Dan Erwin

I Was Wrong

My error was obvious, so I sent my friend this note: “You’re correct all the way around. My error. Drawing incorrect inferences is inevitably problematic for all of us . . .  including me.”

Here’s the context: As occasionally happens, I interacted via both phone and email three or four times with an intimate of mine the other day. On the second or third interaction, he sent me an email saying that he was less than receptive to my input. And he wondered if I was making a broad generalization of his patterns based on a couple comments. His analysis was that he didn’t disagree with what I was saying, but that it seemed to him “that I was providing advice from an incorrect assessment of his behaviors.” He noticed that I really couldn’t give specific examples (that were correct), so was wondering if I was drawing premature conclusions.

Upon receiving my admission of error, he responded: “It’s good to know that you know you’re not infallible. I relish these reminders.” The telephone call after all that was filled with our typical easy-going chatter and amusement. It continues to amaze me how admitting error provides such a public service. While chuckling about that interaction this morning, I realized once more how narrow is the truth, but how diversified are our mistakes. And how bad we are at admitting mistakes.

Few of us have mastered the basic skill of saying “I was wrong.” Typically the clause doesn’t hang in the air by itself. It’s often followed by a strategic addendum. You may remember that classic statement attributed to Kissinger (among others): “Mistakes were made, but not by me.” The New York Times calls it a “classic Washington linguistic construct.” I’ll pat myself on the back. When I sent the email to my buddy, there was no conjunction but attached.

Two truths about admitting we’re wrong. Our attitude toward wrongness—that inevitable distaste for error—tends to be rough on relationships. And as Kathryn Schultz points out in her absolutely brilliant book, Being Wrong, failing to admit to wrongness applies to relationships among nations, communities, colleagues, friends and (as you well know) relatives. She reminds us of the old adage of therapists, “that you can either be right or be in a relationship: you can remain attached to Team You winning every confrontation, or you can remain attached to your friends and family, but good luck trying to do both.”

But Schultz proposes an even more significant insight about being wrong, one that I’ve rarely thought about with as much clarity. It’s her observation that it is ultimately knowledge of our wrongness that teaches us who we are. My friend’s willingness to call me on the carpet pointed out my potential, as a successful coach, of being very wrong. And especially, it challenged me, once more, to be aware of my penchant for drawing conclusions quickly as well as for the fact that they are often wrong conclusions.

My mistake was initially embarrassing. After all, I am a well-educated student of human behavior. I was taught to be very careful about drawing inferences around human behavior. But significantly it was far more illuminating, as only a mistake can be. It forced me to look again at my friend’s behavioral pattern, to ask more thoroughgoing questions, to recognize that I was wading into deep water without his permission, and to remind myself that there are a seemingly infinite number of inferences that can be drawn about behavioral patterns. My mistake will help keep me out of trouble—for a while. And it forces me to put on a better lens the next time. 

Flickr photo: by rob_pym

'The Geek Manifesto'

Mark Henderson begins his Guardian review of his book, The Geek Manifesto: Why Science Matters, with the reminder that “when drugs are launched, we expect rigorous testing. Yet with government strategy we rely on anecdote or public mood when empirical study could offer better results.” Henderson, a former science writer at the London Times, takes on the anti-science caucus with his new book. From the title, Henderson makes clear that he also wants to get all Geeks on the side of science-based policy. To me, that’s a relevant agenda. So GEEKS—especially Gen-Xers and -Yers, pay close attention!

I doubt that the Brit culture has as strong an anti-intellectual and anti-science lobby as we unfortunate Americans. Richard Hofstader documented anti-intellectualism and the paranoid style in American politics in the 1950s and '60s. And you’ll find my earlier blog on this matter, Do you have to take the scientist's word for it, also relevant. But in his own review at the Guardian, Henderson points to numerous missed opportunities in national policy. After reading Sunday’s New York Times, for example, I’m certain that the current US congress is also doing its damndest to ignore science.

