Ross Gittins is a columnist with the Sydney Morning Herald. I find he often makes a lot of sense. On June 8, 2009 he wrote an article talking about the effect of personality on markets. He cites research by Bruno Frey in Zurich that suggests that happiness is often based on “unrealistic optimism and unrealistic perceptions of control”. People with these traits are better able to adjust to difficult situations often by just ignoring evidence that is contrary to their view. Sound familiar? It will to anybody who’s ever put together a business plan or maybe even those who’ve applied for a mortgage that’s a bit bigger than they can manage.
In fact most of the advances in a capitalist market system are based on somebody’s unrealistic expectations. Such people are optimistic, have high self-esteem, welcome change and are enthusiastic. And the usual culprits are the Extraverts with low Emotionality. Go into the Mergers and Acquisitions specialists. They are full of people like this. They can always see (and explain with conviction) that merging Company A with Company B is the most obviously brilliant idea in a century. Can’t go wrong! Look at the synergies!
So how come so many mergers fail? They hardly ever deliver what was promised and in many cases the organisations would have delivered higher returns had the companies been left separate. Run a Google search for it – it makes interesting reading. And keep it in mind the next time you have a brainwave. Are your projections sensible or are they underpinned by a large chunk of wishful thinking? If you’re an Introvert with a healthy chunk of Emotionality then you might be more worth listening to than the super confident Extravert. Trouble is – he tells it and sells it better!
About Norman Buckley
Read articles by Norman Buckley
Let’s talk about belief. Not who you believe. Not what you believe. But why you believe. Bob sends me emails. Not because I want them but because Bob thinks I want them. In fact he’s certain I want them. Bob works for the government. He can’t say too much about what he does but he is able to say just enough to seem mysterious. And he knows lots of things. That he can’t tell me. I know that because he told me so. He knows about a secret program to create anti-gravity. But he can’t tell me that.
Now when I write this it is blindingly obvious that Bob is mad. Barking mad. But when I’m with him he’s totally convincing. But why? Am I so easily lead? When I think about it there’s two things that Bob has working for him. Bob is simple. And Bob is certain. He lives in a world that is black and white and this makes things easy for him. People are either good (like him) or idiots (like quite a lot of others). He is not blinded by complexity. He doesn’t “think” something. He “knows” something. So when Bob tells you black is white you tend to believe him. If he says Obama is a known terrorist sympathizer and Moslem (which he has been known to say) then he says it with such clarity and certainty that I can imagine a lot of people would wonder if maybe Bob knows something they don’t. Maybe he’s right. Luckily I keep reminding myself that Bob is mad and this helps.
Now Bob probably isn’t much of a threat. He writes blogs and sends emails but other than that is pretty harmless. But what if he wasn’t? What if he was influential? Let’s take one example.
Imagine Bob as a witness. Witness credibility is a much-researched area and one key factor influencing it has been defined as “dynamism” which included assertiveness, forcefulness and strength. Another factor is “reliability” which includes being consistent and dependable. Bob is all of these. His clarity (“It was him!”), his certainty (“Yep – definitely him!”) and simplicity (“Nope – couldn’t have been anyone else – I’d know him anywhere”) is very convincing. Case closed! But remember, Bob is a mad. And his confidence that he’s right doesn’t change this.
In Facet5 terms we have at least three factors at work here. Bob has Will you can’t jump over. He’s pigheaded and argumentative. He’s arrogant and definite. Bob has very low Affection. He sees the world very simply. There’s two types of people and the accused is the wrong type so what else can you expect? And Bob has low Emotionality. He is utterly solid in his convictions. Completely lacking doubt. He knows what he saw. But as Dr Helen Paterson at the University of NSW recently said in an article: “… very, very confident witnesses can have very, very inaccurate memories”. (1)
So you can see the danger. This Facet5 combination is capable of enormous achievement. He speaks his mind, is certain and clear and is utterly convinced he’s right. But what if he’s wrong? Could his certainty blind him? How many people are behind bars because of the Bob’s of the world? The actual number of wrongful convictions is not known. But if Bob (and his mates) only influenced 10% of these that would mean 100,000 people in the US alone each year who should not have been convicted. Judges and lawyers are taught (not always successfully – the police are still very keen on eyewitness statements) to watch for Bob. But do juries get the same advice? I doubt it. And of course Bob is much more convincing to some jurors than others. And the personality of jurors and the dynamics of juries is a whole different discussion.
