• /
    • Archives / September 2010

Archives For September 2010

Want to Change the World? Lead Second

David Burkus —  September 29, 2010

In 1776, the Second Continental Congress drafted a document that they believed would change the world. It outlined a new form of government, a government formed around a union of states, with a weak central government and power resting with the people.

Eleven years later, it failed.

Most people forget that the Constitution currently used by the world’s only remaining superpower is actually a second draft. In fact, most people forget that a significant portion of the ideas, movements and companies that changed the world were essentially reboots.

If you want to change the world, lead the second movement.

Consider the Internet. Yahoo established early position as the dominant search engine, but it was Google’s refined algorithm and revised, simplified home page that truly changed how humans interacted with each other. Or in music, Shawn Fanning may have revolutionized the way a generation of music lovers acquired tracks, but iTunes’ revised concept eventually solidified itself as the leader using a fully legal, equally accessible model.

If you want to change the world, watch what revolutionaries are doing right and, more importantly, what they’re doing wrong. Make the appropriate revisions and launch. Don’t try to be “the next Amazon.com” try to be “Amazon.com BUT…”

This is particularly disconcerting idea if you’re currently leading a revolution’s first movement. What can these leaders do to remain in the lead? Accept failure. Brace for impact. And revise your model. Change, at its boiled down reduction, is a process of failure and revision.

Leading change is too.

In Leadership ,
permalink

Gladwell on Talent

David Burkus —  September 28, 2010

In this interview, Malcolm explains many of the concepts made popular through his book Outliers. Fair warning, this interview is VERY long, but worthwhile. Pull it up and listen to it in the background as you work.

In Leadership
permalink

What Is The Truth About Job Satisfaction?

Bret Simmons —  September 27, 2010

The evidence about job satisfaction seems confusing. I’ve been guided by the counsel of a 2006 meta-analysis published in one of our best research journals, The Academy of Management Journal, that found a strong relationship between job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and multiple measures of employee effectiveness (job performance, extra-role behaviors, and withdrawal behaviors). This study advised that job satisfaction and commitment are the most useful things managers can focus on to help employees be more effective at work.

A separate meta-analysis published in a good but lesser journal in 2007 concluded that the relationship between job satisfaction and performance is spurious. This study maintains that when you account for personality factors, any statistical relationship between satisfaction and performance weakens. But if you read the study very closely, even after controlling for numerous personality traits, the relationship between satisfaction and performance never disappeared.

Unfortunately, the 2007 study did not cite the 2006 study, so the author left unexplained the conflicting findings. I checked how often each study has been cited in studies of job satisfaction since they were published. The 2006 study has been cited 58 times, while the 2007 study has been cited only 9 times. The number of citations is an indicator of how other social scientists view the value of an article.

Fortunately, a new meta-analysis published in 2010 in Personnel Psychology helps settle the debate. This study found a significant relationship between unit level satisfaction and unit level performance. This confirms something I’ve been teaching for years – just because an individual is satisfied might not necessarily mean they will perform well (or vice versa), but an organization full of satisfied individuals will almost always outperform an organization full of dissatisfied individuals.

It is therefore not enough to focus on the satisfaction of individual employees (e.g. through individual training, career building, etc.); the savvy manager will recognize that it is also necessary to raise the collective satisfaction levels of the unit. (e.g. through team building exercise, group projects, etc.)….if managers want to realize the performance benefits of increased unit-level satisfaction, they may be better served in implementing policy changes that affect the unit level (e.g. casual dress Friday) rather than only the individual level (e.g. a bonus for being the top salesperson). (Whitman, et al. 2010, pp 69-70).

The relationship between satisfaction and performance is not a myth. Not only does satisfaction scale, it is also contagious. If you are accountable for performance in your organization, you would be wise to do whatever you can to “infect” your people with satisfaction.

Bret L. Simmons, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Management in the College of Business at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), where he teaches courses in organizational behavior, leadership, and personal branding to both undergraduate and MBA students. Bret blogs about leadership, followership, and social media at his website Positive Organizational Behavior. You can also find Bret on Twitter, Facebook, and Linkedin.

Related Posts From Positive Organizational Behavior:

Does Pay Level Affect Job Satisfaction?

Smart Leadership Advice Gone Bad

Employee Engagement And Performance: Finally Some Credible Evidence

In Leadership , , , , ,
permalink

Book Review: A Leader’s Heart

David Burkus —  September 23, 2010

I have a trademark duality in my opinion John Maxwell. I love his skills as a storyteller and I love watching him speak to large audience so masterfully. The content of Maxwell’s speeches and the moral of his stories, however, strike me vague personal development principles disguised as leadership truths. There is very little research or proven leadership models in his body of work, noticeably odd considering he is billed as America’s foremost authority on a subject that’s been under rigorous study for almost a century. Regardless, I find myself drawn to at least read what he puts out. So when Thomas Nelson offered a review copy of his new work A Leader’s Heart, I took them up on the opportunity.

A Leader’s Heart is a 365-page leadership “devotional” journal that bears a striking resemblence to The Daily Drucker in format and intent. Maxwell’s work is compiled and summarized in bite-sized increments. However the attempt at summarizing eliminated, for me, the most enjoyable part of Maxwell: the stories. This was disappointing to me, but could be exactly what others are looking for. The strongest part of the book is actually how it differs from The Daily Drucker. Each entry ends with a question and space to reflect on the lesson of the day. This alone would be worth the price of the book. Leaders do have a need for personal development, and A Leader’s Heart provides that. But be warned: you’ll get personal development and spirituality…not leadership.

In Leadership ,
permalink

The Champagne Test

David Burkus —  September 22, 2010

The other day I was involved in a huge debate over SMART objectives. This clever acronym was developed, and then grossly over-used, to describe a criteria for effective goal setting. Simply put, objectives ought to be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely. Our argument centered around the measureable element. My debate foe argued that this meant all objectives had to have a numbered component. Whereas I argued, quite deftly, that a “Yes or No” objective counted as measureable. If you set a goal like become the top ranked office in the region, then you’re measurement is built in: you either did it or didn’t do it.

After reminding him that a “Yes or No” objective could be considered a binary numbering system, I realized the problem with SMART objectives. In an attempt to clarify goal setting, the anonymous authors of this daft acronym actually mudded the waters. Most who bow down at the alter of SMART do so only after vigorous debate about what objectives are SMART, or even what SMART stands for.

I prefer a much simpler test of valuable objectives: the champagne test.

In the champagne test, you set an objective and then test its value by asking “how will our people know when to crack open the champagne?” In essence, you ask how we know if we hit our objective. Consider one of the most renowned objectives of the past century: JFK’s 1961 call to “put a man on the moon.” One can debate whether this goal was SMART, but one can not challenge the certainty of knowing when to pop open the cork.

(Copious thanks to Chip and Dan Heath for introducing me to the concept of the champagne test.)

In Leadership ,
permalink