Generation C And The Future Of Work

Posted June 13th, 2014 in Articles, Blogs by admin

Generation C is redefining the nature of traditional marketing and customer service while coincidentally, technological innovations are redefining careers and the workplace.

Generation C can be described as the current 18 to 34 year olds. The “C” stands for connected. They rule social media, online video, smart phones, tablets and TV viewership. They have a passion for engagement, creativity, connection, contribution and self-directed consumption. And they measure the importance of their personal and work worlds by experiences that answer the question “how will this feel?”

Brian Solis, the author of The End of Business As Usual: Rewire the Way Your Work To Succeed in the Consumer Revolution and What’s The Future of Business? Changing The Way Businesses Create Experiences, says this about Generation C: “Their brains are wired differently…we complain about privacy in social networks. They’ve mastered it. We don’t get why people share as much online. They’ve created incredible filters to sort through the noise. We use Google to find information but they go to trusted networks and YouTube videos to make decisions. We watch TV on televisions. They watch TV on tablets and smartphones.”

How will this impact business? Solis cites a report by Google Insights shows today’s shoppers now rely on over 10 sources when making purchase decisions. This is twice as many as the previous year. Solis contends that all industries are moving toward a place where people rely on the Internet to get information, and create a new epicenter of influence which will claim every moment of truth, rich with shared experiences that populate YouTube, blogs, review sites, communities and apps.” Shareable experiences will be the core of consumer transactions.

Dana Rousmaniere, who The Wall Street Journal calls “one of the leading media-futurists in the world,” argues in the Harvard Business Review Blog, that by 2020 marketing will be “personalized, customized and adapted to what I have expressed as my wishes or opt-ins—which essentially means advertising becomes content…we’ll be paying with our data—bartering a bit of our personal information in return to the use of platforms and services.” Customers will be forming relationships with brands based on trust, and if a company breaks that trust, it will be very quickly viral and very quickly over, he says.

Rousmaniere goes on to argue that the reason to buy will be socially motivated, and businesses will be focused on predicting how to adjust their products and services based on an emotional interaction with customers in real time.

How will these business developments interact with technological innovation, which in turn will affect jobs in the future? New technology will eradicate some jobs, change others and create new categories of employment according to Ben Shiller writing in Fast CompanyHe outlines examples of jobs in the near future: digital death manager, un-schooling counselor, 3-D printing handyman, digital detox specialist, microbial balancer and urban shepherd.

These predictions are echoed in The Future Work Skills 2020 report by the Institute for the Future for the University of Phoenix Research Institute which predicts how smart machines and new media will reshape how we think about work and the skills needed for it. The report observes that because the number of people in North America over the age of 60 will increase by 70%; a major shift in the workplace will be a rearrangement of our approach to careers ,family life and educationAging individuals will increase opportunities, products and redirect services to accommodate healthy and active senior years. New smart machines will enter offices, factories and homes in numbers never seen before.

But most of the jobs related to those machines will be automated and carried out by robots, not people. Recently speaking at  Washington D.C. think tank, The American Enterprise Institute, Bill Gates said that within 20 years many jobs (including some in current professions as such as accounting and nursing) will be replaced by software automation (“bots,” in tech slang) and that most businesses and governments are not prepared for the subsequent impact. His remarks reflect  similar prediction by The Economist.

The consultancy firm, Booz&Company published a report which examined the rise of Generation C and the Workworld of 2020. Among the report’s conclusions were the following:

  • In the face of declining revenues from traditional sources, the challenge for communication and technology industries will be to abandon successful but outdated business models and refocus on what it takes to survive in a Generation C environment;
  • Business and personal activities will mingle seamlessness;
  • Social collaboration networks will proliferate and expand, impacting both business and personal lives;
  • The Era of the SmartCloud will be succeeded by the Era of the Sensor Economy and the Era of the Internet of Things, all fueled by new technologies which are customer-centric.

These business and technology developments will clearly reshape the kinds of jobs in demand which will significantly impact the younger generations. The Future of Workskills report argues that in the next decade, individuals will need to demonstrate adaptability and flexibility to rapidly changing work environments and become lifelong learners.

We’ll also see a focus on critical thinking skills, and a emphasis on soft skills such as interpersonal skills and collaboration which will be valued more than pure technical skills. A revised and redefined role for Human Resources in organizations will be critical, by developing a mindset to hire people for positions that do not even exist today; and helping us navigate a collaborative economy.

