism. If you know the person hears best when focusing on one criticism, rather than a laundry list of three or four criticisms, then simply give one and spend time describing it and what the expectations are.
6. Praise the individual’s strength: feedback should motivate and there are few better motivators than being told that you are a wonderful person. But when you have to deliver negative feedback, avoid good-bad-good feedback sandwich. It does not appear like genuine advice.
7. Reinforce positive new behavior: when a person is trying to make a change in their behavior as a result of feedback, make it a point to tell them you appreciate the efforts.
8. Suggest the changes the person should make: take care that you do not sound like issuing orders or the person will lose motivation to make the changes. And discuss what resources the individual requires to make the same. Ask him/her where you can be of help to the individual.
9. Pay attention to constraints: take the constraints of the individual into account while giving him feedback. But do not try to be too considerate by telling the person that his results were due completely to areas beyond his control. It will diminish the urge to learn and improve further. Always give a balanced picture by acknowledging the constraints but also stating alongside what he could have done to minimize these effects.
10. Always offer the individual a chance to respond: it is very important to make the person feel that it is an open discussion and he will be heard. It will help in not putting the person on defensive and he will see your point of view.

11. Be continuous: feedback works best when it establishes a relationship of trust and openness. When you keep reinforcing the feedback the person feels comfortable to discuss further problems and issues.

A very important prerequisite of an effective feedback is that your subordinate has very clear idea of what is expected out of him. This will be determined by the quality of goal setting at the beginning of the appraisal period. Now we will focus upon when to deliver positive or negative feedback.

Feedback – positive or negative…?

If feedback focuses attention of an individual on the self-concept of the person, where a person has ideas about what kind of a person he or she is, then negative feedback can be dangerous. Lets take the example of an accounts officer whose capability to handle numbers expertly is very close to his self-concept. If he is told that a recent report he did was lacking in accuracy and the analysis wasn’t good either, the person may start feeling that he is not good enough to be in accounts rather than correcting the problem and working for improvement next time. So the best thing to do here is to tell the person how he can go about making a better report and what you would have done if you were in his place.

How to handle difficult situations?
There are cases when the appraisal situation is not an ordinary situation. Examples of these situations could be many. The normal approach in such situations will not be helpful to you or your subordinate in such situations. Here are a few suggestions on how to go about these.
· The Distant Subordinate
Managers are often paced in situations of having to accurately assess the performance of someone they don’t see very often. So how do they go about appraising this person fairly? Often managers think that it is their problem to figure out a way to do so. The solution suggested is that they should make it the subordinate’s job. Ask them to come up with a plan to for both of you so that you can assess his/her performance correctly. It will be much easier for you to give feedback now.
· The technically-superior subordinate
The idea here is to make ‘teaching the boss’ about whatever the subordinate is superior at, as one of the KRAs of that year. By the end, not only will the boss have accumulated sufficient knowledge, he would also be in a position to appraise the subordinate better on this KRA. The feedback can be a mutual discussion process where you find out the best way to proceed forward.

· The older, highly experienced subordinate
The key here is to avoid any kind of small talk and get straight to the point. Whenever you are interacting with a very experienced professional, you definitely have to keep in mind that the person has experience, but you also have to be careful that you don’t become too deferring to the individual.
· Dealing with unrealistic expectations
The hardest situation is when the person in question has unrealistic opinion about his or her own performance. And actually they are not very great performers. The key is not to let this person build a defense mechanism to defend their opinion. Therefore do not discuss your agenda with such people beforehand. Break the news in the meeting itself and get to the point straight.

. Coping with defensiveness

Defensiveness comes in two flavors: fight or flight. The fight response is easiest to spot. The subordinate might raise their voice and point fingers. Or they may just fold their arms across their chest and stare. Whereas flight is a more difficult challenge to spot and pick up. Instead of shouting and voicing his/her opinion, the subordinate may just quiet down and look away. And speak more slowly. Also the information expected might be lesser than you would reasonably expect. The mistake we make is that we may feel that this person has understood all that had to be said, where all that person is trying to do is to bring that distressing situation to an end as soon as possible.

The best way to deal with defensiveness is to spot it and accept that it is a natural human response. So let people vent out their feelings and agree with what they say. Agreement is a very potent weapon. And do not forget to acknowledge the person’s feelings. Use the exact words: “if I am understanding you correctly, you feel hurt/betrayed/disappointed…” And then suggest what you have to say about the whole situation.

. Focus on choices

Think a little beforehand what could be the possible solutions to the problem that exists. And give the subordinate the solutions.

. The ultimate solution

Always deliver a core message whenever you are interacting with your subordinate in this manner. The core message is the single most important thing that you want to communicate to your employee. This is helpful when your subordinate is removed from the place you are, is technically superior and all other cases we discussed. If this is clear, a lot of discussion difficulties will take care of themselves.

