Author Archives: Larry Janis

Gratitude Is More Powerful Than You Think

 

 

 

by Chiara Trombini, Postdoctoral Fellow at INSEAD; Pok Man Tang, Ph.D. Student at Texas A&M University; Remus Ilies, Professor of Management at Bocconi University and National University of Singapore

 

 

 

Regular appreciation and thanks from service users can make a huge difference in the lives of burnt-out essential workers.

The marks of a surgical mask seared into the cheeks and over the nose. Brows furrowed in resigned exhaustion. Eyes that have seen too much suffering. Who can forget the harrowing faces of nurses and doctors photographed at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic? They remind us that healthcare workers perform a critical service, often to the detriment of their own physical and emotional health. And, as we enter the third year of the crisis, many have had enough.

Almost half a million healthcare workers in the United States have quit their jobs since February 2020, the Atlantic reported recently, citing the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A similar exodus is taking place in the United Kingdom, Singapore and Australia, to name a few. Many nurses are burnt out: The ranks of those intending to leave within a year have doubled to 20-30 percent, the International Council of Nurses said in December.

Blame a once-in-a-century contagion for taking stress on healthcare workers to the extreme, but theirs is a demanding job even in the best of times. As trite as it may sound, a little appreciation from the people who benefit from their service can go a long way.

In a paper published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, we and our co-authors* uncover just how much. We found that receiving gratitude energised healthcare workers on the job and, significantly, improved their family life by making them better spouses. Gratitude, it would appear, has greater impact on the recipient than what many might think. (more…)

Questions to Help You Pick Your Next Leader

 

 

This article was written by Wharton professor emeritus of management Michael Useem. Useem is also director of the Wharton Center for Leadership and Change Management.

 

 

You are about to interview three finalists for a senior position in your enterprise. The candidates have all worked for the company for years, and your search committee believes all are qualified. What questions should you ask in the final interview to help you decide who is best qualified to lead one of your premier divisions or functions?

Let’s first consider just how indicative those questions can really be. Plenty, the research suggests. Because of inadequate vetting’s, including final-stage interviewing, any number of companies have promoted the wrong executive to the top rung, as seen in failed successions at General Electric, Hewlett Packard, and Wells Fargo, and they have paid dearly. Elevating a suboptimal candidate into the corner office can cost you as much as 30% of your financial results over the next three years. And that difference becomes especially pronounced in an era of uncertainty and change, like now.

You will certainly want to query your candidates about their vision for the company, their strategy for getting there, and their understanding of the business, but you’ll also want to get at their leadership capabilities. For that, here’s a final interview question that has worked especially well for Alex Gorsky, the former CEO and now executive chairman of one of the world’s largest publicly traded companies, Johnson & Johnson:

  • What are the names of at least three executives at our company whose leadership you have significantly strengthened through your coaching and mentoring?

From my own profiling of ten CEOs regarding their company leadership, here is a vital question to foresee their potential successor’s future:

  • How will you lead this enterprise when what counts ahead will be very different from what counted in the past?

If you don’t hear a lot about agility, diversity, risk, and sustainability, you probably have the wrong candidate, however otherwise qualified.

And don’t limit your queries to the candidates themselves. How about asking managers who have worked for or with all the finalists whom they would choose? This question worked well at another multinational pharmaceutical, GlaxoSmithKline. A representative of the CEO and governing board asked 14 senior managers who had personal experience with the three finalists:

  • Which of the three candidates to become chief executive would you most like to see elevated and to serve under?

It came as a surprise — though a very instructive one — when the subordinates converged on the dark horse, the youngest and least experienced of the three, making him the winning horse.

It is also useful for you to ask other senior managers and even company directors to weigh in. When ITT split into three spin-offs, the board chair advocated promoting the parent’s CFO, Denise Ramos, to serve as one of the new CEOs. From observing her in action, he explained, she “was CEO before she was the CEO.” And if that was not already evident, it’s good to ask about it:

  • If you were chief executive today, what would you do that is not already being done by the CEO?