7 Myths Regarding Performance Management

Posted June 13th, 2014 in Articles, Blogs by admin

Performance measurement and systems have proliferated in the past 20 years, with executives in both the private and public sectors relying on performance metrics for strategic planning, and decision-making to drive bottom line results.

Yet research by reveals for the most part performance management systems have been a failure in most organizations, according to the Maastricht School of Management, The CEB, Watson Wyatt, and The Society for Human Resource Management.

Part of the problem is that leaders in those organizations still cling to some myths regarding performance management. So argues Pietro Micheli, professor of organizational performance at Britain’s Warwick Business School. He argues that the myths and mistakes “often encourage exactly the behaviours their organizations neither need or want.”

Here’s a brief summary of the myths:

Myth 1: Numbers are objective. Performance data is in fact “ambiguous and open to interpretation, and it’s use and impact on performance depends on commonality of interpretations.”

Myth 2: Accuracy and precision. Organizations invest huge amounts of money to gather       data to manage performance, but ask themselves the wrong question. Instead of asking whether the data is of good quality, the question should be “are we getting the data that is good enough for our purposes?” or in other words, are the data connected to strategic objectives?

Myth 3: Added value. Performance data is often never used in organizations, or in other words, the data is not used to make new decisions only reinforce.

Myth 4: Alignment. Recent studies show, while organizations are making considerable efforts to align employee behaviours and actions, Micheli contends, their results are often dismal because they are initiated top-down in a rigid fashion with no discretion left to    employees.

Myth 5: Motivation. Performance targets, indicators and rewards are often used to focus attention, and   engage and motivate staff. Yet, despite good intentions, organizations often generate what he calls a vicious cycle of performance management: “The usual reaction is to quickly introduce a series of measures to gather ‘objective’ data and to attach rewards to specific targets to incentivize employees. Unfortunately, as a result of this people get measure fixated.” They do a good job hitting the target but lose touch with the underlying objective or goal. Then over time a culture of performance measurement emerges which employees blindly follow. They work on what is measured, blind to the organization’s overall success.

Myth 6: Enabling change. Many organizations use performance targets and indicators to kick-start the   implementation of change, but measurement systems “have often acted as obstacles rather than enablers,” Micheli argues, adding that a rigid system regulated by managers often dampens employee initiative, rather than adopting an empowering and flexible approach.

Myth 7: Improvement. While the ultimate goal of using a performance measurement system is to improve organizational performance, Micheli’s research shows that the impact on performance is often non-existent, when they are not used to promote employee learning    and creative collaboration.

“Rather than spending months designing the perfect system that can produce objective, accurate and precise data, efforts should be put in communicating to all employees the reasons and benefits of such systems, and connecting strategy, measurement and decision-making,” Micheli concludes.

And more importantly, rather than assuming that a tight set of measures, targets and rewards will lead to alignment, motivation and improvement, “managers should empower people at different hierarchical levels, build flexibility in these system and use them for learning, rather than control purposes.”

I’d like to share final word as an executive coach who works with high performance individuals in the C-Suite. My experience has been that real significant gains in performance comes as result of intensive work on inner growth—things like self-awareness, self management of emotions, and mastering mindfulness—rather than some formula driven system that produces mediocre results.

Why We Need A Revolution In How We Do Business And Management

Posted June 13th, 2014 in Articles, Blogs by admin

From multiple perspectives, traditional business models and management practices are in deep trouble, and it has nothing to do with the recent economic downturn. There are three reasons why this is true.

Reason 1: Rising Income Inequality.

The Pew Foundation study, reported in theNew York Times, concluded, “The chance that children of the poor or middle class will climb up the income ladder, has not changed significantly over the last three decades.” The Economist‘ special report, Inequality in America, concluded, “The fruits ofproductivity gains have been skewed towards the highest earners and towards companies whose profits have reached record levels as a share of GDP.” I addressed the issue of income inequality in two previous articles in Psychology Today, “How Income Inequality is Damaging Our Social Structure,”and “Will Income Inequality Cause Class Warfare?”

One possible reason is a moral foundation of capitalism—meritocracy. The term meritocracy is defined as a society that rewards those who show talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or competitive performance. This concept is often interwoven with the widely accepted belief in the “self-made man” or “rags to riches” story. An OECD report concludes the only way to achieve fairness in a meritocracy is to provide more equal opportunities for everyone, not just the wealthy or privileged.