One of the best data-gathering, policy instruments this side of the Atlantic is the US Census. Last week, Daniel Webster, a first-term Republican congressman from Florida sponsored legislation to eliminate the census survey. It passed the Republican Congress although it’s not certain that it will get through the Senate. The rationale for the legislation? The House voted to eliminate the survey on the grounds that the government should not be butting its nose into American homes. The data is used, for example, across the federal government in formulas that determine how much funding states and communities will get for things like education and public health. Thankfully, there are wise heads in business like the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation and the National Associate of Home Builders who are up in arms. Since business funds the more recent congressional idiocrats, I hope that it will put a stop to such anti-data, anti-science strategies.

It's not merely obvious governmental survey data that's liable to suffer, but major policy issues can be improved through science research. In the Guardian review, Henderson points to relevant scientific research and policy need in areas such as prison reform, education, and foreign aid. Part of the problem we face today is the lack of research rigor in policy-related studies.

One of the more intriguing studies found that the body clocks of teenagers run hours behind those of adults and young children. An Oxford prof, as a result of studies, found that in contrast to younger children and adult, the body clocks of teenagers run several hours behind, making early morning school tough sledding. A similar study with identical findings was also completed at Mayo Clinic in the US, and entitled Teen sleep: why is your teen so tired?

One UK high school was able to get its beginning time moved from 9AM to 10am the entire year of 2010. The results were strikingly superb. The national exams were the best recorded in the school’s history. And the proportion of pupils achieving rose 19% above the previous year. Results were “especially impressive in science and information and communications technology. Persistent absenteeism has also fallen by 27%.”

Can you believe it? Following up on scientific conclusions brings better results. Somewhere there's a lesson in that.

'The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.' A Must See

Only on two occasions in the past few years have I attended a movie where the audience applauded. One was for The King’s Speech. And the other, on Saturday, for the ‘Marigold Hotel.’ That’s saying a lot for typically understated Minnesota audience behavior.

Based on Deborah Moggach’s “These Foolish Things,” Marigold’s flawless acting includes the ever-masterful Judy Dench and Maggie Smith, with Tom Wilkinson, Bill Nighy and an acting team that gives you a strong family feel. These actors are much more likely to play authoritative, austere folk as backup to younger stars, but here they take the spotlight. Dev Patel of Slum Dog Millionaire is the vivacious, mouthy, Indian hotel owner.

Seven pensioners, each for their own reasons, are disappointed with what retirement has meant for them in England. Their money won’t stretch as far as it should. So they all fall for an internet pitch, advertising a retirement home in Jaipur, India.

They’re a mixed lot: Evelyn (Dench) is a widow left with a pile of debt; Graham (Wilkinson) is a gay judge who attends a friend’s retirement party and calls it quits himself; Doug and Jean (Nighy and Penelope Wilton) invested everything in their daughter’s internet startup and are left with nothing. Muriel (Smith) is a housekeeper put out of her job and needing a cheap hip replacement. Madge (Celia Imrie) is a widow in search of a new man, and Norman (Ronald Pickup) is an aging roué on the prowl for women.

Marigold is one of those films that sneaks up on you. First, you’re a spectator, chuckling at the Shakespearean lineup of the seven in the London airport—none of whom have yet met each other. And the next thing you know, you’re in the story.  

The stories of the different characters float in and out, eventually getting tied together. The emotional depth of the characters is sheer delight and wonder. Ol Parker’s masterful writing is a mix of melodrama, comedy, and wisdom. Unlike some of the reviewers, I’m not willing to call any of the lines platitudes. Too few in today’s world seem to be familiar enough with the insights that originally generated such proverbs.

Three things struck me about the film. It’s full of the messy, trafficky, smelly world of India. You’ll see no Eat, Pray, Love scenery. Reality is a relief. I suspect, however, that Indian natives will be appalled by Patel’s stereotype. Still, every good comedy deserves a Falstaff.

