Marie-Hélène Budworth

Happy New Year!  It is bittersweet to be back after such a long break.  In the spirit of new beginnings I would like to Blog about a theme from the Chip and Dan Heath book I read over the holidays – the need for ‘unexpectedness’ in making ideas stick.  Knowledge sometimes needs a clean slate in order to be meaningful.  

The Heath brothers argue that “we can engage people’s curiosity over a long period of time by systematically ‘opening gaps’ in their knowledge – and then filling those gaps.”  This is similar to a theme that I often come across when researching self-efficacy, or task specific confidence.   Self-efficacy helps us to guide our efforts when we encounter new information.  If we do not know anything about the topic we are motivated to direct our efforts towards learning about it.  If we believe we know all about it already we do not invest our efforts toward the new information but redirect our attention.  By extension, it becomes the job of the person trying to convey the new information to help the audience understand that they do not know it already.  The ‘instructor’ has to help the learner in knowing what they don’t know.  In some cases, you might need to take apart tightly held beliefs or assumptions before you can introduce new ways of looking at things.  

The military takes advantage of this idea.  As part of the initiation, new recruits are systematically ‘stripped’ of their understanding of the world and re-oriented to view it through a given lens.  This is a similar process as that seen in environments where there are hazing rituals such as sports teams and fraternities.  But, the process need not be as shocking or aggressive as military orientation or hazing.  A good teacher achieves the same effect with a well considered plan.

I recall feeling as though I knew it all when I graduated from high school.  I had taken mainly mathematics and science courses – courses that can have a clear right or wrong answer.  In high school, at least in the sciences, material is often taught in such as way that a student can begin to believe there is a formula for every problem.  If you are able to attach the correct formula to the correct question, you can come to a correct answer.  In high school all the big questions were answered.  Then I went on to university.  The main focus of the lectures in my first year was to help students understand the limits of our knowledge – what don’t we know.  I came to understand that knowledge of the world is pretty limited.  This revelation opened me up to consider all kinds of new ideas.  It set me on a path where I have come to pursue ‘new ideas.‘  I seek to ask more questions than I do to find answers.

It is an interesting notion; in order to learn anything, you need to let go of the belief that you know something to begin with.

I just ordered a couple of new books and expect that they will arrive in time for the holidays.  I will be reading Made to Stick: Why some Ideas Survive and Others Die andPower: Why Some People Have It and Others Don’t.

Made to Stick is by the Heath brothers – Chip and Dan.  Chip is a business professor at Stanford and Dan is a textbook publisher.  The book is about communication; how to tell a good story.  Recently I have been obsessed with the idea of how to present ideas in compelling ways. I am interested in the “story” one uses to convey ideas.  Research in both negotiations and the general field of power and influence has taught us that a good story is a source of power.  It is not enough to understand the arguments; the manner in which you construct them and present them to your audience is a key skill for influencing others.

I am also interested in the tools that can be used for storytelling.  As you may have guessed, I do a lot of lecturing.  I started teaching university students in 2003.  At that time, Powerpoint was relatively new technology in the classroom. There have been many criticisms of Powerpoint.  For example, Powerpoint is often used as a set of speakers notes.  The slides do not enhance the presentation they provide a guide  for the speaker.  In addition, speakers sometimes puts all of their ideas on the slide; the slides cross over from being just plain dull to be being distracting.  Audiences cannot pay attention to both dense slides and a speaker.  I recently read Slide:ology by Nancy Duarte.  She lays out quite simply how tools such as Powerpoint can be used to construct effective presentations.  I am hoping the Heath brothers book will give help me to think about how to design an effective narrative where media can be used as a compliment.

The second book, Power, is written by Jeffrey Pfeffer.  Many of you will have already heard of Dr. Pfeffer.  He is also a Stanford University professor and arguably one of the most influential management scholars working today.  His newest book describes success at the individual level.  Why do some people succeed while others falter?  How do you ensure success?  As you know from my earlier Blogs, these questions are really at the core of all of the work that I do.  While I do not typically look at it through the lens of Power, I believe this could be a really useful perspective.  I look forward to Dr. Pfeffer’s insights.

