Marie-Hélène Budworth

I am completed addicted to watching the Olympics!  I watch them every time – winter, summer whatever. They allow me to experience a full range of emotions – anticipation, excitement, pride, and even tears.  This year’s Olympics have not disappointed; the win by the Dufour-Lapointe sisters, the repeat performance by Bilodeau – amazing moments.  

At one point when Mikael Kingsbury (the skiers who took the silver next to Bilodeau’s gold) was in the middle of a run, the announcer noted that Kingsbury does not work with a sports psychologist.  His ability to deal with the pressure is so strong that his coach doesn’t want to ‘mess him up.’  That is an interesting example of self-efficacy, resilience, and cognitive framing in itself but I was struck by the implication.  In contrast, most other athletes work closely with sports psychologists as part of their training team.  Many of the athletes brought their psychologists to Sochi!  

The practice of sport psychology has become an integral part of top level performance among athletes.  If you have had any experience with sport, it is clear that once your body has learned the skills, a large part of the game is mental.  This is a clear example of the power of cognitions.  The way in which you frame an event has a significant impact on whether you will be successful.  We see this time and time again in sport psychology, and we see it in organizational psychology. 

Many of the principles used in the practice of social psychology overlap directly with issues studies and examined in organizational psych.  For example, my work on Verbal Self Guidance examines how altering one’s own cognitions can change performance in career relevant situations.  The same technique, under the same time and with a slight rebranding, has been used both in the research and practice of sport psychology.  There is also heavy use of goal setting, mental imagery, and stress management work in both areas.  We are also seeing some of the language from sports making its way into offices – coaching anyone?

In both disciplines, we are looking at maximizing performance events.  So the next time you are talking to your team, think broadly about the tools that you have at your disposal.  What would Bilodeau do?

It has been a while friends!  Please forgive my absence.  It has been a busy semester but I am about to start a new MHRM course so I thought it was time to restart this Blog.  I really enjoy having this here to engage students between classes.  Due to the structure of the MHRM course, 1 day of class each month, it is easy to become disconnected in the weeks when we are all working independently.  I hope that this Blog provides a space for engagement outside of the classroom environment.  And I hope that others might join us here as well!  It is wonderful to have many people commenting on the posts.  

So, what has been happening in the last few months?  Well, I took over as Director of the School of Human Resource Management here at York University on July 1, 2013.  While I followed my incredibly gifted and very well organized colleague, Dr. Parbudyal Singh, into this role I still found that I was running on a treadmill during first few months.  Despite the fact that I had been in an academic leadership role in the past, there was a lot to learn.  At this point, I feel as though I have my feet back under me and I am even ready to push forward a few new initiatives – more on these as they progress.

In the short term, I wanted to share with you a publication produced by the School this year under the leadership of Dr. Len Karakowsky.  The HR Edge has just arrived in hard copy in our offices.  You can read it online in PDF format.  Len did a wonderful job of collecting and publishing the work of our colleagues, students, and business partners. I hope you will enjoy reading about the research activities of the school as well as the interesting career paths of our students.  

For updates on what is happening in our school and in my own research, stay tuned to this Blog or follow me on Twitter @budworth. 

I just started reading Adam Grant‘s first book called Give and Take.  It is quite well done.  When reading non-fiction written by an academic, it can sometimes be inaccessible and at other times overly simplified, Grant does a really nice job of representing the complexity of the research while using rich and entertaining storytelling devices.  My review aside, I love the idea that we can provide scientific evidence for the benefit of giving – and that is giving not to receive but giving for the sake of giving.

Grant makes the point that in the world of Google and Facebook, our reputations are publicly and available to anyone willing to type our name into a search engine.  In today’s world, being generous and helpful is more important than ever as there is often a permanent record of our deeds.  I have taught social networks as part of my learning and development course for years.  Admittedly, social networks are not an area where I do any direct research.  I have typically thought about the value one extracts from one’s network as reciprocity on a karmic scale – you put value in by doing something for one person and it comes out of your network in some unexpected way somewhere else.  It is a bit of a wishy washy way of explaining the inter-connectedness between individuals within a socials structure.  

