On Monday August 21 workers across the United States will take vacation days, mental health days, “sick” days, or long lunches to witness one of the greatest spectacles to be seen from Earth, a total eclipse of the sun. Many will be disappointed as clouds obscure the event, but those unobscured by clouds in the 60-mile wide path of the moon's shadow will experience an event unlike any other.

In my blogs I share practical implications of academic research on leadership, management, and the workplace and add a few take-aways of my own. This blog is different. 
 
In 1991 my friend Richard Bilodeau and I backpacked up Mauna Loa on the Big Island of Hawaii to see a total eclipse of the sun. The beginning of our adventure is told here at this website. Our adventure continues in our Kindle e-story, Miracle at Red Hill: A Solar Eclipse Adventure. It is the story of our climb up the volcano and Richard's experience of the eclipse. It is Richard’s story. He was at Red Hill; I was farther up the trail at Fire Hill. 
 
On the morning of the 1991 eclipse I sat on the ledge of a 1984 lava flow just off the Mauna Loa trail. The sky at 12,000 feet was clear with just a few high cirrus clouds. In the distance far beyond, a layer of clouds was stealing the eclipse from the lower altitudes. It was a little after 6:00 a.m. I fired up my Peak 1 backpacking stove, made a pot of coffee, and settled in. Everything was perfect. I had expected to watch the eclipse in solitude in a volcanic wilderness.
 
Around 6:15 I heard a voice calling “John, John, is that you?”
 
Fifty yards or so in front of me standing in the middle of the lava flow was a park ranger, then another. They figured I’d have a great place from which to view the eclipse and wanted to join me. In the hour leading up to totality, I shared my welder’s glass #14 with the park rangers. We watched as the moon slowly devoured the sun. By 7:15 the mountain air was much cooler; the sky, much darker. Five minutes to totality I began searching the sky earnestly for any sign of the umbra, the moon’s shadow.
 
I was terribly excited, even anxious. I had never seen a total eclipse of the sun. My heart pounded. About a minute before totality I could see a deep blue shadow stretched across the dim sky. The umbra was falling from the sky! As it fell, it got darker and wider and fell faster and faster. I knew what I was seeing and I was still fearful. On the western horizon toward the summit, framed by indigo tinted with a deep green, a wall of darkness, like a massive black curtain, was racing toward us faster than the mind can comprehend. In an instant we were in the shadow. Turning toward the sun, we saw Baily’s Beads, then the Diamond Ring. There was a hole in the sky with a dancing, shimmering corona. The park ranger of Japanese ancestry yelled, "Yattaaaaaa!"  We were full of pure joy.
 
I later explained to my friend Richard, “Strangely I felt a connection to people through the ages who have stood in the shadow of the moon. I don’t know why. It was as if I were participating in a sacred ritual that had been passed down for millennia.”
 
I became totally absorbed by everything I could see, and not see. The universe seemed to flow through me. I was so happy I cried. I had to wipe away tears to see the eclipse. It may have been the longest yet shortest four minutes of my life. The eclipse was majestic, absolutely majestic. I completely forgot I had binoculars, such was the moment.
 
Best wishes for Monday, August 21. When the eclipse is partial, you MUST protect your eyes with solar filters, solar glasses, or welder’s glass. But should you be so fortunate as to stand in the shadow of the moon during totality, bask in the glory above. 
 
Image, “1991 Solar Eclipse,” from my collection of photos.
 
Both image and this blog © John Ballard, PhD, 2017. All rights reserved.
 
Co-Author, Miracle at Red Hill: A Total Solar Eclipse Adventure.
 
Author, Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
Please visit www.decodingtheworkplace.com.

Mindfulness, meaning, engagement, and employee happiness are terms encountered with increasing frequency in management and business articles. Probably related to each of these is a concept rarely mentioned: self-compassion. How do you feel about yourself? You may show compassion to others but do you show compassion to yourself? If you backed your car into a garage post, how would you feel? Dr. Kristin Neff, a leading scholar and researcher of self-compassion, offers an online test to determine how self-compassionate we are.
 
