Last evening I enjoyed a concert by Michael Feinstein, who has popularized the American Songbook. Feinstein is wonderfully gifted and entertaining. One song in particular got me thinking about songs and music in our lives, and in our work lives – “Without a Song” from the 1929 musical “Great Day.”

Does your workplace constantly have music in the background? Do you enjoy, find annoying, or just ignore? What effect does music have on employees? On customers? Does it affect productivity? What does the music say about your organization? Are there organizational policies about personal music in the workplace? Do you play your own music as a background to your work day? Do others?

A quick review indicates there is significant body of research addressing these questions. The New York Times discussed some of this research in an article last year. They cited Amit Sood, M.D., of the Mayo Clinic, suggesting 15-30 minutes of listening to music may help you refocus, concentrate better, best being music without lyrics.  Teresa Lesiuk, Ph.D., of the University of Miami studied music and IT professionals. Her research suggested that allowing workers, who so desire, to listen to music they prefer can increase productivity.  People varied in how much they listened to music, with older workers listening to music less. She concluded:  “. . . over time, music listening based on workers’ choice to listen ‘when they want as they want,’ is beneficial for state positive affect, quality-of-work, and time spent on a task” (p. 188). On the other hand, the New York Times cited Paul Flaharty of Robert Half Technology that managers differ in what is expected in the workplace, that employees wearing headphones may be perceived as “rude”.

My take-aways:

1.  I suspect very large individual, workplace, and organizational differences here. So many variables. However it is probably a good idea to have clear policies on individuals listening to personalized music in the workplace. Where is it OK? Not OK? Earphones? As to the effect on productivity, I would need to research the literature more fully.

2. Songs play in the background of my mind. They seem to come out of nowhere but are always there. When I awake. When my mind takes a break. This summer it has been the brilliant music of an older (larger unknown in the U.S.) Irish rock band, The Radiators from Space. The driving chiming Byrds-like guitars of “Trouble Pilgrim.” The pure punk clean out the brain sound of “Television Screen.” And the beautiful but sad “The Dark at the Top of the Stairs”, the most poignant song I have ever heard about the tragedy of 9/11.  Does music play a role in your life? Listening? Making? From “Without a Song”: “I'll get along as long as a song is strong in my soul.” 


Image of Michael Feinstein by Phil Konstantin. Used with permission. Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MichaelFeinsteinByPhilKonstantin.jpg

Lesiuk, T. (2005). The effect of music on work performance. Psychology of Music, 33(2), 173-191.

Padnani, A. (August 12, 2012).  The power of music, tapped in a cubicle. New York Times, BU7.

“Without a Song”. (1929). Music by Vincent Youmans; lyrics by Billy Rose and Edward Eliscu. Originally published by Miller Music Corp. & Vincent Youmans, Inc. 

In Outliers Malcolm Gladwell popularized the “10,000 hour rule”, the idea that it takes at least 10,000 hours of practice to become truly expert in an activity. Gladwell suggested the Beatles accomplished this through the many hours spent in Hamburg, West Germany, and Liverpool. Bill Gates accomplished this because of his early access to computers at the age of 13 and over 10,000 hours programming. Critics have questioned the validity of the 10,000 hour rule and cited the role of genetics.

In a Forbes post, David Burkus examines the often cited source, a 1993 article by K. Anders Ericsson and associates in Psychological Review. He points out that Ericsson is not talking about 10,000 hours of practice but rather 10,000 hours of “deliberate practice”, specific training activities, not work, not play. Burkus challenges managers to think about their 10,000 hours. Is it business as usual or deliberate activities to grow through news skills and methods?

I found Gladwell’s Outliers an interesting read. Burkus’s post spurred me to read Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer’s original article. Here are some highlights:

• The authors talk about 10 years of preparation in the article. This has been translated into the 10,000 hour rule. 
• They credit the “10 year rule” to Hebert Simon and William Chase who in 1973 estimated the time required to attain exceptional performance in chess. Simon and Chase stated that no one had reached the grandmaster level “with less than about a decade’s intense preoccupation with the game”, and estimated a master had spent “10,000 to 50,000 hours staring at chess positions.” (p. 402) 
• Trying to predict great success simple by genetics has not worked well except in a few specific areas such as sports.
• The 10 year rule draws support from music, tennis, swimming, long distance running.
• Ericsson et. al. studied violinists and pianists.
• People often perform below their potential even on tasks they do frequently.
• Deliberate practice is highly structured, designed to overcome weaknesses, “not inherently enjoyable”, requires access to resources such as teachers, must not be done daily to the point of exhaustion, and performance must be carefully monitored to find ways to improve. 
  

My take-away:

It is easy to see how the 10,000 hour or 10 year rule applies to elite performance in the arts and sciences.  10,000 hours of deliberate practice, as explained above, seems more difficult for leaders and managers to acquire. Practicing the violin is not the same as practicing leadership or practicing management. Where is the carefully monitored feedback, and so forth? 10,000 hours as a manager is not the same as 10,000 hours of deliberate practice.

