Ever notice how some people smile more than others? We tend to like a happy face. In a recent Current Directions in Psychological Science article, D. Vaughn Becker (Arizona State) and Naryanan Srinivasan (University of Allahabad) reviewed experiments about faces with different expressions, particularly the happy face. They found that happy faces are very “vivid” and easy for us to process. For example, it is easier for us to recognize and understand someone with a smile than someone who is angry. Anger may be more easily misinterpreted.

Here are a few of the insights in Becker’s and Srinivasan’s review of the research:

• People with happy faces are viewed positively “in even the most remote cultures” (p. 189).
  
• Smiles can be identified at greater distances than other expressions, perhaps useful in earlier, more primitive times.
  
• Smiles can help reduce hostile feelings or emotions.
  
• Teeth showing while smiling makes the happy face very easy to detect.
  
• Happy faces tend to get noticed even when we don’t notice other things in our environment (inattentional blindness).
  
• Happy faces facilitate remembering faces, even recognizing later when the person is not smiling.

My take-aways:

At the most basic level we do not process the world around us neutrally. Some things we like; some, we don’t. We come at the world and give it meaning. One way we do that is by our affective assessment of “like” and “dislike.” Seeing a happy person, a happy face, should increase the likelihood of a positive assessment and apparently we do so easily and quickly.

The implications are almost self-evident. You are having your photo made. What does the photographer say? “Smile”, “cheese."  All things being equal, whom do you like better, the colleague who laughs and smiles or the one who never does? For some the lack of smiling may be a blindspot, something others notice but they do not. And reviewing our images on social media, such as Linkedin photos or Twitter images, is probably a good idea.

Becker, D. V., & Srinivasan, N. (2014). The vividness of the happy face. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23 (3), 189-194.    

Have you encountered a narcissistic co-worker or perhaps a supervisor who affected the workplace in unpleasant ways?  In the May 2014 issue of The Academy of Management Perspectives, Emily Grijalva, University of Illinois, and P. D. Harms, University of Nebraska, reported a comprehensive review of narcissism and its relation to leadership and workplace outcomes. They began their article with a discussion of Steve Jobs, suggesting he was an example of the “benefits and costs that narcissists bring to the workplace” (pp. 108-109). Narcissists have “excessive self-admiration”, a belief they are special, and “more important than others.” In addition to being self-centered, narcissistic people can be arrogant and feel entitled. But they may also be charismatic. Hence, “narcissists tend to emerge as leaders and are found in positions of power” (p. 111).

Here are several insights from their review of the research. Narcissists:

• Tend not to have good long-term relationships with others; may be seen positively early on (well-dressed, charming, confident, humorous) but often perceptions of narcissists become negative (arrogant, self-centered).
• Use interpersonal relationships mostly for self-enhancement, can exploit others, be parasitic.
• Respond negatively to feedback with which they disagree, perhaps derogating others, become obnoxious, aggressive.
• Appear to be oblivious to any feedback that disagrees with their self-perceptions.
• Tend to be hypervigilant to any perceived threats to their self-esteem, real or imagined. 
• Impulsive, “more likely to act on their negative emotions” (p. 113).
• Act for short-term gains; favor bold, risky actions.

Even so, some narcissistic people do find their way into positions of leadership. Findings about the effectiveness of narcissistic leaders have actually been mixed.

One study found no difference in the performance of companies regardless of whether or not the CEO was narcissistic. Narcissists tend to want leadership positions, volunteer for opportunities. Grijalva and Harms reached no definitive conclusion on the effectiveness of narcissistic leaders and called for more research.

My take-away:

The authors noted “leadership is not just about the leader” (p. 116). I think followers may see negative narcissistic behaviors before those higher up in the organization see them, if they ever do. Eventually most of us will meet or know narcissistic leaders. I have known a few who appeared simply to be charismatic but in time their flaws were revealed to many. We do not have to search far in our national media to find examples of charismatic, even gifted leaders undone by their narcissistic behaviors. Grijalya and Harms suggested a collaborative, ethical organizational culture makes it less likely that a narcissist will do great harm to the organization and others. Another reason for leaders to build strong collaborative, ethical environments.

Grijalva, E., & Harms, P. D. (2014). Narcissism: An integrative synthesis and dominance complementarity model. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28 (2), 108-127. 

“Island in Fog”  ©John Ballard, 2013. All rights reserved.

I was talking with a friend about optimism and its relation to well being. Optimistic people tend to be healthier. Why? My research led me to an excellent review of personality, well-being, and health by Howard Friedman (University of California, Riverside) and Margaret Kern (University of Pennsylvania) published in the 2014 Annual Review of Psychology. Their review of studies found “little evidence” that optimism increased longevity or boosted the immune system. They suggested optimistic people may just persevere more, become more resilient, and thus better prepared to “face the challenges of recuperation from disease” (p. 727).

However, Friedman and Kern summarized research on another aspect of personality that deserves far greater media coverage and public awareness. There is a growing body of research that shows that conscientiousness affects “thriving, health, and longevity.” How big of an impact is conscientiousness? “Equal to or greater than that of many known biomedical risk factors,” they reported.

People who are conscientious tend to be responsible, organized, dependable, have more self-control, and even more grit. Conscientiousness is one of the Big Five factors of personality and has been consistently linked to success. This trait emerges early in life and is a “reliable lifelong predictor of healthy pathways and of health and longevity” (p. 731). Friedman and Kern suggested four behavioral reasons why this may be so. Conscientious people:

• Have healthier behaviors, such as smoking less, doing the small things that reduce risks (for example, using seat belts).
  
• Evoke healthier social environments through good friendships and better marriages.
  
