Power Causes Leaders to Miss Opportunities to Connect People

Source: Blue Diamond Gallery

Blaine Landis and his colleagues have conducted new research regarding how power impacts leaders' actions with regarding to brokering connections among people in different parts of their organizations.   They derived their findings from two studies. The first focused on workers in a marketing and media agency.  The second study was an experiment conducted with 330 people who were working full-time at various companies.  

Landis' work demonstrates that power tends to diminish people's ability to identify opportunities to connect people who could benefit from sharing information, resources, ideas, etc.   On other hand, if someone identifies the opportunity for them, powerful leaders are quite willing to help connect people.  The converse is true for those with low power. They are more likely to spot opportunities to broker connections among people, but they are less willing to take action to make those connections happen.  

This study confirms what we have seen in a number of other studies about power.   When leaders have a great deal of power, they act differently.  In many cases, they act in ways that are not effective for their teams and organizations.  Many factors can increase the power distance between chief executives and their subordinates.   One key factor, of course, is tenure.  Leaders can become entrenched in their positions over time, and as their tenure in office lengthens, they accumulate more power.  Certain deleterious effects can occur though as their power grows.  Leaders need to work on enhancing their self-awareness in these situations, so that they can identify the negative effects that their behavior may have on the organization.  

Mergers and the Winner's Curse

We often hear people talk about the winner's curse. What does that term mean? Imagine that people are bidding in an auction, and they do not know the market value of the item being sold. Each bidder consults experts to provide them estimates of the value of the item. Naturally, the experts will provide a range of values. Who wins the auction? The highest bidder, of course. That person's experts would have provided estimates at the high end of the range of values. If the item's actual market value equals roughly the average of the expert estimates, then the winning bidder would have paid a price higher than the actual market value. Behavioral economists call this phenomenon the winner's curse. Many people have noted that the winner's curse provides an explanation for why many companies overpay for acquisitions, and thereby do not achieve their desired return on investment.

A new empirical study examines the actual returns to a merger in a novel way.  Ulrike Malmendier, Enrico Moretti, and Florian Peters examined the pre and post-merger performance of both the acquiring firm in a deal and the other firms that failed to provide the highest bid and therefore lost out on the deal.  Interestingly, the winners of the bidding war and losers did not differ significantly in terms of stock price performance prior to the deals.  However, after the deal, the losers' stock returns were 24% better than the winners during the three years after the deal.   Apparently, losing out on the deal did not turn out to be a bad thing at all.  Perhaps the winners really were cursed.  

Why Bryant?

Bryant University's Academic Innovation Center

As high school seniors make their college decisions this month, I thought that I would offer my perspective on why Bryant University is a terrific choice for young people.   I've been a faculty member at Bryant for twelve years now, and I truly love the community.   Here are my top ten reasons why students should choose Bryant:

1.  Outcomes!  Students at Bryant University achieve very successful outcomes at the end of their four years here, no matter the way you measure results.   If you would like to measure learning outcomes, then consider the student performance on the Educational Testing Service's Major Field Test in Business.  Our mean student performance ranks ahead of 90% of the institutions that administer this exam to graduating seniors. As for job placement, our students secure terrific jobs and earn strong salaries. The federal government’s College Scorecard ranks our institution very high in return on investment among peers (including top school in Rhode Island).   Money magazine ranked us as one of the top 50 colleges in the nation that add the most value.  Finally, in terms of graduate school placement, our students have gained admission in the past few years to prestigious graduate schools including MIT, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, University of Chicago, UVA, Yale, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Emory, NYU and many more.  

2.  Competitive Success:  Our students participate regularly in academic competitions around the country, and they have excelled.   They have routinely outperformed students at much larger universities.  Our students have won the National Financial Plan competition twice in recent years, and we have a finalist again this year.   Our Collegiate Entrepreneurs Organization has earned Best Chapter in the nation on five occasions over the past eleven years. A Bryant team won first place in the Asset Management Case Competition in Boston this month.  Our finance students took home first place this winter in the multi-asset category at the GAME financial forum on Wall Street.  Our teams also have earned a top 10 finish in the National Collegiate Sales Competition and made the finals of the PwC xTax competition.   At the Federal Reserve Challenge this year in Boston, our students earned second place, finishing ahead of teams from Yale, Dartmouth, Boston College, Bentley, and many others.  

