Do you work for love of the job or the money?

The question of what motivates employees more-financial compensation or things that are more intrinsic-is the subject of ongoing debate and new research. New research that shows no link between rising GDP and life satisfaction/happiness complicates the issue even further.

According to a 2010 Monster.com survey, the top-rated item on would-be employees wish list (87%) was an employer “that truly cares about the well-being of its employees.” A challenging and fulfilling job was rated second, job security third, and an attractive benefits package was fourth. Financial compensation was rated much lower at 5^th (66%).

This search is consistent with another research study conducted the employee benefits company Unum, in collaboration with Harvard Business Review analytic services. The study found an ethical, transparent corporate culture, and caring about the well-being of employees were more likely to be viewed in attracting and treating employees as was providing a high base salary.

According to the research of psychologists Tim Kasser and Richard Ryan, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, “the more people are driven by a desire to be wealthy, the poorer their psychological health on a range of measures.”

G. Douglas Jenkins, at Arizona State University, writing on the issue of financial incentives, concludes when it comes to the issue of performance, incentives don’t help, a finding that psychologist Janet Spence, in her research, reiterated. Alfie Cohen, author of Punished By Rewards, a long-term critic of extrinsic rewards as a motivator for performance, argues “no controlled scientific study has ever found a long-term enhancement of the quality of work as a result of any reward system.” Cohen argues that employers and executives need to think about what employees need to be happy and fulfilled, rather than what rewards can be offered to get them to do what they are told.

A striking conclusion from other new research about the happiness-income paradox is that over the long-term-10 yeas or more-happiness does not increased as a country’s income rises. According to this research, conducted by economist Richard Easterlin and his colleagues at the University of Southern California, it contradicts the conventional wisdom research that claims a rise in happiness levels occurs with improvements in GDP. Easterlin found measures of life satisfaction and happiness increased with improvements in democratization, in contrast to no connection between long term increases in life satisfaction/happiness with GDP improvements.

Recent evidence points to increasingly income inequality in North America, notably in the U.S., and the prevalence of media focus on the lives of wealthy celebrities, athletes and business people as though there was a clear correlation between the increased wealth of individuals and their absolute state of well-being and happiness.

So too, corporations continue the practice of attracting and retaining the best talent by focusing on financial compensation and incentives. Both perspectives are increasingly myopic and ignore the increasing mass of search that underscores what really motivates employees and creates conditions for improved performance.

Why networking is an essential professional skill

Networking is increasingly being promoted as both a business and personal social skill. There’s no doubt that both the social media form of networking and personal face-to-face networking has become a fundamental part of the modern landscape.

Brian Uzzi and Shannon Dunlap, in their article entitled “How To Build Your Network,” in the Harvard Business Review, contend “Networks determine which ideas become breakthroughs, which new drugs are prescribed, which farmers cultivate pest-resistant crops and which R& D engineers make the most high-impact discoveries”. They cite the work of Randall Collins of the University of Pennsylvania who showed that breakthroughs from icons such as Freud, Picasso, Watson, Crick, and Pythagoras were the consequence of a particular type of personal network that promoted exceptional individual creativity

“Networks deliver three unique advantages: private information, access to diverse skill sets, and power. Executives see these advantages at work every day, but might not pause to consider how their networks regulate them,” Uzzi and Dunlap argue. They show in their research how developing diverse, rather than “self-similar” network contacts through shared high-stakes activities builds a more powerful network.

Deborah Mills-Scofield, writing in the Harvard Business Review argues that networking has existed for the past 2000 years and it has enabled our survival. She postulates that networks promote new forms of communication, spread knowledge and therefore our networks need to be cultivated and treated well.

Many career coaches and talent managers now see networking both as a professional skill and the best source of possible jobs. Bill Barnett, writing in the Harvard Business Review, cautions networkers to not limit their contacts to the few people they know well. Rob Cross and Robert Thomas, writing in the Harvard Business Review argue that “network size doesn’t usually matter…the executives who consistently rank in the top 20% of their companies in both performance and well-being have diverse but select networks, made up of high-quality relationships with people who come from several different spheres and from up and down the corporate hierarchy.”

Linda Hill, and Kent Lineback, authors of Being the Boss: The Three Imperatives for Becoming a Great Leader, describe how three networks are critical for success: operational, for day to day work; developmental, a collection of individuals whom you trust and to whom you can turn to for a sympathetic ear, advice and a place to discuss and explore professional options; and strategic, the most important, comprising those who can help you do two critical tasks-define what the future will bring and second, prepare for and succeed in that future.

