Dan Erwin

A New Strategy for Predicting Work and Career Success

Predictions of success have always had a lot of cachet. Indeed, as a management consultant on numerous occasions my clients asked me to interview a team member for the sole reason of predicting success. It was usually framed as “How ambitious is this guy?” “Do you think she’s a quick study?” “What do you think about (insert any name) for that job?” A recent study of that question plowed some fascinating, fruitful new ground.

The research by Minbashian, Earl and Bright initially rehearses the bad news, information that’s been around for awhile. For the typical person, performance increases decelerated over time, plateaued at 2.93 years, and then started to decline thereafter.” I’ll add another statistic: major learning for most employees comes to an end approximately six years into their career. Entropy seems to be the more typical response to one’s career. And that’s not true merely of business professionals. Add lawyers, physicians and accountants to the same mix. Presumably, these findings reflect the effects of learning and changes in motivation that occur over time.

BUT THE GOOD NEWS IS. . .  this most recent research ignores performance capability and focuses on mind-sets that enhance long-term learning and the acquisition of new skills. That focus jives with what we know about Ericsson’s deliberate practice, Dweck’s mindsets and how to be brilliant. The researchers take one of the Big Five personality dimensions, openness to experience (the others are neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness) and study 228 recent university graduates in a single large Australian-based professional services company. The participants were studied over a four-year period, using feedback from their managers as well as the participants.

Research conclusions
The consultants in the sample accelerated their growth, learning much faster than typical business folk. And, inevitably, they also decelerated their learning much slower than most business people. The researchers suggested—rightly, I believe—that for these individuals, learning and acquisition of new knowledge and skills becomes a goal in itself, not simply performance. The researchers also suggest that work success patterns may only emerge over time. Since there are related studies, both supportive and critical, I’d like to see a bit of research replication to fully confirm the findings and add some how-to insights.

Can you generalize?
The sample consisted of consultants operating in a relatively complex environment that provided many opportunities for growth. The researchers suggested that the results may not generalize to businesspeople who work in less complex situations which provide less opportunity for growth. Still, today’s work contexts and workforce face an acceleration of project complexity, making the research highly useful.

The researchers did not look at the inherent disposition of people who go into consultancy in the first place. Many, if not most who go into the consulting field are inherently oriented to complex situations where there is the excitement of learning, change and opportunity.

How can you identify those open to newness?
Since this is early-stage research, there were no recommendations for identification of such employees, nor were there any suggestions for developing this potential.

Openness to new experience is usually understood to involve active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity. I believe that the over-arching text may well be curiosity.

One of the more intriguing findings was that “conscientiousness” was not related to long term performance. That’ll go against the grain of some managers.

Although the Big Five Personality Inventory and several other assessment instruments are available to assist in employee selection, it strikes me that people with the relevant behavior can be identified by a few well-placed questions. “We have a number of very stable work settings, as well others that involve a great deal of change and new learning. What is your preference for project work?” “Tell me some stories about the different challenges you’ve faced.” That’s a simple-minded format, but it is an important focus. The questions need to be framed in such a way that the respondent believes that his past performance is equally valuable. But in most settings, I’d trust the employee’s insights and documentation on openness to new experience more than his stories about performance. It is not as readily doctored.

Although the history of selection processes has inevitably focused on examining performance-personality issues at work, the study demonstrates that this more dynamic measure can be of great value. Furthermore, I believe, as noted above, that this kind of information is often more readily accessed than looking at past performance. But if there are conflicts between actual performance and openness to experience, that’s a heads-up for further conversation and analysis.

Flickr photo: by Skorlo

Five Best Career Development Postings for February

In recent years, career development has become a fairly narrow niche as a major reading target. Thus, there are endless books on leadership, collaboration, power and influence, thinking and selling. Half of them are rather ho-hum. But once in a while I read a blog posting that comes up with a unique, highly relevant idea.  An obvious need, I’ve decided to remedy this problem by occasionally pointing to a few. Here are five intriguing posts.

Louise Altman in the Intentional Workplace, on Curiosity.  As Altman writes, curiosity has become a highly valued core strength. Science is discovering that curiosity turns on the brain and leads to creativity and innovation. The brain likes curiosity. It likes stimulation, variety and the new. What the elders of my childhood didn’t know was just how much brains love to learn.

