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

​What are the most popular leadership theories?  In 2014 Jessica Dinh, Robert Lord and colleagues answered the question of which theories are most popular among researchers. Examining 12 years of studies published in academic journals, they found the most studied were:

• Transformational 20%
• Traits 16%
• Leader-exchange 15%

Among other theories were:

• Authentic leadership 4%
• Servant leadership 1%

But which were the most popular? To answer that question, in 2014 I did a google trend search and found servant leadership, one of the most popular theories, generated very little research. I discussed the Dinh et al. study and the results of my google trend search in a blog in September of 2014. It has been one of my most popular blogs.
 
I thought it would be interesting to update the google trend search. I used the time frame September 22, 2014, to March 15, 2017, across all categories, worldwide. Which are the most googled leadership theories? The results are shown here:

Organizations need leaders. How do we find them? How do we develop them? At one level we are still struggling with defining what leadership is, how it differs from management, and so forth. Professionals in disciplines such as management, human resources, and organizational behavior have varying perspectives but no clear answers. Consequently we may use different approaches to understanding “leadership.”
 
In a recent issue of The Leadership Quarterly, Michael Mumford and associates focus on problem-solving skills critical to leader performance. In an article rich in ideas and information they argued that effective “real world” leadership occurs in situations where the leader has knowledge, experience, and creativity nurtured through experience. Effective leaders may have seen it before, seen similar, and have mental maps that help them work through problem resolutions. They also have the abilities to see potential problems, alternative solutions, and can evaluate potential consequences. Mumford et al. identified nine cognitive skills critical to effective leader performance. Here are the nine skills. For each I have posed a question for leaders based on my reading.

• Identifying and defining problems.

         Do you actively seek or search for information, external and internal?

• Analyzing causes and goals to address problem.

         Can you identify the biggest actionable causes affecting the problem?

• Identifying constraints on solutions.

         Do you have a systems perspective? Can you perceive the constraints on problem solutions?

• Formulating realistic plans.

         Can you identify and sequence the tasks and resources to work the problem?

• Forecasting specific outcomes from plan execution

         How successful have you been in predicting outcomes in similar situations?

• Formulating solutions to pitfalls foreseen and not foreseen

         Can you find creative solutions when implementation issues arise?

• Evaluating alternative ways to implement plan.

         Are your decisions go-no-go or do you seek to improve alternatives?

• Evaluating alternatives in context of situation.

         Do you have the experience to consider aspects that only arise out of experience?

• Visioning and sensemaking in communicating with followers.

         Can you simply and effectively communicate the vision/plan?

Mumford and associates suggested that these cognitive skills critical to effective leadership can be improved by training programs and other organizational development interventions. Additionally they may provide the foundation for new methods to assess leadership potential.
 
My take-aways:
 
1.  This contribution of Mumford, Todd, Higgs, and McIntosh is significant. While there is little we can do to effect adult intelligence (and intelligence is correlated positively with leaders), there is much we can do to effect development of these cognitive tasks.
 
2.  While leaders with these cognitive skills may be desirable, a leader may not need to possess each skill. Effective leaders should know their strengths and weaknesses. Leaders should engage their groups and teams in all of these areas. Identifying these skills in others and letting them contribute help make effective leaders. 
 
3. For me this article underscores the importance of active learning.  Do we provide opportunities for experiences where people can learn through the experiences? Do we discuss “lessons learned” afterwards and guide development of mental models, that is how to handle different situations? In our busy day-to-day workplaces, do we as leaders find the time, make the time, to develop others?
 
Mumford, M. D., Todd, E. M., Higgs, C., & McIntosh, T. (2017). Cognitive skills and leadership performance: The nine critical skills. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 24-39.
 
Image, "Thinking" by Tumisu.
Retrieved from: https://pixabay.com/en/thinking-brain-head-idea-2006869/
Public domain: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ 
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards.
From the back of the book jacket:

Bias in hiring and other personnel decisions may be common. Why? Because we may not even be aware of some of our biases. Implicit biases can affect our judgments without our even being aware we have a bias.
 
Jay Van Bavel and Tessa West, both social psychologists at New York University, recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal about implicit bias in hiring. Their premise is we prefer people similar to ourselves and this can unconsciously affect our hiring practices. It especially makes hiring a diverse workforce more problematic. Here are several of their suggestions followed by my comments:

