Modified from my previous annual January blogs about the importance of leaders reading

Each January I pose the question: What book are you reading now? Charlie Rose in his nightly program of interviews often poses a similar question to his famous guests, most of whom are national or international leaders in their professions. They always seem to have a book they are reading about which they have opinions, insights, and comments.
 
Lifelong learning is essential to grow as a leader. A habit of reading books is important to that growth. What role do books play in your life? In your learning? Making time to read books is important. Technology helps. I read books on the Kindle app on my iphone when I have short periods of downtime away from home. I have friends who like audio books best.
 
My favorite books in 2016 had lessons for work and life but they were about being above the earth. In Skyfaring: A Journey with a Pilot, Mark Vanhoenacker describes the life of a commercial airline pilot with thoughtful reflections on the experience of flying. If you fly frequently, this book may deepen your appreciation of your experiences. Chris Hadfield's An Astronaut’s Guide to Life on Earth : What Going to Space Taught Me about Ingenuity, Determination, and Being Prepared for Anything is summarized nicely in the title. I used in an MBA course. It was my favorite book this past year. I also enjoyed Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters by Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger. Good movie and good book.

The movie "Arrival" inspired me to read Stories of Your Life and Others by Ted Chiang. If you enjoy science fiction, I recommend. 2016 was also the year I discovered the poems of Nobel laureate Seamus Heaney. And for those who might be interested, I found Stafford Betty's When Did You Ever Become Less by Dying? Afterlife: The Evidence intriguing.  
 
As we begin 2017, here are books on my reading list:

• America the Ingenious: How a Nation of Dreamers, Immigrants, and Tinkerers Changed the World
  by Kevin Baker
• The Seventh Sense: Power, Fortune, and Survival in the Age of Networks by Joshua Cooper Ramo
• The Princessa: Machiavelli for Women by Harriet Rubin

And because I have developed a fondness for the art of Frederic Church:

• The Landscapes of Frederic Edwin Church: Vision of an American Era by David C. Huntington

“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them”, Mark Twain. 

Or as the comedian Groucho Marx said, “Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.”   
 
What are you reading?
_______________________
Image Public Domain. From: https://pixabay.com/en/books-reading-reading-book-read-1316306
​
© 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

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
 

Our election in the U.S. showed an evenly divided country. My friends are blue and red. Some workplaces probably have been unpleasant due to differing attitudes about the candidates for President. It is time for healing. I thought James Corden on the Late, Late Show rose to the occasion, "Now is the time to remember our values." 

The Chicago Cubs won the World Series of baseball. I watched Game 7, the network discussions afterwards, and Mike & Mike on ESPN2. I have read online news articles. One of my favorites was Jeff Passan’s “How Theo Epstein broke another curse and built the World Series champion Cubs.”
 
I am not a baseball aficionado but I understand factors that usually lead to individual and organizational success. As I binged on the aftermath of the World Series and learned about the Chicago Cubs, principles and concepts came to mind:

• Have a vision. Tom Ricketts, owner of the Cubs, wanted a winning team, to break the supposed curse of the Billy Goat, to win the National League pennant, and the World Series. 
• Act on that vision. Ricketts hired Theo Epstein to be President of Baseball Operations. The Boston Red Sox won the World Series in 2004, thus ending the supposed curse of the Bambino. Epstein was General Manager of the Red Sox and given credit by many for ending the curse. He had credibility. The best predictor of future success is past success.
• Treat people well. Describing his hiring interview with Epstein, Ricketts later said “We talked about how you treat people and the right people will create success” (Passan). Hire well and grow your people.
• Lead with integrity and transparency. Ricketts on Epstein: “He’s honest with everybody everywhere he goes” (Passan). Epstein was upfront that turning the Cubs organization around would take time. There would be lean years. Culture change is not easy.
• Formulate a solid plan. Epstein sought young players, players with character. He wanted players who could hit and were good people. The plan was to grow talent. 
• Focus on long term success, not short term. Epstein focused on the long term, building an organization that would win and continue to win. He was building a capability that would be sustainable.
• Develop and use analytics. Epstein hired “brilliant minds to fill the player-development and analytics department” (Passan). The database helped make sure the right people were in the right situations and could make good decisions.
• Create leadership, not just leaders. Day (2000) suggested leader development focuses on the individual; leadership development focuses on building human capital where all can lead. As Mike Golic put it, you don’t need team captains, you need informal leaders. In the weather break in Game 7, Jason Heyward, a respected team member, stepped up and led a group meeting reminding the players how special the Cubs were. When the team returned to the field, they were highly motivated. I am reminded of Urban Meyer's phrase, "when you get leadership, that's when magic starts happening."
• Celebrate the moment. It is easy to celebrate when you have just won the World Series. My guess thought is in the past week, month, or year, there have been moments in your day worth celebrating – a personal achievement, a team success, an organizational success. Savor these moments. 