In my article in Psychology Today co-written by Darcy Rezac, “Give Away Your Network,” we argue that “championing an ethos called Positive Networking®…is discovering what you can do for someone else. In other words, networking is not about you and how others can help you. Instead, it’s bout others, and how you can help them.”

Ivan R. Misner, one of the most active proponents of networking, and founder of BNI International reports that based on his research in the U.S., Canada, the U.K and Australia, the highest-rated traits associated with networking are the ones “related to developing and maintaining good relationships,” which includes traits such as a positive attitude, being trust worthy, a good listener, being enthusiastic, helpful and sincere.

Darcy Rezac, Gayle Hallgren-Rezac and Judy Thomson, (authors of Work The Pond, ) professional trainer collaborators and promoters of positive networking, provide these ten great networking tips for 2012:

1. “Accept that there’s nothing wrong with you. Recognize that if all the online connecting and the ability to work in your pajamas from home, is making you feel isolated, you are not alone. Sherry Turkle, author of Alone Together, says, ‘We may be free to work from anywhere, but we are also prone to being lonely everywhere. In a surprising twist, relentless connection leads to a new solitude.’

2. Rage gently against the machines. Things happen faster if you talk to someone in person or pick up the phone. Curb the desire to email close-proximity colleagues; instead walk over to their office.

3. Embrace the octopus. Social media is a many-tentacled creature that squeezes time out of your 24 hours. Accept that it may not be practical to be brilliant tweeter, blogger, You Tuber, LinkedIn or Facebook updater; instead of hopping on all social media bandwagons, do one or two things well. Before you upload, send or comment, ask yourself, ‘what did that add to my reputation, my brand or to anyone’s else’s world.?’

4. Make the effort on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the go-to-site for business connections, it has become the search engine for finding people.

5. Start using your initials. In the social networking world you may not be that special. If you have a common name, or have the misfortune of sharing one with a criminal, start including the initial of your middle name. Any wild and crazy pictures of you bounding around the digital world? Google yourself and look at those images. Do you see your professional headshot or a less than flattering version of you with the same name?

6. Commit resources to the face you show to the world. Your business may have a Facebook Fan site with 36 million ‘Likes,’ really cool videos, contests and then there’s one raunchy “Wall Post” that you didn’t catch. Maybe you need a DSM Director of Social Media.

7. Redefine networking . It’s about time to toss out the image of a glass of wine, cheese cube schmooze-fest and accept networking for what it is-simply reaching out and making a connection, but one with dignity. It happens in the hallway at work, sitting on an airplane, at social and business events,. If there’s at least one other person in close proximity there’s an opportunity to connect. Networking is an attitude, not an event.

8. Teach your children social intelligence skills. Who else is going to do it? Do they think to shake hands when meeting an adult? Do they know how to converse with those more senior? If you are a young person reading this and your parents forgot to share these life lessons, join a young professionals group in a business organization. It’s amazing how senior business leaders say ‘yes’ to mentoring students.

9. Be “nicer.” Make this Maya Angelou quote your mantra for 2012: ‘People will never forget how you make them feel.’”

10. Transfuse the dead zone. Do your part to bring some life back to the office by talking and sharing ideas. Take it from Steve Jobs: “There’s a temptation in our networked age to think that ideas can be developed by email and IChat…That’s crazy. Creativity comes from spontaneous meetings, from random discussions.” (from Walter Isaacson’s book, Steve Jobs).

What you should know about 2012

What You Should Know About 2012: Answers to 13 Questions

By John W. Hoopes, Ph.D. Published in Psychology Today

1. Who are “the Maya”?

The term “the Maya” is about as nebulous as “the Americans” or “the Europeans.” Technically, “the Maya” refers to a wide variety of Maya peoples, both ancient and modern, whose cultural heritage includes one of about thirty different Mayan languages. Their native territory is located in southern Mexico (especially Chiapas and the Yucatan Peninsula), Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and western El Salvador. Although it is impossible to say for certain what languages were spoken, archaeologists trace the origins of Maya culture back at least 3000 years on the basis of continuities in pottery styles, architecture, burials, and other features. Contrary to popular beliefs, the descendants of ancient Mayans never disappeared or “went away.” In fact, there are probably more Mayan speakers today than at any time in history: About six million altogether. During what’s known as the Classic Period (AD 200-900), the ancient Maya were organized into polities similar to ancient Greek city-states, including a rivalry between two main centers–Tikal and Calakmul–that was as heated as that between Athens and Sparta. What we call “the ancient Maya” were never unified under a common government or religious system. They were organized as warring states whose ideologies differed and were modified according to the needs of individual rulers. The beliefs and traditions of different Maya settlements varied enormously. That makes it difficult to say much with certainty about “the Maya” belief systems. In fact, the very concept of “the Maya” is a modern convention of questionable value for describing the complexity of these cultures.