Several years ago I blogged about self-compassion and Dr. Neff’s work. From her website: “Self-compassion means you are kind and understanding when confronted with personal failings” and has three elements:

• Being kind to ourselves: Be “warm and understanding toward ourselves when we suffer, fail, or feel inadequate, rather than ignoring our pain or flagellating ourselves with self-criticism.” 
• Accepting our common humanity: Recognize that “suffering and personal inadequacy is part of the shared human experience – something that we all go through rather than being something that happens to ‘me’ alone.”  
• Being mindful: Observe one’s “thoughts and feelings as they are, without trying to suppress or deny them,” being non-judgmental.

I was reminded of the importance of self-compassion while reading the May/June issue of Explore. Dr. Roberto Benzo and colleagues reported a questionnaire study of 400 healthcare workers examining the relationships among self-compassion and a variety of other measures, such as happiness, mindfulness, stress, and exercise. They found:

• self-compassion was highly related to happiness (r = .63)
• “self-compassion was associated with decreased feelings of isolation”
• accepting our humanity and being mindful were “the most predictive of happiness”
• Self-compassion had a far greater impact on happiness than exercise.

My take-aways:
 
1. The study by Benzo and associates was at one hospital. It would be interesting to compare employees at different organizations using the same measures, that is self-compassion, happiness, and such, but add measures for engagement, job satisfaction, and customer satisfaction. My guess is organizations with employees who score higher on self-compassion would also be score higher on engagement and organizationally customer satisfaction would be greater.
 
2. This study and others underscore the value of self-compassion and mindfulness training in corporate settings. While such training may seem “touchy-feely,” the potential to affect the bottom-line and customer care may be significant.
 
3. I recommend spending some time at Dr. Neff’s self-compassion website. Watch videos and listen to the exercises. Take time to take care of you.
 
Benzo, R. P., Kirsch, J. L., & Nelson, C. (2017). Compassion, mindfulness, and the happiness of healthcare workers. Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, 13(3), 201-206.
 
Neff, K. (2017) Self-compassion. http://self-compassion.org
 
Image, “Garage Post.”  © John Ballard, 2017
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author, Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
Please visit www.decodingtheworkplace.com.

Would you work late alone with someone of the opposite sex?  Would you have dinner alone with a co-worker of the opposite sex? The New York Times published the results of a survey online July 1, “It’s Not Just Mike Pence. Americans Are Wary of Being Alone With the Opposite Sex,” and in print July 2, “When Job Puts Sexes Together, Workers Cringe.” Over 1200 people have commented online.
 
Morning Consult surveyed over 5000 people. Women were asked “Is it appropriate or inappropriate to do the following activities alone with a man who is not your spouse? Having a drink, having dinner, having lunch, driving in a car, having a work meeting.” Men were asked the same, “With a woman who is not your spouse?” I do not know if the data were adjusted for sexual preference. The findings:

• Inappropriate to have a drink alone with opposite sex: 48% (men); 60% (women)
• Inappropriate to have dinner alone with opposite sex: 45% (men); 53% (women)
• Inappropriate to have lunch alone with opposite sex: 36% (men); 44% (women)
• Inappropriate to drive in a car alone with opposite sex: 29% (men); 38% (women)
• Inappropriate to have a work meeting alone with opposite sex: 22% (men); 25% (women)

 
From the print article by Claire Cain Miller:

• “Men and women still don’t seem to have figured out how to work or socialize together.”
• “Many men and women are wary of one-on-one situations”
• “(Women) are treated differently not just on the golf course or in the boardroom, but in daily episodes large and small, at work and in their social lives.”
• “When men avoid solo interactions with women – a catch-up lunch or late night finishing a project – it puts women at a disadvantage.”