• “Check the job description.” Be sure the job description is not inadvertently biased, thus limited the applicant pool. For example, recruiting for a “salesman” vs. neutrally phrased “position in sales.”
• “Recruit outside your comfort zone.” Does your company usually hire from the same three or four universities or colleges? Are you looking for people demographically the same as your current employees?
• “Evaluate every resume the same way.” Critical. We read resumes and process them through our lens. We may unknowingly respond to subtle cues that bias us for or against an applicant.
• “Identify what you want before interviews begin.” Often overlooked. What you really want may vary based on whom you ask? I may want someone with good leadership skills to head up a project. You may want someone with the most up-to-date technical skills. We should have some agreement on the what we want from our new hire.
• “Stick to a script during interviews.” This is standard, often repeated advice – but usually not followed. Nolan and Highhouse (2014) cited Ryan and associates who found “only 35% of U.S. companies reported using standardized interview questions for each applicant.”
• “Ensure decisions are based on the right metrics.” If you agree prior to interviews on what you want and stay aware of potential implicit biases, then you should be able to make evidence-based decisions.
• “Continually analyze the process.” Improvement in hiring is difficult without an “after hire” review of what went well and what did not. In my experience this is rare. Continuous improvement should be built into the hiring process, just like other processes.

​
My take-aways:
 
1. Van Bavel and West offer excellent suggestions to improve hiring. In my opinion the first and most important activity though is not listed: job analysis. Job analysis will determine “the job-relatedness of the tasks and competencies needed to successfully perform the job” (OPM). A good job analysis makes all personnel decisions easier and more accurate.
 
2.  In Decoding the Workplace I stated that “many (organizations) are looking for people who fit the organization’s culture, people who will assimilate more quickly into its workforce – people who have ‘the right stuff’ for that organization” (p. 68). This is not inconsistent with acquiring a diverse workforce. Standardized, job-related questions, especially involving often encountered workplace situations, may be useful.
 
3. We all have implicit biases. The key is to be aware they exist and try to recognize our own. For example, in Decoding the Workplace I discuss how most of us probably have implicit biases associated with sex-role stereotypes. Examine performance appraisals you may write. Do you use different types of words describing men (“true leader, dynamic”) versus women (“good administrator, works well with others”)? Self awareness can be tough but the insights developed can make us better leaders -- and people.
 
Van Bavel, J. J., & West, T. V. (2017, February 21). Seven Steps to Reducing Bias in Hiring. The Wall Street Journal, p. R2.
 
Nolan, K. P., & Highhouse, S. (2014) Need for autonomy and resistance to standardized employee selection practices. Human Performance, 27(4), 328–346.
 
Ryan, A. M., McFarland, L., Baron, H., & Page, R. (1999). An international look at selection practices: Nation and culture as explanations for variability in practice. Personnel Psychology, 52, 359–391.
 
Image, "Now Hiring Sign" by JAnstee (WMF) February 2014.
Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Now_Hiring.png
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.
 _________________________
"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

Employees who see their work as very meaningful are more likely to be highly engaged in the workplace. Finding ways to make our workplaces more meaningful is a hot topic for leaders. But what about the flipside? What do leaders and managers inadvertently do that reduces meaningfulness in the workplace?
 
Catherine Bailey (University of Sussex) and Adrian Madden (University of Greenwich) interviewed 135 people in the United Kingdom, people from different occupations, and talked with them about meaning at work. Meaningfulness was not related to management style but was determined by individual employees and what they saw as meaningful. Surprisingly Bailey and Madden found that “a key leadership challenge” was not creating workplace meaning but rather not destroying the sense of meaning employees had developed. They identified actions or inactions associated with leaders who “trample” the development of meaningful workplaces. Bailey and Madden called these “deadly sins.” Here are their top five ranked with “most grievous" first.

1. Disconnect people from their values. Employer and employee not seeing eye-to-eye on what is most important, i.e., reducing costs vs. insuring quality, increasing profits vs. helping clients.
2. Take your employees for granted. Lack of recognition, lack of meaningful feedback, not feeling appreciated for hard work and long hours.
3. Give people pointless work to do. People know their jobs and what they should be doing -- but some work of no meaningful value arises because of others' poor planning or poor decisions. 
4. Treat people unfairly.
5. Override people’s better judgment. People not being listened to, not given a voice on work they know, work-related opinions not valued.

My take-aways:
 
1.  We give meaning to our experiences. If we perceive our work is of value and appreciated, it will be more meaningful. Leaders can affect meaningfulness in the workplace even though meaning is created by the individual. Bailey and Madden point out that it is much easier for leaders to crush meaning than to nourish it. This is an important finding. 
 
2. Look at the list above. Which have you seen or experienced? If you are a leader, do you mistakenly do any of these frequently? What can you do differently? 
 
3. My guess is that organizational climate or culture may be such that some of these actions or inactions are ingrained. Leadership is not easy. Ultimately the leader must care about those being led. Where that holds true, these deadly sins will not exist and the potential for employee engagement in the workplace will be higher.

Bailey, C., & Madden, A. (2016). What makes work meaningful -- or meaningless. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(4), 53-61.

Photograph by Pui Shan Chan February 2009.
Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_%26_White_Handshake_-_Still_from_the_film_Colour_Blind_(2009).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.
 _________________________
"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