2. What is the Long Count calendar and what does it have to do with 2012?

The ancient Maya tracked time according to increasingly larger cycles. How they did this has been understood in detail since the late 19^th century, when American journalist Joseph T. Goodman successfully deciphered the complicated system of the Maya calendar. He published his results in 1897, describing a “Long Count” system of a “count of days” based on several units or periods of increasingly larger size: the k’in (1 day), winal (20 days), tun (360 days), k’atun (7200 days), and bak’tun (144,000 days). The ancient Maya kept track of time using this system, which was combined with additional counts of 260 days (the tzolk’in) and 365 days (the haab) to produce Long Count dates. Goodman believed there was also a larger “Great Cycle” of 13 bak’tuns (1,872,000 days) and determined that the start of the present Great Cycle was on 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 8 Cumk’u (that is 13 bak’tunob, 0 k’atunob, 0 tunob, 0 winalob, and 0 k’inob, followed by counts on the tzolk’in and haab). Later scholarship showed that this was a sacred “Creation” date for the ancient Maya, who referred to it in their mythology as a kind of “birth” of the present world. The Gregorian equivalent of this date is August 11, 3113 BCE. The next day was 0.0.0.0.1, with each day clicking another unit in the count. According to scholars who support Goodman’s idea of a 13-bak’tun Great Cycle, the current period will conclude on 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 3 K’ank’in, the Gregorian equivalent of which is December 21, 2012 (or possibly December 23, or yet something else…)

It’s important to remember that calendars are complicated! The Gregorian calendar system, currently used in the Americas, Europe, and other countries with heavily Western influence, is one that carries with it the legacy of many changes, some of which originated with the Roman (Julian) calendar with modifications under Pope Gregory XIII (1502-1585), the head of the Roman Catholic church at the time of the Spanish Conquest (for whom the calendar is named). Explaining the magical or divinatory aspects that many people believe about them is even more complicated, but it is a problem literally as old as time.

3. Does the Maya calendar end on December 21, 2012?

No. It’s not even clear that the date will represent the end of a 13-bak’tun cycle. Goodman’s theory was that the present 13-bak’tun Great Cycle was the 54^th in an even larger Grand Era, comprised of 73 Great Cycles. However, some ancient Maya daykeepers appear to have favored counts in 20-bak’tun cycles. The Maya calendar does not end with a 13- or 20-bak’tun count. The Maya projected dates far into the future. For example, one inscription predicts that the anniversary of the coronation of K’inich Janaab’ Pakal, a 7^th century Maya king of Palenque, will still be celebrated in AD 4772. Epigrapher David Stuart has pointed out that there are Maya dates that project farther into the future than modern astronomers project backward to the origin of the universe some 13.7 billion years ago.

Scholars are currently divided over whether the correct Gregorian correlation with 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 3 K’ank’in is December 21 or December 23, 2012 or even some other date. The date of December 21 has been especially popular for many intepretations because it happens to fall on a solstice (winter in the northern hemisphere and summer in the southern). Whether this was intentional or fortuitous remains a matter of debate.

4. What’s the origin of the claims about the end of the world?

Shortly after Goodman’s work was first published, German scholar Ernst Förstemann interpreted the symbols and images on the last page of an pre-Hispanic Maya book called the Dresden Codex as references to the end of the world in a cataclysmic flood that he interpreted as “destruction of the world,” “apocalypse,” and “the end of the world.” Förstemann’s ideas were repeated by American archaeologist Sylvanus Morley in a 1915 book on ancient Maya hieroglyphic writing. Morley added his own embellishments, writing “Finally, on the last page of the manuscript, is depicted the Destruction of the World… Here, indeed, is portrayed with a graphic touch the final all-engulfing cataclysm” in the form of a Great Flood. These comments were later repeated in Morley’s popular book The Ancient Maya (1946). Mayanists disagree about these interpretations, with some suggesting that the image represents the annual arrival of the rainy season, not a cataclysmic flood.

The ideas of Goodman, Förstemann, and Morley influenced American archaeologist Michael Coe, of Yale University, who also interpreted elements of Aztec mythology, particularly the “Legend of the Five Suns” (first recorded in the 1550s) as evidence for ancient beliefs in cyclical periods of destruction. He summarized his ideas in a popular textbook, The Maya (1966). In each edition (there have now been eight), Coe associated the completion of the 13^th bak’tun with “Armageddon,” a reference from Christian beliefs expressed in the New Testament (in the Book of Revelation) that there will be a final, world-destroying battle associated with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. He also noted (based on Aztec beliefs) that the present world would be destroyed by earthquakes. Coe never thought this would actually occur. He was simply trying to express what he thought the ancient Maya actually believed using Cold War lingo so as to grab the imagination of his readers.