It’s also pure comedy. Not in the funny—ha-ha sense, but in the true sense of comedy. The characters live life out of their own wits and insights. There’s no tragic isolation and no fairy tale rescue.

Finally, the movie is suffused with sex as joke. Unlike movies about the relationships of younger generations, and for that matter, porno, Marigold doesn’t take sex seriously. Rather, sex is an opportunity for laughter and fun. It caused me to wonder whether you need to be a sexagenarian to appreciate that.

Overall, John Madden’s directing takes this gifted cast and invests it with heart and honesty. Make sure to see it at a busy time of the day or evening. It’s a lot more fun with a full auditorium than in the off-morning showing.

I’m really, really curious as to how younger generations respond to Marigold. I’d appreciate your comments.

Flickr photo: iWooho Official1

Experience Rules in Today's Job Market

Even recent college grads had better be able to put experience on their resume and be able to talk about what they've gotten out of their experience. So says Katherine Brooks' latest blog. And she knows what she's blogging about. She has a most uniquely titled position at the University of Texas Austin: Director of Career Services for Liberal Arts Graduates. Don't concern yourself thinking she's just another ivory tower type. She wears the hat, but it doesn't fit her blogging.

When I first stumbled on Brooks' blog, Career Transitions,a couple weeks ago, her name grabbed me. I realized that she was the author of that fine book for graduating seniors with a liberal arts degree, grads looking for a job that'll provide a decent living. Her book has the catchy title, You Majored in What? And it gets right to the issues, deciphering the job market and relieving stress from grads in humanities and social science. I wrote a review of her still very timely book nearly two years ago. My blog, You majored in what? provides a bit more background for you.

There are a lot of things right about a liberal arts degree, if. . . you graduated from one of the most selective schools in the nation. Or, if you have the wherewithal and support to go on to graduate school. And if you fill in your liberal arts with a year of computer science, economics, communications, etc. If you were smart enough to get summer internships, work experience build a network. And if you got a STEM (science, technology, engineering or math) liberal arts major.

- - - - - - -

Many liberal arts faculty don't want to become vocational school teachers. That makes sense, but it overstates the case. As a nationally-experienced executive coach, I've learned that liberal arts grads tend to be the better thinkers in business, know how to learn, are adaptable and, typically, have solid communication skills. That means they can come up to speed quickly. Just exactly what firms are looking for. So if you're thinking about liberal arts, a recent liberal arts graduate or are not certain about your major's financial future, here's the jobs' blogger for you.

Prof. Brooks' blogs are filled with great stuff, solid research and spot-on recommendations. What I most appreciate about her blogs is not the intense relevance or even her smart use of statistics, but the fact that she has a bias toward evidence-based recommendations. Brooks blogs regularly on the Psychology Today site. Here are the titles of just a few of her most recent posts:

• Employers seek proof of your skills
• Five steps for improving your job search
• The question isn't "Are resumes dead?" The question is "Are resumes enough?"
• Are you T-Shaped? The most sought after candidates are.
• How to benefit from losing the lottery.

Brooks provides a fascinating stream of research on careers and jobs. She also has her own website, Wise Wanderings, filled with practical, highly useful stuff. Her website strategy is straightforward:

Welcome to CareerArtistry, my website dedicated to helping liberal arts students and alumni (and just about anyone who is seeking a new way to earn a living) navigate their way through the 21st century job market, where linear systems are fading away and chaos reigns.

Check out Brooks' blog. I'm certain you'll find it exceptionally valuable.

What's Your Story?

Those who do not have power over the stories that dominate their lives, power to retell them, rethink, deconstruct them, joke about them, and change them as times change, truly are powerless because they cannot think new thoughts. –Salman Rushdie 

A good story is a key success factor for making a role, job or career change. What truly moves us as human beings, what prompts us into action is the emotion of a good story. Even overly rational, fact-oriented, data driven magazines and journals like Harvard Business Review, journals that think of business as a matter of pure rational calculation, emphasize the same point. Michael Hattersley wrote in an HBR article, “truth to tell, few talents are more important to managerial success than knowing how to tell a good story.”