In truth, injecting value into your social network by helping others creates a reputation for the giver. You become someone who is known for being available, assistive, and helpful.  In the long term, this reputation is what benefits the giver.  We want to be of service to someone who we know is generous to others.  Or the converse, we do not want to be of service to individuals who ‘take’ or who give only with the expectation of receiving.  

So there is karma through the lens of social science.  Awesome. 

There is something really interesting happening in Canadian politics at the moment.  The Liberal party who, for decades, held great power in this country has been struggling.  There was a need for some kind of reinvigoration.  As you will be aware, this came in the form of Justin Trudeau, the newly elected Liberal leader.  I think it is fair to say that he is getting a great deal of attention largely because of his family history.  As the son of Pierre Trudeau, a leader for whom most Canadians over 30 have strong feelings – both good and bad, he carries a legacy.  It is a romantic idea – the son of our last ‘celebrity’ Prime Minister seeks the office himself.  I love it. I plan on following this thing like its a Kardashian.  What is yet to be seen is whether Justin has substance and can hold his own on a national stage.  

This week he was put to his first test.  His opponents released what is known in the business as an ‘attack ad.’  It raised the obvious concern – does Mr. Trudeau have enough experience to be Prime Minister?  But in the spirit of the attack ad, it did so in an underhanded way.  The ad pokes fun at Mr. Trudeau’s involvement in a charity event where he walked a cat walk and it undermines his experience indicating that it is no more than that of a camp counsellor.  Ouch.  Unfriendly and implausible but the ad, nevertheless, does make him look silly.  

What I really enjoyed was the Liberal campaign’s response.  Typically the response to an attack ad is another attack ad or an issue by issue rebuttal.  Instead, Mr. Trudeau prepared his own video where he reframed the issues.  He does not deny anything in the original ad but instead reorients the viewer on what is important – working together.  As my kids would say – boo yah!  It is charming and effective and makes the earlier attack ad seem silly.  

This series of videos made me think about messaging.  Clearly two things can be viewed quite differently based merely on how they are presented.  I will, however, be curious to which sets of videos form the majority opinion about Trudeau.  What images/ideas/videos will gain traction?   There is a case study in image formation in here somewhere.  I am looking forward to watching it play out.

Dan Ariely, a famous behavioural economist, recently gave a TED talk on motivation at work.  He provided evidence for the notion that in today’s world, people are motivated by something other than money.  His main message is that people are motivated when they can accomplish something, make progress, feel as though they have added value.  This stuff around meaning at work motivating people is not new.  It received fairly widespread attention when Dan Pink released his book Drive.  (For a quick review of the main points in that book, take a look at this video.)  However, despite this attention, we continue to structure work in ways  that assumes that money is the ‘thing.’  According to the novel experiments presented by Dan Ariely and those reviewed by Dan Pink, this is simply not true.  

Both authors point out that for routine jobs, money will in fact make a difference in terms of motivation and performance.  A person on an assembly line will work faster if here is a financial reward for productivity.  However, when we are talking about complex tasks or creative work – the kind that dominate Canada’s workforce today, money will be less effective.  Dan Pink provides the caveat that the remuneration the person receives needs to be enough to ‘take money off the table.’  Very helpful.  So lack of fair remuneration will demotivate people.  In the case where the pay is fair, it will not provide the additional motivation required for high performance.  In such cases, something more is required.  In this case, workers need to feel ‘meaning.’  What have I produced?  How has my work affected others?  How do I add value?  

Great stuff.  And as I noted, it is not novel and may in fact be intuitive.  But the question remains, why don’t we have more programs that capitalize on this type of motivation?   I would be interested in hearing examples from your organizations if in fact you know of some that capitalize on these findings.  

It is a big day in the Budworth household.  My youngest son is turning 6 years old AND Roanic is playing in the Davis Cup for Canada.  Pretty exciting times.  So the questions is – what do I Blog about?  My child or tennis – two things that I have consciously chosen to focus on during my sabbatical.  Unfortunately for Aidan, after spending many hours and countless dollars preparing loot bags, bouncy castles, and Phineaus & Ferb cupcakes I am all birthday partied-out; but tennis I can go on about forever.  