In the mid-1970s, Michael Coe’s speculation became associated with pseudoscientific speculation by bestselling Swiss author Erich von Däniken through a popular made-for-TV program called The Outer Space Connection (1975) written and produced by Alan Landsburg. This program and a popular book of the same name promoted claims that the ancient Maya had been contacted by “ancient astronauts” or “ancient aliens,” identified as extraterrestrial visitors from another planet who were “prophecied” to return to Earth on December 24, 2011 (an erroneous date given by Coe in his 1966 book). Narrated by Rod Serling, creator of The Twilight Zone, the program was seen by millions, planting elements of mythology in popular culture. The same year, author Frank Waters, best known for his Book of the Hopi (1963), published Mexico Mystique: The Coming Sixth World of Consciousness (1975), in which he associated the same erroneous date with myths about Quetzalcoatl (an Aztec deity and legendary culture hero), Atlantis, and hints about extraterrestrial visitation. Waters wrote, “On the assumption that the Mayan Great Cycle, comprising 13 baktuns or 5,200 years and beginning on August 12, 3113 B.C., marked the end of the Fourth World and the beginning of the Fifth World, one would expect the great catastrophe attested by Nahuatl-Mayan myth. The end of the Great Cycle and the Fifth World, according to the same Goodman-Martínez-Thompson correlation, will occur on December 24, 2011 A.D., and it too will be destroyed by catastrophic earthquakes” (Waters 1975: 257-258). Notions of world destruction resonated with people familiar with stories of the destruction of the legendary “lost continent” of Atlantis and also doomsday prophecies made by new religious movement (NRM) leaders such as David Berg of the Children of God, who in 1973 had predicted that the Comet Kohoutek was a harbinger of doom.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, the Maya calendar also caught the interest of counterculture hippies who were using psychedelic drugs such as LSD, DMT, psilocybin, and cannabis and who were also interested in astrology (including the “Age of Aquarius“), numerology, Tarot, and the Chinese divinatory practice of the I Ching (Yì Jīng). These included authors Terence McKenna and José Argüelles (one of the creators of the Whole Earth Festival in 1970), who wrote books, taught workshops, and gave lectures describing mystical experiences based on their use of psychedelics. They saw similar patterns in the Maya calendar and the I Ching that suggested to them the 2012 date would be associated with a spiritual“transformation of consciousness,” an idea that became popular among people interested in New Age beliefs. In 1975, both McKenna (with his brother Dennis) and Argüelles published books in which they identified 2012 as the year this would happen. However, they did not narrow the date down to December 21, 2012 until 1983, when archaeologist Robert Sharerpublished that correlation in an appendix to the 4^th edition of Sylvanus Morley’s classic book The Ancient Maya.

The significance of the date was popularized during a counterculture event known as the Harmonic Convergence that was organized by Argüelles on August 16-17, 1987. Argüelles, who thought that the problems of Western civilization were due to the use of a calendar that was not directly linked to the movements of the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars. He sought to revive a version of the Maya calendar based on solar and lunar cycles, creating a new system that he called the Dreamspell. Following the Maya calendar, it was based on the numbers 13 and 20 rather than 12 and 60. He thought that the use of this different calendar ultimately bring about world peace.

The Harmonic Convergence, which built on the success of Shirley MacLaine‘s book and TV miniseries Out on a Limb (1986), was promoted using new computer technology (especially the Apple Macintosh, first introduced in January 1984) and early computer networks. Since the 1960s, interest in astrology, Tarot, the I Ching, and the Maya calendar had been widespread among programmers associated with the new personal computer and software industry in what was to become Silicon Valley in northern California. Counterculture and New Age concepts, including those of psychologist Timothy Leary, McKenna, and Arguelles, had been a part of cyberculture since its inception, so it was only natural that early digital social networks of the mid-1980s, such as FidoNet and The WELL, played a role in spreading the word about the Harmonic Convergence and 2012 among psychedelic and computer “hacker” subcultures that frequently overlapped (cannabis and psychedelic users included influential programmers and innovators such as Bill Gates of Microsoft, Steven Jobs of Apple, and many others.) The 2012 mythology emerged from the same counterculture environment of San Francisco, Berkeley, and Stanford that produced cultural changes of the 1960s that included radical politics, environmental awareness, and the “liberation of knowledge.” Their legacy survives today in such phenomena as alternative medicine, environmentalism,ayahuasca therapy, Wikileaks, and the Occupy movement.