There is a clear connection between the alarming increase in income inequality and the prevailing paradigm of free market capitalism.

Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz’s book, The Price Of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future, provides an insightful analysis of the problem of income inequality.  Stiglitz argues free market capitalism isn’t working the way it was supposed to, for it is neither efficient nor stable. He also says that political systems are unfair, which compounds the problem. Stiglitz contends “We are no longer country of opportunity and that even our long-vaunted rule of law and system of justice have been compromised.”

Stiglitz echoes Toyama’s perspective: “America has always thought of itself as a land of equal opportunity…[it is] now a myth reinforced by anecdotes and stories, but not supported by the data. The chances of an American citizen making his way from the bottom to the top are less than those of citizens in other industrialized countries.” Stiglitz says there is a corresponding myth—rags to riches in three generations—that once a person reaches the top they have to continue to work hard to stay there or their descendants will move down. The reality is that children of wealthy people usually remain at the top.

Who is to blame? Stiglitz casts a wide net but zeroes in on Wall Street. He says “Capitalism seems to have changed the people who were ensnared by it.” Much of what has happened can only be described by the words “moral deprivation.” What’s the solution?  Stiglitiz, like many other expert observers, advocates policies that move toward a redistribution of wealth, not as an ideological solution, but as a practical one that will serve all in society and strengthen the economy.

The best selling book in the world currently is French economist Thomas Piketty’s Capital In The 21st Century, which is a deep and thorough examination of economic inequality. Piketty outlines at great length the growth of capital (ie., wealth) and its concentration in the hands of the 1% and how increasingly wealth is inherited, not created or distributed anew. The big idea of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that we haven’t just gone back to nineteenth-century levels of income inequality, we’re also on a path back to “patrimonial capitalism,” in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties. His proposal to solve the income inequality issue is a progressive global wealth tax.

Robert Reich, an economist and former White House advisor, argues “if prosperity were more widely shared, we’d have faster growth. The rules are now designed to entrench and enhance the wealth of a few at the top and keep almost everyone else comparatively poor and economically insecure.” Reich argues that if we want to reduce the savage inequalities and insecurities that are now undermining our economy and democracy, we shouldn’t be deterred by the myth of the “free market.”

Reason 2: Obsolete Business Models.

Some people argue then, that today’s business organizations are oligarchies, created and strengthened by an unrestrained free market system. The Western world has adopted the concept and set of principles that govern them should be democratic which includes the consent of the governed. But since the rise of Western capitalism businesses operated on primarily a non-democratic basis. While businesses are owned by shareholders or owners, they are subject only to the laws of the jurisdiction in which they operate, but are not subject to the will of employees or their customers. In this way, it can be argued that most business organizations are like oligarchies.

Like our faith in a clearly broken system of free market capitalism, our theories and practices of management no longer work in today’s world. The problem is that, currently capital is downed in a speculative game. Most business organizations are geared toward wealth creation for financial markets not the improvement of life on this planet.

At the macro level, the “real economy” –that of the global exchange of products and services—has become poor man’s economy, representing less than 3% of the total amount of foreign exchange transactions

The endless emphasis on employee engagement is the narrow focus of efforts at organizational transformation. But for what purpose? What outcome? To be more productive? By producing more material things? At what social and environmental cost?

Roger Martin Dean of the Rotman School of Management argues in his book, Fixing The Game: “We must shift the focus of companies back to the customer away from shareholder value. The shift necessitates a fundamental change in our prevailing theory…that the singular goal of the corporation should be shareholder value maximization. Instead, companies should place the customers at the center of the firm.”

The corporate world needs to be redesigned to make it much more networked, interconnected, open, egalitarian, non-hierarchical, agile, transparent and empowering. Luis Suerez argues “The future of work is to freelance within  organizations—choose your task, assemble to work, and then dissolve.” Many discussions about the future of work revolve around the need for more fluidity and freedom in the way work is done. But why do we continue to consider work as a separate entity from life? Isn’t each worker also a customer and a networked individual in a hyper-connected world.? And if we stop seeing work as separate from life, then we must see the notion of “worker” as also not being separate from management.