3.  Hands-on, Experiential Learning:  Our students do not simply sit and listen to lectures and memorize facts from textbooks.  Bryant has pioneered many forms of experiential learning.  Our students complete many projects for companies over the course of four years here, gaining critical practical experience on issues ranging from logistics to marketing to international business.   Many employers cite this practical hands-on experience as a critical differentiator for our students.  We also have teams of students dedicated to investing more than $1 million of Bryant funds in both equities and fixed income securities, providing them valuable practical experience.  Many schools have equity investment funds, but few have also developed opportunities for students to gain experience with fixed income investing.  

4.  Innovation:  Bryant University became a national pioneer when it created the first-ever design thinking program for all first-year students (the IDEA program).   All students at Bryant, regardless of their major, are introduced to this highly effective creative problem-solving methodology in a hands-on, immersive program during their first year.   Bryant also pioneered the use of upperclassmen as mentors to the first-year students in this program, and we have involved 150-200 alumni in this program each year as mentors and judges.    We like to say that we teach innovation here at Bryant AND we teach innovatively.  We have dedicated ourselves to finding new and creative ways to teach and learn on campus, with faculty constantly experimenting with new methods and techniques.  

5.  Faculty Achievement and Expertise:  Our faculty do not simply sit in the ivory tower pondering big ideas.  Most of our business faculty have practical experience in the private sector prior to becoming academics, and they continue to gain important knowledge through their consulting work with many organizations.   Our  full-time faculty includes a former managing director at Putnam Investments, a former senior economist at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the former Chief Analytics Officer at Epsilon, a retired partner from KPMG, a former US Air Force logistics officer, a former Senior Deputy Director at the the US Treasury's Office of Thrift Supervision, and many more individuals with valuable real world expertise.  Moreover, our faculty have assembled impressive scholarly records with research publications in leading journals.   We have a number of Fulbright scholars on our faculty, and professors such as Ken Sousa and Charles Quigley have published popular textbooks.  

6.  Leadership Opportunities:  We provide our students with a variety of leadership opportunities here on campus.  As a result, they develop their leadership capabilities in many ways beyond the classroom. We give them the freedom to pursue their interests and take the initiative to create amazing new experiences.  For instance, our students created and organized our first-ever TEDx Bryant conference.   They also put together the Bryant University Northeast Entrepreneurship Conference completely on their own.  Our students take on critical leadership roles in our IDEA program, serving as mentors to first-year students and helping to organize the entire program.  

7.   Student Research:  Our students have the opportunity to collaborate closely with faculty members on research projects, with conference presentations and publications resulting from some of this work.  For instance, our Honors students produce theses during their senior year, and a number of students have published their work.  For example, one thesis led to a published case study about startup accelerators, while another published a journal article about the efficacy of the devil's advocate in team decision making.  

8.   Mentorship:  Our faculty members teach small classes, and we get to know the students very well.  As a result, we spend a great deal of time mentoring our students, helping them discern their career path, and assisting in the job search process.  Many firms reach out to our faculty when they have specific hiring needs, and we are able to direct these companies to specific students with the knowledge that they need.  Our faculty don't just spend time with students in the classroom or at office hours.  In our small, close-knit community, we interact with students in many ways beyond the classroom, forming relationships that last a lifetime.  

9.  Service:  Our students engage in service in a variety of ways.  They organize the Special Olympics on campus, put together an impressive Relay for Life event each year, and raise funds for a wide variety of organizations.  However, they do not just volunteer their time. We have ample opportunities in the curriculum where students engage in service learning.  Thus, they explore interesting intellectual questions in class, and they apply their knowledge through work in the field with non-profit organizations.  Bryant is one of the only schools where every student in the core required management course must complete a service learning project of their choosing. 

10.  Global Perspective:   We have infused a global perspective throughout the university.  Our students can not only study abroad, but also pursue internships in foreign countries while they are studying abroad.  Our international business students also work on consulting projects where they help local companies expand their global footprint.   We have many students pursuing minors in foreign languages, giving them an enhanced ability to work in international settings.  We have hired faculty with expertise in emerging markets around the world.  Finally, our Chafee Center for International Business serves several hundred local companies each year, providing export assistance, training, and the like.  The center provides our students with opportunities to work on campus, gaining valuable research and consulting experience.  

