Are women better listeners than men? I was reading an article on active listening by John Keyser that included a sidebar about an article in the Harvard Business Review. The sidebar suggested groups are more effective as the number of women in the group increases.

The HBR article was an interview with Anita Woolley, Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior & Theory at Carnegie Mellon University, and Thomas Malone, Professor of Management at MIT. Woolley, Malone, and their associates were studying individual intelligence scores and collective group performance. There were several group tasks including one complex problem-solving task. Each group was given a collective intelligence score based on the group’s performance. There were over 190 groups.

Groups with a higher average of individual intelligence scores did not outperform those groups with a lower average of individual intelligence scores. Group cohesion made no difference. Group satisfaction made no difference. Group motivation was not a factor. The only variable that made a significant difference in the collective intelligence of a group was the percentage of women in the group. More women, better performance.

Woolley suggested the difference may be attributed to women having greater social sensitivity, being able to understand and interpret dynamics and feelings of those around them. Research suggests that women may have greater social sensitivity. In his active listening article, Keyser suggested women are better listeners.

My take-away:

Diversity in group or team decision-making can bring a wider variety of opinions to the table. Some research indicates that as the number of women on corporate boards increases, so too do the boards' effectiveness. Norway is often cited as requiring corporate boards be 40% women, though this is a simplification of Norwegian law.

Regardless of gender, groups that have more people with social sensitivity, people who truly listen, actively listen – these groups should be more effective.

Keyser, J. (July, 2013). Active listening leads to business success. Training & Development, 26-28.

Woolley, A., & Malone, T. (2011). What makes a team smarter? More women. Harvard Business Review, 89 (6), 32-33. 

What differentiates a great leader?  Have you known people whom you considered to be great leaders? In the early 1950s Carter suggested there were three behaviors or outcomes common to people who were truly great leaders.

First, great leaders have a high level of individual achievement or prominence. They are very good at what they do. Others recognize their abilities to produce or excel.  The great NBA player Michael Jordan comes to mind. Jordan was an incredible offensive and defensive basketball player who won many individual NBA awards.

Second, great leaders elevate the performance of those around them. They move the bar higher. They are inspirational. Michael Jordan elevated the play of his teammates. Jordan and his Chicago Bulls teammates won six NBA championships.

Third, great leaders are likable. People enjoy being around them. Jordan’s teammates liked him. I knew someone who grew up with Jordan. This person could talk for hours about hanging out with Jordan back in high school, and he told these stories with great affection. Jordan was a very likeable person.

My take-aways:  

Leadership is about inspiring others. Carter’s observations about great leaders make sense. It is easier to follow an individual who sets the example through his or her achievements – “This person knows how to do this.” “This person gets things done.” “Better to work with this person because they are going places.” Perhaps the motivation is contagious. The great leader may set a new model for what should and can be achieved. And if this person is fun to be around, a likeable person, then he or she will create positive affect and an environment where more is possible.

We all probably will not be truly great leaders but Carter’s work speaks to all who lead:

1. Be expert, the very best you can be, at whatever you do.
2. Be a positive role model for any who observe you, look to you.
3. Just be a nice person. 

Carter, L. F. (1951). Some research on leadership in small groups. In H. Guetzkow, Groups, Leadership, and Men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.    

Image of Michael Jordan from:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Jordan.jpg
Used with permission. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en

I was talking with a friend today about work-life balance. It has also been a topic lately in one of my graduate courses. Do you have work-life balance? Would you like to have work-life balance? A Google search on “work life balance” has over 37 million hits. Researchers have written hundreds of academic papers on this topic.

I find work-life balance a difficult topic. I tend to agree with Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO and author of Lean In, who said in a PBS interview, "So there's no such thing as work-life balance. There's work, and there's life, and there's no balance.”  The idea of balance implies a scale, a scale where work is on one side and life is on the other. It implies somehow these can be balanced – or that balance is desirable.

Some researchers have moved away from studies of work-life balance to studies of work-home conflict. Work-home conflict would appear to be a form of interrole conflict, perhaps your work responsibilities are conflicting with that soccer game or party with the gang. Glen Kreiner and associates suggested that for many of us, these work-home conflicts are cyclical, often peaking during certain times of the year, such as during the December holiday season.

My thoughts:

1. Compartmentalizing.  Some people can separate work from the rest of their time. I think individual differences are big here. Likewise, some jobs, professions may be easier to compartmentalize than others. I know that I am not a compartmentalizer. My work and my life are of one fabric. But I have friends who can leave the work behind, turn that part of their mind off, and move fully into the now. But I am not sure if even they have balance.

2. Competing values. I am a fan of Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s Competing Values Model of organizational effectiveness. Leaders always have competing values. The best leaders move back and forth emphasizing what is needed at the moment. Perhaps this week the focus must be on task accomplishment. Next week it must be on acquiring more talent for the team. There are always demands on our time and different work priorities that compete for that time. I think the same is true for work-life. It might be useful to think of work-life as a competing values model. Sometimes work must come first. Sometimes life apart from the job must come first. Perhaps it is not so much work-life balance but work-life juggling where the key is not to drop a ball. 

Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2009). Balancing borders and bridges: Negotiating the work-home interface vis boundary work tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (4), 704-730.

Image by Joe Mabel. Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fremont_Solstice_Parade_2007_-_jugglers_07A.jpg
Used with permission. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

Do you really know how to actively listen? My October 14th blog generated conversations. Can you recognize situations where you should be actively listening? Some may come easily to mind; others, not so.

It is easy to think of managerial or relationship situations where active listening should be used. People are upset, angry, or frustrated.  I find the problem here is not the listening – it is the talking when the silence comes and it is your turn. What do you say? The real tendency is to solve the problem.

Carl Rogers, father of active listening in talk therapies, fed back feelings and words while the patient worked through the problem. Active listening in the workplace is similar but not the same. But the started point is. Acknowledge the feeling: “Sounds like you are pretty upset”, “You’ve had a rough day”, “I’m sorry that happened,” or whatever is appropriate to the relationship and the situation. But it is about the feeling, the affect.

Usually after you speak, the other person will elaborate. You can then ask questions that clarify followed by questions that paraphrase. I cannot say this works for everyone in every situation but I have found this general approach has worked for me as a manager and in relationships. Start with the affect.

But a more common use for active listening is routine day-to-day activities in the workplace. Your supervisor asks you to do something. Do you repeat it to be sure you understood correctly? If working virtually with people in other countries or cultures, do you repeat what they say to be sure you heard them correctly?
    
Active listening is hard – but it gets easier with practice. But to practice, one must see the value of active listening. My experience is that real practice helps, having someone observe and listen so you get feedback on your active listening skills. Perhaps part of the problem of active listening and learning this skill is we have to open up, we may feel more vulnerable. Confident leaders will learn to actively listen.

Sketch of Carl Rogers from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carl_Ransom_Rogers.jpg
Used with permission: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/