But regardless, I find a fundamental truth here: We do not achieve higher levels of performance in most endeavors, including leadership and management, unless we are committed to learning and improving. Being a manager for over 10,000 hours does not necessarily mean that the manager has learned much. Only the person who actively seeks to elevate her or his game, to perform at an even higher level, to seek feedback, to self-monitor, to reflect on her or his own behaviors and observe how people respond, to study both success and failure – in short to deliberately grow – only this person can excel as a leader and manager. 

Image by Petr Novák, Wikipedia. From http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chess_queen_0994.jpg
Used with permission: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.en

Burkus, D. (September 25, 2013). Are you wasting your 10,000 hours? http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidburkus/2013/09/25/are-you-wasting-your-10000-hours/

Ericsson, K. A.,  Krampe, R. T. & Tesch-Römer, C.  (1993).  The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance.  Psychological Review, 100 (3) 363-406.
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. New York: Little, Brown and Company

Simon, H. A., & Chase, W. G. Skill in chess: Experiments with chess-playing tasks and computer simulation of skilled performance throw light on some human perceptual and memory processes. American Scientist, 61 (4), 394-403.

Joseph Juran and W. Edwards Deming were the great leaders in quality in the 20th Century. Their ideas are the foundation for quality today. Both were interviewed separately for the PBS Special, An Immigrant’s Gift. From the files of the Dr. Juran "An Immigrant's Gift" Archival Project: Each talks about meeting the other and their relationship. 

The interview with Dr. Deming was on April 10, 1991, in Washington, DC;  the interview with Dr. Juran, May 2, 1991, in Wilton, Connecticut.

DR. JURAN: Well, our paths first crossed during World War II. I took him to lunch during the 
war  . . . a Romanian restaurant 
that served blintzes. So, that's when I took him to lunch, and 
I assume I met him then. I might have met him before that, 
I'm not sure of that. We once were in this Hawthorne factory together, but I 
didn't know that he was there and he didn't know I was 
there, and we were not in the same area. That's just one of those coincidences that has no 
relation to this field. 

Our paths have been 
totally different. He's a statistician. He spent a good deal of 
time in the Bureau of Census, very helpful to them in 
sampling as a means of handling the census and the like. 
Statistician. Whereas my field has been quality and then, 
subsequently, management, and finally, back into 
quality again. 

As to our relationship, we're good friends. And I think there's a mutual respect there. I've got a lot 
of respect for his status as statistician. He's been a deep 
thinker on it.  I don't think he's invented anything. But he has made contributions.

DR. DEMING: I'm not sure if I could recall the first 
meeting. One of the first ones was in Washington. I 
have a hard time giving you an approximation to the date. 
He took me to lunch in Washington, to a Hungarian restaurant. 
Had cheese blintzes and had a nice talk about Western 
Electric, other things. I, resolved to take him to lunch sometime, but every time I tried to, found that lunch was free to both of us. I 
had no chance to repay him all these years. Interest has 
amounted up to quite a bit by now. 

He had of course a great 
understanding about Western Electric. I'm a good 
listener, learn from anybody. He was very kind, though, to call me up 
and invite me to lunch. Appreciated that.

I've learned a lot from him . . . He made the statement, could have been long about 
1954, could have been earlier, that when anybody on the job, 
let's say hourly workers, have achieved statistical control of 
their process, they have put in the job all that they have to 
offer. Powerful statement. I've never forgotten it.  

Image of Dr. Juran courtesy of G. Howland Blackiston. Used with permission. 

Image of Dr. Deming from FDA.gov in public domain.  http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/File:W._Edwards_Deming.jpg

Increasingly I hear conversations about generational differences in the American workplace. It is not uncommon to have a workforce with four generations: The Silent Generation or Traditionalists (68 and over), Baby Boomers (49-67), Gen X (32-48), and Gen Y or the Millenials (21-31). All of these ages are approximate. Within any generation there will be large individual differences. But events and changes probably do affect societal cohorts in common ways to some degree. Imagine growing up having always known the Internet -- or not having the Internet.  I am a Boomer and I embrace technological change. I know Boomers who are rarely on computers, do not surf the web, have no interest in Twitter, much less Facebook. Imagine a Millennial with those attitudes.

So what is happening in the workplace? There are probably several attitudinal differences among generations from attitudes toward technology to attitudes toward work. These differences may lead to conflicts or difficult management situations. I think that some of the problems and perhaps resolutions lie in basic social psychology and communication. Interpersonal attraction theory suggest the more we interact, the more we find similarities, the deeper our conversations become, the more comfortable we are with that person. More interaction should lead to a better workplace.