Sure, people have used all kinds of means for developing and negotiating identities. When I started in the coaching business back in the early 1980s, one of my first jobs was awarded to me by the CIO of Pillsbury. He was an astute guy, exceptionally capable of identifying talent and helping his folk build an identity. That job--and I still laugh about it--was to take a young manager and teach him to dress for success. The CIO recommended laundered cotton shirts, new ties, better suits and polished shoes. “So you’re going to pay me that much to coach him in his dress?” That young manager has since had three superb CIO jobs at well-known corporations. Obviously, his identity worked. And, we’re still intimate buddies. 

Although people have paid attention to dress, humor, personal style and even office décor to signal who they are, the most useful approach is through the development of a personal narrative. As Hermina Ibarra notes, a self-narrative is a story that makes a point about the person. Self-narratives not only express who we are, but they also create who we are. 

Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook beginnings in his dorm room, Bill Gates’ dropout from Harvard, Hewlett and Packard’s and Steve Jobs’ garage beginnings, as well as Obama’s childhood stories are examples of self-narratives—personal stories—that are carefully crafted for public consumption. 

As a consultant, I learned early on that my personal narrative was exceptionally valuable, not only in the approach I took to my profession, but also as a tool to sell and manage to clients. I had to explain how I’d gone from a career as a minister, to that of a teacher and to that of a business consultant. My ability to relate that emotional story often was the determining factor in whether or not I got a consulting gig. 

In today’s world of free-lance, and “at will” employment, a personal narrative is especially valuable for everyone. At the heart of a new stream of research are the practice and strategy of crafting and negotiating work identities with stories. No one has completed a more fascinating study of identity stories than Ibarra’s work, dating from 2010. In her research, she ticks off some of the situations where your personal story will be of utmost value. 

• Career change
• Job change
• Team leadership
• New job
• High job stakes
• Interacting with high-status, powerful people
• Interactions with unfamiliar contacts
• Job interviews 

Having multiple personal identity stories is valuable in all kinds of situations. Even in questionable situations. In her research, Ibarra quotes an investment banker seeking to move into international development: 

With the nonprofits, the first hour of any interview was “Why the heck would somebody with your background and your pay scale be doing this?” It took an hour’s worth of credibility building; they weren’t wondering “What is your background and what can you offer” but “Are you insane?”

People not only construct identities by telling their story, they also reinvent themselves by telling new stories about what’s happening to them. They reinterpret past events and weave the past and the present into a repertoire. A repertoire that allows them to communicate their identity and negotiate it with others. 

Well, what’s your story?

Herminia Ibarra, Identity as Narrative. Academy of Management Review, 2010, Vol 35, No.1, 135-154.

Flickr photo: CTJ online

"How to Be Brilliant." It's All About Discipline, Not Giftedness.

Who would think that a single book review could garner so much attention? The blog, originally published in March 2010, continues to garner weekly attention. Both the book and the issue are groundbreaking. The issue is just as important today, so here's the original blog. . . . 

- - - - - - - 

Forget about genes as "unchanging" "blueprints" and talent as a "gift," all tied up in a bow. The review of David Shenk's new book, The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've been told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ is Wrong, in today's NYTimes Book Review summarizes much of the important research findings over the past ten years.

Reading over the review a couple times, I hooted with laughter remembering the old saw from music school about how to get to play at Carnagie Hall: practice, practice, practice. That's exactly what Anders Ericsson has learned about development, the notion of deliberate practice.

Shenk sets out to overthrow the conventional ideas surrounding the words, "nature" and "nurture." But he also recognizes that you can't overthrow the conventional ideas and images that have been accumulating for more than 125 years. In fact, as I've argued in numerous places, old dogma dies hard. Once concepts are deeply embedded, a superstructure of assumptions and ideas grows around it. Rejecting a dogma means that many ideas are now questionable, more research could be invalid, and that the reputation and contribution of many scientists might be questioned. As you can guess, old dogma rarely gets challenged.

