LEADING THOUGHTS

Dirk Lindebaum of Manchester Business School argues that organizations should forget about trying to develop the emotional intelligence (EI) of their employees. Lindebaum doesn’t have an issue with EI itself; he just feels it is best developed as a result of individual initiative.

In the Academy of Management Learning and Education, Lindebaum identifies three barriers to workplace EI initiatives.

Industry barriers: Some industries, such as construction, are notorious for encouraging aggressive management styles and fierce competition. In such environments, EI may not be an advantage. “Owing to the dominance of males in some industries, and their influence on power relations, an inauspicious framework for introducing EI indiscriminately across various industries emerges.”

Intra-organizational barriers: EI workplace initiatives can ignore the varying personal motivations to commit to organizational objectives. Many employees, for example, may not be receptive to developing their emotional intelligence, and shouldn’t be forced to. Lindebaum: “Some individuals may be perfectly content to pursue with little organizational involvement their ‘nine-to-five jobs’ while others are keen to climb the organizational ladder.”

Intra-personal barriers: One, it is believed that EI is partly an innate ability that cannot be developed. Two, Lindebaum says that as workers become more emotionally astute, they could end up reevaluating whether they fit in their existing jobs (what’s wrong with that, I say), which isn’t necessarily in the organization’s interests. “Does the individual benefit from high EI or is it the organization? I argue that the individual is the primary beneficiary and organizations come second.” And three, more emotionally intelligent workers could be so preoccupied orchestrating favourable impressions that honest social interactions are few and far between.

Linebaum advocates individual initiative to foster EI, focusing on learning rather than performance. “Since emotions are an individual’s engagements with the world,” he writes, “the fostering of EI is a profoundly personal and private affair.”

“Rhetoric or Remedy? A Critique on Developing Emotional Intelligence”, by Dirk Lindebaum; Academy of Management Learning and Education (2009, Vol. 8, No. 2, 225–237)

photo credit: xiaming

They are smoother than glass and have the conscience of a stone. They have an almost mystical ability to ingratiate and fool people with their wiles. They are sociopaths, and woe is you if you cross their path in your organizational travels.

In Organization Development Journal, psych profs Joseph Cangemi and William Pfohl (Western Kentucky U) offer seven short case studies of sociopaths in leadership positions — stories that will probably make you squirm. And the authors offer some insight on how to unmask a sociopath. Namely:

:: Sociopaths are very charming in public but away from the spotlight they lie, steal, and generally behave unethically, usually getting away with it. Lesson: Take note of how leaders behave in more private moments.

:: Sociopaths, particularly those with educational credentials, are adept at making others doubt themselves, often by fudging information. Lesson: As Maslow advised, develop a healthy skepticism in relationships with others.

:: Sociopaths are envious and will have no reluctance to destroy competition by any means. Lesson: This behaviour, which is lauded in leaders in competitive industries, can easily be turned on colleagues or underlings.

“Sociopaths will take advantage of others whenever they can, whenever they sense individuals involved with them show great respect for them, are naive – or fear them,” Cangemi and Pfohl write. “The recipient must expose the conscience-less predator for what he/she is – face-to-face. No excuses. The sociopath must be exposed and must know the individual is aware of what is going on and is not afraid.”

But have no illusions: exposing a sociopath does not mean he or she disappears. Either you will have to always keep up your guard or leave the organization altogether.

“Sociopaths in high places”, by Joseph Cangemi and William Pfohl;  Organization Development Journal (vol. 27 no. 2, Summer 2009; pp. 85-96)

If you cannot find this journal is your local library, email me for a copy of the article at Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: L-plate big cheese

Hail the outsider, for she will bring inspiration. Or at least help her new team solve problems more effectively.

Researchers Katherine Phillips (Northwestern), Katie Liljenquist (Brigham Young), and Margaret Neale (Stanford) wanted to test whether or not a “socially distinct newcomer” to an existing team would have any effect on how the group solved problems.

They conducted a traditional group problem-solving experiment with a number of fraternities but with a twist: a newcomer from a rival fraternity was added to each group five minutes into their deliberations. The researchers found that when the newcomer was a social outsider, teams were more likely to solve the problem successfully.

Writing in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, the researchers conclude that a socially distinct newcomer shakes up group dynamics and causes discomfort but ultimately acts as a catalyst for better outcomes. In such situations, the group tends to analyze options more critically, even if the outsider does not ask tough questions.