As you can see, Bryant University has much to offer, thanks in large part to many faculty members who are passionate about their vocation and who are care deeply about their students.  I hope that this brief essay has been helpful as students consider their college choices this April.  Good luck, everyone! 

Innovation: What Problem Are You Trying to Solve?

Innovators and entrepreneurs need to ask themselves: What problem are we trying to solve?  Seems simple, right?  Yet, in all too many cases, companies simply build new products and services in search of new revenue growth without clarity on this question.   Let's take one current example that puzzles me.  Fast Company reports today on a new Twitter poll launched by Heinz:

On Wednesday, Heinz announced potential plans to bring “mayochup” into the world. It’s half ketchup, half mayonnaise, and if you ask some people, 100% wrong. The food-processing company announced Thursday it’s contemplating selling the new product, provided it garners enough interest. It launched a public poll on Twitter, asking Americans to make the hard decision for them: “Want #mayochup in stores? 500,000 votes for yes and we’ll release it to you saucy Americans.”

What problem is this new product trying to solve?  Are we so lazy that we need to buy pre-mixed condiments for our burgers?   Perhaps.   Maybe their consumer research has identified a real customer need here.  If so, I'd be curious to hear what they have discovered. 

Regardless of this particular innovation's success or failure, this story reminds us to keep asking the question:  What customer pain point are we alleviating, and what need are we fulfilling?  Growth will come if we solve real problems for our customers.  If not, we risk spending on innovations that fall flat in the marketplace. 

Understanding Unethical Behavior

Maryam Kouchaki, Nour Kteily,  and Adam Waytz have conducted experimental research to examine repeated unethical behavior.   What psychological mechanisms drive serial offenders to lie and cheat time and again?   These scholars found that individuals try to escape taking personal responsibility for their deceitful actions by blaming their own personality.   It's sort of a "Woe is me, I can't control these bad attributes that drive my behavior" type of thinking.  Kouchaki notes, "Because morally questionable behavior is uncomfortable, people don’t want to take responsibility for it."  

The scholars call it self de-humanization.   Individuals conclude that they have less capacity for self-control, that they don't have the capacity to prevent themselves from making bad choices. Kouchaki explains, "You behave consistently with your self-view that you lack these human capabilities of agency and experience."  In other words, people adopt a negative self-image as a way to justify their unethical behavior.   A vicious cycle ensues.  Bad choices beget this rationalization process, which then makes it easier to cross the line and lie/cheat/steal in the future. 

Learning Styles: The Conventional Wisdom is Wrong!

Many leadership development professionals continue to adhere to the view that people learn more effectively if we adapt pedagogy and instruction to their learning styles (i.e. some people are visual learners, while others prefer to absorb information by reading and writing, etc.).  Many educators in our schools continue to adhere to this conventional wisdom as well.  Unfortunately, a stream of research strongly suggests that learners do not benefit if we adapt instruction and pedagogy to their preferred style.   Individuals might feel as though they gained more knowledge when employing their preferred style, but objective results indicate that they do not learn more effectively.  

A new study confirms this conclusion about learning styles.  Scholars Polly Husmann and Valerie Dean O'Loughlin conducted a study with 426 anatomy students at a university.  They administered the VARK - a commonly used survey to assess learning style.  The researchers shared the results with the students at the start of the semester, and they shared information from the VARK website about study tips associated with each learning style.   They surveyed them later about their study habits, and they examined their grades.   

What did they find?  No correlation existed between dominant learning style and course grades.  In fact, most students did not actually utilize the study strategies most commonly associated with their learning style.  Most importantly, those students who did use the strategies connected with their preferred learning style did not achieve higher grades in the anatomy course.  

When Saying Thank You Can Get You in Trouble

Jeremy Yip, Cindy Chan, Kelly Kiyeon Lee, and Alison Wood Brooks have conducted a study regarding competitive negotiations that, to some extent, is rather disheartening.  They explored whether expressions of gratitude may be detrimental during negotiations.   Specifically, they explored whether "negotiators are likely to respond selfishly and opportunistically to gratitude expressed in competitive deal-making situations."   

The scholars conducted a series of experimental studies to explore how expressions of gratitude affect a counterpart's behavior during a negotiation.   Here are their findings:

Study 1a:   In a negotation over a price of a backpack, buyers made more selfish counteroffers if the seller expressed gratitude after receiving the initial offer.  

Study 1b:  The scholars replicated their findings from Study #1 using a different context.  In this case, two parties engaged in a rental property negotiation.  

