Many employees would love to hear more expressions of gratitude from their leaders. They often indicate that they do not receive sufficient recognition for taking on challenging work and achieving tough objectives. As Thanksgiving approaches, perhaps leaders might consider how to say thank you to team members who have engaged in an extraordinary effort in pursuit of a challenging goal. However, leaders would be well-served to not just think about how to say thank you, but when they do so.
New research by Professors Hooria Jazaieri and Olivia O'Neill indicates that the timing for expressions of gratitude matters a great deal. They write, "According to our research, however, thanking people after they engage in their tasks does not provoke the same resilience and perseverance as expressing gratitude before the task begins."
In a series of studies, these scholars found that demonstrating gratitude before an employee embarks on an unpleasant task can help "counteract some of the negative emotions associated with the task." Moreover, they found that anticipatory expressions of gratitude can foster more persistence on the part of their employees as they encounter obstacles and difficulties. Why do anticipatory acts of gratitude have more beneficial impact than after-the-fact thank you statements? The scholars argue that articulating one's gratitude before employees embark on an unpleasant task "can help cultivate
employees’ sense of purpose and value." As a result, employees demonstrate more resilience when encountering setbacks and obstacles.
Have you ever become incredibly stressed and anxious after receiving negative feedback? Have you spent more time worrying than actually addressing the corrective actions you might take in light of the criticism? David Rock and Chris Weller have written a useful article for Fast Company about coping with negative feedback. They offer some helpful tips. Rock and Weller argue that your brain moves into a "threat state" when you receive negative feedback, and that mental state prevents you from moving forward constructively. They write:
The stress we feel during and after a negative feedback conversation is a form of a threat state—in particular, a threat to our sense of status. The brain senses danger, so it shuts down precious cognitive resources and diverts energy toward worrying about our standing and reputation. Cognition and threat, therefore, work as a kind of seesaw. As one is high, the other necessarily is low.
Rock and Weller argue that you may need a quick break (a walk is helpful) to calm down if you are feeling extremely anxious. Then, you should assess the situation and engaging in practices they call labeling and reappraisal. Labeling entails naming the emotions that one is experiencing and that might be getting in the way of thoughtfully considering how to improve based on the input one has received. Then, they encourage people to "reframe part or all of the negative situation in a more positive light. For instance, if you’re given feedback that you don’t speak up enough in meetings, instead of feeling embarrassed or dejected, can you reappraise the situation as a positive in that your manager respects your opinions?"
Having reappraised the criticism, individuals can examine why their performance led to the negative feedback. Perhaps some obstacles have gotten in the way of doing good work. Or, perhaps you became sidetracked and fell into some bad habits. To develop a corrective action plan, individuals should imagine what improvement looks like. What will success look like? How will they behave in the future if they have addressed these concerns? What changes will they have made to their work habits? How will others perceive them if they have undertaken a set of corrective actions? Imagining a better, more productive self can help one move past the negative emotions that crowd out learning and self-improvement in the face of unexpected negative feedback.
In this interview, Airbnb founder and CEO Brian Chesky argues against the use of recurring one-on-one meetings between leader and team member. Here is an excerpt:
I don't believe in one-on ones and almost no great CEO in
history has ever done them... the one-on-one model is flawed it's a recurring one hour one-on-one meeting where the employee owns the agenda and
what happens is they often don't talk about the things you want to talk about. You become their therapist. They're bringing you problems, but often times they're bringing you problems that you want
other people in the room to hear. There are very few times employees should come to you one-on-one
without other people. Perhaps if they're concerned about something if they're having a difficult time in their personal life, if they want
to confide in you with something that they don't feel safe telling a group, but that should be infrequent. If that's
happening frequently that is a very ominous sign. [I prefer] recurring group meetings in which everyone hears each other's views, where there are notes taken. It's very transparent. [We all know] the topic, what decision was made, who was in the room, who
had input. If the process was unfair in some way... or inadequate, there is at least a record of the process, and people can weigh.
Chesky loves to be provocative with regard to leadership style and process. Here again he's offering a fresh perspective, and one that warrants serious consideration. He's pointing out a serious risk associated with one-on-one meetings. Specifically, he has two worries. First, Chesky doesn't want decisions being made in these meetings, rather than in group settings where the person's peers can offer their perspectives on the same issues. He wants the productive conversation and give-and-take that emerges from group dialogue and debate. He doesn't want to make decisions in a vacuum. Second, he worries about the one-on-one meeting becoming what he calls a "therapy session." He thinks that quick check-ins as needed can occur if someone has a personal concern or problem, but he sees no reason for a recurring meeting to talk about personal matters. Moreover, Chesky does not think the employee should be driving the agenda of these recurring one-on-one meetings.
Chesky makes some strong points. He's certainly correct that leaders should not be sacrificing transparency and the value of constructive debate by learning about perspectives and viewpoints too often in one-on-one rather than team meetings. On the other hand, he doesn't talk about the value of one-on-one meetings as forums for providing coaching, mentoring, and constructive feedback. Perhaps those meetings don't need to take place weekly, but most employees do need some opportunity to solicit and receive coaching and constructive criticism in a private setting. In the end, I don't think the issue is WHETHER to hold recurring one-on-one meetings, but HOW leaders and their team members use the meetings. It should not be a complaint session. It should not primarily be a decision-making meeting. It should be an opportunity to drive personal improvement and enhance performance.
Writing for Kellogg Insight, Dylan Walsh reports this month on some fascinating new research by Jake Teeny, Anna Paley, Robert Smith, and Daniel Zane. Teeny and his colleagues examined the relationship between willingness-to-pay and the level of enjoyment a seller derives from creating a product. Walsh summarizes the findings:
As a whole, the studies showed that buyers actually associated production enjoyment with greater product quality and value, consequently increasing how much they were willing to pay for it. And yet sellers often charged less for the products and services that they enjoy providing, even though they also believed them to be of higher quality.
The scholars argue that potential buyers seem willing to pay more for products when they believe that sellers have experienced high levels of intrinsic motivation while creating the products. In other words, if the seller valued the process of creating the product as much, if not more, than the good itself, then buyers seem willing to pay a higher price for the product. On the other hand, they argue that sellers price the product with their own enjoyment in mind. If you are performing an unenjoyable task, you might charge more for a particular service. If you are doing something very enjoyable, you may perceive some of your "compensation" has come in the form of that satisfaction and pride. As a result, you may not expect as high of a price for the product from the buyers.
What does this mean for sellers? Think carefully about showing your customer how much effort and passion has gone into the creation of a good or service. You might just command a higher price as a result. And sellers... not shortchange yourself when placing a value on something you loved creating.
Does this research have lessons for employees in larger organizations? Perhaps it does. Do we demand less monetary compensation if we truly love our job? Are we shortchanging ourselves in these situations?