As computer networks grew, the ideas spread among individuals using the World Wide Web, especially after 1995. With growing concerns about Y2K, the mythology spread rapidly and became popular in global mass media. People created websites promoting the idea of either: 1) the literal end of the world, or 2) a spiritual transformation. However, this happened independent of academic scholarship on the ancient Maya, which did not support the idea of any “prophecy” or either scenario. The “prophecies” about 2012 are best considered a kind of folk mythology of the digital age, a collection of myths and legends that are spreading via commercial publications, television, and especially digital computer networks. The attention being given to the Maya date 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 3 K’ank’in (December 21, 2012) is largely the result of persistent folk beliefs about astrology, numerology, mysticism, and revelation. (Notice, for example, the unusual appearance of the numbers “13.0.0.0.0″ and “12-21-12″.)

5. What are some good reasons to consider a “2012 doomsday” as groundless?

The first is that doomsday prophecies have been a part of Western culture for at least 2500 years and the world has not yet come to an end. There are other reasons (explored below) for why these prophecies are popular.

There is no clear “prophecy” in the records of the ancient Maya. There is only one known ancient inscription, Monument 6 from the ruined site of Tortuguero (Chiapas, Mexico), that makes reference to the date of 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 3 K’ank’in, but the text is not very clear because the monument has been damaged. Epigraphers Sven Groenmeyer and Barbara MacLeod think it refers to a future ceremony in which a specific deity would be honored by dressing him in special clothes and perhaps carrying him in a procession. However, this remains a subject of debate. The other Maya “doomsday” prophecies that do exist in documents such as the 18th century Books of Chilam Balam, are difficult to interpret and do not specify 2012. These accounts, as well as the Popol Vuh (“Council Book”), a traditional Creation story of the Maya that refers to the destruction of subsequent worlds, were collected after the Spanish Conquest and may have been influenced by the end-of-the-world beliefs of Franciscan missionaries to the Maya. That is, the “2012 doomsday” beliefs attributed to the Maya are actually Western ideas, not ones that come from ancient Maya beliefs. When the Maya of the Colonial period were referring to catastrophes and devastation, it seems likely that they were referring to their own culture’s destruction at the hands of Spanish invaders.

Some people have emphasized the fact that the special date on the Maya calendar–calculated over 2000 years ago–falls on a winter solstice (December 21). They think that the skills and precision of the ancient Maya daykeepers indicate that they had the ability to predict many things about the future. However, academic scholars disagree on whether the correct date is December 21, December 23, or something else. Many feel that the correspondence to a winter solstice is a coincidence. (They also dismiss notions about a “galactic alignment”-the position of the Sun in a special place relative to the Milky Way galaxy on that date-as a fantasy based on inaccurate, non-traditional astrology.)

Promoters of the 2012 mythology tend to ignore current academic scholarship and the opinions of professional Mayanists (archaeologists, epigraphers, art historians, linguists, etc.) about what ancient Maya people actually believed. Their interpretations are based on outdated and antiquated ideas of the late 19th and early 20th century, ideas that are useful for the construction of mythology and ideology but do not reflect contemporary academic knowledge. Mainstream scholars and scientists also view this movement as the source of a great deal of pseudoscience, ignorance, credulousness, and incorrect thinking because it privileges subjective over objective knowledge.

6. How did the concept of a 2012 doomsday or transformation become so popular?

The notion of a “2012 doomsday” is one that is successful because it uses people’s fears to get them to pay attention to movies, television documentaries, books, magazines, websites, and other media sources that are designed to sell products and make money. It is a myth that is being promoted in part for commercial reasons. However, it has also become associated with spiritual goals by people who want to promote world peace, attention to environmental problems, global communication networks, and positive social change. It has become a powerful theme in commercial, political, and spiritual ideologies.

There are lots of reasons why people are genuinely concerned. These include issues of nuclear proliferation, political tensions in the Middle East, North Korea, Pakistan, and elsewhere, uncertainty because of the global economic recession, increasing pollution and global climate change, rapid changes in various aspects of society that are the result of new technology, and the speed of global communications. I think people feel anxious because they do not feel that they can control these changes that are affecting their lives in significant ways. However, problems similar to these have occurred in every generation. The is no reason to think that 2012 will be any different other than whatever effects result from beliefs in popular mythology.

7. Have popular media contributed to hyping the 2012 mythology?

Yes. Absolutely! Since the 1970s, sensational and popular TV programs, movies, books, and magazines have taken advantage of the public’s general ignorance about the ancient Maya to promote nonsense, myths, and folklore that has little basis in academic scholarship. It is also clear that this has increased with the creation of personal computers, digital networks, the World Wide Web, and online sources of information (both good and bad) such as Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and other popular online media. These make it much easier and faster to spread popular mythology. While they also make it easier to spread high-quality educational materials on the ancient Maya, people who do not have good educations are drawn more to the sensational stories than to responsible academic scholarship that is based on scientific investigation.