Study 2:  The scholars found that, "Grateful counterparts are more likely to infer that their counterparts are particularly forgiving, which encourages exploitative behavior."  

Study 3:  Using the rental property negotation again, scholars found that gratitude elicits selfish behvaior, but expressions of excitement do not.  

Study 4:  The researchers found that expressions of gratitude tend to induce selfish deception on the part of counterparties, i.e. they were more likely to lie in an effort to achieve a better outcome.  

Can Spotify Grow Its Way to Profitability?

Shira Ovide has written a good column for Bloomberg BusinessWeek regarding Spotify's IPO. In the article, she highlights a crucial difference between the Netflix and Spotify business models. It's a distinction that I've discussed in depth with my students.   It's a wonderful lesson in marginal vs. fixed costs.   Here's an excerpt from Ovide's column:

However much Spotify resembles Netflix in spirit and business approach, the services diverge in a way that makes Spotify’s path to profit significantly trickier. The video streaming company’s programming expenses don’t rise as it lures more subscribers. But as Spotify gets bigger, its streaming music costs increase; it can’t grow its way to profitability. Spotify’s product—35 million songs—costs the company more as more people sign up. 

Ovide does acknowledge that some costs will fall as Spotify continues to grow.  As the company gains more clout, it can negotiate better royalty deals with content providers.  Still, growth alone will not drive strong profits.  Marginal costs will remain positive, unlike Netflix.   Ovide argues that Spotify will have to diversify its revenue streams, as it has begun to do and as its chief financial officer discussed recently.  Ovide raises one other possibility, but she dismisses it as unlikely - that is, could Spotify develop its own content, as Netflix has done.  In other words, could it sign up musicians directly, disintermediating the record labels.  That's a highly risky strategy that could undermine the entire business though.   

The future will be fascinating to watch.  As a Spotify customer, I enjoy the service a great deal.  They clearly have lowered the cost for me to listen to the music that I love.   Will advertisting be a key revenue stream moving forward?  In the past, that has been the path to profitabilty for a number of companies.  Yet the Facebook crisis suggests that people are growing a bit more concerned about what a reliance on advertising can do to online platforms.  The Facebook mess should cause Spotify to tread carefully as it tries to drive new revenue through advertising.  The challenge will be to develop this revenue stream in a responsible manner, and in a way that does not scare off customers who are now waking up to the downside of "free" online platforms.  

When is Conflict Likely to Erupt?

Henning Piezunka, Wonjae Lee, Richard Haynes and Matthew Bothner have conducted a unique empirical study regarding how and why conflict can erupt between two individuals at times.  They hypothesize that conflict is more likely to escalate between two people if they have similar status.  They describe this condition in which people are at very similar levels in the organizational pecking order as "structural equivalence."   They explain: 

Unlike those in obviously hierarchical relations—manager and subordinate, for example, or professor and student—for whom norms of deference are fixtures of the social background, dyads marked by structural equivalence are susceptible to ambiguous conceptions of their relationship and thus to incompatible rules for interaction. Competition for deference and status may then escalate dangerously,

The scholars developed a novel approach to testing their hypothesis.  They decided to study Formula One drivers competing in Grand Prix events in hopes of being crowned World Champion.  The researchers collected data on 732 races from 1970 to 2014.  They measured conflict by identifying the incidences of race-ending collisions between drivers.   The scholars measured structural equivalence by examining past performance.  If two drivers had performed in a very similar fashion in past seasons, then they were rated as more "equivalent" than if one driver had a far superior record to a peer.  Sure enough, the results confirmed their hypothesis.   Collisions occurred more frequently among drivers of simliar status (i.e. past performance).  

What's the lesson for leaders?  Be aware of situations in which lines of authority as well as roles and responsiblities may be ambiguous.  We often bash hierarchy as ineffective and stifling.  However, this research supports the findings of a series of recent studies demonstrating some important benefits to a clear hierarchy.  In particular, dysfunctional conflict is less likely to arise when people understand clearly where they stand in a pecking order. When people are vying to be the "alpha dog," you could have real trouble.  One such study, for instance, found that NBA teams with clear status hierarchies tended to outperform those where you had a group of players more similar in status.   Do not mistake these results though.  They do not suggest that we should have command and control organizations.  They simply suggest that some clear delineation of roles and authority reduces the risk of destructive conflict.  