Still, two significant and distinct lines of psychological research have been built up over the last fifteen years. One body of research shows that intelligence is fundamentally a competence that can be developed. A second line of research shows that supervised coaching, maintained at high levels for extended time periods, along with disciplined learning, can be far-reaching.

I draw two very important conclusions from this research. First, the next time you pick up the Wall Street Journal and read an article by Charles Murray (of the Bell Curve) and his ilk, remember that he's either BSing or clueless. Here's a copy of a letter by Robert Sternberg of Yale and Tufts, which I've posted on my website, challenging Murray's archaic ideas.

What the research also reveals is that we need not be stuck in careers and vocations that go the way of the Dodo bird as a result of technology and innovation. If we are willing to persist in continual growth, we can create new opportunities for ourselves. I've seen clients do that very thing for years and years.

Oh yeah. What Shenk seems to be unfamiliar with is the notion of small wins, the best way to persist and grow in the face of failure. You can find my basic discussion of the process and the research here. Why small changes work. . . . and Motivation and small wins . . . .

Flickr photo: by Vladsun

"Demystifying Social Media"

Everybody knows what social media is, but few know how to take advantage of its potency. In a highly illuminating update, the McKinsey Quarterly lays out social media’s core functions. Since General Motors made news today by its decision to stop paid advertising on Facebook perhaps it needs some McKinsey help.  A GM official decided that paid ads have little impact on consumer’s car purchases. General Motors’ paid advertising commitments are among the highest in the world. Although the investment in Facebook was not huge, the decision is liable to have profound implications for both Facebook and General Motors.

So how can you best use social media?
The McKinsey study enables targeted marketing responses at 10 touch points along what it calls the “consumer decision journey.” One of the ten—monitoring what people do and say—is so important that McKinsey says it’s the core function of social media. The other nine uses of social media easily fit into three categories. 

1. Monitoring.  Brand monitoring—awareness of what’s being said about your products and services—makes an appropriate default social-media function. This is the kind of information that should reach the relevant organizational functions such as marketing, public relations, research and development and public relations. 
2. Responding. Although it’s valuable to learn how the medium is doing and what to improve, this kind of response can uncover sales leads and provide customer service. Responding to counter negative comments and reinforcing positive ones is of vital significance to brand management. Recently a hoax photograph claimed that McDonald’s was charging African-Americans an addition service fee. McDonald’s social-media team released a statement declaring the photograph a hoax, asking key influencers to let their “followers know.” The company even responded personally to a number of people who believed the image was authentic. Within just a few days, the firm had resolved the problem and its stock shares went back up.
3. Amplifying.  Amplification means designing the medium with a social motivator that encourages broader engagement and sharing. It means that the campaign provides for experiences that invite customers to broaden or extend the relationship with the brand, product or fellow users. Groupon, for example, provides consumers with credit for referrals.
4. Leading. The medium can be used to lead the customer toward long-term behavioral changes by driving Web traffic to content about a firm’s other products or services. It can, for example, provide time-sensitive targeted deals. American Express created shopping promotions for the weekend following Thanksgiving. 

Although the McKinsey study is oriented to organizational marketing, I’ve found by means of Analytics that the same insights are applicable to my own personal blogging. By regularly posting on four different websites with slightly varying niches, I’m able to gain very useful marketing insight. I’ve been able to identify issues, language, and approaches that, over time, clarify potential consulting and writing objectives. 

Analytics and Quantcast provide me with much free insight. Although conventional knowledge, for example, says that blogs should be kept below 500 words, I’ve found that content is truly king. Three of my top five blogs, by reader stats, are more than 1,000 words in length.  Surprisingly, average time spent on blogs does not necessarily correlate with the length of the blog. I take that info as a means of identifying exceptionally relevant content to my readers. Quantcast is especially useful in that it provides free information regarding income, education, age and categories of interest to my readers. Currently, my blogs reflect readership identical to my strategic objectives. As a result of the marketing information, I’ve been able to fine tune my readership and better reach both the educational and income levels on which I’m focusing. I spend a great deal of time monitoring and responding to the marketing data, blogging to achieve my desired objectives.

