Archive for Book Review
Are you an Arse? Take the Quiz!
Posted by: | CommentsYesterday Danielle introduced our series on The No Asshole Rule by identifying the office species of the “asshole.” This elusive species like to attack when you are feeling at your most vulnerable.
Now if you are asking yourself, “Asshole? I don’t have any assholes at my organization.” Then guess what – you’re probably the asshole. Not sure? Take the Asshole Rating Self-Exam and see for yourself. Don’t worry; we won’t ask for your score. But keep it in mind tomorrow when we talk about how to work with (or not work with) the office asshole.
Do you accept the challenge?
Posted by: | CommentsLast Thursday I posed a question. “What traits do you look for most in a leader?” Did you come up with some answers? James Kouzes and Barry Posner have asked this question for over 25 years of research, and the results are astoundingly consistent across time and culture: Honest, Forward-Looking, Inspiring, and Competent. Are any on your list? I know I had a few.
Kouzes and Posner incorporated this data into their research on personal best leadership experiences. The result? An incredibly in-depth “how-to” for effective and positive leadership development. The Leadership Challenge is a field guide for leaders filled with stories, lessons, and exercises. The book is broken down into the Five Exemplary Practices and the Ten Commitments of Leadership.
Overall, I highly recommend The Leadership Challenge for readers who have a specific leadership role in mind. If you are looking for a quick read for general knowledge, this nearly 400-page book might be a bit much. However, it is very inspiring to read The Leadership Challenge if you are looking to rise into a leadership role. The stories are not from famous CEOs or historical leaders. The stories are from every day leaders – from executives to middle managers to Girl Scout troop leaders. The overall message of the book is that anyone can lead. Anyone can develop the skills. Yes, all leaders are born, but the best leaders can be made.
The Perennial Question: Are Leaders Born or Made?
Posted by: | Comments“Yes, of course, all leaders are born. We’ve never met a leader who wasn’t. We’re all born. What we do with what we have before we die is up to us.”
The Leadership Challenge by: Kouzes & Posner
We here at Monar tend to agree with Kouzes & Posner on this point. Some people may be apt to assume a leadership position more often than others, but everyone has the ability to develop into an effective and positive leader. Just how do you do that? More into that next week when I give a full review of The Leadership Challenge. As a preview, begin thinking about the traits you look for most in a leader. In your experiences, either as a leader or as a team member, what is it that has lead you to think, “Wow, I would follow this guy (or girl) anywhere. I give my full trust.”?
Making the Change: Part 2
Posted by: | Comments
I know you are all dying to read the conclusion of yesterday’s blog, so I won’t make you wait any longer…
To put the question of change into perspective, today we are going to look at the tenets of Switch by Chip and Dan Heath. Switch is about “how to make change when change is hard” and apparently getting a mass population of people addicted to technology to stop tweeting/texting/Facebook status-ing while driving is HARD. In order to make change happen you must relate to the rider, the elephant, and the path.
But you may ask yourself… what does an elephant have to do with getting me to put down the cell phone? Good question. When you make a decision to do something, your brain is thinking in two parts: the rider and the elephant. The rider is the logical, rational decision-making part of the brain. The part of the brain that says, “Yes, I know it is dangerous to tweet and drive and I know that in many places it is now against the law.” The elephant is the big, immovable emotional decision-making part of the brain. The part of the brain that says, “But what if it is a really important call and someone needs me to tweet the number to 911?” You know you shouldn’t, but it is just too tempting…
The rider directs the elephant, but first the rider must know exactly which path to take. To harness the rider, Switch says we must “script the critical moves.” If we want people to stop using cell phones while driving, we must point out step-by-step in absolute clarity how this is done. For example, a PSA outlining a person getting in the car, turning off the phone, and putting it in the glove compartment. Simply telling people not to use the phone while driving is not specific enough. This is not to insinuate that people are dumb, but we all need a push in the right direction that does not leave any wiggle room for interpretation.
To harness the elephant, Switch says we must “find the feeling.” I know we have all seen the horrific (both in content and production value) videos shown in driver education classes across the country. While negative images are not always the most effective, vivid pictures of car crashes have a way of making young drivers think twice about driving under the influence of alcohol. The elephant is moved by an emotional appeal. Maybe it would be valuable to have a magazine ad of a woman holding a baby. The tagline underneath reads, “This image would not have been possible without the help of millions of drivers NOT using their cell phones while driving.” I think that’s a pretty strong and positive image and would move me to think twice about texting and driving.
