Two of my former students, Ashley Cray and Marisela Fernandez, recorded this interview with me for a project in another one of their MBA classes. We pretty much just cover the evidence I wrote about in my previous blog entitled “Leadership traits and behavior: Four evidence-based suggestions.” There are two questions at the end of the interview where I give my opinion about how the evidence influences what I look for in an MBA student and what I tell practicing managers. The video is about 8 minutes long. Thanks Ashley and Marisela!

Related Posts:

Evidence For Leading By Example

Evidence For The Causes And Consequences Of Work Engagement

Employee Empowerment: Why It Matters And How To Get It

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is a term used to describe discretionary behavior at work where an employee goes above and beyond what’s written in their job description to either help other coworkers or to help the organization. The evidence shows that engagement, empowerment, and leading by example all produce more citizenship behavior from employees. You want your employees to be good citizens, because this extra effort at the individual level aggregates to enhanced performance of your business.

A new study published in Personnel Psychology (full citation below) suggests another reason to promote OCB at work – it can help your employees display a more positive mood. This unique study equipped 68 employees with mobile devices and cued them twice a day for 29 days to answer questions about their behaviors and moods. The helping behaviors examined in this study were altruism (e.g. helped someone from outside my workgroup, cooperatively worked with others) and courtesy (e.g. checked with others before doing something that would affect their work, taken steps to prevent problems with other workers).

The study found that when workers reported a negative mood and then engaged in altruistic helping behaviors, their mood became more positive. This effect was particularly strong for individuals high in extroversion. Courtesy behaviors also produced positive moods, but the results were somewhat mixed and not as strong as were the results for altruistic behaviors. According to the authors:

If indeed, “doing good” leads to “feeling good,” then organizations may consider feeling good an additional benefit to engaging in helping, which is often organizationally encouraged through mechanisms such as mentoring, participation in volunteer efforts, or team coaching. Expansion of such organizational practices, often designed with primarily employee development objectives important to the organization, may also reap unexpected benefits in terms of regulating individual mood. (p. 214).

So the next time you find yourself in a bad mood at work, consider getting up and helping someone with their work. Not only will it enhance productivity and your own social capital, it might also make you feel better! If you witness your employees in a down mood, find ways to get them helping others, or invite them to spend a little time helping you with something you are working on.

What do you think? Please share your thoughts in the comment section below!

Full citation: Glomb, T.M. et al. (2011). Doing good, feeling good: Examining the role of organizational citizenship behavior in changing mood. Personnel Psychology, 64: 191-223.

Related Posts:

Personality And Employee Engagement

Work Engagement As Vigor

Authentic Leadership

Leading by example is a central premise of most popular leadership philosophies and formal theories. The idea is that leaders provide a role model for the critical behaviors they want to see from their followers. As popular as this idea is, you might be surprised to know that there is very little empirical evidence to support the efficacy of leading by example in field studies of actual employees and their leaders. Leading by example is often inferred, but it has rarely been directly measured and evaluated for it’s effect on behavior.

A recently published study in the Journal of Applied Psychology (full citation below) provides some much needed evidence-based support for leading by example. This study of 67 separate work groups involving 683 total employees in a large Israeli communication organization looked at how the leader’s organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) affected the citizenship behavior of the group. The idea is that group members would be more likely to believe going above and beyond the formal job description to help the organization or fellow employees (OCB) is a worthy thing to do if they see a leader they identify with doing the same.

The results showed that group members were likely to engage in OCB to the extent that they believed it was a worthy behavior, and their beliefs about the value of OCB were affected by both the leader’s actual OCB and their belief that the leader was a worthy role model. As a leader, you need your people to do more than what’s written in their formal job descriptions to help the organization and each other. This research suggests that to get this critical behavior from your employees, you need to exhibit it yourself. Your folks will not go above and beyond the call of duty at work unless they see you doing the same.

This research has implications for critical behaviors other than OCB. For any behavior you need to see from your followers, you are most likely to get it from them if they believe the behavior is worthy of their effort. This research suggests that one way to facilitate behavior you want to see from others is to practice it yourself, but that only works if they actually see you practice it and believe in your leadership. Leading by example won’t work if your folks either never see you, or when they do see you have little respect for you as a leader.

Once again, the evidence supports what most of us strongly believe – leading by example works. As a leader, you will be most effective if the things you ask your folks to do are things you are actually doing yourself.

What do you think? Please share your thoughts in the comment section below!

Full citation: T. Yaffe and R. Kark. (2011). Leading by example: The case of leader OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology.

Related Posts:

Evidence For The Causes And Consequences Of Work Engagement

Leadership Traits And Behaviors: Four Evidence-Based Suggestions

More Evidence For Servant Leadership And Team Performance

Engagement is a psychological response an employee has to the job that motivates the employee to invest his or her whole self – head, hands, and heart – to work. Valid measures of engagement tap characteristics of the response, not characteristics of the work itself. “I feel energetic,” is an example of a valid engagement question, while “I have a best friend at work” is not. One is about the response; the other is about what might cause the response.

