Nothing surprising there you might think but confirmation from an international study on bosses who procrastinate when carrying out tasks or making decisions showed that this led to less commitment from staff.
This is because staff feel less committed. “If the boss can’t be bothered why should I” is probably how they feel.
Employees are also more likely to display abnormal and unpleasant behaviour such as taking unnecessary sick days, being abusive to colleagues or stealing office supplies.
Dr Alan Lee, senior lecturer in Organisation studies and management at the University of Exeter’s business school who led the study said “We have found that procrastination from managers can be detrimental to their staff and companies need to take action to ensure that there are better relationships between bosses and employees”
Previous research showed that bosses who had mood swings had the worst impact on anxiety levels of employees. Staff like consistency.
I’ve always believed that toxic work places are a combination of poor leadership, bad recruitment and organisation culture.
Other research suggests that having positive goals can increase your well-being. Of course that depends on your relationship with the boss too. But it can offset intensive working if you believe that you are working to a goal that is positive or helps other people e.g. in the voluntary sector.
Feminists and equal opportunity campaigners will be disappointed to read the latest research which suggests that the more gender equality there is in a country, the more people revert to gender stereotypes and think differently.
A survey of 130,000 people from 22 countries by scientists from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden found that the more women there are in the workforce, parliament and education, the more they differ and diverge on psychological traits.
This counter-intuitive finding has been has been replicated so it’s worth considering – even if no-one really understands why!
Other research published by Plos One found that in countries ranked less equal in gender by the World Economic Forum, women were more likely to choose traditional male courses such as sciences.
Erik Mac Giolla, the lead researcher at Gothenburg, said if anything the research found bigger differences than previously. Measuring personality using the well-established “Big 5″ model OCEAN i.e. Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism, women typically scored higher on all of them although there is always an overlap with men’s scores on those factors.
For example in China, which scores low on gender parity, the personality overlap between the sexes is as high as 84%. In the Netherlands on the other hand, one of the world’s most gender-equal societies, it is 61%.
“It seems that as gender equality increases, as countries become more progressive, men and women gravitate towards traditional gender norms. Why? I don’t really know” said Giolla.
Steve Stewart-Williams at the University of Nottingham says this effect is also seen in other ways, not just personality. “The same counter-intuitive patterns have been found in many other areas, including attachment styles, choice of academic speciality, choice of occupation, crying frequency, depression, happiness, and interest in casual sex”
“It’s definitely a challenge to one prominent stream of feminist theory, according to which all differences between the sexes come from cultural training and social roles”.
He thinks that those living in wealthier and more gender-equal societies have more freedom to pursue their own interest and behave more individually, which would magnify natural differences.
He also believes we should stop thinking of sex differences in society as being automatically a product of oppression. They could actually be a sign of the living in a fair and free society.
To sum up you might think it’s reasonable for people brought up in cultures where men and women are treated differently and have different opportunities that they will end up a lot more different than they would in cultures where they are treated more equally.
However the opposite seems to be true. Treating mean and women differently makes them more the same and treating them the same makes them more different.
So perhaps once women have achieved parity with men in their chosen careers etc they then relax and revert to type?
That would explain the Queen Bee phenomenon.
I’ve blogged before about teams and team effectiveness and the fact that including women in previously male teams can increase productivity and problem-solving ability
New research shows that mixed gender fund management teams make more money for investors than those made up of only men or women.
They produced a 0.5% bigger return for investors over a three-year period than teams made up of just men and 4.3% more over teams made of just women, according to research by Citywide which looked at the performance of 16,000 fund managers.
The judgement and approach of men and women doing this work is under scrutiny as women are generally believed to be more risk-averse and conservative.
Not everyone believes that. “I find some of the most aggressive leaders I’ve worked with are women” said Paola Binns who runs corporate bond portfolios at Royal London Asset Management. “There aren’t as many women as men but they can be more prone to take risks in my experience”.
Never the less the study confirms that there are behavioural differences between men and women. Men-only teams took more risk whereas the presence of women acted as a restraining influence on them. Mixed teams took more risk than women-only teams.
Only 10% of fund managers are women and only 8% of the funds they tracked (worth $16 trillion) were co-led by a man and a woman.
There are country-wide differences. In Germany only 4% of fund managers are women. It’s 6% in Denmark. The UK and Ireland have only 9%. France, Italy and Spain have almost 20%. Singapore has 18% of women and Hong Kong almost a quarter.
There is a Gender Diversity Partner Programme which is attempting to address the issue of the under-representation of women with the CFA Society. Apart from gender bias in the sector it seems investors prefer male fund managers.