Beyond these two books I will likely watch a few movies, eat a lot of food, and spend time with family and friends.  I hope you will have a chance to do much of the same.

All the best for a restful and joyful holiday.

Today I am revising a paper on the measurement of counterproductive performance.  This project is slightly outside the area where the bulk of my research lies – but it is an interesting area nonetheless.

Maria Rotundo at the University of Toronto led research on the measurement of performance.  She found that manager’s typically consider three dimensions when evaluating their subordinates, namely task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance.  Task performance represents the behaviours that are aligned with the main duties of the job.  Citizenship performance is comprised of all of the tasks people perform that go above and beyond the duties of the job (e.g., helping co-workers, attending company parties etc.).  Counterproductive performance is everything that co-workers should not be doing on the job – theft, vandalism, and for some organizations, surfing Facebook or the internet (whether this is or is not counterproductive could be the topic of a future Blog).  Counterproductive behaviours are not aligned with organizational goals and often cause disruption in the workplace.   While there has been an obsession in research about the measurement of task performance, few studies have looked at the measurement of counterproductive behaviours.

Our study was concerned with whether people rated counterproductive behaviours differently based on their own values and behaviours.  In other words, do people view ‘negative’ actions differently based on what they believe and what they themselves do.  When it comes to negative behaviours, it is all up for interpretation.  Outside of some pretty socially unacceptable acts, most offences are highly dependent on the viewpoint of the observer.  I think we can all agree that our perception regarding taking a personal call during office hours might be okay with some but a problem for others.  Even those behaviours that we think would be universally unacceptable are up for interpretation.  Let’s look at theft as an example.

Most of us would agree that it is inappropriate to take things from our employer – theft is wrong.  Would this belief change if you were underpaid by your employer?  Or if you viewed your work as being undervalued?  Equity theory tells us that when people believe their inputs are not equal to the reward they receive, they either decrease their effort or they find a way to increase the reward.  “The company owes me this USB key. I give them all kinds of things without compensation”; “I should not have to pay for my personal long distance call.  I bought some things last week and did not ask for reimbursement.”

A few years ago when I was teaching Introduction to Human Resource Management,  I was lecturing about Equity Theory in general and I mentioned the relationship between equity and theft.  One student proudly put up his hand and told a story about an employer who refused to give him a raise after a year of consistent work.  He was working for a butcher and noted that when the increase in salary was refused, he promptly began taking home meat for his family!  Meat!  That is not quite a few extra staples and some post-its.

The study that I conducted with Sara Mann from the University of Guelph found that ratings of counterproductive behaviour vary depending on the rater’s own counterproductive behaviours.  If I behave in counterproductive ways, I likely see your behaviours as less counterproductive.  If I do not engage in counterproductive behaviours, I am more likely see them in you.  This finding is fairly intuitive but it does let us know that individual rater effects are influencing counterproductive performance measurement.  We cannot really get an objective measure of counterproductive performance.  I, as the rater, will always be tied up in the rating itself.  The implication is that if we hope to find out who is undermining our organizational performance, we need to find people who view performance in the same way that we do.

My two children were so excited when they woke up to snow yesterday morning.  It was magical to see wonder on their face.  I was so pleased for them until I remembered how much more difficult it is to get children out of the house when boots, snowsuits, and mittens are involved.  I also quickly recalled how easy it is to be a failure as a mother by forgetting said mittens at home forcing the children to stay in during recess; or worse yet, forgetting a change of shoes so that cannot participate in gym class.  It is all too much for a parent to balance.

As a mother with a full-time job in a family with a husband who also has a full-time job, it often feels as though we are just scraping by.  There is a delicate balance at play.  I drop the children off in the morning and their father picks them up.  For a few hours each evening we eat, play, read, and otherwise pack in some ‘quality time’ with the two precious gems (in between calming down tantrums, breaking up fights, and keeping them alive).  Then we carefully put the little ones to bed so that we can return to our computers for a second shift at work.  I often find myself here at midnight or 1 am finishing up one last project.  If anything unexpected happens (i.e., illness, field trips, or SNOW) this carefully maintained schedule all falls apart.