Business is now becoming a social enterprise. The Altimeter Groupstates, “Organizations moving into the “Business as Social” phase are driven by a vision that articulates how social media and digital overall improves customer and employee relationships and experiences.” Ann Marie McEwan, writing in her book, Smart Working-Crating the Next Wave, argues  “Connected companies are not hierarchies, fractured into unthinking, functional parts, but holarchies : complex systems in which each part is also a fully-functional whole in its own right. A holarchy is a different kind of template than the modern, multidivisional organization.”

David Gray, in his book, The Connected Company says to be able to adapt both to customers’ changing needs and to competitive pressure, organizations should adopt a decentralized cooperative model and build strategic ad hoc “alliances.” This model is very similar to the Italian industry, which is dominated by small (less than 100 employees), family owned businesses that cluster for opportunities.

To understand customers fully, companies need to integrate them into their processes, make them integral part of the business ecosystem, and make them the part of the stakeholder system. Organizations in the new economy will not only have to be agile, tied to customers’ needs, but have to deal with dissolving boundaries, orchestrate resources they won’t own anymore through influence rather than control, according to Ranjay Gulati and David Kletter, authors of Shrinking Core: Expanding Periphery: The Relational Architecture of High Performing Organizations.

Michael Brenner, writing in Forbes, regarding the future of business identified 99 startling trends some of which are:

  • More than 40% of the companies at the top of the Fortune 500 in the year 2000 were no longer there in 2010.
  • There are now more mobile-connected devices on earth than there are people.
  • 73% of people could not care if most name brands disappeared from their lives.
  • More than 70% of the customers surveyed believe small businesses are more concerned about their needs than large companies.
  • Only 7% of Gen Y employees work for a Fortune 500 company
  • 90% of all internet traffic in 2017 will be video
  • Hot new marketable skills for the future are jobs such as specialists in making transitions in life and work; experts in creating chaos in organizations for change; ethicists and philosophers to replace the HR function.

Nilofer Merchant, writing in the Harvard Business Review Blog, argues that the current and developing Social Era is the new context in which traditional strategy is dead. In the industrial era, organizations become more powerful by being bigger; in the Social Era, companies can also be powerful by working with others. Merchant says “While the industrial era was about making a lot of stuff and convincing enough buyers to consume it, the Social Era is about the power of communities, of collaboration and co-creation.

In the industrial era, power was from holding what we valued closed and separate; in the Social Era, there is another framework for how ee engage one another—an open one.” Companies cannot survive let alone prosper without recognizing that Social as a phenomenon can allow us to redefine our organizations to be inherently more fast, fluid and flexible by its very design, contends Merchant. Not by doing a little more, or sliming down a little, or by doing a few things a bit faster. Not by tweaking their way into the future.

Reason 3: Dysfunctional Management Practices.

While the old free market capitalism business model focused are shareholder value is becoming dysfunctional, so too are the management practices imbedded in this paradigm.

Gary Hamel, writing for the Harvard Business Review, calls for a new era of management thinking: “Equipping organizations to tackle the future would require a management revolution no less momentous than the one that spawned modern industry…executives and experts must admit that they’ve reached the Limits of Management 1.0—the industrial age paradigm built atop the principles of standardization, specialization, hierarchy, control and primacy of shareholder interests…they must cultivate, rather than repress, their dissatisfaction with the status quo…Why should so many people work in uninspiring companies? Why should  the first impulse of mangers be to avoid the responsibilities of citizenship rather than to embrace them?”

Geoffrey James writing in the Business Insider, identified 7 terrible management fads that just won’t die, illustrative of the current broken model of business and management. These practices are:

  1. The idea of “best practices.” It’s a false assumption that what worked well for one company is transferrable to another. Also best practice awards are like the Academy Awards—recognition for past performance.
  2. Six Sigma. The practice of awarding people with different colored “belts” based on their expertise in Six Sigma methodology. The result is a hierarch of “belted” experts who go around advising people how to do their work, with little documented actual improvement in performance.
  3. Business Process Engineering. James says this is another euphemism for downsizing and layoffs.
  4. Matrix management. This means organizations group people with similar skills together for project assignments. The result is often endless turf wars and conflicts with multiple layers of management.
  5. Management by consensus. In theory this means important decisions are made with the agreement of everyone in the group. Since everyone has a say in the decisions, anyone can veto any decision. As a result, usually only innocuous decisions which support the status wquo are made. The difficult decisions are avoided.
  6. Core competence. In theory this means focusing on one thing the company does well. The reality is that most people in the organization are not self-aware enough to know what they are really good at. And the company rests on its laurels from the past, and stops innovating.
  7. Management by objectives. Simply described it means you define expectations or goals so management and employees agree and compare an employee’s performance with the goal/objective. However, in reality this turns into a paper work nightmare. The process of planning and evaluation takes more effort than the work itself. And the process doesn’t allow for sudden unexpected events or developments.