And just in case you run out of discerning questions about your successor’s leadership:

  • How will you be a better leader of this enterprise than me?

In one of the most entertaining interviews I have ever witnessed, during a parody of the Wharton’s School’s MBA admissions criteria, our director of admissions asked a candidate to sing why he should be admitted. Yes, sing. Unknown to the audience, both the admissions director and the MBA candidate had come from the opera stage. With music from a classic, their duet brought the house down. For a memorably colorful moment, you might once even stretch a little:

  • Can you sing your leadership capabilities?

For ensuring the right finalist is picked, the leadership questions are not all that technical. They just need to be asked.

 

Source: Knowledge@Wharton

Leaders should revisit the works of three corporate culture pioneers

by Jon Katzenbach and Carolyn Black

A trio of 20th-century thinkers yields insights into how to align culture with strategy and energize employees today.

As consultants, we’ve been working in the world of corporate culture much longer than it has been popular to do so. Over the past ten years, culture has become a regular topic of discussion among leaders, and writing on the topic has exploded. And yet, even with these new and sometimes very insightful voices to draw from, we find ourselves repeating the wisdom of three 20th-century thinkers: Leon Festinger, Frederick Herzberg, and Daniel Goleman.

We assure you, we’re not just stuck on “the oldies.” Rather, we’re pointing you to classics. These authors put forward clear, pragmatic insights that have stood the test of time. Used together, these ideas help form a foundation for successful cultural alignment and evolution. Simply put, these “oldies” are goodies that have worked for decades—and still do.

So, who are these folks, and how is what they said years ago still relevant today?

Leon Festinger

Festinger (1919–89) was an American psychologist and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Michigan, who was best known for developing the theory of cognitive dissonance in the 1950s.

What he said: Festinger’s theory proposes that a mismatch between beliefs and behaviors causes psychological tension (i.e., cognitive dissonance). In other words, if you believe a certain thing, but your actions do not line up with that belief, you will feel uneasy until you modify either your beliefs or your actions (or both). In contrast, acting in accordance with your beliefs achieves resonance, i.e., positive feelings around what you are doing. (more…)

What HR has to really do to meet its new priorities

By Tom Starner

From retention and recruiting to budget gaps, HR leaders have their work cut out for them in 2022, according to a recent report from the Hackett Group.

The strategic consultancy firm’s 2022 Human Resources Key Issues—based on a survey of more than 250 executives in HR, finance, IT, procurement, supply chain and global business services at midsize and large enterprises—suggests that HR leaders have to refocus their agenda this year on several key issues, says Hackett Group’s Global HR Advisory Practice Leader Harry Osle. Of particular concern, he explains, respondents said they lacked confidence that seven of the top 10 HR priorities identified are actually achievable.

“The majority of HR organizations have launched or are launching major initiatives to improve their capabilities to enable enterprise-growth strategies, digital transformation, creating a high-performing organizational culture and improving talent management,” Osle says. He adds that in order to close capability gaps, HR organizations must take greater advantage of digital technology to improve service delivery and insights.

The HR priorities survey participants identified as most challenging include:

(more…)

Making Sure That Everyone Knows Their Place

Andy J. Yap, INSEAD Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour; Nikhil Madan, Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour at ISB; Phanish Puranam, the Roland Berger Chaired Professor of Strategy and Organisation Design at INSEAD

 

 

Why formal structures and greater diversity create status disagreements and how to fix the issue.

Organisations are becoming increasingly complex beasts. Globalisation has led to the rise of vast multinationals made up of diverse business units and teams operating across many countries and time zones. Perhaps unsurprisingly, such growth brings with it a series of management issues.

One pervasive challenge is the potential for disagreements between employees regarding who has higher status and who should defer to whom in situations where there are differences in views and opinions. Organisational scientists have documented that upward status disagreement (USD), a situation in which individuals disagree about who has higher status, is particularly harmful to organisations. Research shows that USD may result in a rise in interpersonal and status conflicts (i.e. attempts to assert dominance, forming opposing coalitions and making political plays). It may also increase focus on individual goals rather than collective objectives. (more…)