Tom Fox in the Washington Post on Why Presidents need to be exploiters.  An unusual approach to leadership, there are plenty of business situations in which the model works. It reminds me of Rahm Emanuel's comment to never let a good crisis go to waste.

Andreas Dudàs in TalentZoo on How to become a successful leader. Although the recommendations are fairly generic, there's a useful statistical reminder of where the current workforce finds itself. Dudas argues for authenticity, but I wish he'd spell out the negatives to that competency. The naivete on the subject needs some work. Authenticity is very useful, but it's also a way to wreack havoc on your career. 

Charalambos Vlachoutsicos in Harvard Business Review Blogs on The high cost of suspicion. A thoughtful comment on working outside the comfort zone, the blogger illustrates his point by sharing an experience that reflects a common dynamic among managers operating outside their comfort zone. In an effort to reduce their perceived risk they make decisions that they are not really competent to make. . . . 

Dan Erwin in my own site on a Not-so-obvious-listening skill: the minimal encourager. I remain in a state of shock on the power of this blog post, still running with more than 25,000 hits. It's one way of dissecting listening, but it focuses on the use of active nonverbals. If you can explain why this is so popular, I'd love to hear your response. 

Flickr photo: Presidio grad school

The Changing Demographics of "Real Americans"

Although I know business is paying far more attention to the national changing demographics than politicos or even church leaders, some of the stuff is really fascinating. In a recent article in the New Republic, Timothy Noah referred to a number of fascinating demographic statistics well worth sharing. And, yeah, the statistics are fairly reputable. Of course there's one demographic that really, really needs to change: the face of Republicans. More and more they're just old white men.

Gay Marriage
More Americans now support gay marriage than oppose it.

Sheryl Sandberg Can Have It All

Anne-Marie Slaughter doesn’t mince words in her Atlantic article Why Women Still Can’t Have It All. “The women who have managed to be both mothers and top professionals are superhuman, rich, or self-employed.” Yet, when I occasionally broach her article and thinking to young professional women, they look at me like I’m from outer space. Maybe it’s just because I’m using the wrong sample.

But since I have three professional daughters—two with children—it’s important for me, as a father—and grandfather,--to call attention to her seminal shot across 

If Only Minnesota Ruled America

CASE STUDY: In the recent election Minnesota voters made headlines nationally as the first state to reject the marriage proposal--and the voter ID amendment. The marriage amendment attempted to constitutionally define marriage as between male and female, while the voter ID amendment would put significant strictures upon the voting process. Why was Vote No a success when similar groups had failed in other states?

I suspected the “win” was reflective of leading edge ideas in market segmentation, micro-targeting, and behavioral economics and statistics, but I had no idea of the degree to which that would be true.

The Twin Cities, a “white collar community” where 60% of the state’s population resides, is the center of transportation, business, industry, education, government and home to an internationally known arts community.

Well-reasoned strategy. As in most states, a number of groups in Minnesota set out to defeat the amendments. However, the main Vote No

The Next Phase in Social Media: $$$$

Whoever thought Wall Street would be willing to pay for a Rolodex? And at $3,000 a shot? Though Andrew Ross Sorkin didn’t label the database of contacts (Relationship Science, LLC) the next phase in social media, its creators deserve kudos for their smarts.

What they’ve done is create an online Rolodex that is a lot more than a list of millionaires and billionaires. It shows the connections among the 1 percent: two million deal makers, power brokers and business executives. So it’s the connections and the subscriber’s unique ability to connect with connections that are the be-all, end-all, not the stand-alone list.

Looking closer at the online Rolodex, I wondered what different approaches might exist that the 99% might be willing to fork over some small change to purchase? After thinking a bit, I found the answer for $30 (see below).

Relationship Science LLC
But unlike Facebook, LinkedIn and other social media, Relationship Science doesn’t add user-generated content. It researches the web, lists the top 1% of deal-makers, power brokers and business execs, and adds in all the connections from the top 1%. In short, it compiles who knows whom, shows how the searcher is connected with, say a friend, friend of a friend, or charitable board, and then grades the quality of the connections with “strong,” “good,” or “poor.” Talk about status oriented—there are no phone numbers or emails. None of these people want to be cold-called, so unless you have a connection, you’re out of luck. But I’ll bet the finance people with the money to buy the service are sure to have a contact within the connections.