Steve Denning contends what we know about management is wrong. He says “We are in fact at the beginning of set of gigantic changes in society, in which everything we do is being re-invented-how we live, how we work, how we play, how we communicate, even how we think and how we feel. At the heart of these changes is of course the Internet and its related technologies.”  Much of what we thought or knew about the economy doesn’t make sense anymore, despite the nightly news reviews fo the ups and downs of economic life, complete with statistics,, says Denning. There is no such thing as “the economy” anymore.

There are two economies going at “different speeds and on different trajectories. One economy is what Denning calls the Traditional Economy inherited from the 20th century—a world of factories, command-and-control, huge hierarchies churning out masses of products and services through a maze of delivery systems and huge capital investments in getting consumers to buy through sales campaigns and advertising.  Although this economy is huge, it is declining, Denning contends. It doesn’t create new jobs, it is not agile and it is becoming increasingly inefficient and lacks innovation. And this economy is finding it increasingly more difficult to make profits. Denning concludes this economy has no future.

The other economy Denning descries is the Creative Economy—one of continuous innovation and transformation. This is an economy of entrepreneurs whose focus is delivery to customers things and services “better, faster, cheaper, smaller, more convenient and more personalized.” It is an economy focused on value and flexibility. It requires an empathetic connection to customers. In this economy the focus is shifted from the seller to the buyer. While this economy is smaller, says Denning; it is highly profitable and it is the economy of the future.

The kind of management required for the second economy is very different than the first economy. For one thing management cares about theenvironment and cares for people, Denning contends.

Management practices for the second economy will shift the goals of the organization, the structure of work, values and how people communicate. Denning summarizes these practices as:

  • A shift from an inward-looking goal of making money and maximizing shareholder value to an outward-looking goal of profitably delighting customers.
  • A shift from managers controlling individuals to a world where the manger’s role is enabling collaboration among self-organizing teams and networks.
  • A shift from coordinating work by a bureaucracy to a world where work is coordinated with customers, networks and ecosystems.
  • A shift from a single-minded preoccupation with efficiency and predictability to an embrace of values of transparency and sustainability.
  • A shift from top-down directives to multi-directional connections.

Clearly the current free market business model is no longer serving society well, and income inequality will retard not advance economic prosperity. Tied to that reality is recognition that traditional management practices no longer work. The world has changed and the social nature of our world will require substantial changes to create a new economy.



How Facebook Can Amplify Low Self-Esteem, Narcissism And Anxiety

Posted June 13th, 2014 in Articles, Blogs by admin

Much has been written about the positive and negative impacts of social media, with particular reference to Facebook, which now has over 1 billion users. Research on the negative aspects of frequent Facebook use has focused on the possible relationships with negative psychological states and behavior such as anxiety, low self-esteem and narcissimFor my previous articles in PT on the topic of Facebook’s psychological impact go here and here.

How social media users create and monitor their online personas may hint at their feelings of self-esteem and self-determination, according to an international team of researchers.

“The types of actions users take and the kinds of information they are adding to their Facebook walls and profiles are a refection of their identities,” said one of the researchers S. Shyam Sundar, Distinguished Professor of Communications and co-director of the Media Effects Research Laboratory at Penn State.

Sundar contends that people with lower self-esteem are more concerned with what other people post about them on Facebook. In contrast, users with higher self-esteem spnd more effort adding personal information about their family, education and their work. Low self–esteem users continuously monitor their Facebook wall and delete unwanted posts from other users.

“The more you get connected to Facebook, the stronger you feel that the items you post – the pictures, for example – are part of your identity and the more likely you are going to view these as your virtual possessions,” said Sundar.

Because both groups of high self-esteem and low self-esteem Facebook users see the social network as an extension of their self-identity, they may be willing to pay for features on social networks, said Sundar. For example, social media and social media app developers may be able to attract paying customers with more customizable walls and profile pages.

Sundar’s research is consistent with previous research studies.