On days such as this one, I become very grateful for a few parts of my life that allow all the madness to persist.  First, my work is very flexible.  It is incredibly demanding but, at the same time, I can create my own schedule and ‘fit things in.’  Second, I have a partner who understands the importance of my work and makes every effort to ensure that nothing stands in the way.  We often trade off evenings at work or days caring for a sick child.  As a couple, we have developed a strategy whereby we take fairly equal responsibility for all aspects of home and work life.  (I would still say that I make all the decisions about how the house will run – what we will eat? who needs new clothes? signing permission forms? ensuring homework is done? – but it is clear to me that I am not alone).

Research on dual career couples has shown that families choose many different strategies for child care.  There is the ‘job’ versus ‘career’ strategy where one partner has a career that trumps anything the other partner does at their ‘job.’  The partner earning more money typically has the ‘career.’  There is a strategy where couples take turns moving in and out of the workforce.  One partner might step back while the children are young and reenter when the children are in full-time school or at an age where they can manage somewhat independently.  In both cases, the partner who ‘typically’ steps away from work or minimizes their involvement in career is the female partner. Biological, social, and legal reasons are often cited for this trend.  There are also issues tied to identity.  Our culture has taught women that they have a greater responsibility to any children born out of a relationship.

I believe that there were few men like my husband a decade ago.  As time goes on, it is more and more ‘acceptable’ for men to take leave from work for the purposes of child care, and, as my focus groups with Gen Y women are showing, a women’s identity is not as wrapped up in family and children.  It will be interesting to see how our understanding of family changes over the next decade.

This shifting identities and labour demographics are a long time coming.  Women have been in the workforce in significant numbers since World War II and, at present, are participating in labour in equal numbers.  Perhaps the shifts at home signal that other shifts are eminent.  I would like to think that changing family roles means that perceptions of who can be a ‘CEO’ or otherwise lead in organizations will shift as well.  But I am not naive.  I know that while my husband and a large number of my friends’ husbands, take an active role at home, I recognize that this is only a segment of the population… but it is a start.

Part of my job as a professor is to review articles for academic journals.  This process is intended to ensure that all material published in scholarly publications has been vetted by a ‘jury’ of peers.  Today, as part of this service, I read an article about learning and relationships among team members.  It was pretty interesting.

How important are relationships in organizational life?  There are plenty of anecdotes that imply that relationships are paramount – people do not quit companies, they quit managers; my co-workers make it bearable.  These sentiments illustrate the importance of ‘people’ in our work experience.  Up until recently, I am mainly considered these relationships as they are important for the individual – they help us to ‘get by’ at work.

For three summers during my undergraduate, I worked in maintenance for the Board of Education.  I power washed plastic chairs, refinished hardwood gym floors, and steam cleaned classroom carpets. It was horrible work – hot, heavy, and dirty.  I worked on a team with Ferdinando Tantalo, a funny, caring, lovely young man who made it his business to make every day fun and entertaining.  It was one of the best jobs I ever had.  I had only ever thought of Ferdi’s contribution to my work experience as ‘he helped me get through it’ – but really Ferdi kept me engaged at work.  I was the best darn power washer in the business.  We worked hard and we laughed hard.  The positive relationships I had on the job made me want to work harder, be productive, and maintain the ‘positive’ environment that had been created.

The article I read today found that people who are surrounded by positive relationships (i.e., feel supported by team members and by their managers) are more likely to take risks, learn from others in their environment, share their own knowledge, and feel comfortable with change.  In other words, people who have productive relationships at work are better employees.  It is worthwhile for organizations and managers to consider evaluating and actively improving relationships.  It is also worth ensuring that you have a few Ferdinando’s on your team.  Wherever he is, he is making an enormous contribution – not only through his work but through his effect on others.

I have been thinking a lot about resiliency lately.  What are the conditions that allow some people persist while others give up?  This characteristic is essential for success in any challenging endeavour.  It is related to a theme in my research.  I have been obsessed with an individual difference called self-efficacy, or task specific confidence.  It is not my term.  It belongs to Albert Bandura and his social cognitive theory.  In my mind, it is pure brilliance and explains so much about human behaviour.