One acceptable way to measure engagement is Dr. Arie Shriom’s Vigor Scale. Shriom defines vigor as the positive feeling of physical strength, emotional energy, and cognitive liveliness that arises in response to an individual’s evaluation of the work that they do. It’s not my favorite way to measure engagement, but it works.

A study recently published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior (full citation at the end of this post) found that employee vigor was a significant predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Good organizational citizens go above and beyond what’s written in their job descriptions to either help others at work or to improve the functioning of the organization. Mediocrity is the best your organization can expect to achieve if your employees do not exhibit good citizenship behavior.

This study of 331 repair generalists in a large building facilities and maintenance organization also showed that a personality trait called attachment style was a significant predictor of vigor. Individuals are characterized as having either a secure, counterdependent, or overdependent attachment style.

Individuals with secure attachment form healthy, reciprocal relationships with people. They can work well autonomously but also know when and how to call on others for help when needed. Counterdependent folks avoid close relationships and tend to push others away, even when they need help. Overdepenent folks cling to others and seek more support than they need, which results in driving others away.

As predicted, people with a secure attachment style were more likely to experience vigor at work, while individuals with either a counterdependent or overdependent style experienced less vigor. I think we can conclude that if we value employee engagement, we need to try to hire people with a secure, interdependent attachment style. In my own research, I’ve found that individuals with a secure attachment style had a more trusting relationship with their supervisor, and that trust was a significant predictor of employee performance.

Vigor is a valid way to think about engagement. If your employees appear peppy, energetic, and interested in the work they do, they are likely engaged. If this does not describe your employees, you could certainly look for new ones, but I’d recommend starting with partnering with them to continuously improve the work that they do.

Full citation: Little, L.M, et al. (2011) Integrating attachment style, vigor at work, and extra-role performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 464-484.

Related Posts:

Interpersonal Citizenship Behavior: My Most Recent Research

Authentic Leadership

Measurement Happens

Most approaches to explaining leadership effectiveness focus on either leader traits (e.g. personality, intelligence, gender) or leader behaviors (e.g. directive, participative, charismatic, servant leadership). Both approaches have been shown to have merit, but how do traits and behaviors work together, and is one approach better than the other?

A new meta-analysis looked at evidence from 79 previously published studies to attempt to answer this question. The article is about 45 pages long, and I provide the full citation at the end of this post in case you are having trouble sleeping some evening. I think the four most interesting findings from the research are as follows:

1.     Although having certain traits may predispose individuals to certain behaviors, behaviors are the more important predictor of leadership effectiveness. (p. 40)

2.     Individuals who are high in Conscientiousness and Extraversion are more likely to be evaluated as effective leaders, and individuals high in Conscientiousness and Agreeableness tend to improve the performance of the groups they lead. (pp. 40-41). Overall, Conscientiousness was the most consistent predictor of leadership effectiveness (p. 37).

3.     Within the behavioral approach, transformational leadership was the most consistent predictor across a variety of effectiveness criteria (p. 37). Effective leaders must plan and schedule work, support and help their followers, and encourage and facilitate change (p. 41).

4.     The largely negative relationship found between passive leadership behavior and effectiveness suggests that even engaging in suboptimal leadership behaviors is better than inaction. Thus, leadership development initiatives should encourage individuals to proactively assume their leadership responsibilities rather than passively waiting to act until problems develop (p. 41).

Because the evidence shows that behaviors are the strongest predictors of leader effectiveness, we can and should train folks to be more effective leaders. Hire the most conscientious people you can find, but when you get ready to promote people into positions of leadership, make sure they have a proven record of mastering tasks, relating well with others, and responding to mandates for change.

Article citation: Derue, D.S. et al. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64: 7-52.

Related Posts:

Servant Leadership, Trust, And Team Performance

Leader Lab: The Downside Of Too Much Personality

Praise Grit

photo credit: julianlimjl

I’m not very good at networking. I love speaking to groups, and I love one-on-one conversations, but because I’m actually very introverted, I’ve never enjoyed navigating a room full of people.

I attended a networking event recently where food was also served. By the time I got around to finding a place to sit before going through the buffet line, most of seats in the room were already spoken for and a few folks were even seated and eating.

I found an open table at the back of the room where only two people were seated and put my napkin on the back of a chair to hold the seat. Then I approached the person seated closest to me and stuck out my hand to introduce myself.

She neither shook my hand nor even said “hi” to introduce herself. Instead, she looked at my hand, and then looked at the fork she was holding in her hand, and said something to the effect “I’m eating.” It embarrassed the hell out me. Even after everyone was seated at the table, she never made an effort to make a personal connection with me.

I did make an effort to read her name tag, not to remember her name, but to remember where she worked. I resolved right then and there that if I ever needed what her business sold I would make sure to never call them.

This person’s behavior hit me at an emotional level, and the emotion is one I don’t like seeing in myself. It was a stark reminder to me that our behaviors produce both attitudinal and emotional responses in others that in-turn affect their behavior toward us. Even when we are unaware of it, our intentions toward others are always on display via the things we choose and refuse to say and do.