There are currently over 1500 books in English about the “2012 phenomenon,” of which only a handful represent the beliefs of academic experts. Most are written for an audience that is seeking sensational interpretations. One example of this would

8. What are the mainstream arguments concerning other “doomsday ” prophecies?

Some Christians believe in what they call the “Rapture,” an event when the souls of true believers will be taken up into Heaven. They prepare for this with prayer and devotion, but do not claim to know when it will occur. In their beliefs, Rapture comes before the Armageddon and doomsday events. The interpretations of Christian beliefs about the end of the world are highly varied. There are mainstream beliefs of Christians, which are actually extremely diverse, and mainstream opinions by both Christians and non-Christians about those beliefs. However, the ideas about these are extremely complex and difficult to summarize. There are some Christians who believe in a physical end of the world and others who consider it to be something metaphorical and figurative. It depends on who you ask.

9. How did 2012 mythology become popular outside New Age circles?

A significant factor influencing New Age thought in the 1980s and 1990s was the success of the publishing house Inner Traditions (founded 1975), which merged with the existing Bear & Co. (founded 1980) in 2000. Inner Traditions – Bear & Co. has published key books by 2012 authors José Argüelles, John Major Jenkins, Carl Johan Calleman, Barbara Hand Clow, and many others. Inner Traditions has been especially successful in marketing its books via Amazon and (until it closed) the Borders Bookstores chain. They have been translating a number of their titles into Spanish to take advantage of a growing market in Latin America.

The 2012 mythology gained recognition outside of New Age circles as the result of some astute publishing and marketing decisions. The meme reached a tipping point in 2007. This was due to several things. One of these was the book 2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl (released in May 2006) by Daniel Pinchbeck, whose previous book Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic Journey into the Heart of Contemporary Shamanism (2002) had been a big hit in counterculture and New Age circles but also made a big splash in the mainstream media. (Rolling Stone magazine featured a major profile of Pinchbeck titled “Daniel Pinchbeck and the New Psychedelic Elite” in its Sept. 7, 2006 issue). Pinchbeck was likened to 1960s LSD-promoting guru Timothy Leary. The second book was heavily marketed by publisher Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc. Unlike many similar mass-media books, it was first published in a high-quality hardcover edition (with the design of a crop circle on the cover) and came with a big promotion budget that took the author to bookstores around the country. He has since founded online magazine Reality Sandwich, a social nework called Evolver, and has been an active user and promoter of new media. Of course, his 2012 book took advantage of interest from the psychedelic subculture and related cyber-counterculture along with aficionados of such bizarre phenomena as crop circles, alien abductions, psi phenomena, and the pseudoarchaeology of British author Graham Hancock.

Indirectly, buzz about 2012 was used to promote Mel Gibson‘s action-adventure film Apocalypto,released in December 2006. Although the film itself makes no specific reference to 2012, the title of the film, the reference in promotional imagery to a solar eclipse, and the ancient Maya setting drew upon an audience that has already been intrigued. Gibson, with The Passion of the Christ (2004) had already experienced the success of undercover marketing with a religious/spiritual theme. Did his marketing team take advantage of existing New Age buzz and Internet chatter about 2012 to promote Apocalypto and in so doing contribute to its spread? That’s something to consider.

Another important influence was Apocalypse 2012: A Scientific Investigation into Civilization’s End (released in January 2007) by Lawrence Joseph. Joseph, who capitalizes on the authority of a strong science background, is also an opportunist with a keen sense of the market. He has the distinction, for example, of having published the first post-assassination biography of John Lennon, published just weeks after the former Beatle’s death. Joseph used both media appearances and his website to promote interest in Apocalypse 2012. He’s also published a sequel: Aftermath: Prepare for and Survive Apocalypse 2012 (2010) That is, he has been prepared with both the problem and the solution! Joseph’s books have been heavily promoted in both the U.S. and the U.K. He has been featured in several major documentaries (for the History Channel, Discovery Channel, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and others).

Accompanying these publications, there was a tremendous explosion of websites and blogs devoted to 2012. Most of these came into being after Y2K, but drew upon some of the same energy that was vested in Y2K preparedness (which included such phenomena as the creation of a globalized software industry in India due to outsourcing of computer programming to be “Y2K-ready.” They also drew upon many of the same skills from the same people. Of course, Roland Emmerich‘s blockbuster disaster film 2012 (2009)–inspired to a large extent (according to Emmerich) by the imagery in Graham Hancock’s Fingerprints of the Gods (1995)–helped pop the meme out into general consciousness. (What few people know about is its background in fringe literature going back to pseudoscientific myths about the lost continent of Atlantis.)