A study conducted by The University of Gothenburg in Sweden surveyed 335 men and 676 women (average age 32) to help determine the link between self-esteem and Facebook usage. A significant negative relationship between the two was uncovered (as Facebook interaction increased, self-esteem decreased), though the main difference was between genders. Women who used Facebook were apt to feel less happy and content with their lives.

One previous study from the University of Georgia finds that social networks play on our self-esteem  and to some extent on more narcissistic tendencies. “Despite the name ‘social networks,’ much user activity on networking sites is self-focused,” said Brittany Gentile, a UGA doctoral candidate who looked at the effects of social networks on self-esteem and narcissism. The study, published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, suggests that most people who log on to Facebook every day may be boosting their self-esteem in the process.

In theory, the social networking website Facebook could be great for people with low self-esteem. Sharing is important for improving friendships. But in practice, people with low self-esteem seem to behave counterproductively, bombarding their friends with negative tidbits about their lives and making themselves less likeable, according to a study published in Psychological Science.

“We had this idea that Facebook could be a really fantastic place for people to strengthen their relationships,” says Amanda Forest, at the University of Waterloo with her advisor at the time, Joanne Wood. The two are generally interested in self-esteem, and how self-esteem affects the kinds of emotions people express. People with low self-esteem are often uncomfortable sharing face-to-face, but Facebook makes it possible to share remotely.

In one of their studyies,Forest and Wood asked students how they feel about Facebook. People with low self-esteem were more likely to think that Facebook provided an opportunity to connect with other people, and to perceive it as a safe place that reduces the risk of awkward social situations.

The researchers also investigated what students actually wrote on Facebook. They asked the students for their last 10 status updates, sentences like, “[Name] is lucky to have such terrific friends and is looking forward to a great day tomorrow!” and “[Name] is upset b/c her phone got stolen :@.” These are visible to their Facebook friends, the people in their network.

Each set of status updates was rated for how positive or negative it was. For each set of statements, a coder – an undergraduate Facebook user – rated how much they liked the person who wrote them.

People with low self-esteem were more negative than people with high self-esteem – and the coders liked them less. The coders were strangers, but that’s realistic, Forest says. In earlier research, Wood and Forest found that nearly half of Facebook friends are actually strangers or acquaintances, not close friends.

Forest and Wood also found that people with low self-esteem get more responses from their real Facebook friends when they post highly positive updates, compared to less positive ones. People with high self-esteem, on the other hand, get more responses when they post negative items, perhaps because these are rarer for them.

So people with low self-esteem may feel safe making personal disclosures on Facebook – but they may not be helping themselves. “If you’re talking to somebody in person and you say something, you might get some indication that they don’t like it, that they’re sick of hearing your negativity,” Forest says. But when people have a negative reaction to a post on Facebook, they seem to keep it to themselves. “On Facebook, you don’t see most of the reactions.”

Researchers Elliot Panek, Ph.D., Yioryos Nardis and Sara Konrath, Ph.D., explored the hypothesis that social media reflects and amplifies growing levels of narcissism within our culture. In a study published online in Computers in Human Behavior, the authors believe Facebook is a mirror and Twitter is a megaphone for the cultural obsession with self.

In another study, Christopher Carpenter, an assistant professor of communication at Western Illinois University, posits that Facebook has a dark side. Narcissism is defined in this study as “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration and an exaggerated sense of self-importance,” Carpenter said. He believes Facebook provides an ideal forum for the average narcissist. Study results confirmed Carpenter’s hypothesis that grandiose exhibitionism is associated with self-promotion and that entitlement/exploitativeness correlates with anti-social behaviors on Facebook.

What about anxiety?

research study emphasizing the less desirable outcomes of Facebook activity was conducted by Scottish scientists at Edinburgh Napier University, by lead researcher Dr. Kathy Charles. Her research, concluded among other things:

  • 12% of the users studied said their Facebook site made them anxious;
  • 30% said they felt guilty about rejecting friend requests;
  • Many said they felt pressure to come up with inventive status updates;
  • Many did not like the different rules of online etiquette for different friends.

The obvious question arises, then, in reference to this  research, if users felt stress and anxiety why do they keep using Facebook? Dr. Charles contends that the overwhelming majority of participants in her study wanted to use Facebook to keep in contact with friends and not miss out on something important. This generates pressure, Charles argues, keeping users in a state of “neurotic limbo,” similar to gambling—staying in the game waiting for the next good thing to happen.

