The Wall Street Journal has a very good article today about listening skills. The article highlights factors that detract from effective listening and offers tips for becoming a better listener. What are some traps to avoid?
1. Don't begin formulating your response when the other party has just begun talking.
2. Don't filter what you are hearing based on pre-existing views you may have.
3. Don't multi-task.
What can you to improve? First, you can write down questions you would like to ask before a meeting takes place. Second, offer subtle signs (non-verbals) to demonstrate that you appreciate what the other party is saying. Third, repeat what you think you have heard and ask for confirmation that you have interpreted them correctly. Fourth, take notes to keep yourself focused. Fifth, maintain eye contact. Finally, set a goal of what percentage of time you plan to listen vs talk during a meeting.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Monday, July 21, 2014
While I'm here in Tokyo this week, I've been intrigued by what's happening back home in Massaschusetts. A massive employee revolt is occurring at a supermarket chain called Market Basket. This family-owned regional chain competes as an effective low cost player and has a devoted customer following. The CEO has just been fired by the Board. Here's the interesting part. He's been fired by his cousin, who took control of the Board last year, and with whom he has feuded for years. The Board hired two non-family members to run the company. What happened next is fascinating. The employees (non-union by the way, and incredibly loyal) revolted! They have protested publicly. Store shelves are bare in some instances. Politicians are supporting the workers. The employees object for three reasons. They know the company is profitable, and thus do not understand the firing. In addition, the fired CEO treated them well in terms of pay and benefits. Finally, they have great personal admiration for the fired CEO. The company has responded by dismissing managers who have led the protests.
What do I take away from this rare situation? First, every CEO should wish that his or her employees would stand up so forcefully for them even at great personal risk. What a statement about the leadership provided by the fired CEO, as well as his treatment of the employees! Second, the Board has badly miscalculated by firing managers who objected to the CEO's dismissal. It only added fuel to the fire. Third, it really demonstrates the value of culture as a source of competitive advantage. One of the greatest assets a firm can have is devoted and highly productive employees who share common values. That culture has enabled Market Basket to outperform much larger players such as Shaw's in the marketplace. The Board has failed to understand the true "gold" that they have here. Fourth, employee loyalty is so rare in retail, yet these employees rarely left. Turnover was quite low compared to other supermarkets. The cost of turnover in retail can be incredibly high. Again, the Board failed to see the key source of competitive advantage here. Finally, this case shows how social media can fuel a raid and massive backlash. It has enabled customers to show their support and to spread the employees' message. The Board is losing the PR battle because it has no counter to this wave of support via social media.
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Yes, you read that correctly. I'm not talking about procrastination, something at which many of us excel. I'm speaking about a different type of behavior described in a new study by Penn St. scholars David Rosenbaum, Lanyun Gong, and Cory Adam Potts. The New York Times reported on their research this weekend. These scholars define pre-crastination as "the hastening of subgoal completion, even at the expense of extra physical effort." What might that look like? Well, you may be working from home on an important project, perhaps to write a complex report about some research you have been doing for work. However, before sitting down to tackle this challenging project, you scratch a few other smaller items off of your to-do list, such as cleaning the kitchen, doing laundry, etc.
Why do people tackle these smaller items first? According to the article, "People are seeking ways to limit the burden to their 'working memory,' a critical but highly limited mental resource that people use to perform immediate tasks... In essence, they were freeing their brains to focus on other potential tasks." That sounds like a good strategy, right? Well, by now, you can see the risks with this to-do list strategy to limit the burden on our working memory. As Alan Pastel of UCLA notes in the article, "“People who are checking things off the list all the time might look like they’re getting stuff done, but they’re not getting the big stuff done.” Yes, I've definitely fall into that trap.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
The news broke this week about a possible Fox takeover of Time Warner. As you read these reports, you may have noticed many of the key arguments for why this deal would make sense, i.e. powerful synergies exist between the two media/entertainment companies. However, yesterday's Wall Street Journal featured a terrific article examining the perils of vertical integration with respect to this deal. Note that Time Warner is a major producer of television shows, which it sells to various broadcast networks. Fox, of course, owns a major television network (and a variety of cable channels). Warner Brothers is one of the only major TV studios not connected to a major broadcast network (Sony is another). In the article, Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes says, " Being the leading independent supplier to all the broadcast networks makes us the preferred home to the top writers and producers on TV which, in turn, makes us indispensable to those networks." Lee Dinstman, a partner at the Agency for the Performing Arts, explained, "The fact that [Warner] has the freedom to take a creative idea to the proper home, instead of just selling to a captive network, can be incredibly attractive."