Fm: Divol, R., Edelman, D., and H. Sarrazin, "Demystifying Social Media." McKinsey Quarterly, April 2012.

Even the CEO Needs Feedback, But. . . .

Over the last few months I’ve been conversing with several new managers about their responsibility for giving feedback. Two issues keep coming up. How do you go about really giving effective feedback? And when should you not give feedback? It’s that second issue that I want to talk about. Sometimes it’s more important than the how-to.

 

Giving feedback can be a waste of time. Especially to someone who’s not ready to receive it or incapable of doing anything with it. More significantly, the downside of giving feedback to someone who can’t do anything with it can create a mess of relationship difficulties.

Sometimes the feedback is simply outside the person’s knowledge base. In a previous blog, “If you need a mentor, forget the expert,” I warn that it’s often difficult for an experienced person to put the cookies on the bottom shelf. Rather than enhance the learning experience, it can frustrate it.

On a personal note
My own experience of being coached resonates. Years ago when I first began to get serious about popular writing, I hired a former editor-in-chief from Harper Collins to coach me. “Hire the expert,” I thought. I learned a lot about the publishing business from him, destroying many of my myths. But truthfully, he was too experienced and too much of an expert to put the cookies on the bottom shelf. And it’s tough for an academic like me to leave academic writing behind without a lot of direction.

Five years ago, I bargained for the services of a 22 year-old college grad in English, a Gen-Yer from one of our top schools. His ability to answer my most basic questions has been and remains phenomenal. I’m a “why” person, and he’s always ready to answer my “whys.” Furthermore, unlike the “expert” editor, my young friend is not fearful of being literally ruthless with a red pen. I’ve shown articles he’s edited to some of my cronies and they tell me the hair on their neck stands on edge just reading it. But it’s done in all kindness and care, with lots of suggestions and alternative ways of going at a subject. The “expert” was too far above me to be of more than cursory help, but my young friend was just what I needed. Though there are plenty of times when my writing isn’t the best, I’m certain his feedback has moved me a long way in those few years.

There are other reasons for not giving a person feedback. Some people are too defensive to gain from coaching input. They have to learn from the school of hard knocks. It’s a tough way to learn, and some never do. One of the delights of my coaching business is that when I’m hired, the client is ready for my services. After a couple sessions, there are no holds barred in the giving of feedback. These clients want to know specifically what the feedback means, why it’s important, and what to do about it. But it takes experience a degree of maturity to get to that point.

Still others think they have all the answers. They just want a quick response from you, and then they cut you off. Maybe it’s defensiveness, but maybe it’s just big ego. But one thing is clear. Just a little feedback often fails to go very far. Furthermore, when some say they “get it,” there’s not a chance in hell that they can do anything with such a small amount of feedback. They really need you to take them by the paw and lead them through the steps of development. At the least, based on the feedback, they need to be able to talk you through the next three or four steps they’re going to take with your feedback. And if you can’t get that much time from them, or they can’t respond with the steps, it’s all a waste of time.

How can you tell when someone’s not ready for feedback?
Of course, the easiest way is past experience. You’ve observed that person for months, even years, and you know it’s going to be a waste. Then too, if you pay much attention to the rumor mill, the difficulty of giving feedback to a certain person gets around.

Some people are obviously and openly defensive. If a person always wants to be right or have the last word in a conversation, you’re asking for trouble. And if endless explaining or rationalizing is the norm in his conversations, that too, is a sign of trouble for feedback.