Self-efficacy describes an individual’s perceptions of their own ability.  In popular language we use the term self-esteem to describe how we feel about ourselves at our core.  Self-efficacy is distinct from self-esteem.  Self-efficacy describes perceptions about specific tasks while self-esteem is a global or general perception about oneself.  For example, one can have high self-efficacy for snowboarding and low self-efficacy for skating – all the while they may have high general self-esteem.  They are not necessarily related.  

Self-efficacy is related to persistence.  If one has high self-efficacy for a task and they are faced with a challenge, they are likely to redouble their efforts and persist.  Self-efficacy is essential for resiliency.  Fred Luthans, in a new area called positive psychology, has coined the term psychological capital (PsyCap).  PsyCap is a combination of self-efficacy, hope, and optimism.  It has been connected to job satisfaction, effective organizational change, and commitment.

So we have a lot of terms to describe psychological experiences that enable people to persist in the face of challenge.  I am interested in two things: (1) how does self-efficacy (or PsyCap, or resiliency) predict who will become successful? and (2) how can we arm people with these characteristics so that they can control their own potential for success?  

Recently I was asked the question: “If you could be certain that you could give your child one thing, and you would know they could take it with them through life, what would it be?”  I quickly and easily came to the answer, optimism.  But I think I meant some combination of resiliency, self-efficacy (for life), and Psychological Capital.  The research says it clearly, and my own experience supports it, if you can assist people in feeling confident in themselves and connected to others they are armed to face insurmountable barriers.  Individuals with resiliency break down systemic barriers and succeed where others ‘like them’ may have failed.  I am talking about the Barack Obamas, Stephen Hawkings, and even Hillary Swanks of the world.  Some people succeed through focus and hard work.  That is amazing.  Others succeed through focus, hard work, and fight… and that is just outstanding.

I am in the market for a new car.  Some people might think this would be an exciting prospect. For me, it has been painful.  Cars are a necessary evil.  I need one because I work 40 km from home and I have two young children who walk at the speed of molasses.  And here begins my journey.  I have chosen the car and now we need to negotiate a good deal.  In doing so, I recognize some of my strengths and weaknesses in negotiations.

I teach negotiations to undergraduate university students.  Early in the year we cover some basics – there are two main types of negotiations, distributive and integrative.  In distributive negotiations there is a win-lose framework.  There are limited resources so any value gained by one player is lost by the other.  In integrative negotiations there is the potential for trades offs, collaboration, and creativity.  There is an opportunity for everyone to leave the negotiating table feeling as though they have benefited.  Most negotiations in life fall into the second category, integrative.  Sadly, at least for me, buying a car is clearly distributive.  I have to give up money and all I get in return is a stinky car – lose, lose.

To be successful in distributive negotiations you need to do your homework – research the value of the negotiated item, get a sense of the ‘bottom line’ for your counterpart, and during the negotiation, be ready to claim value.  This causes me some discomfort because there is limited room in distributive negotiations for my skill set.  My success in bargaining comes from ongoing relationships, problem solving, and dispute resolution.  These skills can be useful in distributive negotiations but you certainly do not get your bang for your buck.  So I have fallen back on another key skills – know when to contract out to a third party.

In negotiations you need to know when you should be negotiating or when you should farm the job out to an agent.  One of the reasons you might hand over the lead in negotiations is that you just don’t care enough.  So, in walks my husband.  He loves cars and is entirely invested in me driving a car that is safe, of good value, and reliable.  Our interests are entirely aligned and he will get great joy out of negotiating a deal – win, win!  Perhaps my ability to leverage relationships is proving to be an asset in this negotiation after all!

Today’s focus groups were very interesting.  Some clear themes are emerging from the discussions.  I have to admit, some of the findings are somewhat discouraging for me to hear.  In particular, there seems to be a strong sense of the ‘practical’ when these young women consider their career options.  I recall being in my early 20s and being incredibly enthusiastic – and anxious – about the possibilities.  The young women we are speaking with are concerned with possible limitations.  I did not start making trade offs until the reality smacked me the face, but these young people are so aware that they are self-limiting in their own aspirations prior to even encountering the limitation itself.  For example, almost every participant expresses in one way or another that one needs to make a choice between family and career.  They have conceded that if they would like to have children, their career will have to suffer – if only for a period of time.  They feel conflicted about motherhood and work before they have either.  It is too much pressure!  As a young woman, I resisted the notion that family and work would conflict until i found myself trying to keep my children quiet during conference calls.  (And I am glad that I did.  My naive outlook motivated me to maintain a productive path even when my children were quite young.)

