This time of the year I like to revisit a Christmas classic from Thomas Stetz of Hawaii Pacific University, “What Santa Claus Can Learn from I-O Psychology: Eight Performance Management Recommendations.” The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist originally published the article in 2012 and it can be read in full at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology’s website. Here I will summarize (and elaborate upon) Dr. Stetz’s astute observations and recommendations concerning Santa Claus’s questionable performance management system.

1. “Develop refined rating scales.” How does Santa determine whether a child is “naughty” or “nice”? What is naughty? What is nice? How can a child improve performance if the child does not have clear guidelines and examples of the behaviors expected?
2. “Develop SMART performance objectives.” A child needs clear goals to be successful at “nice,” goals that are “specific, measureable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound.” Ideally these would flow from the family strategic plan.
3. “Increase feedback throughout the year.” It’s either a lump of coal or presents one day a year. 364 days with no feedback is just not acceptable in the 21st Century. If feedback is too much for Santa to handle, he should delegate and train others, such as parents. 
4. “Establish a naughty review board.” There may be review boards in organizations that are naughty; this recommendation concerns grievances. What’s a child to do if deemed naughty and considers this an unfair assessment? Is it fair to not have a grievance procedure, especially in the absence of feedback?
5. “Get a handle on rating inflation.” Let’s be real. It seems most children get a “nice” rating and the associated benefits. Refined rating scales would definitely help here.
6. “Explain how he obtains his information.” This one puzzled me as a kid. How does he know if I am being naughty or nice? As Stetz’s very appropriately noted, “at least a consent-to-monitoring statement should be made.”
7. “Decide between developmental or administrative evaluations.” “Under the current system how can naughty children improve. They can’t” (p. 36). There is no feedback. Children simply did not know how to improve their performance. Santa’s performance system is administrative with only “rewards and punishments.”
8. “Institute self-assessments.” Instead of writing letters to Santa once a year, which not all children do, there should be periodic self-assessments from children. This could be an online system with elf’s perhaps providing feedback. Currently children have little opportunity to speak to the naughty or nice question with relevant supporting data.

Stetz concluded Santa would do well to employ an I-O psychologist.
 
My take-away:
 
Can any of the recommendations for Santa’s performance system be applied to your organization? If so, 2017 might be a good year to work toward improvements. Feedback is key to employee development and organizational growth and renewal.
 
Best wishes for the holiday season and a great 2017.
 
Stetz, T. A. (2012). What Santa Claus can learn from I-O psychology: Eight performance management recommendations. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 49 (3), 35-37.
 
Retrieved from: https://pixabay.com/en/santa-man-noel-santa-claus-160903/
Public domain:  https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2016. 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

Phatic speech, such as water cooler chit-chat, is the social lubricant of organizations. It is usually easier to do business with people with whom we have previously interacted.
 
We differ widely in how much we tend to interact with others. Some of us are just more outgoing. I tend to chat with people I encounter during my day. Most are casual acquaintances; a few are strangers. Researchers Gillian Sandstrom and Elizabeth Dunn would classify these as “weak tie” interactions. Conversations with friends and family are “strong tie” interactions.
 
Why is this distinction between "strong ties" and "weak ties" important? We know that strong ties can result in feelings of belonging, help meet our need for belonging. What about weak ties? How is our well-being affected by interactions with a cashier, someone at the gym, another employee with whom we rarely work, and so forth?

In three creative studies Sandstrom and Dunn (2014) examined relationships between the number of daily weak tie interactions and self-reports of happiness and well-being. The participants in their studies were university students and community members older than 25. The more they interacted casually with those beyond their friends and family, the happier they reported to be. 

• People with more weak tie interactions reported “greater feelings of belonging and greater happiness.”
• Feelings of belonging where greater on days when people had more weak tie interactions than usual.
• Both extroverts and introverts were happier the higher the number of weak tie interactions.

Sandstrom and Dunn noted that other studies have suggested “young adults underestimate the emotional benefits of interacting with people they do not know well.”
 
My take-aways:
 
1. As a consultant I found that where there were casual interactions among co-workers, the workplace climate was better. Conversely, where organizations limited casual conversations (such as no talking at the water cooler), climate was worse. In my opinion a small amount of time in social interaction reduced the time needed later if co-workers needed to interact on an issue. They already had a relationship of sorts. Phatic speech actually can lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness.
 
2. Given that there appears to be a relationship between weak ties and greater feelings of happiness, it would be interesting to see this studied in the workplace. There may be implications for managers and leaders. What activities or training may increase social interactions? What policies reduce casual interactions?
 
3. The comment about young adults underestimating the value of interacting with those they do not know well probably holds true for many people. Millennials may be more reluctant to interact with older workers but the reverse may also be true. My guess is that the more we can interact casually across our diversities, the more engaging and satisfying our workplaces will be.

Sandstrom, G. M., & Dunn, E. W. (2014). Social interactions and well-being: The surprising power of weak ties. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 910-922.
 
Image by Gerd Altmann.
Retrieved from: https://pixabay.com/en/social-media-personal-552411/
Public domain: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2016. 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