Congratulations to Chicago and Cleveland on an amazingly series.

Day, D. V. 2000. Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11: 581–613.

Image, “Epstein talks to reporters before the 2016 NLCS Game 6” by Arturo Pardavila III. Image cropped to reduce size. Obtained from: http://bit.ly/2fJsT3W
Used with permission: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

© John Ballard, PhD,  2016. All rights reserved.
 _________________________
"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

Have you worked with someone who is arrogant? It can be unpleasant. Research suggests it can affect employee and customer satisfaction, and thus has important implications for organizational performance.
 
I was reading a 2012 issue of The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist when I came across a very interesting article on arrogance as “a formula for leadership failure.” Stan Silverman (Akron), Russ Johnson (Michigan State) and colleagues have focused years of research on arrogance. They developed a 26-item self-report Workplace Arrogance Scale to study arrogance in the workplace.
 
In the IOP article they defined arrogance as "engaging in behaviors intended to exaggerate a person’s sense of superiority by disparaging others” (p. 22) It is not the same as narcissism, which is self-admiration, nor is it the same as being confident. Silverman and his co-authors summarized literature and research findings on arrogance and the workplace. Here are some highlights:

Arrogant people

• Inflate self-importance; see themselves better than others.
• Purport “to be more knowledgeable than others.”
• “consider their own behavior acceptable.”
• “do not monitor their own interactions when interacting with others.”
• Try “to make others feel inferior.”
• Avoid blame, pin blame on others.
• Discount feedback; less likely to seek feedback
• “often impede effective organizational functioning.”      
• Less likely to perform their job well.
• Less likely to help others

Silverman et al. suggested that “workplace arrogance can be a serious problem.” Arrogant people tend to be poor performers who negatively impact workplace climate. The good news is that Silverman and colleagues think people who are arrogant can change those behaviors. They contend humility can be learned; people can develop a more accurate image of themselves. They suggest organizations could use a measure like their arrogance scale as part of performance appraisal. Where needed, individual development plans could be instituted to eliminate the dysfunctional behaviors.     
 
My Take-aways:
 
1. This article deserves a large audience. It is easy to confuse arrogance and narcissism. It is easy to think there is nothing that can be done to change a person who is arrogant. If the person who is arrogant is at the top of the organization, that may be true. But the idea of realistic feedback and working with someone to improve workplace behaviors makes sense.
 
2. My experience is that many supervisors find it difficult to give realistic feedback, whether arrogant behaviors or others. Part of the problem might be waiting until official performance appraisals to give feedback. Great leaders will give feedback when needed as needed. They do not wait to make suggestions to improve behaviors, and hence performance.

3. Regardless, true leaders develop and grow others. In so doing they grow their organizations.
 
Silverman, S. B., Johnson, R. E., McConnell, N., & Carr, A.  (2012). Arrogance: A formula for leadership failure. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 50 (1), 21-28.
 
Image, “Bleach- Hitsugaya mini” by NamelessArrogance.
Obtained from: http://www.deviantart.com/art/Bleach-Hitsugaya-mini-209719154.
Used with permission: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2016. All rights reserved.
 _________________________
"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

Do you know your purpose? In a 2012 best-seller Clayton Christensen (Harvard Business School) and his co-authors posed the question, “How will you measure your life?”  People vary in how a sense of purpose affects their lives.

• Some people have lives of purpose but cannot articulate what that purpose is.
• Others struggle with determining their purpose.
• A few know exactly what their lives are about.
• Many just live their lives as they unfold without thinking about purpose and possibilities.

60 years ago AT&T committed to a 20-year longitudinal study of its managers. In 1988 Ann Howard and Douglas Bray reported the results in the classic book Managerial Lives in Transition. One assessment was about purpose. Each manager had a 2-4 hour interview with a psychologist in which the manager just talked about life. The eminent psychologist Joseph Rychlak analyzed detailed notes from over 350 interviews. Rychlak (1982) identified nine major life themes that emerged in conversation, patterns that reflected priorities and interests. Here are those themes in my words (as I listed in an earlier blog):

• Occupational. People for whom work was the true center of their lives. They talked mainly about their work and getting ahead. 
• Financial-acquisitive: People occupied with accumulating wealth, property and other possessions. People with this theme desired symbols of their success. 
• Locale-residential: For some, where they lived was the key. They liked their city, their community, their part of the state. Living where they lived was what they wanted most.  
• Service: People heavily involved in community activities (of a nonreligious nature), or serving the nation in the National Guard or Reserves.
• Ego-functional: Those mostly interested in self-development, such as pursuing more education, reading, physical activity, health.
• Religious-humanism: People engaged with their church, synagogue, mosque, or expressing humanistic values.
• Recreational-social: For some, enjoying their hobbies, going to movies, or socializing occupied their time. Work was a means to an end.  
• Marital-familial: People talking mostly about their spouse, children, in-laws. 
• Parental-familial: People talking mostly about their parents, siblings, old friends.