I’m quite sure this person never intended to do herself and her business a disservice by publicly offending me. The incident has got me thinking about my own behavior. Are there things that I do while networking that send people the wrong signals? How can I be even more focused on the needs of others and less focused on my own insecurities at these events? I want to get better at this, because I need to improve my ability and capacity to connect with others.

What do you think? Please share your thoughts in the comment section below!

Related Posts:

Do You Know Everyone In The Room?

Why I Connect On Twitter

My new post at The Leader Lab is entitled “The importance of working with people you like.” In this post I describe new research that shows how co-worker satisfaction affects job satisfaction and ultimately life satisfaction. That’s right, if you work with people you don’t like it’s probably affecting your well-being outside of work.

Read the full text of the article by visiting the link above, or listen to me read the text of the post by clicking below. After you read the article or listen to my podcast, please share your thoughts with me in the comment section below.

I’ve had the privilege of teaching MBA students since 1999. I’ve met both exceptional and abhorrent people over the years. One that I admire as much as anyone I’ve ever met graduated last weekend.

This woman is a single, working mother of a young child with special needs. During the two years I’ve known her, I’ve watched her juggle the demands of her job, child, and coursework with professionalism and grace. I’ve listened to her describe her demands in a matter-of-fact way, but never once heard her complain. She was always positive, always in search of solutions instead of excuses or pity. On top of everything else, she confronted personal health issues and also lost her job. Her response to losing her job was to start her own business.

She had plenty of very legitimate reasons to quit, but she determined to persevere instead.

I think that’s pretty impressive.

If you read this, you’ll know I’m talking about you. I want you to know that in addition to earning your MBA, you also earned my admiration and respect. People like you make the work I do very worthwhile. Thank you.

Should we treat people as adults as work? For people that act like adults, it’s foolish to treat them otherwise; however, for the few that don’t act like adults, it’s equally foolish to treat them as if they were. I’ve found that true adults never raise the issue of being treated like adults for good reason – they don’t have to. It’s only those that choose to not behave as adults that scream the loudest about not being treated like an adult.

Adult behavior is not a self-fulfilling prophesy, such that if we just treated everyone as an adult, everyone would act like one. If you believe that, then you have to believe there is a way you can make the true adults that work for you consistently behave like children. That’s silly.

Here is my list of five things that I think are the hallmark of adult behavior at work:

1. Adults show everyone unconditional respect. Adults understand that respect can only be earned through the treatment of others.  Respect is a gift we give ourselves by the way we treat others. The idea of being entitled to respect is foreign to the mind of an adult.

2. Adults understand that all worthy rewards involve personal and shared sacrifice. Adults count the cost of the goals they value. They don’t pretend that the sacrifices are not painful, but they bear the necessary sacrifices with integrity.

3. Adults understand that freedom of choice is not void of responsibility for consequence. Adults anticipate measured consequences when their personal choices encroach upon the reasonable rights of others at work.

4. Adults set standards for personal behavior far above any guidelines, rules, or policies provided by the organization. By doing so, they free themselves from the system of external rewards and sanctions.

5. Adults accept full responsibility for all their behavior at work. Adults offer explanations that incorporate personal accountability and shun self-serving excuses.

I would suggest to you that if you spend any time at work thinking that you are not being treated as an adult, you are probably not acting like one.

Performance behaviors are not the same as adult behaviors. Not all adults deliver exemplary performance, and not all of your best performers also behave like adults.  If you are hiring and promoting people that don’t have a proven track record of adult behavior at work, then you are doing yourself and the rest of your employees a tremendous disservice.

Related Posts:

Another Great Leader: The Paradox Of Respect

My Advice To New MBA Students

Excellence Is A Form Of Deviance

Joseph Grenny spoke to the World Business Forum 2010 about influence. He was a good speaker and I really enjoyed his talk, and he probably made me think more than any of the other speakers of the first day.

According to Grenny, most of us don’t know what our theory of influence is, so when it fails, we can’t learn from the failure. As much as possible, we need to be explicit about our theory of behavior. I strongly concur with that.

There are two problems of leadership: 1) What should we do? (strategy), 2) How do I get everyone to do that? (influence). Grenny’s law of leadership: there is no strategy so brilliant that people can’t render it useless. Changing the culture and behavior of an organization is the most important thing a leader needs to focus on, and that is an influence issue.

Always remember that the most important capacity you possess is the capacity to change the behavior of yourself and others. Influencers succeed where others fail because they overdetermine success.  This means that they employ several complementary strategies to influence others and get things done.  Influencers avoid the fundamental attribution error – bad behavior is more likely due to crappy systems instead of crappy people. Influencers reshape undesireable behavior by connecting it to human consequences. Successful influencers involve people in 5-10 times more “deliberate practice.”

Grenny’s core message is one that resonates with me. When we observe unacceptable behavior in others, we always have the choice to label them as “bad” or “immoral” people. But there is little leverage in that approach. The real leverage lies in making changes to the systems people find themselves in so that they have more and better opportunities to behave in ways we want them to, and we help them understand clearly the moral implications of how their behavioral choices affect those around them.

I’m putting his book Influence: The Power To Change Anything on my long list of books I need to read.

Related Posts:

Lord Of The Loops

Positively Unable And Unwilling To Learn