My generation was told that we could ‘have it all.’  If we worked hard and planned well, a fulfilling life with both family and career was well within our grasp.  I think that women emerging into the workforce today have observed my generation’s attempt at this new model.  They are also privy to so many examples in the media of women who have burnt out from attempting to fit it all in.  They do not find it attractive.  

When we ask, ‘are you a feminist?’  The participants often become visibly uncomfortable or a least a little awkward.  There is often a giggle followed by a rejection of the term in one form or another.  It is a signal to me that perspectives are changing.  There is a clear sense that equality and choice are paramount, but there is also an awareness that life is about partnership with others – particularly family – and sacrifices are necessary.  I need to think this one through.  For better or for worse?

I am always shocked at the pace of the beginning of the academic year.  My absence is largely explained by an overwhelming and unexpected teaching load.  I am starting to feel as though I have things back on track.  I have returned to some of my research and will return to my Blog.  Hopefully that will be my only prolonged absence.

Tomorrow afternoon, we are running a second set of focus groups with Generation Y women who are about to enter the workforce.  Earlier this year, we ran 6 groups of 5-9 women.  This week, we will be working with another 6 groups.  I have been finding the themes that have emerged from these groups to be surprising and fascinating.  Most significantly, from my perspective, is a clear sense that career is about trade offs.  Young women have incredible clarity about the sacrifices they would have to make for a progressive career and many have already decided that they will delay career until other parts of their ‘life’ have been taken care of.  I have been reflecting on what my own perspective of these types of issues might have been 15 years ago and I believe that completely bought into the popular notion of the 1990s that women could ‘have it all.’  As a result, I believe that today I do ‘have it all’ but at a cost.  I am tired, weary, and often feel as though I am failing at everything rather than succeeding at anything.  Now there’s another study!  The career reflections of Generation X women.

Author Gloria Feldt is promoting a new book about woman and their path to success.  Yesterday, it was profiled in the life section of the Globe and Mail.  In her interview with the Globe, she argues that women are holding themselves back from positions of power.  The way the argument is articulated in this brief interview suggests that the perpetuation of the glass ceiling is due to the fact that women have learned to behave in ways that limit their progress.  Her advice? Women need to get over being viewed negatively or disliked.  

I struggled while reading this brief review.  While the advice is simple, it is not realistic.  Ms Feldt has correctly identified the fact that women have been socialized in ways that are not consistent with success in today’s workforce.  Women in North American culture are ‘feminized’ by our environments.  It is expected that a young girl will be social, friendly, cooperative, and agreeable – and so she is.  Importantly, these expectations are set by society in general and not one gender group in particular.  In the workforce, we reward confidence, competence, self-assurance, and competitiveness; traits that are not always compatible with our expectations of ‘feminine‘ behaviour.  So, while Ms Feldt is correct in that there are ways that women behave that are not consistent with modern definitions of ‘success‘ in the workplace, attempting to operate outside of these gender expectations can be problematic.  

Research in social psychology clearly finds that women who operate outside of their gender norm often suffer from ‘backlash.‘  There is a risk that a woman operating in a way that is not authentic to who she is will miss out on productive relationships, rewards, and advancement.    While I admire Ms Feldt’s goal of assisting women in advancing in their careers, I worry about advice that asks women to behave in ways that may not represent who they are, and that opens them up for negative consequences.  

This is where I am supposed to offer an alternative to the advice provided by Ms Feldt.  Unfortunately, I do not have clear guidance based on the existing research.  I do sincerely believe that the solution needs to understand the current barriers in a realistic way, but provide guidance that allows women to be authentic to who they are.  At this very moment, I am doing some work on advancement and salaries for men versus women based on a set of impression management behaviours.  I will keep you up to date on what I find.