Finally, in the final stages of decision-making the rider and the elephant move down a path toward the intended direction. To build upon our long and lengthy metaphor, if the path is littered with boulders and quicksand the rider and elephant will not make it very far. One way to make the path easier to follow is to “rally the herd.” Make it something that everyone is doing. As much as we may want to think we are individual thinkers, we’re not. People feel pressure to do what everyone else is doing, and it is a powerful feeling. Oprah has done a great job at tackling the path of distracted driving. She has created the No Texting Campaign where you can go to make an oath to refuse to text and drive. You should do it. All the cool kids are.
So there you have it. Move your elephant rather than tweeting about your dog if you want to make a change in people.
Question: Can you think of any ad campaigns, office situations, or other that have used the tenets of Switch (the rider, the elephant, and the path) to make a hard change?
Anything You Can Do, It Can Do Better: Technology and Your Brain
Posted by: | CommentsTechnology is ubiquitous, and that may be the most painstakingly incontestable statement that you’ll read today. No matter what it is you want to get done, “there’s an app for that.” Google has become a verb, replacing the words “search for,” and in turn we have become increasingly impatient when it takes more than 0.06 seconds to retrieve search results. Online shopping is omnipresent; people are tending toward filling virtual carts than physical ones. Our lives get continually easier as our gadgets become more extensive.
With this newfound reliance on quick and convenient technology, psychologists and cultural anthropologists have gone crazy trying to figure out what exactly this means for the human race. Some argue that we’re becoming dumber, lazier, and attention deficit. With the incorporation of hyperlinks within websites, journalist Nicholas Carr in his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” notes we can’t focus on the topic at hand, and the overabundance of information means that we get watered down versions of everything instead of in-depth versions of one or two concepts. Even something as simple as an automatic shutoff on a coffee maker absolves us from the necessity of actively preventing our kitchen from burning down. It probably half-began with the remote control, and from then on, we just assumed we should have a button for everything. No thought. No action. Just request.
There are many others who argue against this point. In a direct rebuttal to Carr’s article, Awl contributor Maria Bustillos mentions that hyperlinks are akin to scholarly footnotes and with so much access to novel information, we are actually exercising our brain rather than pigeon-holing it. Having more at our fingertips in turn makes us eager to receive more, the one time the feeling of entitlement may not be detrimental to this new era. The more we see computers and even phones can do, the more we want to see what we can program them to do. We are essentially testing the limits of human capability by making technology work for us in any way possible. And until it gets sentient a la Terminator, our technology will continue to docilely challenge us as we challenge it in return.
The loaded question is: so what does this actually mean for us? 2001: A Space Odyssey may have gotten it wrong as far as how far we’d be by the millennium, but HAL wasn’t too far of a cry from what we expect our technology to be capable of. With an “anything you can do, a computer can do better” attitude, where does that place the human mind? And what does this mean for your organization?
We here at Monar are big fans of Daniel Pink, so who better to pull from for the answer to today’s query? In his novel A Whole New Mind, Pink mentions that our lives are getting “clipped” by automation. What does this mean? Essentially, anything that a human can accomplish involving “rule based logic, calculations, and sequential thinking,” a computer can do better, because it can accomplish the same tasks without emotion or fatigue. The book cites chess master Garry Kasparov’s sad defeat by computer to demonstrate that even the best logical minds can be outsmarted by a machine that has the same capabilities. Routine functions are being completed by the CPU instead of the CPA. It seems as though people in the workplace are quickly becoming obsolete…at least the ones who are dominantly left-brain workers.
Pink argues that this among other factors are forcing professionals to turn their attention toward “R-Directed Thinking,” or more lateral, creative, right-brain focused methods of thought. People are being forced to adopt skills and thought processes that a computer, in a Daft Punk-inspired manner, can’t do harder, better, faster, or cheaper. Corporations are turning to people who have masters in fine arts rather than masters in business administration. Emotional intelligence is being valued over intelligence quotients. These are all leading to what Pink classifies as the Conceptual Age, an era in which abilities must extend beyond scholastic aptitude. Faced with the prospect of becoming passé, we have to begin to exercise our creative minds.
The Internet may be making us stupider. Our cell phones might be calculating restaurant tips faster and more effectively than we can. But we have the advantage of a right brain, something Steve Jobs has yet to implant into a microchip. As long as we have that, we will always be one step ahead.
Metaphorically, at least. I’m pretty sure they’ve made a robot that can run faster than I can.
To our readers: how do you believe the increased reliance on technology has affected our minds?
