What's Good for Our Kids is Great for Us Too!

Source: theladders.com

If you have not read Jonathan Haidt's amazing book, The Anxious Generation, I highly recommend it. Haidt makes a great case for banning smartphones in schools. Now, many school systems have adopted his advice. Early results suggest that the policies are having a positive impact on learning. I do not allow phones in my university classroom, and I'm confident that removing this distraction improves our dialogue considerably.

If this smartphone policy is good for our kids, shouldn't it be good for us as well? In today's Wall Street Journal, Chip Cutter writes an article titled "CEOs Are Furious About Employees Texting in Meetings."  He writes:

A few weeks ago, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky asked his top lieutenants to identify the problems they saw quietly plaguing the company. Chesky called it the “fester list.” One executive threw out an issue: Too many Airbnb employees weren’t present in meetings because they were checking their phones or laptops. “It’s a huge problem,” Chesky said. Then the chief had a realization. He was guilty of zoning out, too. “Sometimes I’m like, ‘OK, I heard it. I know what you’re about to say. I know the subject matter,’” Chesky said. “I text, but then people see me text, they text. This is a major societal problem.”

Cutter cites leaders from JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon to QXO CEO Brad Jacobs about the challenges of distraction during meetings.  Many leaders have become incredibly frustrated by the disconnected conversations, lack of collaboration, and poor listening occurring during meetings.  Of course, many of us would say that we turn to our phones because many meetings are long, dull, and boring.  However, we have ask ourselves:  Isn't that what our kids would say about classes in which they would love to use their phone?  Are we just rationalizing our use of phones during meetings in the same way students often do?  How about the "what if there is an emergency?" excuse?  Ask yourself: Just how many true emergencies do we experience in a week?  Moreover, we can easily set our phones such that people won't disturb us unless it is truly an emergency.   Yet, we choose not to do so.  I'm just as much of a culprit as many others I know.  

You can see the self-reinforcing mess we have on our hands.  We jump to our phone because a meeting is boring.  Then, because we are distracted and not listening actively to others, the meeting discussion drags on endlessly.  The collaboration breaks down, and we end up needing yet another meeting to get key matters resolved.  We have to break this endless unproductive loop.  Team leaders need to establish a new contract with their team members.  They will focus the meeting, tighten the agenda, and avoid repeated tangents.   In return, they ask that team members stay off their phones.  Try it out. See what happens.  My guess?  The results will be very positive, much as they are in schools.  

Leaders Should Always Consider How Their Team Members Might Answer The Question: “What’s in it for me?”

https://transformpartner.com

If you don't communicate effectively with your team members during a time of significant change, you will sow confusion and doubt.  Some leaders remain silent until they have more clarity themselves and until all the loose ends are tied up.  However, a lengthy period of non-communication can be very detrimental to the organization.   As Molly Rosen and Connie Rawson write in Fast Company this week, " We see this pattern again and again: silence creates space for confusion. In the absence of clarity, people default to self-protection and assume the worst. The longer the silence lingers, the further they go down the rabbit hole."  In fact, your team members will not only be confused, but they will speculate with their peers.  They will presume certain intent on your part if you don't explain your rationale.   

Rosen and Rawson offer some advice for leaders. They suggest that leaders should always put themselves in their employees' shoes and ask the simple question: "What's in it for me?"  If you want their buy-in, you have to understand what they stand to lose, as well as gain, from this organizational change?  Leaders need to analyze why they might be inclined to resist a change, and why they might find it beneficial to embrace a new initiative.  Rosen and Rawson suggest that leaders should ask themselves four questions before communicating about a new initiative: 

1. What are they worried about losing?
2. What might they gain?
3. What does this mean for them in the next 30, 60, 90 days?
4. What will we be transparent about even if we don’t have all the answers yet?

Does Your Boss Know Your Strengths and Help You Pursue New Roles Based on Those Skills?

Source: https://www.skillscaravan.com

Has one of your former bosses identified your (perhaps previously undiscovered) strengths and helped you pursue new roles that were well-suited to those capabilities? If so, you are very fortunate. The benefits from having such a boss may be significant and long-lasting.

In today's Wall Street Journal, University of Chicago Professor Virginia Minni explains the findings from a well-designed study of managers at a large multinational company.  She identified "top managers" as those who were promoted much faster than their peers.  She explains her methodology and results:

Here is how it worked. Let’s say two different teams of comparable workers have a regular boss (in other words, not a top manager). Then the managers rotate, and one of those two teams gets a top-performing leader while the other team gets another lesser chief. Since the two teams are otherwise the same, the manager would be responsible for any changes in performance.

The results were striking. For one thing, employees who had contact with a high-quality manager were much more likely to make a lateral move within the firm—about 40% more likely than other workers, within seven years of being assigned to a top manager. These weren’t trivial moves, either: They often involved large changes, such as moving between completely different roles at the company.