Southwest Airlines: Remarkable Customer Service Once Again

Last week, my wife and I tried to book some flights on Southwest Airlines using credits we had for some cancelled flights from last year.  Unfortunately, we had waited more than twelve months, so the credits had expired.     When we called Southwest, they explained that they offered  a six month grace period, and therefore, we could still use the credit toward a new booking.  The customer service agent indicated that it would take thirty days to receive those vouchers though.  We explained that we wanted to travel sooner than that, and we didn't understand why it would take a month to receive our own money.  The agent told us that she did not know how to expedite the matter.  

Frustrated by the phone call, I sent a tweet to Southwest explaining my problem.  Someone responded to me in a matter of minutes.   I provided some more detail, and within a half hour, I was assured that we would receive the vouchers within 2-3 days.  It did not take nearly that long.  In fact, we received the vouchers within several hours, and we were able to book our travel with ease. Problem solved, happy customers.  

I relate the story because it is yet another example of how Southwest Airlines has empowered its employees to act quickly to remedy customer problems.  It also shows, however, that social media can be a powerful tool for customers, if used appropriately.   Great companies monitor social media closely, and they act immediately to address problematic situations before issues get beyond their control.   The best part... satisfied customers take to social media to complement firms that go the extra mile to resolve problems.  That's precisely what I did, and what I'm doing here on this post.  

Crisis Management at Facebook

Facebook executives have received a great deal of criticism for their delayed public response regarding the "Cambridge Analytica" crisis.  CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg did not make any public statements regarding the situation for four days. Numerous public relations and crisis management experts have criticized top management for the lack of communication.  When executives began to speak publicly about the situation, the criticism did not subside.  Journalists, analysts, and customers demanded more information from the organization. Josh Constine at Tech Crunch wrote the following:

What’s missing from this response is any indication why Facebook didn’t do more to enforce its policy prohibiting apps from sharing user data, or why it took Cambridge Analytica at their word when they said they deleted the data without proper investigation. Or a straight-forward apology. Facebook is still playing the victim here.

Writing in the Washington Post, reporters Elizabeth Dwoskin, Drew Harwell and Craig Timberg revealed that Facebook may not have disclosed the full extent of their relationship with the researcher who gave all that data to Cambridge Analytica:

The psychologist who disseminated Facebook user data to an analytics firm working for the Trump campaign had a closer relationship with the social network than it has let on, co-authoring a research paper based on a massive amount of data that Facebook provided to him.

Undoubtedly, many crisis management lessons will be derived from this incident. Most experts will focus on the lengthy delay (four days) before Zuckerberg and Sandberg issued public statements. I think there's a related lesson though, and it has to do with people's expectations of these two executives. Before this scandal, these two business leaders had highly public profiles. They were everywhere - making speeches, participating in interviews, and being profiled in major publications. The downside of maintaining such a public profile is that people will expect much more of you if a crisis occurs. Four days of silence stands out EVEN MORE for these executives than it would for those who kept a very low profile. The lesson is clear: Be aware of what people will expect of you, bsaed on your past behavior. You will face much criticism if you seek publicity when times are good, and then go underground when scandal erupts.

Should Leaders Speak Last in Meetings?

Canadian enterpreneur Cameron Herold argues in this article in the Globe and Mail that leaders should speak last in meetings.  He writes,

When you have quieter, more reserved people in a meeting, the best thing you can do as the leader is hold your ideas back until the end. Too often, leaders offer their ideas first. But people don't become confident, or grow as leaders, by listening to what you have to say. Instead, you need to encourage members of the team to offer their ideas first, especially those less inclined to speak up.

Herold makes a great point here.  I'm not suggesting that leaders should always speak last.  However, in many cases, the leader does need to exercise some restraint so as to insure that all voices will be heard.  Moreover, leaders frame the problem when they open the discussion.  How you frame a problem often drives the types of solutions that are generated.  Leaders need to be careful about not framing a problem in a way that constricts the alternatives that are put forth.  

What should a leader be doing if they are not putting forth their ideas and proposals at the outset of the meeting?  They should be listening actively, asking questions, probing assumptions, requesting additional data if necessary, and calling on those who may be quiet to encourage them to join the conversation.   