Find Your Drive
Posted by: | CommentsI began writing this post today with the intention of writing a book review on Drive by Daniel Pink. It was going to be pretty standard. I would write a short summary on the book, mention some of the main theories, and give my opinion on whether I recommend it for others. However, in my preparation it has become more than that. It has become something that I think would make Daniel Pink very proud.
You see, Drive is all about motivation. Are people motivated by extrinsic rewards, such as money? Or are people motivated by intrinsic rewards, such as being able to work on something that will stretch creativity? I started this piece motivated by extrinsic rewards: it is part of my job to write and in writing I get to keep my job (okay, I wouldn’t lose my job if I didn’t write, but I would probably get a stern look). Pink argues that this type of motivation actually hinders productivity and quality of work, because it becomes less about the task and more about the “carrot and the stick.”
Today during my preparation, I began asking my co-workers what they thought of the book. We each read Drive with the intention of applying its theories to what we do here at Monar. Think of it as a business book club. Each comment brought a new layer of the book to light for me that I hadn’t focused on before.
Christy really enjoyed how Pink built upon his ideas by bringing in the history of varying theories of motivation. The idea that adding monetary value to a task takes away from its personal value really resonated with Danielle. Maggie felt that allowing employees to take 20% of their time for personal projects is a very easy and practical way to increase intrinsic motivation. Marie appreciated the inclusion of employee engagement and the subtle humor in Pink’s writing. We were divided on Pink’s use (or overuse, depending on who was talking) of computer references. Between the five of us, our opinions were flying back and forth–and I loved it!
Soon, my motivation to write this blog moved from extrinsic to intrinsic. I wasn’t writing because I had to, but because I was enjoying listening to everyone’s point of view. I wanted to share these views with you, our readers, so that you can read not just my opinion, but also our collective opinions. If you have read the book as well, I encourage you to comment and add your opinions. My intrinsic motivation is the fun I have discussing and debating different theories and ideas and wanting to share them with others. According to Pink, this intrinsic desire should make this post better and more creative than my others. I guess you can go back to my other posts and judge for yourself…
Question: Has anyone read Drive? What are your opinions/likes/dislikes?
For the Love of Vampires: How to Re-Motivate
Posted by: | CommentsFor some, swine flu breeds fever, delirium, and quarantine. For my dear friend and ex-roommate, it bred one of the most innovative articles I’ve ever read on real-life vampires. I have to admit that in the aftermath, I was left with a mix of discomfort and disbelief, wavering between thinking the whole thing was a narrative hoax and not knowing how to handle the fact that there were people running around the country emulating Edward Cullen. But she confirmed that everything was, in fact, true. Discomfort was the triumphant sentiment.
Despite how appalling the concept of real-life vampires is, the article is incredibly well-written, and it grabbed the attention of her professor, who subsequently entered the piece into a journalism competition. She won first prize, which loosely translates to recognition and praise, a glowing review by Esquire’s Mike Sager, a $100 cash prize, a certificate that she decided to make for herself, Facebook bragging rights, and this blog post dedicated to her accomplishment. Not too shabby. And she didn’t even compose her piece with any of these rewards in mind. When asked about why she DID write the article, she simply stated, “I did it for the love of the vampires.” As a caveat, she added, “And who would’ve known that swine flu could’ve been so great?” It was well deserved. Mazel tov.
Motivation used to be limited to realization of biological functions, which Daniel Pink refers to as “Motivation 1.0” in his book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. The upgraded “Motivation 2.0” presumed that rewards and punishments were what drove people’s actions. It failed to take into account, however, the drive that humans have to learn, create, and better the world. Pink refers to this motivational force as “Motivation 3.0.” It is the freedom, challenge, and purpose of undertaking the task itself. Money and recognition still play a role, but they don’t act as the mitigating factors to action. Intrinsic motivation should start playing a larger part in guiding a person’s behavior (internal motives such as desire to succeed, results-oriented thinking) than extrinsic (monetary rewards, cookies, etc.) It’s safe to say that my award-winning journalist friend wrote this article not for rewards or as a response to Darwinistic beliefs. She was operating under Motivation 3.0, and that was what drove her to success.
The question is: how can organizations create an environment that encourages Motivation 3.0 above extrinsic rewards? People tend to take more ownership of their work and reap more personal satisfaction when they act on intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic. How can people be encouraged to focus more on internal motives for completing their tasks?