(1) http://www.smh.com.au/national/total-recall–its-all-in-the-mind-20090211-84ro.html
“Maverick” was one of the best books I have read on management, business and so on. It’s written by Ricardo Semler, the heir to a massive Brazilian company and should be compulsory reading for anybody either trying to manage a business or advising others who are doing so. There are many jewels of wisdom in it but while listening to the furious commentary about executive pay I am reminded of one.
Now it’s been a while since I read the book and my copy is still with whomever I lent it to (if you’ve got it can I have it back please?) but I recall a story he tells of a meeting soon after he took over as head of Semco, the family conglomerate. I’ve always thought it would be fun to have a family conglomerate but apparently there are problems associated with it. One was presented to Semler by a very senior executive (previously close to Semler’s father) who felt that due to the combination of increased pressure of work, massively heightened level of responsibility and the fact that it was his birthday and there was an R in the month he needed a hefty pay rise. Those of you in the financial services sector will know the feeling.
So he popped in to see the newly appointed Semler Junior to suggest that the young lad should just sign it all off and they’d all be happy. Apparently young Ricardo said he fully understood, stated that the exec would be in a better position to know what was fair and that as far as he (Ricardo) was concerned there was no issue. Whatever he wanted. Only one small request. Ricardo suggested that the Senior man should just run it by his staff. All of them. And explain why he felt the umpteen trillion Reais increase was needed. In fact was only fair. He was sure they would understand. Even those about to be laid off. This was the beginning of what Semler espoused – open management. Sounds simple now but was a bombshell then. In Brazil.
Not sure is changed a lot since. And not just in Brazil. When a new CEO is appointed, how much say does the company at large have in the deal? When bonuses are allocated, who does the allocation? And how? How different would it be if CEO packages did have to be run by the stakeholders? And not just the toothless way it happens now but by stakeholders with teeth. What would happen if they could actually say NO! Perhaps a bit less secrecy combined with a few rules about requiring democracy might make a difference. This is low Control Leadership. Not abrogation of responsibility but the fierce imposition and defence of individual rights. So if I want to roll over the top of you all and keep all the apples for myself then that’s fine providing you know about it and have agreed. I suspect you would see some quite different contracts being written. Not necessarily making people poorer but making rewards strictly contingent on success. Oh and while we’re about it how about allowing everybody in on the act.
I’ve seen this working in practice twice. The first time was a team leader in a pharmaceutical company who was told she’d done really well and so was in line for a bonus. She said it was a team effort. So her boss said OK, you’ve got $X to share around. You decide who gets what. Feeling uncomfortable with this she went to her team, put the money on the table (figuratively) and asked them how they wanted to split it. They thought she should have the bulk and divided the balance up between them amicably. Her next leadership 360 was outstanding.
A couple of years ago my daughter was asked to deliver some flyers for our local vet. Thousands of them. She enlisted some help from two friends but the help was not that helpful. Daughter ended up doing most of the work. The vet then handed over $100. Daughter was in a quandary. She thought she should give over $33.33 to each but then she also thought that wasn’t fair. So I suggested she take the money to school, call a team meeting and put the money on the table (real money this time). And ask how to split it. Friends immediately said “you did most of the work. You take $60 and we’ll take $20 each.” Done and dusted in minutes and everybody left feeling fairly treated.
So there you are. Openness does work. But we’re just not used to it.
NLB
According to The Sydney Morning Herald on Feb18 (although I think they picked it up from the Guardian) we might wait a while for a hero to come along. Apparently they’ve just come to the conclusion that “heroes are born not made”. This is based on some groundbreaking research on soldiers (isn’t it great to have soldiers as subjects? They just have to do what they are told. Way more fun than the rats we had to work with who were just plain argumentative). Deane Aikins at Yale has found that some soldiers were able to cope with high stress situations much more easily than others. And he found it was linked to a number of good things happening in the brain. Specifically he found that they had lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol than most. They also had more neuropeptide Y which is a neurotransmitter (remember neurotransmitters? They’re the fancy substances that move signals across the synapses. Remember synapses? No? Ok forget about it. Trust me on this?) and this is a good thing because neuropeptide Y dampens the effect of the cortisol. So if you are under stress this is good. OK now Deane’s work is pretty hard core. But essentially he says that in people who do suffer this PTSD and other types of stress reaction there is difference in the amount of a number of chemicals zipping around the brain. (Oh and by the way women suffer PTSD at about twice the rate for men.) So this is now published and reckoned to be kosher. And full marks to Deane and his colleagues. Brilliant stuff. But let’s go back to the way this has been reported.