During this research leave year, one of my main goals has been to get back in shape.  My schedule is far more flexible so if there is any time where it was going to happen, it would have to be now.  Well, anyone who knows me would know that I don’t do things part way.  If I am in, I am in!  Tennis is no exception.  I took up the sport as a pathway to fitness.  It has now become a part of my lifestyle and by extension, my family’s.  We now travel with tennis racquets and spend a great deal of our ‘entertainment’ budget on tennis courts and lessons.  It is outstanding.  The beauty of the sport is that you can learn and improve in noticeable ways.  There are frequent opportunities for increases in self-efficacy either through positive feedback or enactive mastery (smalls wins).  

I had forgotten how wonderful it feels to develop a new skill.  Do you remember, as a child, the feeling that accompanied learning something new?  Really learning it?  It was often followed by a ‘self-esteem’ high.  Well I don’t believe I had felt that for years.  As adults there just is not an opportunity to learn something completely new.  We are almost always building on old knowledge sets.  That can be rewarding as well but to completely break into something unknown – well that is pretty amazing.  

So tonight while my 6 year old jumps in an inflatable jumpy castle with 10 of his closest friends, I will be hovering around the computer in my kitchen watching Roanic make tennis history for Canada.  I belong to a new club.  I can watch tennis as someone who plays tennis.  And I can enhance the positive feelings of ability and achievement while sipping wine and eating cake.  

I really enjoyed Mike Winerip‘s piece in the New York Times this morning.  He presents balance to the current media frenzy over the limits placed on women in corporate America.  Mr. Winerip reminds us that any individual who chooses to focus on family over career makes sacrifices – and it is perfectly okay.  

Recently there have been a few high profile examples of women in senior leadership roles within highly visible corporate environments.  As noted in my last Blog entry, Marisa Mayer has taken over Yahoo! and the response has been to make ‘news’ of the length of her maternity leave.  Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, recently released her book Lean In 
providing women with career advice, based on her own life story.  And to kick all of this off, Anne Marie Slaughter wrote a piece for the Atlantic last summer detailing the limits between parenting and career success.  

My view is that all three of these women, Mayer, Sandberg, and Slaughter, have made valuable contributions.  They each hold differing views of what it takes to be successful, however, they all provide a highly visible example of women in leadership.  This by itself provides a service to any woman who wishes to achieve career success at the highest possible level.  

Mr. Winerip described having to pass on opportunities in order to be present for his children.  He also describes what my colleagues and I identified as a ‘taking turns’ strategy in career management among dual career couples (see Budworth, Enns, Rowbotham, 2008).    Winerip reminds us, the type of leadership success enjoyed by these women comes at a price – no matter who you are. 

It has taken me a while to form an opinion about Marissa Mayer’s decision to abandon Yahoo!’s telecommuting policy.  To be honest, I am still not clear on what I think about it.  Others have come down hard on Mayer.  Both Richard Branson and Bill Gates have criticized her publicly and the media has been generally unfriendly.  

Ms Mayer argues that asking people to return to the office will allow for greater creativity and innovation.  Her critiques suggest that the opposite is true.  I have repeatedly read the familiar mantra that “people are not creative between 9 and 5.”  Well, I think the reason that I have been uncomfortable weighing in on this debate is that the problem statement is too limited.  It really is not one way or the other.  Creativity, innovation, and performance for that matter, are not simple products of interaction with others – or autonomy over one’s work schedule.  Ms Mayer was not absolutely wrong – nor was she entirely correct in her policy change.  

I think it boils down to this.  Yahoo! is in trouble.  That is no secret.  The current model is not working.  There is a need to fix it.  Enter Ms Mayer who decides a change in corporate culture is necessary.  In order to achieve this change, she asks people to come to the office.  This does not seem out of line to me.  And, it is entirely separate from the question of whether working in the office supports creativity through interaction.  