What happens if the two firms merge? Will the loss of independence hurt the Warner production studios? Put yourself in the position of a programming chief at one of the other major broadcast networks. When Warner Brothers studios comes pitching a new TV show, what will you think? You might wonder: "If it's such a great show, why is it now being broadcast on Fox?" You may conclude that Warner Brothers is trying to push lower quality shows out to your network. Note that many firms are vertically integrated in the industry. Many of the in-house studios at other firms place most of their shows on their own networks. For instance, the article notes that Fox studios has 18 shows on major networks at this time; 14 of them are on the Fox network, while only 4 have been sold to other networks. Is that because it's the most profitable decision, or is it because other networks are reluctant to buy from the competition? That, in a nutshell, is one of the perils of vertical integration. A firm such as Warner Brothers ends up competing with its own customers, creating some challenging conflicts of interest.
Friday, July 18, 2014
Leslie Pratch is a clinical psychologist who has evaluated many candidates for senior executive positions at large companies. She argues that one trait distinguishes the successful candidates from others who do not fare well. She argues that effective leaders are adept at "active coping." What does she mean by that? According to this article in Fortune, "By active coping, Pratch means the ability to adapt creatively and effectively to challenges and change. An active coper quickly recovers from setbacks, opens up to the people around her and is aware of her own motivations, strengths and shortcomings." What is a sure sign that someone is not an effective active coper? Pratch argues that we should beware of narcissists (no surprise there!). Narcissists are not very self-aware, and therefore, they struggle to cope with ambiguity and challenges to their authority or expertise. I think the concept sounds interesting and quite reasonable. Having said that, I am always highly skeptical of individuals who try to boil success and failure down to one trait or one causal factor. That's far too simplistic.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Scholars Long Wang, Chen-Bo Zhong and Keith Murnighan have conducted new research examining the link between a "calculative mindset" and selfish/unethical behavior. They used the ultimatum game and the dictator game to conduct their studies. These two exercises often used in business schools to teach basic principles of game theory. They split study participants into two groups. In the control condition, participants were primed by reading a historical account of the industrial evolution. In the experimental condition, participants were primed by reading a tutorial about net present value analysis. What did the scholars find? The participants who examined the net present value tutorial acted more selfishly, and they lied more often during these games than those who read about the history of the industrial revolution. In other words, those primed to think quantitatively tended to act more selfishly and unethically. The scholars argue that the calculative mindset is not problematic in and of itself, but it becomes dangerous when it comes to dominate people's thinking. They also point out that business schools often emphasize the calculative mindset a great deal. They should question the impact of asking students to think quantitatively so often.
Wednesday, July 09, 2014
Lisa Evans has a great article at Fast Company about how to deliver a better speech. Her essay is titled, "4 Common Vocal Mistakes Leaders Make." She describes the following four errors:
1. They lack passion for their own ideas. They don't sound energetic and engaged. If you don't care deeply about your ideas, why should the audience care?
2. They speak in long rambling paragraphs. They forget to speak in concise sentences, with breaks to enable the audience members to process what they are hearing.
3. They are monotone. They don't use intonation to help emphasize key points, capture the audience's attention, and stimulate questions.
4. They fail to practice and then to listen to themselves speaking. Therefore, they have no idea whether they are delivering their message effectively.
I would add a fifth key error that leaders often make. Many leaders fail to use stories to communicate their key message. They rely on numbers, facts, and statistics. However, research shows that storytelling is much more effective when trying to influence and persuade.