The online brand page reports the following for Relationship Science: COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR CREATING, MANAGING, AND SEARCHING PROFILE INFORMATION.  The result is a highly valuable program that makes it possible for the Wall Streeter to insert his name into the connection list to find out who he already knows to lead him to relevant potential clients. It’s a godsend for Wall Street.

Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon
My own experience is that industry folk have all kinds of connections, many--or most of whom they are unaware. Several years ago when I started working on networking, I played the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon for myself over a period of two weeks. When I got to several thousand connections, I quit. I could guess the quality of the connection, but had no algorithm. I’m a free-lancer, but many of my 300 plus (at that time in the early ‘nineties) managers and executives were well-placed throughout the nation. And I had a lot of really superb connections that have paid off through the years since.

$3,000 or $30
However, you don’t have to put out $3,000 to create your own highly relevant connected rolodex. Besides, unless you’ve got business for the big boys, that specific software won’t be of value to you. If you’re willing to shell out $30 for Wayne Baker’s Achieving Success Through Social Capital, you’ll find how to build, evaluate and use your own network of relationships, connections and/or potential clients. Baker has laid it out in an easy format that you can put on Excel or PowerPoint.

The key lesson here is simple: if you want to grow your business (personal or otherwise), build and use a connected network. And, as the research reveals in spades, it’ll need, eventually, to be face-to-face, not merely Facebook, LinkedIn or etc. 

Flickr photo: AndreAlmond

Influence 101: Analyzing Your Audience for Personal Success

The most entertaining part of Super Bowl Sunday is not the game, but its television advertisements. That’s not especially surprising when you consider that the average cost of a Super Bowl ad was $3.7 million. All that Moolah, much of which was spent on analyzing their audience and trying to determine what will pique interests and sell products.

Over the years and despite the big bucks, businesses have made some pretty big blunders in their analysis of audiences, especially when they’re marketing to different cultural groups.

• The Coors slogan “Turn it loose” when translated into Spanish read “suffer from diarrhea.”
• Schweppes Tonic Water” when translated into Italian read “Schweppes toilet.”
• In the United States, the Japanese tried to market a baby soap called “Skinababe.”

Sometimes, however, a correct analysis of a client need can get you into trouble. A few years ago, Target created a pregnancy-prediction model based upon big data science and sent coupons for baby clothes and cribs to their customers. It turned out that one recipient was a high school teen who had not yet informed her father of the pregnancy. The man walked into a local Target store, asked to see the manager, and gave him hell. The manager apologized and then called a few days later to apologize again. The father was somewhat abashed. “I had a talk with my daughter. It turns out there been some activities in my house I haven’t been completely aware of. She’s due in August. I owe you an apology.”

The lesson here is simple: If you want to be influential, know your audience and adapt accordingly. There’s a great deal of research about the necessity of being able to see the world from other people’s point of view. This is exactly what influence is all about: adapting or framing a message so it coincides with the receiver’s point of view. In today’s career world of flattened hierarchies and social networks, success often goes to those who can influence others.

Although there are a number of tools for understanding and influencing your audience, whether your boss, your team or your colleague, they reduce to four big picture insights:

Pay attention to the situation. I put that first because too many professionals analyze the characteristics of the individual and ignore the situation and the context. All the research reveals that situation is just as important, and sometimes more important than the receiver’s attitudes and objectives. Obviously, situations vary for teams, colleagues and bosses. So when you need to influence someone, stay focused on the situation. Is the team new to a project or are they loaded with the given project expertise? Is there a tight deadline? Are some people on the team at risk for lay-off? Is it nearly 6pm and most tired from the long day, or early in the morning? Is the setting noisy, hot, cold? Is the team under a lot of stress, or ready to rethink some previous project commitments? How well do the team members know each other, and have they worked with each other before? Who has the power? How diverse are the views of the team members?