10. Apart from Hollywood, who is exploiting the mythology for profit?

There are now more than 1500 books (only in English) that deal in some way with the 2012 phenomenon. There are countless websites.

Recording industry hits such as “2012 (It Ain’t the End)” by Jay Sean and “Til the World Ends” by Britney Spears, brought the 2012 mythology to pop music, nightclub, and music video audiences. Since the “end of the world” is such a big party opportunity, I’m sure we’ll see many more of these!

Needless to say, the survivalist industry is going strong, with sites selling all kinds of packaged food, water, and supplies. Entrepreneurs such as Patrick Geryl (in Belgium) are selling mountaintop refuges. In Kansas, a developer is transforming an abandoned Cold War-era missile silo into multimillion-dollar underground survival bunkers.

Reality Sandwich, Evolver.net, and associated New Age- and psychedelic-themed services (including ayahuasca retreats to South America and online workshops with “mystics” and “visionaries”) are taking advantage of the 2012 hype to re-package and re-market older 1970s themes such as pyramidology, UFOs, psi, and the like.

11. Are the Maya’s home countries using the 2012 phenomenon to sell tourism?

Absolutely. Mexico is pulling out all of the stops for promoting tourism of Maya sites and other destinations for 2012, including a government-sponsored documentary on the theme. Their Instituto de Antropología e Historia (INAH) has already been using strategic press releases to fuel interest in the 2012 phenomenon, most recently with stories about the discovery of a second inscription “confirming” the date (which actually seems to be a spurious interpretation).

One of the oddest of the tourist phenomena is in Bosnia, where entrepreneur Semir Osmanagic has been connecting the 2012 mythology with his discovery of ancient Bosnian “pyramids” to revitalize the tourist industry in that country. His publication The World of the Maya, for example, ends with New Age claim about 2012. Just google on “Bosnian pyramids” to see some examples of the way this myth is being marketed. (My impression is that Bosnian merchants are delighted, while Bosnian scientists are appalled.)

12. Why are people so attracted to theories of an Apocalypse?

The word “apocalypse” means “unveiling,” which implies revelation of something heretofore unknown. Part of it is the legacy of Christian beliefs in the Book of Revelation and the hope for a better world in the future. If a deus ex machina arrives–whether the return of Jesus Christ or a wise extraterrestrial or perhaps both in one (!)–to provide solutions to the world’s problems, that relieves humankind of responsibility for solving the problems and cleaning up the mess. There are probably deep psychological roots for that, including childhood memories of being provided for by a benevolent parent.

As for fear, or even just attraction to the strange and bizarre, recent psychological studies that show that the human brain has adapted to be hypersensitive to dangers, anomalies, and things that are “not quite right.” We recognize things that are unusual and different as part of a cognitive strategy for survival.

Fear sells, even better than sex. I think there has been a positive feedback loop between fear and commercial consumption, whether one is selling terrorism (and security/defense systems, pre-emptive wars, and the like) or plastic surgery, cosmetic products, clothes, cars, image, etc. The 2012 mythology just taps into this on a higher level. If one pays attention (2012 is what Malcolm Gladwell calls “sticky”–something that repeatedly draws one’s attention and holds it), then one can be better prepared to survive than the people who don’t. Knowing about it gives a sense of advantage, perhaps even an edge on survival in the event of a catastrophe. Anxiety about the world’s financial, environmental, and political climates feeds this, of course.

13. Where can I get accurate information about the Maya and 2012?

The 2012 phenomenon article on Wikipedia, which has been written and edited by multiple contributors with a wide range of perspectives for several years now, is the most accessible, accurate, and up-to-date source. It is likely to remain so.

Four books by academic scholars that provide sober and critical appraisals of the 2012 hype are: The End of Time: The Maya Mystery of 2012, by archaeoastronomer Anthony Aveni (Colgate University); 2012: Science and Prophecy of the Ancient Maya, by epigrapher and art historian Mark Van Stone (Southwestern College); 2012 and the End of the World: The Western Roots of the Maya Apocalypse, by ethnohistorians Matthew Restall and Amara Solari (Pennsylvania State University); and The Order of Days: The Maya World and the Truth About 2012, by epigrapher David Stuart (University of Texas). Several papers from the 2011 “Oxford IX” International Symposium on Archaeoastronomy have been published in Volume 7 of the Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy: Building Bridges between Cultures.