Rethinking the Onboarding Process

How many companies bore the heck out of new employees during the onboarding process?  Do they bury them under an avalanche of forms to be completed and powerpoints to be viewed?  Recently, Dave Gilboa, co-founder of Warby Parker, sat down for an interview to discuss how his firm approaches onboarding.  Here's an excerpt from the article:

Many of the most memorable moments in any employee’s life cycle happen at the very beginning. Everything is new. Everything makes an impact. They either feel supported and excited or lost and bewildered. They feel initiated or left out. In a way, this sets the tone for how they perceive your culture and the rest of their time at the company. “You have to make people feel special and welcome from the very first moment they interact with your organization,” says Gilboa.

What are you doing to make your onboarding process energizing and inspirational?  Are you truly welcoming new employees and helping them begin to make interpersonal connections within the organization?  Are you inculcating the firm's values from the start?   

The Power of Guilt: Understanding Employee Absenteeism

Most of us probably believe that a link exists between a person's attendance record at work and his or her job satisfaction.  The employees who show up every day must be more satisfied than those who opt to stay home a fair bit, right?  Not so fast. Interestingly, the data do not support the beliefs most of us hold about absenteeism and job satisfaction.  

An interesting new study helps us understand what's really going on in the workplace.  Rebecca Schaumberg and Francis J. Flynn examined more than 300 customer service associates at various call centers.   The scholars measured job satisfaction, and they tracked the employee's attendance at work over a four month period.   Interestingly, they also administered a survey to evaluate how "guilt prone" each individual was.  What did they discover?  If individuals were not very susceptible to feelings of guilt, then attendance and job satisfaction are positvely corelated.  In other words, the more dissatisfied people are, the more likely they are to miss work.  That's what we would expect.  However, things change when we examine people who are higly "guilt prone."  For these people, no relationship exists between attendance and job satisfaction.  These people sometimes keep right on showing up for work, even if they are very unhappy, because of their feelings of guilt.  

The lesson is clear - be careful how you interpret a strong attendance record on the part of employees.  Low absenteeism may not signal that you have created a terrific work environment where people love to come to work.  It may tell more about the personal attributes of your workers, and what motivates them to act each morning.  

A Constructive Activity on a Snow Day

Another nor'easter rages today in the northeast.   Weather forecasters predict 15-20 inches of snow in my region.  Many people are not working today.  What can and should you with your time if you have some free time?  Besides shoveling the driveway, catching up on email, or taking a nap, you might consider learning something new.  Researchers have demonstrated that novelty stimulates the brain.   Moreover, innovative solutions often arise when people make connections between seemingly disparate concepts.  Therefore, think about reading a book about something outside of your domain of expertise.  Perhaps find a good documentary that intrigues you.  Play a game that you have never played before with your kids.  You may just ignite a creative spark by exposing yourself to a novel experience.  

Choiceology Podcast with Dan Heath

Check out my appearance on the "Summit Fever" episode of Dan Heath's Choiceology podcast.  You may know Dan as the best-selling co-author of books such as Made to Stick, Switch, Decisive, and The Power of Moments.  His books, written with his brother, Chip Heath of Stanford, are just terrific.  

I Already Know That...

What's one of the most dangerous phrases that you can hear a leader utter?  "I already know that..." Why is it so worrisome when we hear those words?  It suggests that the individual believes that their state of knowledge on that subject is settled and complete.   Therefore, they might not be open to learning new things, to questioning what their assumptions, and to considering the fact that they just might be wrong.   We want leaders to at least consider the possibility that they are mistaken, or that changing circumstances make old assumptions outdated.  The next time you find yourself thinking, "I already know that," I encourage you to ask instead, "What questions might I ask that could spur additional learning on this subject?  How might I benefit from reconsidering my views and assumptions here? What could I be missing?"     

United Airlines Reverses Bonus Policy Decision

Well, that didn't take long.  After a firestorm of criticism, United Airlines has walked back their compensation policy change.   They will not be moving to the lottery system that they had proposed to replace regular quarterly performance bonuses for employees.   United President Scott Kirby issued a new memo to all employees.   Here is an excerpt:

"Since announcing our planned changes to the quarterly operations incentive program, we have listened carefully to the feedback and concerns you've expressed," Kirby wrote. " Our intention was to introduce a better, more exciting program, but we misjudged how these changes would be received by many of you. So, we are pressing the pause button on these changes to review your feedback and consider the right way to move ahead. We will be reaching out to work groups across the company, and the changes we make will better reflect your feedback."