 
The sociologist Robert Bell (1981) wrote about cross-sex friendships:

• “Over the years probably the most universal restriction on friendships has been to limit them to persons of the same sex.” (p. 95)
• “a greater number of cross-sex friends were reported by persons in white-collar occupations and with some college education” (p. 102)
• “If one believes it is wrong, shameful, or threatening to become friends with the opposite sex, then the chances of doing so become seriously restricted.” (p. 103)
• “The power and pervasiveness of the sexual dimension in cross-sex relationships is the result of social conditioning from an early age.”
• Many believe “mild sexual feeling for one another” will create problems.
• Others see sexuality “as an uncontrollable drive, which is a gross exaggeration.” (p. 108)

 
Kim Elsesser and Letitia Anne Peplau (2006) researched the difficulties of building cross-sex friendships at work and how this can impact careers.  They call these barriers to cross-sex friendships “the glass partition.” The impact is less for men in female-dominated organizations than for women in male-dominated organizations. From Elsesser and Peplau:

• “those not able to form friendships are at a career disadvantage”
• “Friends (provide) information access, work-related assistance . . (and) psychological support”
• “relationship with those more senior . . (can) be valuable to the careers of junior employees”
• “A preference for same-sex friendships restricts an individual’s pool of potential friends.”
• “Increased awareness of sexual harassment with organizations may impact cross-sex friendship development.”
• “The glass partition may differentially disadvantage women who work in predominantly male organizations.” 

 
Women in the Workplace 2016 is a report by LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Company. It describes the uneven playing field for women and recommends (p. 18) companies:

• “make a compelling case for gender diversity”
• “ensure that hiring, promotions, and reviews are fair”
• “invest in more employee training”
• “focus on accountability and results” 

The report does not address the glass partition.
 
My take-aways:
 
1.  I find the New York Times survey discouraging. I concur with Elsesser and Peplau that difficulties in creating and maintaining cross-sex friendships in the workplace can limit co-workers helping and supporting each other. The “glass partition” probably explains at least in part the “glass ceiling.”
 
2. For some, cross-sex friendships may be difficult but what is the alternative? My guess is the glass partition contributes to issues for women in many workplaces, and probably is a major factor affecting women in STEM careers. Women need men as partners in the workplace and vice versa. So much of what is accomplished in the workplace is done informally. And it is through interactions such as lunches, dinners, meetings, and such that we learn about each other and build trust.
 
3.  In my opinion the glass partition is a larger and more intractable issue than the glass ceiling. It is more subtle and part of our sex role development from childhood. We make progress by recognizing problems and then finding solutions. Is the glass partition inherent or can we create cultures where we work truly as equals?
 
4. Where are we today? In reading the comments to the New York Times article, I think Patrick from Oregon summed it up:
“Probably too simplistic, but I suspect that the bottom line is this:
1. For women, it's concern, or fear, about harassment, or worse.
2. For men, it's fear of false accusation and litigation."
 
Bell, R. R. (1981). Worlds of friendship. Sage Publications.
Cooper, M., Epstein, B., Finch, A., Konar, E., Krivkovich, A., Kutcher, E., Thomas, R., & Yee, L. (2016). Women in the Workplace 2016. LeanIn.Org & McKinsey&Company.
Elsesser, K., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). The glass partition: Obstacles to cross-sex friendships at work. Human Relations, 59(8), 1077-1100.
Miller, C. C., (July 1, 2017).  “It’s Not Just Mike Pence. Americans Are Wary of Being Alone With the Opposite Sex.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/upshot/members-of-the-opposite-sex-at-work-gender-study.html?
 
Image, “Woman in Black Suit Jacket Facing Man In Blue Denim.”  Obtained from https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-in-black-suit-jacket-facing-man-in-blue-denim-dress-shirt-same-standing-165907/  No permission required. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author, Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
Please visit www.decodingtheworkplace.com.

We have heard “don’t judge a book by its cover” but we are innately primed to do so in our interactions with others. Understanding how we perceive faces and how those perceptions can affect hiring, leading, and our workplace interactions is very important. The June 2017 issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science is a special issue devoted to face perception. Here I share information I gleaned from several of the articles.
 
Importance of the face

• “The face is typically the first thing that people notice when encountering another individual.” (Rule, 211)
• “Faces can signal behavioral intentions and internal mental and emotional states.” (Rule, 211)
• “The human face transmits a wealth of signals that readily provide crucial information for social interactions.” (Caldera, 249)
• “No other stimulus conveys such rich information in so finite a space.” (Adams, Albohn, & Kveraga, 243) 

Social categorizing (Rule & Sutherland)

• “Faces contain many informative cues that people use to infer each other’s characteristics, making them arguably the most dominant and fruitful means through which people perceive each other and categorize individuals into groups.” (231)
• “Evidence moreover suggests that perceivers categorize others into social groups unintentionally upon seeing their faces.” (231)
• Big three social categories: age, race, sex
• But we also categorize or make inferences on more subtle characteristics such as sexual orientation.
• “People use the same facial features to stereotype and form prejudiced beliefs about others as they do to categorize them.” (233)
• These categorizations and stereotypes can affect hiring decisions and how people interact.