Interestingly, while group members felt they worked less effectively together, in fact they outperformed the socially homogeneous groups.

The lesson: next time someone from another department joins your team with a different background or education, acknowledge that there may be tense and awkward moments but that the group will be better for it.

Is the Pain Worth the Gain? The Advantages and Liabilities of Agreeing With Socially Distinct Newcomers; Katherine W. Phillips, Northwestern University, Katie A. Liljenquist, Brigham Young University, Margaret A. Neale, Stanford University; Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Vol. 35, No. 3, 336-350, 2009)

photo credit: IsaDaGreat

You have seen the character on TV and you may have the displeasure of sitting alongside one or two of them at work. They are The Entitled, self-serving people who feel they are owed special treatment, even if they haven’t done anything to deserve it. Run for the hills: these characters are more likely to be the source of workplace conflict and less likely to be satisfied with their jobs.

Writing in the Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Paul Harvey (U of New Hampshire) and Mark Martinko (Florida State U) say their research shows that people who feel they deserve preferential treatment are more likely to be the first to take credit when things go well and to blame others when things go wrong.

The authors say that, true to the stereotype, young Gen Y workers are more likely than others to have a self-inflated view of their worth and have trouble listening to negative feedback. They expect a high level of respect and reward that is unrelated to their actual experience or performance, and therefore are bitter when they are not treated like royalty.

The way to deal with The Entitled is to document areas of responsibility and lines of reporting in order to remove as much ambiguity as possible. That way, employees with entitlement attitudes are less likely to form biased judgments.

An empirical examination of the role of attributions in psychological entitlement and its outcomes, Paul Harvey and Mark J. Martinko; Journal of Organizational Behavior (Vol. 30, Issue 4 , Pages 459 – 476)

Email me for a copy of this paper: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: ChrisB in SEA

Instinct tells you that employee-employer partnerships are usually win-win arrangements. By workplace partnerships I mean: profit and gain sharing programs; policies that maximize employee security; extensive employee and union consultation; joint problem solving and planning; and flexible forms of job design.

The critical view of workplace partnership is that, far from yielding mutual gains, such arrangements inevitably benefit employers more than employees or unions.

While there is anecdotal evidence that employer-dominated partnerships exist, the weight of research over the years shows positive performance outcomes from most forms of employer-employee partnerships. The latest bit of news comes from William Roche, an Irish academic. Roche was commissioned by Ireland’s National Centre for Partnership and Performance to conduct a telephone survey of more than 5,000 employees in Ireland, asking, Who gains from workplace partnership?

Roche found there are indeed mutual gains, with the same results in both union and non-union workplaces.

Employees: Gains in work autonomy, information provision, job satisfaction, and fairness. No gains in employment security or hourly earnings.

Employers: Gains in organizational commitment and quality of managerial/supervisory relations. No gains in employees’ willingness to accept change.

Unions: Gains in member commitment, influence, and likelihood of union membership. No gains in perceptions of union effectiveness. Roche does have sobering news on this front: “Ominously for trade unions, organizational commitment is found to be negatively associated with union commitment.”

Who Gains from Workplace Partnership?; William K. Roche; The International Journal of Human Resource Management (vol. 20, no. 1, 1-33)

Email me for a copy of this paper: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: dekay

The average manager spends about 18 percent of her working day handling conflict, nearly double from the 1980s, making conflict resolution skills of prime importance. But you would never know that judging by the undergraduate curricula of university business schools.

In the Journal of Education for Business, Matthew Lang of Morgan State University reports on his study of 166 U.S. and European business schools. Among U.S. schools, only 44 of the 97 studied clearly identified conflict management as part of a business course, and of those only 18 had a course dedicated to the subject. Of the 69 non-U.S. schools studied, 14 identified dealing with conflict as part of an undergraduate course; only seven offered a required course.

Lang says universities should better equip the next generation of workers for the reality of organizational life. “Completion of a required conflict resolution course should result in better group and team performance, improving management effectiveness for graduates as they move into organizations abundant in conflict.”

Conflict Management: A Gap in Business Education Curricula, by Matthew Lang, Journal of Education for Business (March/April 2009)
Email me for a copy of this paper: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: Ariston Collander Photography