But as a manager, sometimes giving feedback is required. Take the person to a private office. Ask him for permission to give feedback, or, if necessary, tell you’re going to be giving some feedback. Give the feedback in developmental form. Ask what he can do about the information and what steps he's going to be taking to resolve the issue. Offer your support. And just get on with it. Oh yeah, always check back regarding the change. Especially if it’s positive!

Flickr photo: by pamalamadag

Six Resources for Creativity

Innovation and creativity, everyone says, is key to our nation’s success in the marketplace. While working through some new stuff on creativity and innovation, I stumbled, once more, across Robert Sternberg and Todd Lubart’s analysis of the resources for creativity. It has the intriguing title, Buy Low and Sell High: An Investment Approach to Creativity.

The resources are a reminder of what it takes to get a leg up on creativity. More significantly and perhaps more useful, the resources are especially programmed for succeeding as a worker in today’s business world.

1.    Intelligence. This is not a reference to your IQ, but your processes for planning, monitoring and evaluating your thinking. As Jonah Lehrer writes in a superb blog, it’s more than a matter of gut feel, it’s reflecting on your decision process itself.

2.    Knowledge. Almost tongue-in-cheek, the writers say that “advancing knowledge beyond where it is requires knowing where it is.” I suspect that the biggest, hugest, most terrible weakness of Googling for information is that you don’t go through the painful work of digging it out by yourself in books, articles, conversations and reflection. Just the process of digging out knowledge makes it possible to find out where the knowledge is, something that Googling can never replace.

3.    Thinking styles. Styles are proclivities or tendencies in the way we think. Not abilities. Creative folk not only just plain like novelty, but they also like to see problems in new ways, undertake new challenges and just plain put together things in their own ways. As Carol Dweck would say, they take an incremental view of life and intelligence. They’re fluid and changeable and get satisfaction from learning, and seeing opportunities to get better.

4.    Personality. There are a huge number of studies about the personality attributes of creative folk. The attributes overlap, and the include a tolerance of ambiguity, willingness to overcome obstacles, willingness to grow, the willingness to take sensible (interesting adjective) risks, and belief in one’s ability to correct mistakes.

5.    Motivation. Again and again, researchers have found that people do their most creative work when their motivation is task-focused rather than goal-focused, and internally driven rather than externally driven.

6.    Environment. Without a supportive organizational environment, all these resources are liable to come to nothing. It's important to note that the organization can support creativity by helping spark creative ideas, by supporting these ideas, and by serving as a basis for assessing and correcting these ideas as they are developed.

You’ll notice that these resources overlap. And because there are so many resources, creativity is not as common as we would like. Still, when people in business recognize that creativity is revealed just as much in new business processes as in new products (think iPad), there’s a lot of creativity going on out there, and a lot more space for creators.

Guess Who Got the Jobs 1st Quarter 2012

An analysis by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) released in March found that the number of people 50-plus unemployed for six months or longer catapulted from 325,000 to 1.8 million between 2007 and 2011. It’s the older folk, we assume, who got the pink slips and are having the most difficult time finding work. Not quite true.

The Bureau of Labor statistics revealed some shocking statistics regarding the first quarter, 2012. Thirty-three percent (33%) of new hires were ages 25-54. That means that sixty-seven percent (67%) of new hires were ages 55-plus. Older folk are convincing employers that they can still be trusted to take on new jobs and perform at top level. According to a report in May AARP Bulletin, Who got the jobs, 788,000 workers older than age 55 got new jobs, and 385,000 younger workers got new jobs. 

When you drill down into the statistics. . .  .

It’s good news that older adults were leading the way in employment growth in the first quarter. But it’s not clear whether the new hires had been out of work for shorter or longer stretches. Furthermore, the types of jobs they ended up with are not known. I hope it’s not as a greeter at WalMart. Ummmm. . . I just remembered. Most WalMart stores have quit using greeters.   

But some disconcerting issues. . . .
There’s a significant possibility that older workers were taking jobs beneath their skill level and pay grade. Just for the opportunity to work.

Even more disconcerting, these statistics mean that younger people who might have filled those positions are still without work.