First impressions (Zebrowitz)

• “Impressions from faces are fast and automatic.” (Zebrowitz, 237)
• First impressions “can lead to inaccurate impressions of people’s psychological traits and has significant social consequences.” (237)
• Four main dimensions of first impressions from facial cues: warmth/trustworthiness & power/dominance
• Impact of perceived central traits: perceive warmness, perceived more positively in spite of negative information; perceive coldness, perceived more negatively.
• People prefer faces “they have seen before” or “similar to previously seen ones.” (238)

Eyes (Adams, Albohn, & Kveraga)

• “Eyes represent the most dynamic and richly informative social stimulus we encounter in our daily lives.” (244)
• “The eyes produce some of the most genuine, dynamic, and socially relevant signals we use to perceive those around us.” (244)
• “We are more sensitive to eye movements than to head movements or postural behaviors.” (244)

Culture (Caldara)

• There are some cultural differences in facial processing, contrary to what social scientists previously thought.
• Westerners (Europe and American cultures): fixate on eye and mouth regions
• Easterners (China, Korea, Japan): more global face processing
• For determining emotions: Westerners, mouth; Easterners: eyes

Leadership (Antonakis & Eubanks)

• “Facial appearance should play a small or a very limited role in observers’ selection of leaders; however, research convincingly shows otherwise.” (270)
• The more distant the potential leader and the less information we have, the more we rely on facial characteristics for judgments about “character and competence.” (270)
• “Appearance plays a significant role in being selected as a leader  . . . and being paid a higher salary.” (272) 

My take-aways:
 
1.  Perceptions based on facial characteristics occur quickly. First impressions may be wrong. Knowing this, we can try to guard against prematurely reaching conclusions. This possible bias underscores the need for objective measures in hiring and promotions.
 
2.  Research suggests there are some cultural differences in how we process facial characteristics. This is useful information not only for interactions in other countries but also at work with people of different ethnicities.
 
3.  This issue suggests that we infer integrity, confidence, and such from facial characteristics, rightly or wrongly. As followers we look to our leaders for these qualities. My guess is perceived facial characteristics will continue to play a role in leader selection, given human nature. However, organizations might be wise to make corrective actions should the selected leader not be able to provide the leadership needed.
 
Adams, R. B., Jr., Albohn, D. N. & Kveraga, K. (2017) Social vision: applying a social-functional approach to face and expression perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(3), 243-248.
Antonakis, J., & Eubanks, D. L. (2017) Looking leadership in the face. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(3), 270-275.
Caldara, R. (2017) Culture reveals a flexible system for face processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(3), 249-255. 
Rule, N. O. (2017) Introduction to the special issue on face perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(3), 211.
Rule, N. O., & Sutherland, S. L. (2017) Social categorization from faces: evidence from obvious and ambiguous groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(3), 231-236.
Zebrowitz, L. A. (2017) First impressions from faces. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(3), 237-242.
 
Image, “Luther Ballard,” from my collection of family photos.
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author, Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
Please visit www.decodingtheworkplace.com.

oGreat leadership can be the catalyst to great success. In the National Basketball Association, the Golden State Warriors have earned the NBA Championship two of the past three years. Last year LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers demonstrated incredible leadership in rallying his team down 3 games to 1 to defeat the Warriors 4-3. But Steve Kerr, head coach of the Warriors, exemplifies the characteristics of leadership that could elevate the performance of many organizations.
 