Obviously, the number of possible situations is endless. Even so, recognizing the facts on the ground can help you adapt. It’s important to try to put yourself in the shoes of your receivers. Try to figure out what the present situation of your team mates is doing to your message and adapt accordingly.

Keep your team’s (individual’s) mind in mind. In the movie What women want, Mel Gibson plays a chauvinist advertiser who, after a freak accident, is able to read women’s minds. So Gibson not only becomes an expert at attracting women, but can design advertisements that they can’t resist. The movie visually illustrates how much easier influence might be if you can look into people’s minds. That would make it possible to know and understand their attitudes, values and needs, and then, like Mel Gibson, adapting your message would be simple.

Although you’re not liable to be The Mentalist’s Patrick Jane, you can learn to make educated guesses about a person’s values and objectives in a given situation.  Anthropologists have taught us to watch people’s behaviors because behaviors tell us what’s going on in the mind. Sure, some managers keep their cards close to the chest in many business settings, but there all always settings where their behavior tells what’s going on. It pays to be observant, and to occasionally ask questions. You’ll be surprised how often a manager will answer an “innocent question” that tells you a great deal.

In a team setting, teams that have worked together for some time take on a fairly uniform consensus, but there’s usually an outlier that makes her values clear. And often, there’s a “four-year-old” on the team who’ll tell all. There are really just three things that you need to know about an individual or about a team’s mindset.

• What do "they" want that you can give them? 
• What do you want? What are your own goals and priorities?
• What are the resources you have to offer them to give you what you want?

Audience and communicator states and traits play a big role in influence. There’s a ton of systematic research finding that the most successful influencers are perceived as both likable and competent. The two go together and merely one characteristic eventually sabotages the influencer. Likable, but not perceived as competent will eventually result in being ignored. Competent but not likable will result in being distanced and avoided.

There are a number of audience and individual states that offer influencing opportunities. Anxious people require specific recommendations, otherwise they’ll become unpredictable. High self-monitors respond well to messages that promise to help them succeed and “fit in.” Ego-involved people, those whose self-esteem is up front and may be fairly defensive, have narrow latitudes of acceptance. Authoritarians, those who are inevitably obedient, respond better to people in powerful positions. They’re looking for what “the boss thinks.” Cognitively complex people, in contrast, are more willing to tolerate perspectives that are inconsistent with their own.

In today’s highly diverse business cultures, pay attention to the differences.  A person who can adapt to people of different ages, backgrounds, education, genders, religions, political orientation and cultures has a leg up on influencing. Research shows that if we were to name the three people, outside of our family, who are best friends, the values would be very close and often identical. And living in homogenous communities teaches us little about the skills of adaptability.

To learn how to influence and adapt to a diverse group, we need to take time to get to know people very well. And, in spite of our love for social media, relationships that are face-to-face continue to provide the best opportunities for that exercise. Over the last five years of the Great Recession thousands of people have found themselves rather unexpectedly out of a job and walking the streets. Far more often than most want to believe, professionals in the streets have often been patsies. They have no one to blame except themselves, while their influential colleagues stand smiling the knowing smile of the jujitsu master.

Flickr: SuperBowl by Chris Vaccaro

David Leonhardt on Confronting the Deficit We Actually Have Rather Than the One We Imagine

Eventually, the country will have to confront the deficit we have, rather than the deficit we imagine. The one we imagine is a deficit caused by waste, fraud, abuse, foreign aid, oil-industry subsidies and vague out-of-control spending. The one we have is caused by the world’s highest health costs (by far), the world’s largest military (by far), a Social Security program built when most people died by age 70— and, to pay for it all, the lowest tax rates in decades. The recent string of budget deadlines and crises may be manufactured. The problem is not.

               -- David Leonhardt, Here’s the Deal. (Kindle Single). 

Leonhardt’s interpretation may be too complex for the typically stupid sound bite that most audiences prefer. But let’s step outside of audience expectations and look at his proposal. Eventually we’ll have to analyze our situation anyway. We can’t kick the can forever--but let’s understand more about the argument.

Competing claims
What we have here is a case of competing claims. Claims are statements that persuaders want others to accept. There are two implicit claims here: we’re entitled to full health care and government funded security, and we’re also entitled to lower taxes. Intriguing conflict!