In the best-selling The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey (1989) conveyed pretty much the same ideas but in more popular language. Instead of life themes, he discussed centers or centeredness stating, “Each of us has a center, though we usually don’t recognize it as such.” Covey’s centers were spouse, family, money, work, possessions, pleasure, friend, enemy, church, self-centered, or principle centered. Given a list of Rychlak’s life themes and Covey’s centers, it is easy to match them. Only enemy centered seems unique to Covey.

Take-aways:

1.  My guess is that you may be able to identify your dominant life theme or the life themes of others. My dad was born and raised in the Piedmont of North Carolina. After he came back from the Korean War, he was stationed briefly in Monterey, California. He was discharged and returned to the Tar Heel State. Decades later I visited Monterey while doing some consulting. I was overwhelmed with the beauty of Monterey Bay and Carmel. I called my father. “Dad, this place is so beautiful. Why didn’t you just settle here?” After a short pause, he answered: “I missed my home.” My dad could not leave the red dirt of the Piedmont.

2. While we probably have a dominant life theme if we look closely, life themes may vary across a lifetime.  The person for whom the work is primary may find that over time family becomes most important.

3. Purpose and success are related. Howard and Bray found life themes were good predictors of the level managers would achieve over 20 years. Not surprisingly, those managers with the highest scores on the occupational life theme advanced fast and far. In the first several years the life theme differences among managers were small but around the fourth year, occupational life theme scores started to move apart. By year seven, the occupational life theme corresponded to the highest managerial level eventually to be attained. Those with the highest scores were headed to the senior levels whereas those with the lowest scores were destined to stay at first level managers. In many, if not most, organizations, those who “eat, live, and breathe their jobs” are more likely to rise to the top.
 
Adapted from Decoding the Workplace: 50 Keys to Understanding People in Organizations.
 
Bray, D. W., & Howard, A. (1988). Managerial lives in transition. New York: Guilford.
Christensen, C. M., Allworth, J., & Dillon, K. (2012). How will you measure your life?. New York: HarperCollins.
Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly efiective people. New York: Fireside. 
Rychlak, J. F. (1982). Personality and life-style of young male managers: A logical learning theory analysis. Elsevier.
           
© John Ballard, PhD,  2016. All rights reserved.
 _________________________
"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



 

A recent blog at www.tinypulse.com had the caption, “Managers need to do everything within their power to keep their employees happy in the aftermath of a mass layoff.” The blog by Sabrina Son was titled “So How Exactly Are You Supposed to Motivate Your Staff After Sharing the Bad News?” 

The blog suggested:

1. Keep people informed about the whys of the decision.
2. Conduct small groups oriented toward future.
3. Listen and address concerns.
4. Be empathetic.
5. “Tell your workers why they made the cut by recognizing the strengths they bring to the team.”
6. “Be courteous and gracious.”

 
The blog noted, “no matter how they appear on the outside, chances are your employees will be torn on the inside.”
 
My take-aways:
 
1. Any significant organizational change, including downsizing, will cause bereavement in many employees. Bereavement simply means a person is deprived of something. Usually we think of that as grieving but it could also be joyful. I am reminded of a woman who tragically lost her husband but showed no remorse. Her reaction: “Now I don’t have to divorce the horse’s rear end.” Some people will be pro-change and expect to benefit.
 
2. But for many, the sense of loss will initiate Kübler-Ross’s classic stages of grieve: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance. The process may be short or very long depending on the person and the situation. Leaders should understand this is not business as usual. Human relations should be part of the planning and mental services may be considered. Son’s blog acknowledges that employees may be “torn on the inside.”
 
4. I agree with the list above except for #5. The employees may know that some of the best workers were fired. Employees know best who contributes and who doesn’t. Many factors besides individual skill sets and productivity can contribute to layoff decisions.
 