Kerr was absent during most of the championship playoffs due to his recovering from back surgery. But as Chris Ballard (no relation) wrote in the May 29 issue of Sports Illustrated, “No Coach, No Problem.” Ballard’s article provided insight into Kerr’s leadership style, illuminating characteristics of outstanding leaders:

• Respect. Great leaders earn respect and respect others. Players and other coaches respect Coach Kerr highly.
• It’s not about you. When you make a moment about you and not the team or the organization, you start to lose them. It is always about them, about those you lead. Kerr allowed Sports Illustrated only one photo of himself.
• Humility and compassion. Kerr: “The people to me who are the most powerful leaders are the ones who have great talent in whatever their field is, great conviction in their ability to teach it and act it, but an awareness and a humility and compassion for others” (p. 30)
• Nurture freedom, build trust. Coach Kerr has built a culture where players are participants willing to share ideas. It’s not “my way or the highway” but the opposite. The players trust each other and the coaches and vice versa.
• Empower. Kerr’s leadership is highly participative, not hierarchical. Regardless of minutes played, every player is part of the process, the flow, and ready to step up when called.
• Grit. Out of high school Kerr only had one scholarship to a major college basketball program. Ballard noted that as an NBA player for 15 seasons, Kerr only started 30 games. Success goes to those who persevere.
• Communicate. Kerr has conversations with players where as he puts it, he may “overcommunicate” and sometimes he writes notes to players. Players know where they stand; what they need to do to improve.
• Know your people. Warrior player Draymond Green: “he knows me . . . That’s his thing. He has this feel for exactly what each player needs” (p.32).
• Perspective: Kerr: “Take things seriously, but not yourself.”
• Live your core values: Kerr: “What I learned from all the coaches I talked to was that your entire process has to reflect your core values” (p. 34). Kerr’s core values: joy, competition, compassion, mindfulness.

Chris Ballard summed up Kerr’s leadership as follows: "You want to lead like Kerr? Just be humble and grateful, curious and self-aware. Communicate, value family and empower others. When bad things happen, keep a broader perspective. Most of all, create something bigger than yourself  . . .  the real test of a leader is what happens once they leave” (p. 35).
 
My take-aways:
 
1. A great article with good insights for all who choose to lead. My opinion is that allowing your core values to be reflected in your work may be problematic in some organizations. If your core values as a leader do not align with the core values of the organization, then living those core values may be tough. It happens. Sometimes the core values of an organization are not the espoused values.
 
2.  Organizational culture is key. Trust is bedrock for a healthy culture. Kerr trusts and listens. Show me a culture where there are high levels of trust, I expect to see a successful organization with engaged employees. Show me a culture where there are low levels of trust, I expect disengaged employees. Trust starts at the top.
 
3. I really like Chris Ballard’s summary of how to lead like Steve Kerr. Kerr learned much from Gregg Popovich, President and Head Coach of the San Antonio Spurs. Kerr and Popovich are great leaders from whom many can learn.

Ballard, C. (2017, May 29). "No coach, no problem." Sports Illustrated, 126 (15), 28-35. 
 
Image, “Steve Kerr,” by Keith Allison.
Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steve_Kerr_(16453076458)_cropped.jpg
Used with  permission:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en 

© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
I am very grateful to Coach Popovich for endorsing my book Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
Please visit www.decodingtheworkplace.com.

What advice would you give young adults just starting their careers? This is a challenge this time of year for commencement speakers across the nation. As a professor I have heard many speeches and a few have been memorable. I do not remember what Neil Armstrong said but I do remember staring at his shoes and wondering which foot was the first foot on the moon. It was the left.
 
Wendy Lea, CEO of Cintrifuse in Cincinnati, spoke recently at commencement at Mount St. Joseph University. Lea’s career path as an entrepreneur is stellar and inspiring. She was exceptionally well qualified to share her wisdom. Here are a few gems from my notes of her speech. (Any errors are mine.)

• “Business is an art.”
• “Accept responsibility for your whole self.”
• “Stay in a beginner’s mind.”
• “Define your North Star.” Know what is pulling you. This will help you focus.
• “Know what you stand for.” Emerge yourself in learning new skills, developing new points of view, and build the platform that is you.
• “Embrace relationships.”
• “Nothing is more magical than sharing.”
• “Respect impermanence.”
• “Keep your windows open and the wind in your face.”
• “Expose yourself to big, hairy problems.”
• “All jobs are temporary.”