Barriers to effective feedback
· When there is imbalance of power, influence, and decision-making
· When people feel as if they are competing with each other
· When employees are afraid of asking for feedback about their behavior, because they don't want to uncover errors that might cause them embarrassment or loss of face.
· When one or both parties may think the feedback is unnecessary and they have nothing to learn from each other.
· When both people might think that someone else is going to provide the feedback data.

Barriers Affecting Groups:
· When there is a perceived imbalance of power between groups that have different levels of experience or seniority, or between team leaders and team members.
· In self-directed work teams and other types of work groups, diversity issues and acculturation of new group members may interfere with effective feedback.
· When open feedback exchanges are simply not an accepted practice in meetings and interactions.

Myths about feedback:
These myths are the ideas that managers sometimes tend to have about a feedback process. It hinders an open and honest feedback.
1. My Reality is the reality, and my job is to get you to see it.
The astute managers realize the fact that their reality is a partial reality and while they are carrying their feedback meetings, they lay more emphasis on getting it right by mutual exchange of views rather than in being right all the time.
2. Defensiveness is bad and should be avoided at all costs.
When your subordinates get defensive, don’t take it as something bad that has happened to your efforts. You are telling them something about themselves and if they feel that you are not seeing things their way or not taking into consideration their constraints, they’ll continue to be defensive. So the better way is to listen to what they have to say and then tell them how they can figure out a better solution next time.
3. The performance problem has nothing to do with me.
When you ask questions like “ To what extent have I made it difficult to complete the project on time?” or “Is there anything I could be doing differently?” chances are, you may get to hear what you need to learn.
4. Mistakes are crimes to be covered up, punished, or both.
People are so scared of the fact that their mistakes will be discovered and they will be punished for it. In fact the right attitude is to make most out of the mistakes. It is not humanely possible after all, to not make mistakes.

--------------------------------------------
Ultimately any feedback process rests on the premise that there is a desire on the parts of both the superior and the subordinate to improve on a continuous basis and that more so, it is the superior who will be able to use his better judgment to assess the personality of his subordinate, as he is the giver in this interaction, and temper his feedback accordingly.

It is a sincere hope that the above thoughts will help you give a better shape and content to your feedback this time and will contribute to further enriching your relationship with your subordinate and vice-versa!

Success story contest

One of the measures, which has a significant impact on employee engagement is appreciation.

I would like you to reflect for a moment... and think if you have appreciated your direct reports in the recent past. A more appropriate question would be 'have you given them an opportunity to do something to be appreciated for'?

Let me share some data of the impact of employee engagement on a factor like productivity! In a research study, it was found that

• Engaged employees produced 28 percent more revenue than their actively disengaged peers!!
• Employee engagement also affects the mindset of people. Engaged employees believe that they can make a difference in the organizations they work for. Confidence in the knowledge, skills, and abilities that people possess – in both themselves and others – is a powerful predictor of behavior and subsequent performance.

Let me throw some more data at you: A Towers Perrin survey cited the following:

• Eighty-four percent of highly engaged employees believe they can positively impact the quality of their organization’s products, compared with only 31 percent of the disengaged


• Seventy-two percent of highly engaged employees believe they can positively affect customer service, versus 27 percent of the disengaged


• Sixty-eight percent of highly engaged employees believe they can positively impact costs in their job or unit, compared with just 19 percent of the disengaged.

Why this preamble? Well, its to encourage you to inturn encourage your people to participate in the 'Success story contest'!! Its an opportunity for them to do something that you can really appreciate, there is a bonus financial/non-financial implication for the winners!!

The winners get 25,000, 15,000 for the second team, and 10,000 for the third team.

So, what's your call? Inspire them to participate or maintain status quo. The proverbial ball is in your court.

Comments welcome.

Statistics is funny!!

I had posted a poll a fortnight back. The poll question was 'In the last seven days, have you received recognition or praise for doing good work?'

Results: 100% polled have been appreciated by their superiors.

Inferences:

1. Wow!! Everything seems hunky dory in the L&T Financial Services setup!!Appreciation/engagement levels are very high here!!

2. If you look deeper, there were only two employees who participated :-)

3. Probabalities:

a) The others did not want to participate

b) The others were not appreciated

c) The past few days have been really busy

I think I will go with option 'c'.

And yes, statistics is funny!

Transformational leadership

Transformational leaders--the leaders who really touch others' lives and transform them totally--are charismatic and inspiring, and they create excitement at work. They motivate others to do much more than what anyone thought was possible. Transformational leadership results in performance par excellence at all levels of the organization. On the other hand, leadership that is characterized merely by transactions or exchanges--promise and reward for good performance, or threat and discipline for poor performance--is a prescription for mediocrity.

Transformational leaders also handle change more effectively by generating in their followers an awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group. They are also able to stir their followers to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group.

Transformational leadership is a mutually stimulating relationship that elevates both leader and follower to higher levels of human conduct and ethical aspiration, and lift themselves into their better selves.

Comments are invited.

Source: http://www.rkvenkat.org/