5. Job satisfaction and high employee engagement are desirable goals. Management can affect some factors affecting these but ultimately happiness comes from within the individual; it's not externally created. Empathy, active listening, and acting on concerns are all important. Where possible, try not to think of people as costs. Think of them as assets. Hire well, invest in people, and reward – one formula for success.

Image, "Don't grieve. anything you Lose Come Round in Another Form" by Marcela.
Retrieved from: https://www.flickr.com/photos/marcelamcgreal/18338078549
Used with permission: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

© 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

Are there differences among people that predispose some toward becoming leaders? In the first half of the last century, researchers tried to find traits common to leaders. The idea was leaders were born. When this approach produced mixed results, researchers moved on in the 1950s and 1960s to identifying behaviors of leaders, the classic studies at Ohio State and Michigan. We concluded leadership was mainly situational.
 
But are there traits that might differentiate potential for leadership? Robert House and Mary Baetz  (1979) suggested it makes sense that some individual differences play a role in leadership. 

Leadership is a social process. It occurs with respect to others. Therefore leaders are more likely to have:

• social skills
• speaking skills 
• a predisposition to be influential

​Leadership occurs in relation to accomplishing goals. Therefore leaders may have more:

• intelligence
• task-related ability
• energy  

​
My take-aways:

1. Leadership is clearly a social process so factors affecting social interaction should be important in leading. I think of great leaders and most were superb speakers.

2. Energy is not a topic that I have read about in the academic leadership literature. But it makes sense, especially if you look at the biographies of great leaders. People have different levels of energy. I have been amazed at times in my life by people who seem to do it all, do it all well, and have time left over. You have probably known a few. You may be one. About 1% to 3% of the population need only four hours of sleep a night. These people seem to do so much they appear to have a permanently installed “on” button. 

3. Research focusing on these six factors and leadership might produce interesting results. My guess is most of us can identify these factors in leaders we know. Or in ourselves.
         
Robert J. House and Mary L. Baetz, “Leadership: Some Empirical Generalizations and New Research Directions,” in Research in Organizational Behavior Vol.1, ed. Barry M. Staw (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1979), 341-423.

Adapted from Decoding the Workplace, Best Career Book - Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.

Image “Leader of the Pack” by Sudosurootdev.
Obtained from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leader123.jpg
Used with permission: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en

© John Ballard, PhD,  2016. All rights reserved.
 _________________________
"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
________________________
On Twitter: @johnballardphd

Does the sex of a leader affect the bottom-line of an organization? At a bar after a few drinks, you might encounter differences in opinions. The political correct answer is "of course not." But what really is the answer. That is an empirical question.
 
Over 25 years ago I took a hard look at this question with a graduate student, Jane Farrell. I will state my bias up front. I think the management style and effectiveness of all people in leadership positions varies widely, far more than it might between men and women – and frankly I doubted that our research would show a difference. As a social scientist, I put my bias on the shelf and collected data. What is the relationship between sex of the leader and the bottom-line?
 
We examined 20 years of studies using Psychological Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and the Defense Technical Information Center. Additionally we did a manual search of several academic journals. We were conducting a meta-analysis, which looks at results across studies and computes the average effect size. We identified 70 studies. Our criteria for including a study were (1) measures of group performance under both male and female leaders and (2) enough detail that we could calculate an effect size. Of the 70 studies, only 9 met our criteria. Some were field studies; several, laboratory.
 
The average effect size was .08 with a variance of .03. Given the small effect size we concluded it does not really matter to the bottom-line whether the leader is a woman or man. It is the person and that person’s leadership that matters.
 
My take-aways:
 
1.  Many studies have been done in the past 25 years relating to the sex of the leader. Researchers have studied many factors but I have not found one asking our question, the relationship between sex of the leader and the bottomline. More recent research by others has shown the positive effect of women on the decision making of corporate boards.
 
2. The most important criterion for any manager is results. Results can shape opportunities. We were surprised how few studies had been conducted focusing on the leader’s sex and results. On the other hand, it may be a positive sign that this is no longer seen as a topic worth researching.
 
3. At the time of this study, I grew tired of hearing less-than-positive comments about women leaders from both men and women. It is the character of leaders that matters, their attitudes toward followers, their authenticity, the level of trust they create, and their ability to truly listen. Both women and men have the potential to be great leaders.
 
Ballard, J. A., & Farrell, J. A.  (1989, August).  Group performance and sex of the leader: A meta-analysis.  Paper presented at the 97th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.

Image “Women Lead” by geralt. Obtained from pixabay. 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
 
Available at leading online bookstores such as Amazon.com
________________________
Follow me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/johnballardphd
On Twitter: @johnballardphd