Actions tend to be judged based on some set of expectations, standards or thresholds. For example, managers may set sales targets that employees must achieve before getting a bonus; parents may establish ground rules that children need to abide by before rewarding or punishing them; and content moderators may let social media users commit a certain number of rule breaches before permanently banning them.

These common associations between actions and thresholds imply that there are two distinct stages to most judgments and decisions. The first is the threshold-setting stage, in which we set standards to determine when the behaviour of others would lead to action on our part. The second is the application stage, in which we are supposed to follow through on our own pre-set thresholds.

In theory, one would hope that the thresholds we set in prospect are indeed the ones we adhere to in practice. However, in a recent study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, my co-author Ed O’Brien from the University of Chicago and I (Nadav Klein) found that we routinely decide to punish or praise others before or after they cross the thresholds we establish. In other words, we are often either harsher or more lenient than we plan to be. This discrepancy occurs, we suggest, because the psychology of setting thresholds and standards is distinct from the psychology of following them.

Setting thresholds in prospect and following them in practice

Let’s take the case of an employee who is underperforming. As their manager, you might consider placing them in a dreaded “performance improvement plan”. However, as you are not sure if they require these remedial measures, you decide to examine the next three client presentations they send you. If all of them fail to meet the standard of being client-ready, you would then be certain that this employee must undertake remedial training to remain in the job. Continue reading →

Networking can feel a bit scary for many people. For human social relations, small is often beautiful. After all, for a lot longer than modern civilisation has existed, humans lived in small, close-knit hunter-gatherer groups of about 150 individuals. In these groups, we felt safer. We had the capacity to know those around us reasonably well, and to be aware of how they knew each other (which helped us navigate socially). This explains why venturing beyond the familiar can be fraught with some anxiety.

In the modern world, however, networking is essential. Research tells us that extending our network helps us find new jobs, be more creative and do well as a leader (through the performance of our subordinates). The late entertainment industry legend Clarence Avant constructed a network in his lifetime that bridged many talents such as Bill Withers and Grammy Award-winning producers Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis. If he didn’t navigate the unfamiliar, many of these bridges would never have been formed, and many talented artists perhaps never discovered. Martin Scorsese’s impressive body of work included connections with several gifted actors who could be called upon for multiple productions over the years (Robert De Niro, Leonardo DiCaprio and Harvey Keitel, among others). While leveraging this familiarity, he further discovered and worked with a multitude of different actors across his career. 

Unfortunately, many of us prefer the familiar. So powerful is this tendency to seek people who are “similar” to ourselves that it has a name – homophily – and forms a substantial research subfield. Indeed, despite all of the popular attention on networking, the reality is that many of us find it shallow and overly transactional. This shuts us off from discovering meaningful, inspiring and productive connections.

Our dependence on others

No matter how capable and independent we may be, much of our ability to do anything in this world depends upon others. It’s remarkable how incredibly dependent we ultimately are on other “experts” (for food, clothing, shelter, technology, information, etc.). Product-market ideas of all sorts depend upon the recombination of ideas from so many fields and experiences that it becomes less probable that it can be accumulated in the mind of solitary individuals. Robinson Crusoe-like development is unlikely to cut it in this day and age. 

How can we reach out and make new connections given our human nature? At the risk of over-simplifying things, let’s consider three do’s and three don’ts:

Continue reading →

Despite women comprising nearly half of the global workforce, only around 32 percent occupy senior leadership roles (director, vice-president or C-suite), according to the Global Gender Gap Report 2023 from the World Economic Forum. Leveraging LinkedIn data from 163 countries, the report reveals that in C-suite positions, women’s representation drops to just 25 percent. 

Meanwhile, in corporate America and Canada, representation of women in the C-suite has reached the highest level recorded so far – 28 percent – as per the recent Women in the Workplace study by Lean In and McKinsey. Although these gains are cause for modest celebration, the road to workplace equality remains considerably long.

As outlined in the study, women, especially women of colour, face their biggest hurdle at the first step up to managerial roles. Due to the gender imbalance in initial promotions, men end up occupying 60 percent of manager-level positions in a typical company. With fewer women promoted to senior managerial roles, the number of women further diminishes at higher levels within the organisation.

While there is considerable focus on the “glass ceiling”, it appears that women encounter significant career barriers long before reaching top leadership positions. So, what is impeding the progress of women, and how can we remove some of these roadblocks? Continue reading →

A stable job offers more than just a pay cheque; it provides a sense of belonging, self-worth and purpose. However, job stability is increasingly at risk. Technological advancements and economic shifts are challenging established roles, compelling workers to acquire new skills, change occupations or even re-evaluate their career paths to stay relevant.

By 2030, a significant portion of the global workforce – ranging from 3 to 14 percent, equivalent to 75 to 375 million workers – will need to switch occupations and learn new skills, according to aMcKinsey report. In advanced economies like the United States and Japan, this figure rises significantly to 32 percent and 46 percent, respectively.

Navigating career disruption can be particularly difficult for individuals who strongly identify with their profession and consider it a fundamental part of who they are. In contrast, research suggests that those who hold “multiple identities” are more resilient in the face of job loss, as they can use other identities as a protective buffer. In other words, when their work identity is threatened after being laid off, they can draw on other identities, like being a parent or community member, to derive a sense of self-worth and successfully change careers.

However, my recent research with Amy Wrzesniewski from The Wharton School reveals a different pattern. We focused on the field of journalism, which has experienced widespread job cuts and closures. Although all former journalists in our study considered their profession as central to their identity, there was a notable difference in their responses to losing their job. Some found it challenging to recover, while others quickly rebounded and reinvented their careers.

Continue reading →