I'm certainly glad that Kirby has reconsidered his decision.   Hopefully, Kirby and his team have learned that they would not have "misjudged" the employee reaction if they had simply sought feedback BEFORE issuing this policy announcement.  If senior executives wanted to change the compensation program, why not consult with people on the front lines more extensively PRIOR to making the shift?   The lack of an effort to solicit broad input is rather stunning.   The biggest management failure here is not "misjudging" employee reactions.  The colossal mistake is the highly flawed decision-making process.  The Board of Directors ought to be asking penetrating questions about that process more generally, rather than only focusing on this particular policy.   

United Airlines Eliminates Bonuses, Angers Employees

News reports this morning indicate that United Airlines has announced a significant change to its employee compensation policies.  The company has eliminated quarterly employee bonuses amounting to roughly $1,200 per year.   Instead, employees will be entered into a lottery in which a few lucky winners will receive cash payouts.  Others will not receive anything.  Only those with perfect attendance will be eligible for the lottery-type payouts.  United  Airlines President Scott Kirby issued a memo to employees explaining the change. Inc. magazine reports on several quotes from the memo:

“As we look to continue improving, we took a step back and decided to replace the quarterly operational bonus and perfect attendance programs with an exciting new rewards program called ‘core4 Score Rewards.'" 

"The reason for this change goes to the heart of our strategy: offering meaningful rewards will build excitement and a sense of accomplishment with more bang for the buck." 

"We want every United team member to picture themselves walking home with a grand prize, or driving home in a beautiful car that announces for all to see that you are committed to your success and ours."

Multiple reports indicate that employees are not pleased, to say the least. "The Points Guy" online travel site obtained a number of employee comments posted over the weekend on tthe airline’s “Flying Together” internal forum (in total, the Points Guy reports that more than 1,700 comments were posted on this forum). Here's one comment:

I find it unbelievable that management is so out of touch with their work force. To tout this announcement as something that workers would be excited about and appreciate just shows how elitist they are. This program is totally contradictory to the CORE4 “we are listening, we are one” philosophy!

Bill Murphy at Inc.com also reported on some of these employee comments.   According to his article, employees offered comments such as:

"It occurred to me and my wife that this is terribly unfair to single parents. ... Imagine your child coming home sick from school, no fault of your own. You are faced with calling in sick thus losing your 'chance' at a bonus or leaving your child/children home alone to care for themselves. What a terrible situation United has put that person in." --First Officer - B-767/B-757

"I can't imagine driving the Mercedes into the employee lot while everyone around me that worked just as hard, or harder got nothing. I would feel like such a jerk. It's quite telling about the people who thought this up. I bet they would be gloating happily if they won." --Flight Attendant - Domestic

I'm fascinated to see how United responds to this furor that has emerged in news reports, social media, their internal forum, and in the form of a Change.org petition.  It certainly sounds as though they did not seek widespread input from front-line employees before making this change, and they did not test the messaging sufficiently before sending out this memo.   What a mess they have created!  As the old adage goes, it takes years to build trust within your organization, and it only takes one big mistake to destroy that trust.  

The Downside of Preaching What You Practice

You are an expert and high performer in your organization, and senior leaders have asked you to share your best practices, your secrets to success. How should you approach the fulfillment of this request. With caution! Why? It turns out that preaching what you practice can backfire. At Stanford, researchers Benoît Monin and Lauren Howe have studied physician and patient behavior.   What happens, for instance, when a doctor shares information regarding his or her own healthy lifestyle with a patient who may be living in an unhealthy manner?   Here's what they found:

Doctors who emphasize their fitness seem like they may be more critical of patients who don’t live up to the same high standards. And it’s not that doctors actually devalue patients; it’s something overweight patients fear might happen to them when seeking out a new doctor, especially a doctor who touts his or her own exemplary health habits in their literature or online. This is called anticipated devaluation, and it can make overweight patients shy away from doctors who emphasize that they practice what they preach. Moreover, the researchers note, when patients feel devalued, they may seek care elsewhere or delay seeking it altogether to the detriment of their long-term health.

We should not be surprised by these results.   For me, the takeaway is that we must demonstrate empathy when we preach what we practice.  We have to step into the other person's shoes.  Moreover, we have to acknowledge our own fallibility.  Talking about our mistakes, and the hurdles we have had to surmount, can help others listen to our ideas and recommendations.