• Are “more likely to have more successful, meaningful careers, better educations, and higher incomes”, all relevant to health and flourishing as adults
  
• Have negative stresses and emotions with less impact because they recover more quickly.
  

My take-aways:

I had never thought about the enormous impact that being conscientious can have on our lives. I would have thought optimism to be a bigger player – but it is conscientiousness.  It would be interesting to know if organizations with more people high on conscientiousness have lower health care costs.

So whom do you turn to when you have to get something done? It is probably someone with the knowledge, skills, abilities but also someone who is conscientious, who will make sure the job gets done and done right, who pays attention to detail, who makes things happen.

My guess is there can be too much of a good thing, the overly conscientious person who just takes too long to accomplish tasks, who slows down processes. But all things being equal, conscientiousness, attention to detail, should lead to superior performance – and healthier lives.

Friedman, H. S., & Kern, M. L. (2014) Personality, well-being, and health. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 719-742

Image of Space Shuttle Trainer, Flight Deck, @ 2014 John Ballard. All rights reserved. Image taken at the National Museum of the United States Air Force near Dayton, Ohio.

 

What if you could choose your next boss, your next leader? What traits would you like to see? How do these traits compare with the traits of your current boss?

Nichols and Cottrell addressed these and other questions in a recent article in The Leadership Quarterly. They reviewed research examining traits and leadership, specifically studies that focused on determining the traits that people think characterize leaders. Nichols and Cottrell found there is very little research asking people what traits they would like to see in their leaders. They argued, and I think successfully, that describing characteristics of a typical leader and describing your ideal leader are not the same. 

They suggested that the better the match between a leader’s traits and the traits that subordinates desire in their leaders, the better for the organization. Commitment to the organization and job satisfaction should be higher. Conversely, a poor match could result in subordinates being uncomfortable with their leaders, “less confident about how the leader will respond in various situations” (p. 713).

In one study using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, they had over 100 people complete a survey, part of which was rating traits of their current leader and traits of their desired leader. The traits rated were derived from decades of leadership studies. The article presented a table of the 15 traits with the average rating for current leaders and ideal leaders. I found this the most compelling part of the study. Using data in one of their tables, I computed the difference in the ratings between the ideal and the desired. Here is what the ratings indicated.

• The greatest gap in the trait ratings between current leaders and desired leaders was "Trustworthiness". This gap was over twice the size of most of the other gaps. In other words, what the people surveyed wanted most -- leaders who were more trustworthy.
  
• The second largest gap was “Trustingness”, wanting leaders who trust us. 
• Third was “Supportiveness”, leaders who help their direct reports, stand behind them, and assist in positive ways.
• Fourth was “Cooperativeness”, leaders who work with you, leaders who understand collaboration.

My take-aways:

1. In this study participants desired leaders who were more trustworthy, trusting, supportive, and cooperative. I would like to see national results, perhaps even results across countries. The nationalities of people completing this survey was not reported (if so, I missed it). However, my guess is that results would be similar in many organizations in the U.S. 

2. How would you rate your boss on these traits/behaviors? If you are a manager, a supervisor, if you have direct reports, how would they rate you? Do you know? Perhaps you are in an organization with 360-degree feedback. Interesting, these assessments seem to work best where the organizational culture is one of trust, the very factor with which the participants in this study were most concerned. 

3. Am I really trustworthy?  Do I trust my people? Do I support my people in ways in which they want to be supported? Do I cooperate with others, really listen, and try to build a collaborative culture? Great questions for every leader. 

Nichols, A. L., & Cottrell, C. A. (2014).  What do people desire in their leaders? The role of leadership level on trait desirability.  The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 711-729.

"Kona Cliffs" © John Ballard, 2014. All rights reserved. Painting by Jeffrey Bisaillon. 

You are in a social situation or business meeting with people who do not know you. Someone asks, “What do you do?”  The person may just be being social or may really like to know. Regardless, how do you answer? Do you use this opportunity positively or dismiss as chitchat? Can you sum up what you do in an interesting, engaging way in a minute or less?

Janet Ruscher, a Professor of Psychology and an associate dean at Tulane University, wrote a thoughtful article about “The Elevator Talk” in the January 2014 Observer, a publication of the Association for Psychological Science.  She suggested that you should always be prepared for an “elevator talk” about what you do. Here are several of her pointers:

• Be brief. She suggests 1-2 minutes max. 
  
• Be accessible. Don’t use jargon or acronyms that may not be understood.
  
• Consider the perspective of the listener. Is your answer engaging or interesting?
  
• Be prepared for this moment. Think about your job and then craft a short engaging few sentences about what you do.
  
• Craft your answer such that for most people there will be something interesting they might ask as a follow-up, something that might start an interesting conversation. Ruscher calls this “a hook.”
  
• Be direct, not subtle, not highly detailed, in other words, “Just go up, not sideways” (p. 15).
  
• Practice your answer.
  
• Periodically revise your answer. 
  

My take-away:

Impression management is important. Some do it naturally; for others it is an acquired skill. Still others it just is not viewed as a professional concern.

I have never really thought about the “elevator talk” and its role, or potential role. Ruscher’s advice to think about it, craft something, and practice seems to have merit. I am sure our answers will be situational to some degree but there are probably a few core ideas that express well what we do.  How long has it been since you really thought about what you do? That exercise in and of itself may hold insights, even surprises.

Ruscher, J. (2014). The elevator talk. Observer, 27 (1), 15.

Image by susi.bsu. I cropped image slightly and adjusted saturation/highlights. From https://www.flickr.com/photos/62517473@N06/9009908540/
Used with permission:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en