Laura Wolfe Coaching LLC

Supporting the Evolution of Careers, Leaders,

& Climate Consciousness

You’re how old?

By

birthday cakeAre you still caught up in the seemingly never-ending conversation about generational differences? I’m pretty over it myself, because I realize I like working with people of all ages and know pillars and superstars and kind people from each generation. Being a jerk also seems to have no age requirements. Plus, every generation has created some really great music. (Got to have priorities, right?)

However, a recent article on ageisim in the APS Observer reported some very interesting research worthy of sharing. Among other important findings, one thing that caught my attention was research identifying three categories of “prescriptive” stereotypes (i.e., those describing how a group should act) for old people.

  • The first is about envied resource consumption as in “quit, it’s my turn now”.
  • The second refers to shared resource consumption as in “we have limited resources; don’t use them up older folks”.
  • Finally, the last has to do with symbolic identity as in “stop acting like a young person and act your age”.

No surprise that younger people were more likely to endorse these stereotypes than older people but interestingly, men were more likely than women.

Do you ever think these things? Is it appropriate? Is it useful?

Being that the percentage of people over 65 is increasing, the way age and aging is perceived is important to consider. It’s especially relevant in the workplace where age diversity is a factor.

Stereotyping occurs when a person makes judgments about another based on belonging to a particular demographic group. Don’t do that. Get to know people.

Would love to hear your thoughts on the aging population.

 

 

Did You Say Something?

By

earI’ve been watching news covering the government shutdown and seen both sides talking, talking, talking, talking about why their action is the right thing to do. In fact, wasn’t it just last week that Ted Cruz talked for 21 straight hours in support of what he thinks is right?

Then, I remembered this video by Tom Peters about research on healthcare that found on average, doctors let patients speak for 18 seconds before interrupting to voice their expertise. That’s in spite of the fact that the patient is the best source of information about their condition. I can definitely relate because I’ve had two different encounters with health care providers in the last year where I wasn’t able to finish a sentence.

Most of us know people who talk nonstop and interrupt others. On a personal level this can be frustrating and annoying. But in organizations it can dangerous and for leaders it can be disastrous.

I believe the higher up the management ladder one climbs, the more important listening becomes. In fact, I believe there is usually more power in listening than in talking.

The good news is that listening skills can be improved via the concept known as active listening.

According to Tom Peters, the single most strategic strength that an organization can have is a commitment to strategic listening and “as a leader, to a significant degree, your profession is listening.”

Hear that Washington? I doubt it.

Size It Up

By

I’m  re-reading The First 90 Days by Michael Watkins because an updated and expanded version came out recently. It’s full of great info for managing the transition into a new role especially, but a lot of the recommendations are good ideas for leadership in general.

The book makes clear that one of the initial and most important tasks for anyone in a new role is diagnosing the situation in order to determine what the course of action needs to be. And here’s the big takeaway – different types of situations require different responses. For leaders, one size does not fit all.

This isn’t a new concept and actually makes me think of situational leadership theory and the work of Hersey and Blanchard. But The First 90 Days is really useful because of the focus on the transition into a new role.

It introduces the STARS model of common business situations leaders in new roles may find themselves in (start-up, turnaround, accelerated growth, realignment, sustaining success) and offers guidance on appropriate actions given the particular situation. And upon diagnosis, a leader may discover their responsibilities include a variety of business situations, requiring a variety of approaches. Again, one size does not fit all.

I’ll close with some wisdom from the book on personal development: “Don’t restrict your focus to hard skills. The higher you rise, the more important the key soft skills of cultural and political diagnosis, negotiation, coalition building, and conflict management will become.”

Would love to hear your thoughts on leadership transitions.

Another Oldie

By

exact balanceI lately mentioned the distinction between MGT1.0 and MGT 2.0, roughly 20th century management as opposed to what’s needed now in the new world of work. I do want to make clear that management today couldn’t be without the lessons, theories and research of the past. There’s some pretty good stuff back there. I hope you’ll bear with me for one more post from the history of management thought. I promise to come back to the present next week.

Another oldie and goody, which has been in most every management textbook I’ve used, is equity theory. Sometimes it is discussed as a theory of job satisfaction but is also categorized as a theory of motivation. I think it’s another piece of the employee engagement puzzle.

At the risk of oversimplifying, the basic idea is that people are always, either consciously or unconsciously, monitoring their inputs against the outcomes of their job. Inputs are what a person brings to and puts into their job such as their knowledge, training, education, experience, loyalty, work ethic, etc. Outcomes include pay and benefits, status, recognition, job security, company car, corner office, etc.

Another component of equity theory is the idea of a comparison other. This is someone to compare a situation against and can be a coworker, friend, classmate, neighbor, relative, or some idealized other. People look at their ratio of inputs to outcomes in light of their comparison other’s situation.

If a person perceives inputs = outcomes, they feel OK.

If an employee believes that their outcomes > inputs, they probably feel pretty good about the situation and may even be motivated to work harder and be a better organizational citizen.

If the perception is that their inputs > outcomes, they will feel not right – kind of like the cognitive dissonance marketing gurus talk about. This discomfort leads people to take action to balance their equity ratio. The options are to either increase their outcomes (ask for a pay raise or bonus, steal office supplies, etc.) or decrease their input (come in late/leave early, take care of personal business on company time, stop going above and beyond, etc.). Some extreme ways workers deal with inequity are to bring in a union to represent them or to withdraw from the relationship completely (quit).

Observe the behavior of employees you know. Do you see equity theory playing out?

Would love to hear your thoughts on equity theory.