That leads to the next striking difference in performance. The workers who served under a top manager and changed jobs were much better paid and much more productive than other workers. Within seven years of contact with a top manager, these people earned about 13% more than workers with lower-performing managers. And their performance metrics—like sales per capita—were 16% higher than other workers’ numbers.

Minni discovered that the effects endured, meaning that the workers did not just benefit while working for the highly effective boss.  They continued to excel in their career after shifting roles and working for different leaders.  She finds that these excellent bosses spent more time in one-on-one meetings with workers, which she argues helped these leaders match their employees with the right roles moving forward.  Moreover, they coached people to excel in those new roles.  

While the study may not offer earth-shattering (or even mildly surprising) results, it does document in a very rigorous way the impact of having an excellent boss who looks out for your interests.  What I would add is that some managers are not bad at leading their current teams, but they do hoard talent.  In other words, they are not always looking out for the interests of their team members.  They would rather hold on to talented individuals, rather than helping them find the next great role that could advance their career.  The best leaders create high-performing teams, but they also develop their people and help them secure great new opportunities.  Because they know how to identify and develop talent, these great leaders don't worry about losing that talent.  They are able to find new people who they can coach and develop to replace the people who have shifted to new roles.  

Can Cold Hard Facts Mitigate Overconfidence Bias?

Do humans suffer from overconfidence bias?  You bet!  Most of us think that we are above average.  In fact, studies show that, "The most incompetent people, in whatever skill researchers ask about, tend to overestimate themselves by the widest margin. People who actually are above average are often pretty good at self-assessment, and some rock stars even mistake themselves as closer to average than they are." 

Many people have argued, however, that overconfidence can and should diminish if individuals are exposed to objective performance evaluation data.  Is that true?  Well, a new paper by Patrick Heck, Daniel Benjamin, Daniel Simons, and Christopher Chabris (published in Psychological Science) questions that conventional wisdom.   They studied over 3,000 tournament chess players from 22 countries.  In chess, each player has a rating that accurately reflects their probability of winning a contest.  In short, chess players have access to objective, accurate performance evaluation data.  Yet, overconfidence persists even in the face of cold hard facts! The scholars report:

"On average, participants asserted their ability was 89 Elo rating points higher than their observed ratings indicated—expecting to outscore an equally-rated opponent by 2:1. One year later, only 11.3% of overconfident players achieved their asserted ability rating. Low-rated players overestimated their skill the most and top-rated players were calibrated. Patterns consistent with overconfidence emerged in every sociodemographic subgroup we studied. We conclude that overconfidence persists in tournament chess, a real-world information environment that should be inhospitable to it."

Hubris gets the best of us at times, and it certainly affects business leaders in many situations.  My conclusion from this study is that we can't simply expect good outcome measures to mitigate overconfidence bias.  Pointing to the facts is not enough.  People's emotions matter, and their identity shapes how they will make sense of objective performance data.  As we give feedback or evaluate performance, we need to consider the likelihood that distorted perceptions of self-efficacy may not go away just by pointing to the numbers.  We have to appeal to people in ways that go beyond the data if we wish to help them reset their self-evaluations and improve based on our feedback.  

When Should You Launch Your Startup?

Source: Reuters

Should you launch your startup right after college, or might you benefit from gaining some work experience before becoming an entrepreneur? Recently, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos told Italian Tech Week that gaining work experience is the smarter strategy. He explained, "Go work at a best-practices company somewhere where you can learn a lot of basic fundamental things [like] how to hire really well, how to interview, etc. There’s a lot of stuff you would learn in a great company that will help you, and then there’s still lots of time to start a company after you have absorbed it.”  Bezos argues that college dropouts such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are the great exceptions rather than the rule.  

Is Bezos correct?  What do the data show?  Johnny Wood, writing for World Economic Forum, profiled a key study on this topic.  Scholars Pierre Azoulay and Daniel Kim examined the link between age and entrepreneurship.  They published their findings in the American Economic Review.  The researchers examined nearly 3 million ventures over a 7 year period.  They found that experience leads to a higher probability of entrepreneurial success, confirming Bezos' intuition.  Wood writes:

The research looked at 2.7 million business start-ups between 2007 and 2014, and found the average age of people who founded a business and went on to hire at least one employee was 42.  The team also found that experience counts. Those entrepreneurs who had worked in the same sector as their business start-up were found to be 125% more successful than those without a background in their chosen sector.   Azoulay and Kim’s findings show that a small proportion of high-performing start-ups in the study period were founded by 20-year-olds, less than 1%. Those with the highest growth had an average entrepreneur age of 45.

Many reasons exist for this advantage that experience offers.  Building on what Bezos argued, I think that you not only learn best practices, but you learn worst practices too.  You discover what NOT to do by operating in different businesses.  You witness dysfunction, inefficiency, cultural barriers, and customer pain points.  By seeing how companies fail, you increase your odds of succeeding.