 
My take-aways:
 
1. Wendy Lea spoke from an outstanding career of creating and building. Each of the gems listed here could be a key theme for a speech or book chapter. I found each point right on the mark. This was very sound advice for starting a career and addressing life.
 
2. I loved the phrase “Nothing is more magical than sharing.” Through our words and deeds we carry each other, support each other, and open doors.
 
3. As I reflected on Lea’s words, I was moved to verse:

Ever think about the different ways people respond to similar circumstances? I have. Last year I faced major surgery. People assumed I was fearful. Even though there was risk, I was optimistic. I had a great surgeon at a great hospital. I was mentally, physically, and spiritually ready. I dealt with those aspects I could control.
 
Michael Aquilino posed this question in his 2016 article on resilience published in the journal Explore. Why is it that some people can take the difficult experiences of work and life and roll with them, even gain strength from them, while others are overwhelmed and deeply stressed. He suggested a major factor in the quality of “one’s life experience” is resilience.
 
He offered these questions for the reader to ponder:

• “In your day-to-day, week-to-week, or month-to-month, do you find yourself unable to catch-up or get ahead?”
• “Are you ever anxious or worried?”
• “Do you feel overwhelmed more than not?”
• “How is your energy and spirit? Are they less than what you would like or hope?”

He suggested there are strategies we can employ to deal better with difficult work and life events.
 
In times of adversity and challenge, what is your level of trust? Do you trust in your ability to overcome or bounce back? Do you trust in your ability to meet the challenge strongly, positively, regardless of the odds? Or do you “slide down the slippery slope of worry, anxiousness, upset, frustration, fear of letting others down, lost energy, unhappiness . . . and hopelessness” (p. 385).
 
So what to do? Here are some of Aquilino’s suggestions as I understand them:

• Build a framework. Be aware. Do you truly understand the circumstances? What can help you? What can’t? A framework helps us understand our choices and clarifies the actions we can take.
• Examine your own thoughts and behaviors (informed mindfulness). Have you given up, resigned yourself to the situation, said “why bother anymore?” Be sure that giving up is not a pattern by which you experience life.
• Dig deep and “remind yourself of the real, deeply personal reasons that you do what you do. It is not about motivation; it is about ‘sense of purpose’” (p. 386). Focus on that purpose as you work through adversity.
• Be accountable. Blaming events, others, etc., or making excuses risks credibility. Commit to choices that help you move forward.
• Recognize self-imposed limitations and then choose freedom. In the horrors of the concentration camp at Auschwitz, Viktor Frankl chose to experience wonder and great beauty in a magnificent sunset.
• Know that “You can’t worry enough to affect an outcome.” Don’t forget who you are, what you have achieved, how you have met difficulties.
• Keep a journal. Record your thoughts, what you are saying to yourself about your circumstances. After a while review your journal and look for themes, patterns. This may help you better see the choices you are making and perhaps alternatives.
• Ask yourself: “What is it that I don’t know that I need to know right now?”  What can be known? What can give you more control to deal with adversity?

 
My take-aways:
 
1. Aquilino nails it. So much of our experience at work and in life comes down to how we frame those experiences, how we give meaning as events unfold. People vary widely on how they respond to difficult situations and resilience is probably the biggest factor differentiating us.
 
2. Ultimately resilience is about how we come at life. This is a choice. Life can hand us hardship, heartbreak, and difficult circumstances in the extreme. I would not argue all can be overcome through resilience. I would argue that resilience makes a difference in the quality of life in tough circumstances, both ours and others.
 
3. I recommend journaling. Over months and years, and even decades, insights emerge that help in understanding one's self. Abraham Maslow started writing a journal later in life, in his 50s. It is never too late.
 
4. Want to be an even better leader? Journal. Learn from your thoughts and actions.
 
Aquilino, M. C. (2016). How strong is your “R factor”?  Explore, 12 (5), 385-387.
 
Image by Gerd Altmann.
Retrieved from: https://pixabay.com/en/despair-alone-being-alone-archetype-513528/
No permission required:  https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
Please visit www.decodingtheworkplace.com.

Servant leadership is often googled but rarely the subject of research studies. As I have reported, transformational leadership and servant leadership are the two most googled leadership theories. Looking at 12 years of published leadership studies, Dinh, Lord, and colleagues in 2014 found transformational leadership was the most studied (20%). On the other hand, servant leadership was the least studied (only 1% of published studies).
 