The main theme of the reporting is that: “Hey! Some people are cooler than others under stress!” Wow. Ring the bells. Now say if it’s just me but isn’t this another wonderful bit of reporting from the school of the bleeding obvious? The fact that people differ in their reactions to stressful situations has been known for generations. Deane’s work is an advance because he started to see a neurological link but the fundamentals have been there for ages. Which is why people selecting for Air Traffic Controllers, Airline Pilots, Special services personnel and so on have actually looked for people with lower Emotionality. Now we haven’t had access to the sophisticated scanning devices used by Deane and his mates but we’ve certainly been able to make a guess at it using psychometric tools that measure Emotionality (Neuroticism).
So maybe we shouldn’t be hugely surprised when Chesley Sullenberger managed to glide a dead aircraft onto the Hudson River. He was obviously a wonderful pilot but I bet he was also very low on Emotionality. Have you listened to his discussion with the tower? Look up his interviews. He’s steady and dispassionate. He’s exactly what you would want flying your plane in those circumstances. He describes the situation totally objectively. According to CBS NEWs he radios Air Traffic Control to look at options and then says “We’re gonna be in the Hudson”. He is described as “Calm and matter of fact”. His voice “never wavered”. Not sure I’d be so cool. And I bet his cortisol had disappeared and his neuropeptide Y was in overdrive to keep him that cool.
So let’s get the message out. People are different. Some people are better at some things than others. Sometimes it’s because they’re taller or stronger or faster. Sometimes it’s because they are smarter. And sometimes its because their hormones and neurotransmitters work differently. And that is what psychology is about.
So who caused this GFC (Global Financial Crisis)? Most fingers point at the financial wizards and it’s hard to argue against that. Many years ago a global investment bank used Facet5 and we had consistent pictures of very low Affection and Control. Lots of Will and Energy. Classic Promoters so the term self-advancing risk-takers would not be inappropriate. And this was the London team. This was in 1987, the height of the greedy 1980’s and when the movie Wall Street came out. I remember watching the movie one night and not knowing whether to be appalled at the antics of Gordon Gekko (or is it Gecko – oh no wait. That’s a lizard but I can see where the confusion arises). But a good movie nevertheless even if you wouldn’t want those people to exist in real life..
The very next day my client announced that they had the Facet5 profiles for their New York office. Ye Gods! The London office were pussycats by comparison. They were the most extreme Promoters I’ve ever seen in one place. And with very low Emotionality so there’s no self doubt to dampen the utter conviction that they own the world and that the rest of us are only there to provide them with a feeding ground.
Now this company was pretty smart when it came to management so they knew that these people needed a management style and reward structure that befitted their hard charging style. It should reward individual performance (and slap down failure) and should require a minimum of management control. Their director said that he didn’t believe in planning. The world was in a state of flux and you couldn’t predict anything. He believed in management by cata strophe theory. After all these people are best when left to self manage aren’t they? Alan Greenspan was convinced. And we didn’t hear Ben Bernanke gainsaying it. So we had a bunch of self-advancing people, given the keys to the vault and encouraged to play around and to stretch the boundaries at all times. How could it go wrong? Even Bernanke said recently that he was amazed that it didn’t work. Why? It was entirely predictable.
So what happened? I’m reminded of someone who worked for Mars confectionary in the 1990’s. He was a strong Promoter. He might have done well on Wall Street. But he worked for Mars which had a reputation for being pretty controlling in the way they did business. I asked him what it was like for someone of his freewheeling style. Didn’t he feel constrained? He said it was like being a cow in the biggest field of lucerne (alfalfa) you’ve ever seen. You can eat as much as you want in any direction. But just out of sight there’s an electric fence. One step too far and you get zapped. Forest and John Mars were always there. Somewhere. And that was what kept people in check. Problem with Wall Street was there were no electric fences. Or if there were, you could just pick them up and move them around a bit if they weren’t convenient.