In the workplace we cannot avoid interactions but the frequency and quality of those interactions can vary widely.  The social chit-chat, the social interactions before getting down to business, these lubricate our organizations, making immediate and other tasks easier. Why is it that the “no-nonsense” person, the person who does not engage in social chit-chat, rarely builds strong peer or subordinate relationships? It is in these brief social interactions that we find and foster similarities.

As we interact with others in different situations, we use behavioral, social, and verbal scripts we have learned along the way. Think about what we do in meeting a person we do not know. We tend to use safe, low risk scripts, “How about this weather?”, “Looks like it might rain today.” Our conversation and subsequent conversations are like peeling an onion. We gradually expand the range of topics and in so doing, we start to find similarities. “Did you see the Red Sox game last night?”, “Going skiing this weekend?”, “I saw a great movie.”  And as we find these similarities, we become more comfortable with each other and a relationship develops.

But what if different generations have different scripts. The Boomer being friendly asks, “How’s the weather?”, and the Gen Xer responds by checking a smartphone for a weather update. My limited search in the communications literature did not find any relevant research studies. But I did find a CBS video on Youtube that may illustrate one generational difference. Perhaps if we could learn useful scripts that work across generations, then perhaps we would interact more and find those similarities. My guess is it would make for a better and more productive workplace. 


Image of two people texting from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cell_phones.jpg by Paul Martin Lester, 2009. Used with permission: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

With life’s ups and downs we sometimes have emotional issues that affect us at work. The stress or upsetting situation may come from the workplace – a difficult co-worker, too much to do and not enough time to do it. Or the stress or upsetting condition may come from our personal lives – a death of a loved one, a divorce or marital issues, and such. We may find emotional support in our friends – at home or work. If an issue affects or potentially affects our productivity or job performance, a manager may take notice, may try to help, provide emotional support.

Managers providing emotional support to others in the workplace was the subject of a study reported earlier this year in the Academy of Management Journal. Researchers at the International Institute for Management Development, Lausanne, Switzerland, and University College London studied a firm of over 60 people. The firm operated in an open floor plan where others were easily observed. Ginka Toegel and her colleagues gathered data by e-mail questionnaire and then interviewed 30 employees.

Here’s what they found. Some managers offered support by listening or perhaps giving advice. These managers supported but did not interact extensively. Other managers did -- not only listening and advising, but helping the employee reframe, rethink, see the issue from a different perspective, sometimes helping to formulate a positive perspective.

Why did the managers provide support? For some it was instrumental, something that needs to be done to maintain workplace productivity and prevent decreased morale. For others it was more from a sense of who they were, perhaps those who viewed themselves more as compassionate leaders.

Regardless of motivation, managers saw this as outside their role as a manager. Consequently they usually thought their emotional support would be reciprocated through more workplace commitment or acknowledgement. On the other hand, the employee being helped saw it as just part of the manager’s role, what managers are expected to do.

Managers who helped and employees who were helped had very different expectations. Employees appreciated the help and saw managers who gave it as better leaders. But managers who gave help and did not receive anything in return were often disappointed.

My take-away: The degree to which a manager provides emotional support probably depends on the relationship with the employee, the personality of the manager, and the culture of the organization. I have known leaders whose compassionate behaviors were intended to be instrumental. I have known other leaders for whom compassion was just in their DNA. And then there are leaders who have no clue how to support others emotionally in the workplace. What is your style? Your boss’s style? Do your antennae pick up when a co-worker needs a friend?

Toegel, G., Kilduff, M., & Anand, N. (2013). Emotion helping by managers: An emergent understanding of discrepant role expectations and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 56 (2), 334-357.

Image taken in Skagway Pass. © John Ballard, 2013. All rights reserved. 

What is the best predictor of  longevity? I have not reviewed current research but a study I read many years ago I have never forgotten. It was published in 1969 in The Gerontologist. The primary author, Erdman Palmore, went on to establish himself as one of the greatest researchers in longevity and life satisfaction studies.  A professor emeritus of medical sociology at Duke University, he has received many honors in gerontology and remains active in his 80s.

The study I recall was a report from the First Duke Longitudinal Study of Aging. Palmore and his associates studied people over many years late in life. They began by interviewing and gathering data from over 200 people 60 to 64 years of age. Fifteen years later they checked to see how many had died. For those still living they estimated their remaining years using actuarial tables. The question Palmore was trying to answer is what is the best predictor on how long a person will live? Is it health activities? Education? Occupation? Tobacco use?

The results were stunning. The single best predictor was job satisfaction. Those people who fifteen years before had reported that they felt useful and were doing meaningful work, these were the people most likely to live longer. Job satisfaction in the latter part of one’s work life was highly correlated with the longevity of that life.

People who are happy in their jobs are more likely to be happy overall in their lives. And all things being equal, perhaps have a higher probability of a longer life.

Palmore, E. (1969). Predicting longevity: a follow-up controlling for age. The Gerontologist, 9, 247-250.

Image of St. Elias Range. © John Ballard, 2013. All rights reserved.