In a 2017 issue of Administrative Sciences, Martin Lacroix and Armin Pircher Verdorfer addressed one aspect of servant leadership. They noted that other researchers have found that servant leadership:

• is “positively related to service climate”
• shapes culture where people “prioritize the needs of others above their own”
• helps develop self-esteem and performance confidence in followers through empowerment and opportunities

 
Lacroix and Pircher Verdorfer focused on one effect of servant leaders on followers. Consistent with writings about servant leadership, they asked: Do servant leaders motivate in their followers a desire to lead? To answer this question they analyzed two waves of questionnaire data gathered from the health care industry in Germany. They predicted that servant leadership would be positively related to followers developing a greater desire to lead. Why? Because servant leaders display concern for others, ethical values, and desirable leadership qualities that followers should like to model.
 
The finding: If followers liked the idea of servant leadership as a leadership style, then they were more likely to want to be a leader. But if followers did not have servant leadership as their preferred leadership style, then they did not have a greater desire to lead. The researchers concluded:
 
“Indeed, in our data, followers seem to react somewhat cautiously to leaders who consistently place the good of followers over their own self-interests” (p. 8).
 
My take-aways:
 
1. Lacroix and Pircher Verdorfer tackled one tenet of servant leadership and illuminated the issue. Human behavior is complex. The effect of a servant leader on a follower depends on what the follower thinks of this approach. For those who believe self-interest is the primary motivator of behavior, the authenticity of a servant leader may be difficult to accept. This would make a good conversation topic over drinks with Adam Smith.
 
2. The authors did discuss the limitations of their study: one industry, self-report surveys, small sample size (between 200-300), one country. These are not unique to their study. Even so, every study contributes something, provides ideas on which others can build. Given the popularity of servant leadership, researchers are needed to build on this and other studies.
 
3. I expect the effectiveness of servant leadership is situational. The key is to identity through research the essential components that translate into practice such as:

• Treating people as assets.
• Helping followers grow.
• Providing opportunities
• Listening
• Placing service to others before self.

 
Lacroix, M., & Pircher Verdorfer, A. (2017). Can Servant Leaders Fuel the Leadership Fire? The Relationship between Servant Leadership and Followers’ Leadership Avoidance. Administrative Sciences, 7(1), 6.
  
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 36-62.
 
Image, "Leadership" by Transductrung2009
Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Followership.png
Used with permission:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
Please visit www.decodingtheworkplace.com, now with free resources.
 _________________________
"Decoding the Workplace: 50 Keys to Understanding People in Organizations is as informed and informative a read as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking. . . Decoding the Workplace should be considered critically important reading for anyone working in a corporate environment." —Midwest Book Review

Why is it so hard for us to change our opinions? You’ve done your research. You have the facts. You present your findings to your boss. She doesn’t change what she believes in spite of the evidence. Been there? Either as the employee or the boss?
 
In an entertaining and insightful article in Explore in 2016, Larry Dossey, MD, addresses why more knowledge does not necessarily mean better decisions. Here are several reasons why changing opinions might be difficult:

• Backfire. We form opinions from our beliefs, accepting evidence in agreement with those beliefs. This is known as confirmation bias. Backfire is confirmation bias in the extreme: Our opinion is proven wrong but we become more defensive and stick to our beliefs, arguing even more strongly for them. Instead of the evidence, the boss becomes even more entrenched.
• “I know I’m Right” Syndrome. Sometimes those who are most confident in their beliefs are the least informed. Research suggests they are also the least likely to accept new evidence.
• Insecurity. The more people are threatened by new evidence, the less likely they are to accept it.
• Negativity bias. In general we pay more attention to negative events than positive ones. Some of us pay a lot more attention to the negative and have a high negativity bias. People with a high negativity bias are more suspicious of new evidence and less likely to accept.
• Neophobia. Some people are fearful of anything new. Studies using rats have found “fearful” rats do not live as long as “brave” rats.