So it’s all gone belly up and were sad for the super rich who’ve been brought back to being only rich. Actually we’re not. They’ll be fine. If you drop back from a Lambo to an Audi you can still get by. But we are sad for the many who will suffer because of the actions of these people. So that’s got the blame firmly allocated. Clearly not our fault. Although maybe we could have been a bit more outspoken at the time. Or were we, too, seduced by the apparent easy money? How many of us have bought a house or car that we probably couldn’t afford at the time but thought it was ok. We’ll grow into it. And mostly we did. Until now.
So who do you back to come back first? Well if it was the low Control, High Energy, High Will people who got into this situation then perhaps it will be the others who get us out. I recently travelled to Singapore and Hong Kong to catch up. Singapore has huge rescue packages in place and government spending is through the roof. Same in Australia. China claims that they are on the way out of the crisis (to be confirmed) and reports that some raw materials prices are increasing rapidly which is good news if you are a commodities exporter. Those who were accused of being conservative in the past are being feted now. A North American financial services company with a reputation for conservatism is now expanding significantly in HK.
So on the basis of the Facet5 economic recovery indicator (the Snapshot of National Character) you’d be backing the Asians (Hong Kong, Singapore, China, Malaysia and India) along with Australia and Canada. You’d be a bit nervous about UK, Japan and Ireland and you’d drop Netherlands, Germany, Norway and Denmark like a hot cake. Japan and Korea? They’ve got the cautious style that might work but they are both highly Emotional. The concern is that they will turn inwards and become overly self-protective.
So there it is. Now we just wait and see what actually happens.
NLB
Emotional Labour
July 24th, 2009 Posted by: Norman BuckleyEmotional labour refers to the degree to which your work requires you to respond to the feelings and emotions of other people. For example fixing a broken car probably doesn’t require much “Emotional Labour” - the car probably doesn’t care very much how you feel or how you react. (Those of us who remember the days of “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” need to settle down. I’m making a point here.) On the other hand having to explain to the car’s owner why it was necessary to replaced everything from the headlights back might require you to adjust your behaviour to your customer. That’s when emotional labour becomes important. Some people will do that part of the role better.
But Emotional labour is also split up into “deep acting ” and “surface acting”. Surface acting probably not that long lasting such as “Have a nice day”. Deep acting is more intense. That is when you have to try and understand what is going on with the client and how they are feeling. And then you need to modify your behaviour to show you really do understand. Being a counselor is a pretty obvious example.
One of the leading researchers in this interesting area is Professor Timothy Judge. What Judge and his colleagues have found is that emotional labour of both sorts tends to lead to increased emotional exhaustion and negative affect. And this is more so for Introverts than Extraverts. And Judge goes on to suggest that “deep acting”, while funnily enough it doesn’t link strongly to job satisfaction, is a more intense experience for Extraverts. Both positive and negative. He sees this as in keeping with general theory of extraversion which suggests that extraverts respond more to both positive and negative experiences than Introverts and that this may explain in part why they gravitate to those roles requiring a lot of social contact. They generally respond better to both the ups and downs of such situations and, more importantly, are “better able to handle the emotional demands that such roles impose”.
From a Facet5 perspective this has obvious implications. If you are designing an Audition template perhaps you need to consider the amount of “Emotional labour” required. If it’s higher then look towards more extraverted (higher Energy) people. But is it just Energy? The links to positive and negative affect might suggest that Emotionality has some part to play. But how? High, Low, in the middle? And what about Affection? We once worked with a secret service organization and got talking to spies? Real spies! Many had very high Affection. And a common complaint was how hard it was to “live a lie”. They fully understood what they were asked to do and why it was necessary for the greater good that they assumed a “role” but this role was not “them”. And over time this became unbearable. This would have to be very deep acting and it would not be surprising if it caused longer term stress and unhappiness.
Judge’s study can be found at “IS EMOTIONAL LABOR MORE DIFFICULT FOR SOME THAN FOR OTHERS? A MULTILEVEL, EXPERIENCE-SAMPLING STUDY”, Judge, Timothy A, Woolf, Erin Fluegge, Hurst, Charlice, Personnel Psychology, 2009, vol 62, pp57-88.
You can also find a complete reprint at http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/operations-customer/12275070-1.html
Tags: Facet5
Posted in Comment, Everything Else!, Facet5 2 Comments