So it appears that despite its widespread use and well-publicized benefits, a social media site such as Facebook can have some negative effects.

Web:;  Twitter: @raybwilliams


Why Coaching Is The Most Powerful Leadership Strategy

Posted June 13th, 2014 in Articles, Blogs by admin


Being a leader in current times is very challenging and the failure rate is high. Leaders can maximize their probability of success and job satisfaction by having a personal or executive coach.

Political, business and community leaders are failing in increasing numbers. What do I mean by failure? They are fired or resign because of issues of competence or behavior. According to theHarvard Business Review, two of every five new chief executives fail in their first 18 months on the job. And it appears the main reason for failure has nothing to do with competence, knowledge, or experience, but rather with hubris, ego and a leadership style out of touch with today. Ronald J. Burke at the Schulich School of Business, York University, researched cites data which shows the average tenure of Fortune 500 CEOs is reducing, and the percentage of CEOs being asked to step down for performance reasons is steadily increasing.

Sydney Finkelstein, author of Why Smart Executives Fail, researched several spectacular failures during a six-year period. He concluded that these chief executives had similar deadly habits chiefly related to unchecked egos. David Dotlich and Peter C. Cairo, in their book, Why CEOs Fail: The 11 Behaviors That Can Derail Your Climb To The Top And How To Manage Them,present 11 cogent reasons why leaders fail, most of which have to do with hubris, ego and a lack of emotional intelligence. Call it overconfidence or ego, but powerful and successful leaders often distrust or feel they don’t need advice.

A study by Kelly See, Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison, and Naomi Rothman, published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision, concluded one characteristic of powerful and successful leaders is high levels of self-confidence. Unfortunately, the researchers say, the higher the self-confidence, the less likely these leaders are open to advice and feedback.

Stanford’s Graduate School of Business recently completed a survey of 200 CEOs, board directors and other senior executives about how they receive and view leadership advice. The survey showed two-thirds of CEOs do not receive coaching or leadership advice from outside sources. Gretchen Gavett, writing in the Harvard Business Review, says that this because there is still some residual stigma that coaching is somehow “remedial” as opposed to something that enhances high performance, similar to how an elite athlete uses a coach. Part of the stigma comes from boards themselves. The other interesting dichotomy emerging from the survey is what CEOs are looking to be coached on versus what the research says they need to be coached on. CEOs rated conflict management skills the highest, whereas board directors say their CEOs need to work on mentoring skills and sharing leadership. Yet much of the research shows that leaders often lack the so called “soft skills”—empathy, compassion, serving others, and humility.

It has been my experience in coaching hundreds of executives, middle managers and aspiring leaders that the areas for greatest growth, which translates into both improved performance and job satisfaction are:

  • Self-awareness. Leadership development needs to be an inside-out process that focuses less on competencies and skill acquisition and more on increasing your self-awareness and understanding your values, life purpose, desired legacy;
  • Emotional self-mastery. Again, a superficial program of increasing emotional intelligence through techniques and tips of such things as simple listening skills or facilitation skills avoids or neglects the more important requirement to understand, manage and master your emotions; and understand and respond appropriately to the emotions of others. This also means developing humility, and demonstrating the positive emotions of compassion, empathy, kindness gratitude;
  • Developing influence and persuasion, rather than power and control behaviors. Mastering these competencies starts from a place of using them for the greater good and not some self serving or manipulative place;
  • Empowering others to be independent with encouragement to grow personally and professionally. Leaders can have no greater task than developing others, and this requires coaching and mentoring skills;
  • Developing your positive interpersonal skills. This includes your capacity to establish rapport with others; motivate inspire others; and master conflict both resolution skills and having difficult conversations.
  • Committing yourself to something bigger. This includes a commitment to help make your community and the world a better place in which to live.

It is unlikely or at best very difficult for someone who has a vested interest in the organization—a boss, a board director, or HR individual—to assist a leader or aspiring leader in developing and mastering the areas described above. And it is difficult for a leader to feel comfortable being totally vulnerable to someone inside the organization. These are not impediments for a relationship with a coach, who can establish an oasis of safety and yet complete with honest feedback with the objective of significant changes in behavior. For the aspiring or new leaders, having a coach to guide them through the often stressful initial stages of being a leader also becomes critical.