Pink has several tactics, one of which he calls assigning “Goldilocks tasks” to employees. For those of you who despite all warnings to the contrary have tuned society out, this refers to the “just right” mentality of the protagonist of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Pink advises organizations to embrace tasks that are “not too hard, but not too easy.” There needs to be a bridge between what people must do and what people can do. Those tasks exceeding an employee’s capability are met with anxiety; those tasks that insult their abilities are met with boredom and contempt. If organizations want to avoid reverting to a rewards/punishment system of motivation, they need to provide their employees with tasks that they can both accomplish and are energized to accomplish. Pink calls it “living on the knife’s edge between order and disorder,” which makes slip-ups sound painful, but does well to stress the importance of constant balance.
Ever the well-read author, Pink uses another literary reference to present a second tactic. He calls this one the Sawyer Effect, referring to Mark Twain’s masterpiece and the timeless first scene where Tom Sawyer convinces his friends what a wonderful idea white-washing his fence would be. Tom is painted as manipulative at worst, innovative at best, turning a mindless task into a fun game. Pink suggests that organizations emulate Tom’s example and attempt to turn work into play. Whether or not a task is enjoyable, it still needs to get done. Giving employees the freedom to reframe and expand their tasks outside of their job description gives them autonomy, something Pink stresses is crucial to self-motivation. Adding these extraneous tasks into a job description can remove ownership and decrease motivation for employees to complete them. They need to be given the ability to seize these opportunities themselves, and complete them for their own personal gain.
Rewards and biology work well enough to push us to act, but tasks for knowledge, creativity, or simply the tasks’ sake require a new way to frame an organization. To encourage people to take autonomy of their successes, they must be given tasks that strike a balance between challenging and doable, and they must be given the freedom to make their work into play. My friend’s article may have been a final project, but it ended up being enjoyable enough that it actually felt like a project and not an assignment. And while it obviously involved a lot of work, it proved to not be outside of the reach of her abilities to complete it, and complete it well.
Disclaimer: This blog was written completely out of intrinsic motivation to sing the vampire article author’s praises, but this blog’s author would not be opposed to the article’s author using her prize money to take her out to dinner.
To our readers: how can you make the switch to external to internal motivation? What motivates you to do work?
**Stay tuned- tomorrow Jessica will provide a book review of Daniel Pink’s Drive…
Weaknesses? Just STOP
Posted by: | CommentsI recently finished the book Go Put Your Strengths to Work by Marcus Buckingham, co-author of First Break All the Rules and Now, Discover Your Strengths. I enjoyed the book, but I must admit that I found some of his ideas a little impractical.
Strengths centers on identifying your strengths and weaknesses on the job. Unlike the other two books in the series, it looks at identifying actual tasks that are strengthening or weakening versus personality or character traits. Buckingham argues that employees should organize their jobs to focus on their strengths and stop doing the activities that weaken or drain them.
I agree with Buckingham’s ideas to an extent. Our greatest opportunities for growth and success lie in our strengths, not in trying to fix a weakness. That is why it is called a weakness and not “something you are temporarily not good at.” There is only so much that can be done. I know that no matter how hard I study, I will never get any better at calculus. My brain just does not understand it. On the other hand, I feel energized by writing and look for ways to improve and grow. For me to be happy and fully engaged in employment, I need to identify all the activities that strengthen me and find a job that uses them to my advantage.
But what if you are already in a job and have identified that you perform several more weakening activities than strengthening ones? Common sense says you probably shouldn’t have taken the job in the first place, but these are tough times – no time to be picky. Strengths suggests that you STOP: Stop doing this activity, Team up with others that are strengthened by the activity, Offer up a strength, and Perceive your weaknesses from a different perspective.
Good suggestions, but how practical are they? I think it depends on the organization and the supervisor. The examples used in the book describe cases where the employees were able to go to their direct supervisor, explain their strengths and weaknesses, and devise a plan to re-design the job around strengthening activities. In both cases, the supervisors were very flexible and open to suggestions. In one case, the supervisor was contemplating a job re-design anyway. Personally, I don’t think all people are as lucky to have such flexible and open supervisors.
I used to work in a restaurant and part of my job involved up-selling merchandise items to customers. I know for a fact that up-selling is an activity that weakens me. I hated trying to sell merchandise to families that I know did not want or need it. However, a meeting with my boss to discuss a job re-design would have probably gone something like this…
Me: Up-selling is just not an activity that strengthens me. I don’t think I’m going to do it anymore.
Boss: You’re fired.
Yes, I realize this is an exaggeration. But my point is that many jobs do not have the flexibility needed to utilize the STOP method completely. What do you do then?
Tell us! Has anyone ever had a successful situation where they’ve been able to re-design their job to fit their strengths???
