Winning Vs. Success: Five Ways to Focus on Real Impact

Posted on

 

 

 

 

by Justin Bookey

 

If you “win” a negotiation but end up alienating the other players, the long-term benefits are negligible. Focus on the real prize.

In sports, business, arguments and relationships, “winning” often implies a zero-sum game, where there’s a clear victor and a defeated opponent. Winning certainly feels great in the moment, and can bring material gains, status and a surge of dopamine. But if there’s only one winner, where does that leave the others? They may feel dejected, envious or hollow.

“Success,” however, can benefit everyone involved. Consider breaking your personal best time in a 10K race, but finishing 12th in your age group. In a national championship, that would be recorded as a distant loss. But you made it to the Nationals, achieved a personal best, and forged great relationships. These are all significant successes.

Success is Inclusive and Lasting

Success encompasses winning, but also recognizes everyone who advances in their own challenges. This isn’t about participation trophies; it’s about acknowledging the efforts of all participants who overcome meaningful hurdles. Whether it’s a company bonus, a check-mark on a goals chart or an ice cream cone after a game, everyone who contributes their best effort and achieves some positive result deserves to enjoy some reward. Continue reading →

The 3 most undesirable traits of leaders—and how to fix them

Posted on

 

 

 

ByHRM Asia 

We have all been there before: A micromanaging manager who does not trust employees to carry out their job roles competently. An unempathetic manager who only has her self-interests at heart and does not recognize the feelings of others. An inarticulate manager with poor communication skills who encourages a culture of non-transparency and second-guessing.

For organizations with workplace leaders who demonstrate these undesirable traits, are they at risk of losing their best talent? Are employees really leaving managers and not organizations?

A recent LinkedIn poll conducted by HRM Asia would seem to give credence to these suggestions, with an overwhelming 88% of respondents saying that they would choose a “great manager” over a “great job.”

3 leadership traits to avoid

To put things into perspective, this is not to suggest that bad managers are the only reason why employees leave an organization. Factors such as better job growth and career advancement opportunities also need to be considered.

However, with employees spending more than half of their waking time at work, it is perhaps not surprising that they desire to work with “great managers” who are competent and can support them in achieving key work goals.

“Undesirable traits can cause irreversible damage to trust, collaboration and strategic alignment, which are critical for organizations to thrive,” Grant “Upbeat” Bosnick, an award-winning author and keynote speaker, told HRM Asia.

Specifically, he identifies three undesirable leadership traits that organizations must identify and fix.

1. Ego-centered decision-making

Boastful leaders driven by ego prioritize their personal interests over the organization’s goals. This trait destroys trust within the team, leads to poor decision-making and promotes a toxic culture that values individual success over collective growth. A leader’s inability to prioritize the business and people over personal ambition can cripple organizational effectiveness.

To overcome this, leaders need to implement a collective decision-making process where input from key stakeholders across different regions, functions and levels is actively sought before major decisions are made. Creating a “team of teams” culture encourages leaders to see themselves as part of a larger ecosystem, not the sole decision-makers. Continue reading →

If You Run Meetings and You’re Not Doing These 3 Things, You’re Wasting Your Time—and Everybody Else’s, Too

Posted on

 

 

 

by Justin Bariso

Done right, meetings are a great way of leveraging teams to get work done faster and better. Here’s three ways to help you make sure that happens.

So, you’re sitting at your desk, trying to get some work done. Suddenly, a meeting invite pops up on your screen saying something like this:

If you haven’t guessed already, this meeting is likely to be a big waste of time. But don’t put all the blame on the poor clueless project manager. Chances are, he or she’s just doing what they’ve seen done over and over again, or maybe were even trained to do.

Or, let’s be honest: You may be the one sending out meeting invites like this.

I used to. But several years ago, I worked on a project for a global nonprofit that changed the way I looked at meetings. We interviewed a number of highly effective managers and meeting facilitators to learn more about how they used meetings to get work done.

The task was simple: Find a way to make meetings more effective and efficient.

In doing so, a few simple rules became clear for making the most of our meetings. A big one was this:

Every meeting should have:

  • An agenda (sent at least 24 hours before)
  • A person assigned to follow up on each task
  • A summary and notes

I’m not the only one who feels strongly about this. In an article for MIT Sloan Management Review, organizational science and psychology professors Steven Rogelberg, Cliff Scott, and John Kello recommend that organizers send out an agenda along with relevant background material ahead of the meeting, with enough time for participants to review.

At Apple, Steve Jobs knew how to use meetings to get things done. He instilled the habit of designating a person responsible for following up on every task, and listing this on the meeting notes. That person even had a title—he or she was the “Directly Responsible Individual.”

Let’s break down each of these requirements and see why they’re so vital to your meeting’s success. Continue reading →

What to Expect in the Second Job Interview: And the Do’s and Don’ts

Posted on

 

 

 

 

by Jamela Adam

 

Congratulations — you made it to the second round of interviews for a job. Now, it’s time to step up your game and make an even stronger impression. The second interview is your chance to stand out and prove you’re the obvious choice for the job. It’s also an opportunity to revisit any questions you feel could use a bit more clarity or detail.

Differences Between the First and Second Interview 

The first interview is typically an initial screening. The interviewer gauges your overall fit for the position and gets a general sense of your background and qualifications. The second interview is slightly different.

“In your second interview, you’re not just demonstrating that you’re qualified for the position. Rather, you must now communicate what sets you apart from fellow applicants who also meet, and likely exceed, the minimum job requirements,” Dr. Kyle Elliott, MPA, CHES?, tech career coach?, and founder of CaffeinatedKyle.com, said in an email.

“Additionally, your second interview is likely to be a lengthier conversation with a hiring manager or peer. You want to use this conversation to articulate your unique value proposition and why the hiring manager would benefit from choosing you over other applicants,” he added.

Continue reading →

Why Business Leaders Make Lousy Politicians

Posted on

 

 

 

 

by Adam Grant

 

When Donald Trump talked about deploying the military against “the enemy within,” critics sounded the alarm—again—about his increasingly authoritarian rhetoric. Many see his escalating threats as proof of a growing thirst for power. But history suggests that another factor may be at least as relevant: mounting frustration at the compromises that political life demands.

Trump pitched himself to the American people as a business tycoon, someone who knew how to close deals, vanquish competitors, and create jobs. He said those experiences would make him an effective leader. Yet it turns out that what makes people successful in business is a risk factor for failure in politics.

Corporate America rewards achievement strivers—people who  love to aim high, work hard, and overcome obstacles. To see how those tendencies played out in the White House, psychologists scored presidential addresses on how often they referenced achievement. Years later, achievement-striving presidents got lower greatness ratings from historians, who also judged them as poorer decision makers and less politically skilled than their peers.

A prime example is Jimmy Carter. Although as a private citizen he had succeeded in revitalizing his family’s peanut farm, in the White House he struggled to control inflation, fuel prices, and escalating conflicts in Iran and Afghanistan. As the University of Michigan psychologist David Winter explains, the achievement-minded “president actively strives to accomplish things but becomes frustrated, dislikes the job, and ends up defeating himself.”

Winter wrote that looking backward in 2010, but he could have easily been looking ahead at Donald Trump.  Continue reading →