 
Dossey concluded: “Adhering to factual evidence and truth is not easy; the hidden persuaders are powerful, and it’s certain that all of us will occasionally succumb to them to some degree.” (p. 299)
 
My take-aways:
 
1. It’s a perceptual world. Usually evidence has to be interpreted. What does it mean? It is here leaders need to be open to different interpretations and not fall prey to biases such as those mentioned by Dossey.
 
2. Leaders should strive to be open-minded. This may be hard. On the path to leadership some things worked and others did not. It is easy to assume the things that worked always work. Be open and actively listen.
 
3. There are numerous problems we face in making decisions, some of which are inherent in how our mind processes information. To understand natural biases that arise out of how our minds work, I highly recommend Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow.
 
Larry Dossey (2016). Compasses, craziness, and the thieves of reason: How thinking goes wrong. Explore, 12(5), 295-301.
 
Image, "Evidence" by Nick Youngson.
Retrieved from: http://www.thebluediamondgallery.com/wooden-tile/e/evidence.html
Used with permission:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016, now with free resources at www.decodingtheworkplace.com
 _________________________
"Decoding the Workplace: 50 Keys to Understanding People in Organizations is as informed and informative a read as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking. . . Decoding the Workplace should be considered critically important reading for anyone working in a corporate environment." —Midwest Book Review

What makes your work meaningful? Are there common characteristics of meaningful work? Catherine Bailey (University of Sussex) and Adrian Madden (University of Greenwich) sought to answer this latter question in research reported in the MIT Sloan Management Review in 2016. For leaders and managers they listed “deadly sins” that destroy employee meaningfulness, which I discussed in a previous blog.
 
Bailey and Madden interviewed 135 people in the United Kingdom from many different occupations. Their research confirmed factors previously identified such as:

• sense of pride in work well done
• interesting, absorbing, or creative work
• recognition from others.

But they concluded these were not sufficient and identified “five unexpected features of meaningful work”:

1. Self-transcendent. Work is meaningful “when it mattered to others more than just to themselves.” For example, a garbage collector feeling value in knowing the trash he collected was being recycled, that he was making a small contribution to a better environment for others.
2. Poignant. Meaningful work is not necessarily associated with being engaged or happy. Challenging, even negative work experiences can hold rich significance, e.g., a nurse with a patient at the end of a life.
3. Episodic. Meaningfulness occurs in moments and comes and goes. In the midst of their work days people may not be conscious of the meaningfulness of work except when strong experiences occur that highlight that meaningfulness, e.g., a stonemason witnessing the unveiling of a structure he helped build. 
4. Reflective. “Meaningfulness was rarely experienced in the moment but rather in retrospect and on reflection . . .”  For example, a leader is about to turn off the lights after a business Christmas party, pauses, and then reflects on the great year that just passed and the achievements.
5. Personal. Meaningful work went beyond engagement or satisfaction at work and seemed more connected to life satisfaction and “personal life experiences.” For example, a musician was deeply moved when his father for the first time saw him perform in public.

Bailey and Madden concluded that it is a complex undertaking for organizations to help employees see work as meaningful, a much more difficult undertaking than increasing engagement or job satisfaction.
 
My take-aways:
 
1.  The five characteristics of meaningful work identified by Bailey and Madden were just one part of a much larger article. Even so, these characteristics deserve more discussion and research. Their research is descriptive based on interviews. Are there prescriptive ideas we can develop from their findings, suggestions that leaders may find helpful?
 
2. I agree that it is a difficult task to help employees see work as meaningful. But I am a tad more optimistic than the authors. Ultimately it is the individual who gives meaning to anything, including work. However, a leader can create an environment where meaningfulness is more easily seen, especially through words and actions that show connections of work to the bigger picture, words and actions of appreciation, words and actions that share the meaning the leader finds in the work being accomplished.
 
Bailey, C., & Madden, A. (2016). What makes work meaningful -- or meaningless. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(4), 53-61.
 
Image, "Waste collector at work in Nice (France)" by KevinB.
Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Waste_collector_in_Nice.JPG
Used with permission:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
 _________________________
"Decoding the Workplace: 50 Keys to Understanding People in Organizations is as informed and informative a read as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking. . . Decoding the Workplace should be considered critically important reading for anyone working in a corporate environment." —Midwest Book Review