Sometimes the problem with competing claims is that they really do conflict. That’s certainly the case here. So why won’t both Democrats and Republicans work at resolving some of the conflict? There are a number of reasons.

Confrontation is often perceived as risk. When we are fully open with our views, there’s the possibility of our being proved wrong. Have you noticed that neither side is especially open to dialog, much less with the costs of their commitments? Of course, no one wants to be bothered looking at research.

A second possibility is that others may attack. When it comes to this conflict, we have a history of attack. The consequence is that sound bites are preferred to transparency.

The third possibility is that of being proven wrong. Obviously, both sides know that—so until the constituency forces the issue there’ll be no attempt to resolve the problem.

Shared reframing
A person’s frame is the lens through which perceive the world, creating meaning and their claims. It’s complex. But it’s not surprising that conflict occurs when one person or organization uses their personal frame of reference to describe or assess something. Any sort of compromise or agreement will be based largely on the extent to which their frames overlap. If you looked closely at the claims by the two parties, there’s no overlapping. Which means they have to be reframed in ways amenable to both sides. It’ll take willingness as well as smarts and leadership to pull that off.

How soon?
Candidly, I’m in no hurry for either party to get on with the obvious. Let the deficit run longer and don’t trim the healthcare or social security yet. Jobs are the problem. Cutting the deficit and fixing health care will inevitably impact jobs negatively. Maybe, close a few tax loopholes. So I suggest, a bit warily, that we should just let it drag on a few more years until the unemployment rate lowers significantly. Of course, we will need more revenue to add more employment. (Obviously, the family model of money management for our national economic situation is plain nuts. Ummm. Yeah. My inferences and conclusions will drive many crazy. Still, I prefer Leonhardt’s initial adverb: “Eventually. . . .” )

Flickr photo: Wrld Voygr

The Big Boys (BE) Talk About Social Media: Six (6) Key Dimensions

One of social-media’s most important contributions to business is the competitive advantage it offers. I’ve had the opportunity to learn from a close friend in web marketing who was responsible for a Fortune 50 company’s website—from the get-go. So when the latest McKinsey Quarterly reported on research from GE’s social media experience, I was curious to see whether their findings differed from that of my good friend and all his resources, and also see what I could learn.

GE’s rationale for social media is instructive. Fail to use social media, they say, and you’ll inhibit collaboration, knowledge sharing and the tapping of employee capabilities. That’s the basic stuff of competitive advantage in today’s economy. Their platform has already attracted more than 115,000 users. Cool!

 

Although the GE leaders are at different places in social media, the writers identified a range of six social media efforts. I’ll list the six, and then pull out what was of interest to me, whether confirming stuff or new insights.

•  Compelling content: Most of the discussion here, focused on the creative skills of “auteur” filmmaking--authenticity, imagination and narrative--that makes for a media product. One of the insights that was especially valuable for this blogger is the difference from traditional media. Too much perfection is actually a barrier to collaboration and cocreation, as it disinvites participation. That’s a mindset of imperfection, along with rawness and lack of polish.
• Channel dynamics: The SM (social media) dynamics master business’ traditional orientation to control in contrast to much direct intervention—lack of control. That’s scary. One of the GE execs developed this orientation by blogging for a long period of time. That was the only way to get an audience involved. Blogging made it possible for her to find her voice, become more conversational and easygoing. True. But the blog conversation also reorients my priorities, adds new priorities and sometimes, to my frustration, rejects my priorities.
• Communication overflow: We are drowning in noise, what with e-mails, tweets, Facebook updates, LinkedIn, RSS feeds and more that’s tough to navigate. For me, that’s making decisions about when and when not to reply, when to link, when copy material (like this) and mash it up with mine, and what to share. I post on four different sites, plus my own. And making decisions about what goes where requires empathy.
• Driving strategy: The GE authors recommend using the youngest generation, the digital natives’ expertise, through reverse mentoring systems. No surprise there. As a septuagenerian I’d be lost without my Gen-Y buddies and my grandson. As a consultant, I’ve always accessed my clients’ expertise, so it’s not a new strategy. But what’s important is that I continue to use their insights, even when I’m certain that I “get it” about a different technology. I’m a “user,” but I’ve found that the youngest generation is comprised of “users,” who, at the same time, are developers. It’s not only about the technology, but it’s also about the language, the differing priorities and perspectives, and their ability to critique my stuff, my brain and my generational mindsets.
• Enabling architects: Organizations constantly deal with conflict goals: free-exchange infrastructure and forced control. Social media amplifies the “informal organization,” but the leader’s task is to keep that conflict from being destructive. GE has standards of transparency and integrity that must be observed. Although an individual blogger like me has no controlling CEO, it’s an issue that I must always observe. I may not be as scrupulous regarding my priorities and choices, but when in doubt, my Gen-Y protégé and colleague, Liam O’Dea, monitors my stuff closely. This has become far more important than I would have assumed early-on. And he can be appropriately ruthless.
• Ahead of the curve: With all its resources, GE has a number of initiatives to help top execs stay ahead of Web 3.0. It understands that the next generation of connectivity, appliances, cars and all kinds of objects will be connected--and that these spawn new business models to be managed. For me, that means I must maintain my exposure to the millennial mind-set.