Research shows that many employees have the same view generally.
Here are the latest from a survey by Glassdoor:
Touch base – this has been around for decades. Is it enjoying a revival?
No-brainer – same with this. Obvious really?
Punch a puppy – picking on soft targets like puppies. Check that workplace for bullying
Game changer – a bit old-fashioned. Paradigm shift anybody?
Pick it up and run with it – let’s just get on with it shall we?
Lipstick on a pig – is this a polite way of using Boris Johnson’s recent comment?
I want to leverage your synergies – someone’s been on an MBA course
Reverse engineer – this is an actual technical term so what’s the problem?
Low hanging fruit – another old favourite.
Nothing really hits me as being OTT or particularly creative. I wonder what happened to “singing from the same hymn sheet” or “let’s run it up the flagpole”? And the phrase that has irritated me most in recent years “going forward”.
Port Sunlight and William Lever, Social Philanthropist…………..should be compulsory reading for HR professionals
Excellent blog with spot on commentary
Yesterday I paid a second visit to Port Sunlight village and visited the museum and one of the workers cottages. The museum is small but well worth a visit if you are the least bit interested in our industrial heritage. As is the workers cottage next door, preserved and showing the living conditions the workers enjoyed.
The museum tells the story of William Lever and his vision in creating this village for workers at his Sunlight Soap factory. The displays explore how the village developed, from the working conditions to the charming architecture and lively social scene. The museum is packed with nostalgia, from vintage soap packaging to the story Ringo Starr’s first performance with the Beatles, which took place in Port Sunlight in 1962. Through film shows, interactives, models and an array of intriguing artefacts you can discover the tale of this inspirational village.
Port Sunlight is arguably the…
View original post 568 more words
“People who score high in primary psychopathy lack empathy and are cool-headed and fearless. They don’t react to things that cause other people to feel stressful, fearful, or angry” according to Professor Charlice Hurst from Notre Dame University in Indiana.
She argues that businesses run by psychopaths end up as psychopath traps employing similar types as people with normal emotions can’t stand the toxic environment and leave.
She asked over 300 experienced employees about two fictional managers. One was adept at corporate speak but bullied people, showed a total lack of empathy, and took credit for others’ work. The other was inspirational, supportive, and considerate. Both were said to be equally valued and respected by the company.
Asked about working for the two managers and how angry it would make them working for him all said they would be happy working for the supportive one and most disliked the bully. But some people saw no difference and that depended on their own level of psychopathy.
Those with high levels weren’t upset by being abused at work and even said they felt more engaged at work. It could mean that a company led by psychopaths ends up with a highly engaged workforce of psychopaths.
“Psychopaths thriving under abusive supervisors would be better positioned to get ahead” said Hurst. “Companies with a problem with endemic abuse might notice increased turnover among employees low in primary psychopathy and retention of those high in primary psychopathy”
I’ve always thought that toxic workplaces need both a psychopath at the top and a culture that encourages bullying and abuse.
It’s well known that psychopaths are attracted to positions of power. There is extensive literature on the dark side triad of psychopathy, machiavellianism, and narcissism.
By Dr. Perry, PhD
” But that’s the thing about narcissists. They can try to fool you, with all their heart, but in the end, they’re just fooling themselves.” ~Ellie Fox
An individual with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) has spent most of their life creating the illusion of a confident and self-assured individual. Tightly wound up in this facade is the desperate struggle to maintain this self-created image. Much like a toddler swimming in a grown-up’s suit, a narcissist has a difficult time filling out their personality with the essential characteristics of what they believe to be human. The narcissist’s eggshell ego is dependent on this armor for its very survival.
At the core of this personality disorder, there is a grandiose sense of self-worth, vanity, and entitlement. In order to feed their fragile egos, they seek out constant praise and admiration from others. They are unable to maintain healthy relationships and…
View original post 851 more words
It was thought that it would give us more flexibility and improve communications between teams. There were still private offices for senior staff and meeting rooms but for 80% of staff they were in the open plan areas.
The irregular arrangement of desks separated by screens and potted plants was quite a contrast from the old offices in the Town Hall. There we still had a bell-call system for when you were summoned to see “Sir”. But this was a new start.
I didn’t realise at the time that the idea of office landscaping or bürolandshaft had been developed in the late 1950s, partly as a reaction to scientific management, and by the time we were adopting it it was almost over in Germany where it started.
And over the next couple of years there same thing happened in this project. More and more screens appeared and it became like a series of cubicles. People created signals such as flags to say “do not disturb me” and the noise was a problem at times.