Flexible work arrangements are a great idea for a range of reasons.  They provide autonomy for workers and support satisfaction with one’s working conditions.  Today’s technology allows us to interact with one another despite remote work arrangements – additional support for the work at home model.  And working in the office is also excellent.  I learn more walking around the school than I do from the emails and teleconferences.  But, that does not mean that one model is ‘absolutely’ better than the other.  It also does not mean that there is a model that fits all work environments.  If you are asking the question – where do worker’s perform better?  You are asking the wrong question because there is no clear answer.  

A useful frame for these types of debates is – here are the advantage and disadvantages of this model of work – what fits with our needs and the needs of our workers at the moment?  So I still don’t have a direct response to Ms Mayer’s decision but I am okay with that.  As an Yahoo! outsider, I can’t profess to know what needs to be done today.  So, as with any good academic, when asked for my opinion on the telecommuting question, I can only answer – it depends.  

I stayed up to watch the Oscars last night – the whole thing.  I found it to be long and a little dull – disappointing given the amount of talent in that room.  I spent most of the night thinking about the fact that most of the faces are familiar ones and that awards nights such as that one are predictable in a lot of ways.  It is really a small network of people passing out awards to one another.  I even found myself saying, “well she deserves it because she has been nominated so many times and it must be her turn.”  What does that say about the pool that is acknowledged at these types of events?  Are we really awarding talent or are the Oscars another example of the in-group, out-group phenomenon?  

It is important to note that I am not minimizing the talent the Oscar nominated actors/directors/producers/ and make up artists (etc…) posses.  They are hugely talented people.  But there is a point where talent is no longer what propels a career forward.  Talent will get you so far, persistence  (or a useful family name) will take you the rest of the way … and then, if you are fortunate enough, other factors will keep you at the top.  It is the same thing in the ‘real world’ – right?  You can ‘eat out’ on the success of a solid project for months.  You may create the type of social network that buoys you throughout your career.  Or perhaps you create a niche for yourself that makes you indispensable.  

I am rambling a bit here but there is a point.  Talent alone will only get you so far.  If talent were the most important commodity, we would see new faces at the Oscars every year.  There is a great deal of talent in the movie industry and that talent cannot be adequately represented by the 100 or so people who regularly take the stage at this awards show.  As many insightful people have noted, talent is over rated.  Dan Pink says that persistence will always trump talent.  I agree.  Talent will open a door but it will take other skills to keep you there.  

I must be the web’s worst Blogger.  It has been close to three months since my last entry!  Despite my best intentions I have found it pretty difficult to find something to write about that I could ‘get behind.’  This does not mean that I have not been busy.  My paper on feedforward is close to publication.  I have a new paper on using the internet as a hiring screening tool and I have some interesting new projects on motivation.  In spite of all of this, my own motivation around sharing my thoughts has waned.  This is largely due to the fact that the end of 2012 was crappy for me personally and my thoughts have been anything but enthusiastic.  

I realized that the best way to get myself back on this Blogging train would be to share with you the events of the last few months.  And by ‘you’ I mean any person out there who has not completely abandoned this site due to its lack of activity.  So here goes, two close family members have struggled with cancer in the last little while.  They are young and I love them and so, it sucks like a big bag of cake balls.  Actually worse than that.  I imagine cake balls (or cake pops) are pretty tasty.  It sucks like a big bag of doggy poop.  I know that cancer touches everyone’s life at one point or another.  I was not prepared.  Don’t worry (if I can be so bold as to think that you were worried).  I am fine and I will be fine but the world sucks – rather, outside of my amazing kids, excellent husband, wonderful friends, and inspiring work – the world sucks.  So you won’t hear much more about this on the Blog but I thought that full disclosure may allow me to get back on the Blogging horse.

I do have one request.  This year, I will be doing the Ride to Conquer Cancer.  This is a 200 km ride from Toronto to Niagara in support of a number of cancer foundations.  You can find my reasons for doing this at my sponsorship website.  If you are able and willing to support me in this event, I would be very appreciative.  In a time when there is nothing that I can do for the people that I love, I can do this.  Click on the link below to read more about it or to sponsor  me directly.

Visit my personal page:
http://to13.conquercancer.ca/site/R?i=O6lxHPcSnDnUdc657u9W6g

Now back to your regular Blog.  (I promise).