It takes guts and smarts to innovate in social media. Social media, unlike other technologies, are powerful forces of change. At least we know where to go to get what we need to know. That’ll give GE and Dan Erwin a different type of competitive advantage.

Flickr photo: Jeroen Steemen 

After Giving Tough Feedback, What's Next?

Getting the news that your performance is inadequate can be harsh and even alienating. Most managers know that they need to be thoughtful and even careful when delivering critical input to an employee. Indeed, there are numerous processes that enhance the critical feedback situation. Yet, few employees know how to accept and use feedback to their advantage. Often, the internal consequences for employees are not at all pretty.

Truly effective feedback is fundamentally developmental. In other words, the manager  focuses on the future far more than on the past. It’s also highly descriptive. What specific behaviors did you observe? Stay away from inferences and interpretations of motives. Boston University has an especially useful summary on the subject entitled, Giving Constructive Feedback.

What goes on inside the recipient?
Managers always hope that recipients know how to accept and use feedback. But for many all feedback, especially when unsolicited, is toxic. The internal responses vary. Some allow anger and defensiveness to cloud their understanding. Some allow their emotions to escalate. A minority of employees will respond with guilt and fear, reacting internally with shame. Some provide explanations which the manager usually dismisses as excuses. And if the feedback is negatively exaggerated, some will focus on all the feedback rather than just the information that can be helpful.

The consequences
What happens next all depends on the recipient. But the research reveals three responses. First, many will avoid their manager—often for up to two weeks. But even if the avoidance is limited, it’s also typical for the feedback recipient to be very cautious in passing on information to his manager. He filters the information and arranges it in such a way to make certain that the manager knows he heard the feedback and is doing something about it. That takes place in spite of the fact that often the recipient didn’t understand the feedback. So after feedback it’s not unusual for creativity, productivity and information flow to go south for a few days or weeks.

Furthermore, for all but the simplest of tasks, learning the correct actions typically requires some active search and processing about what will achieve the desired outcomes. And if the task is fairly complex, that increases the need for the person to explore the different impacts of actions. That’s a double bind. If the manager’s feedback amounts to handholding (highly specific, concrete and timely input) throughout the performance, you’ll get what you want—yet inhibit the learning. Alternatively, if you provide less frequent and specific feedback—no handholding—the result is often poorer practice, but better learning. That’s the result of the employees searching for action impacts.

What’s a manager to do?
In one word: reconnect. And go about it starting the next day. Look for some definite behaviors on which to give positive feedback. If she asks tough questions during a meeting, commend her for them. And use your smiley face on the person occasionally. Yeah, I know. You think she’ll view you as fake, but guess what? That rarely happens.

In your wandering about the office, you can also check in on personal matters.  “How was your son’s basketball game?” “Did your daughter hear back from her college application, yet?”

After giving tough feedback, the key issue is to be sure to connect with the employee and rebuild the relationship. Take action until you’re certain the employee is comfortable continuing the relationship with you.

Flickr photo: by Daniel Bachhuber