To make it worse the council had not installed the air conditioning system as a cost-saving initiative and the windows weren’t designed to be opened so in Summer everyone sweltered and tomato plants proliferated.
One of the purported advantages was that people would communicate more easily. But with the advent of personal computing people were more likely to text each other or send an e-mail than actually walk across the room to have a conversation.
Now researchers at Karlstad University in Sweden have found that workers who share offices have lower job satisfaction.
They looked at ease of interaction among employees and their general well-being and thought that in open-plan offices of between 3 and 20 people workers reported lower levels on both these factors.
“The open plan office may have short-term financial benefits but these may be substantially lower than the costs associated with decreased job satisfaction and well-being.
Decision-maker should consider the impact of a given office type on employees rather than focusing solely on cost-effective office layout, flexibility and productivity” said Tobias Otterbring the lead author of the study.
Open plan offices have become significantly more common in the past decade in place of cubicles say the authors (ideas just keep recycling don’t they).However the study supports other research that shows that they interfere with an employees’ ability to concentrate on their work.
It’s been suggested that employees can lose almost a third of their productive time because of interruptions and distractions at work. To get round this some employees started work earlier or worked later to complete tasks without interruptions.
Another expert suggest that we are interrupted every three minutes in such an environment and that it takes up to twenty minutes for us to refocus.
Researchers in Germany led by Professor Claus-Peter Ernst at Frankfurt University have found that adding a friendly emoji or smiley face is all you need to soften the blow.
They found that happy symbols could significantly influence how the message is interpreted but that sad or negative symbols had little effect.
“The usage of happy and ironic emoticons significantly shapes the subtext of a message, namely the relationship and self-revelation level. whereas sad emoticons do not have such an effect. (So) senders can use happy or ironic to soften their messages…”
The researchers wondered if using emoticons had the same effect as non-verbal gestures and facial expression in face-to-face meetings when delivering bad news at work.
They found that recipients of a message could largely identify the social and emotional meaning of an emoticon. “... emoticons are able to help to communicate a current mood or provide information about the mental state of the sender”.
They also found that the happy and ironic emoticons had a significant effect at the relationship level ….. but not at the factual level.
This contradicts earlier research from Ben Gurion University in Israel which found that the inclusion of such emojis didn’t change people’s perception of warmth and in fact lowered their perception of the sender’s competence.
Alison Green from Inc.com makes the point that a lot depends on your workplace culture and that if you have to use an emoticon maybe your message isn’t clear enough.
Personally I think it’s unprofessional in formal communications (as bad as people adding kisses). But then I think sacking people or delivering bad news by e-mail or text is a shabby HR practice. But we see plenty of examples of that these days don’t we.
That’s not to say some, maybe most, nurses aren’t. I particularly remember one who held my hand throughout an uncomfortable 2-hour eye operation carried out under local anaesthetic and another who rubbed my back during an endoscopy examination.
But according to a recent study of professional values there is “a moral vacuum at the heart of nursing”.
Nurses are so ground down that they end up as “robots going through the motions” with a focus on clinical skills driving compassion from the job“. Yet compassion is part of the UK’s Nursing Vision.
Eight out of ten say their work conflicts with their personal values much of the time. The study concluded that it…
View original post 485 more words
He believes that, although intellectual development is a good thing, “…all courses, given the high payment, the cost, the loan you take, should be about high-skilled employability. Every course.”
If you want to study subjects that do not address employability – such as mediaeval history – you shouldn’t expect to get any incentives or discounts unlike people aiming to work in areas where the country has a skills deficit such as healthcare, coding, construction, engineering and digital.
He also criticises the Russell group of universities which he says have impressive marketing rather than results, and are complacently resting on their reputations. Their response was to say its members’ “number one priority is to support their undergraduates to become highly skilled, self-motivated young adults, who are capable of thinking for themselves and adapting to new work environments.”
Which are the best degrees to get you a job within six months of graduating?
Chemical engineering 78%
Physics & astronomy 77%
Which are worst degrees for employability?
Animal science 45%
Agriculture & forestry 55%
Creative writing 55%
I’m surprised there aren’t other micky-mouse degrees on the list like media studies or history of art but I think the point is well made. Can we afford to provide degree courses because it’s a good thing to do rather than because your country needs you?
For years the military attracted graduates by paying their way through university and modern apprenticeships and Dyson’s new university are very focussed on work outcomes.
I’m not suggesting we go the old soviet route of directed employment although I remember an argument between two german psychologists I met in Finland. One was from the former east who wanted to be a doctor but was told to do a psychology degree instead, and one from the west who thought that was scandalous. Both were happy in their jobs.
Of course it will upset the snowflakes…..