Contact me: Web: ; Twitter: @raybwilliams;

Why the 8 hour sleep is a myth

Posted June 12th, 2014 in Articles, Blogs by admin

sleepWe’ve been told by health experts, and it’s conventional wisdom, that we should sleep between seven and eight continuous hours a day as an adult. Yet, the assumption that an eight-hour block of sleep is the ideal or norm may be a myth.

 Numerous studies have been published concerning the dangers of lack of sleep, to our brain and general health   and longevity. In just one recent example, scientists have found that sleep allows our brains to clean themselves of toxins.

Yet, the insistence that “monophasic” sleep, with eight hours of continuous nightly rest, is the necessary way to refresh ourselves not only creates stress for people who are unable to achieve that goal, but ignores other common variations in sleep patterns, and historical precedent as well.

“Everyone is different,” says Matt Bianchi, director of the sleep division at Massachusetts General Hospital. “Some people drink caffeine and get a rush while others don’t. One person might be fitted for polyphasic sleep [sleeping in short multiple blocks throughout the day], but someone else gets sleepy and crashes their car.”

We’re familiar with the stories of polyphasic sleepers such as Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Buckminster Fuller and Margaret Thatcher, who got along fine with as little as four hours sleep each night, but little attention is paid to such sleep cycles today.

Consider these underexplored variations on daily sleep:

* The Biphasic Schedule: Two three-to-four-hour sleeps with an hour of awake time in the middle.

* The Dymaxion Sleep Schedule: 30-minute “naps” every 6 hours.

* The Uberman Schedule: Six 30-minute naps per day.

* The Everyman Schedule: A daily three-hour sleep plus three 20-minute naps.

All of these alternative sleep schedules are linked to evolution and history. A 2007 report from the Journal of Sleep, for example, found that the majority of animals on earth sleep on polyphasic schedules.

Most people in advanced countries today follow monophasic sleep cycles, or try to, but advocates of polyphasic sleep argue that their approaches trick the body into entering REM sleep more quickly, making the total length of sleep time less of an issue. Critics of monophasic sleep also argue that eight-hour sleep schedules just don’t account for individual differences. For example, it’s believed that as much as three percent of the population can survive on only a few hours of sleep per night without ill effects.

History yields valuable insights regarding sleep. According to some recent research, until the age of electricity many people slept in two segments. They would wake up in the night for an hour or two, then return to sleep for another block of time. “The dominant pattern of sleep, arguably since time immemorial, was biphasic,” says Roger Ekirch, a sleep historian at Virginia Tech University and author of At Day’s Close: Night in Times Past. “Humans slept in two four-hour blocks, which were separated by a period of wakefulness in the middle of the night lasting an hour or more. During this time, some might stay in bed, pray, think about their dreams or talk with their spouses. Others might get up and do tasks or even visit neighbors before going back to sleep.”

References to “first sleep” or “deep sleep,” and “second sleep” or “morning sleep” abound in historical legal depositions, works of literature, and other pre-Industrial era archival documents. Gradually, during the 19th century, references to segmented sleep disappeared, Ekirch says, “and now people call it insomnia.”

Electric light at night now disrupts our circadian clock. The body reacts to bright light the same way it does to sunshine; too much can stop it from releasing melatonin, a hormone that regulates sleep.

In the 1990s, sleep scientist Thomas Wehr discovered that most people will sleep biphasically when subjected to natural patterns of light and dark, supporting Ekirch’s findings.

Yet this research struggles to gain a wider audience. In an article in Psychiatric Times, Brown Medical School psychiatrist Walter Brown writes: “The general public seems to regard seven-to-eight hours of unbroken sleep as a birthright; anything less means that something is awry. Sleep specialists share this assumption.”

In other words, if you wake up in the middle of the night, don’t worry about it. “Waking up after a couple of hours may not be insomnia,” Wehr says. “It may be normal sleep.”

Ekirch adds, “If people don’t fight it, they’ll find themselves falling asleep again after one hour.”

Instead, many people who wake up in the middle of the night today automatically become anxious about not sleeping or reach for sleeping pills.

Our modern society, with its many stimuli, and an environment  full of light, has partially created this hysteria about sleep, and combined with the myth that an 8-hour block of continuous sleep is essential, does all of us a disservice. Don’t forget about the well-documented benefits of incorporating naps into your day.