2012: Decoding the Counterculture Apocalypse, edited by Joseph Gelfer, has just been released by Equinox Publishing. It provides several scholarly essays on the origins and expressions of contemporary beliefs associated with interpretations of the Maya calendar.

How to deal with uncertainty and get what you want in life

We all go through times in our lives when we’re mot sure what we want. Or there are conflicting wants. This uncertainty can cause stress, anxiety and procrastination.

Here are some questions and reflections that can help you get through these times of uncertainty.

Does searching for what you want give you the answers? Actually, continually searching, goal setting, and thinking of the future can be counterproductive and increase anxiety and uncertainty. Searching causes you to look for something “out there”—that can make you feel like you’re filing some kind of emptiness or lack of something inside. The more you try to “grab onto” something you don’t have, the more it can allude you. Why? Because of a basic principle in the Universe—every strong force creates an equal and opposing force, so the Universe will seek balance. What should you do instead? When the right opportunity appears in your life, you will have an “inner knowing” that it is right. That feeling doesn’t just occur in your head, but also in your heart and your gut. By developing patience and waiting for those opportunities to appear, you also live in the present and not the future.
How can change in my life happen unless I forcefully make it happen? This is a common misconception which is connected to Western cultural values of materialism, competition and win-lose. That paradigm has run its course, and the negative effects are clear in terms of peoples’ sense of well-being and happiness being tied to external things. We can’t possibly control all the variables in life, other people and events. The only thing you can control is your emotional and mental state and your behavior. All the pieces of your future may not be immediately visible, and they will appear at the right time. It’s like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that is not yet complete.
If I can’t always focus on creating certainty in my life, what should I do? You can devote your energy and time to helping others in things that are consistent with your values, beliefs and your vision of the future. Often, opportunities and certainty can come from this.
What can I do about my anxiety of being in quicksand or a “gooey mess?” Learn to be okay with being in the soup of uncertainty. It doesn’t last forever. Nothing does. Practice remaining in the present moment and not trying to get ahead of yourself. Struggling to get out of the quicksand could sink you further into it or put you on the wrong course out. Solid ground will appear at the right time.
What if my future seems so far away and too big to attain? Remember the old saying, “a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.” The only time that exists is the present moment and day. Focus on one thing you can do today to move you forward to where you want to go. The focus is on action and not rumination.
What is one step I can take to develop more certainty? Be clear about your values—what is really the most important thing (top 3) in your life? Once you’ve written these down, ask yourself—“Is everything I do every day honoring those values or in alignment with them.” If not, this will create uncertainty.

Finally, this piece of advice that has helped me in life. Everything that happens in life is neither bad or good. It depends on your perception and the context. Good things can come out of bad events and visa versa. Take the view instead that whatever happens, just is. It is what it is, and you can choose how to see it or reframe it.

Do we work for money or love for the job?

The question of what motivates employees more—financial compensation or things that are more intrinsic—is the subject of ongoing debate and new research. New research that shows no link between rising GDP and life satisfaction/happiness complicates the issue even further.

According to a 2010 Monster.com survey, the top-rated item on would-be employees wish list (87%) was an employer “that truly cares about the well-being of its employees.” A challenging and fulfilling job was rated second, job security third, and an attractive benefits package was fourth. Financial compensation was rated much lower at 5^th (66%).

This search is consistent with another research study conducted the employee benefits company Unum, in collaboration with Harvard Business Review analytic services. The study found an ethical, transparent corporate culture, and caring about the well-being of employees were more likely to be viewed in attracting and treating employees as was providing a high base salary.

According to the research of psychologists Tim Kasser and Richard Ryan, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, “the more people are driven by a desire to be wealthy, the poorer their psychological health on a range of measures.”

G. Douglas Jenkins, at Arizona State University, writing on the issue of financial incentives, concludes when it comes to the issue of performance, incentives don’t help, a finding that psychologist Janet Spence, in her research, reiterated. Alfie Cohen, author of Punished By Rewards, a long-term critic of extrinsic rewards as a motivator for performance, argues “no controlled scientific study has ever found a long-term enhancement of the quality of work as a result of any reward system.” Cohen argues that employers and executives need to think about what employees need to be happy and fulfilled, rather than what rewards can be offered to get them to do what they are told.

A striking conclusion from other new research about the happiness-income paradox is that over the long-term—10 yeas or more—happiness does not increased as a country’s income rises. According to this research, conducted by economist Richard Easterlin and his colleagues at the University of Southern California, it contradicts the conventional wisdom research that claims a rise in happiness levels occurs with improvements in GDP. Easterlin found measures of life satisfaction and happiness increased with improvements in democratization, in contrast to no connection between long term increases in life satisfaction/happiness with GDP improvements.

Recent evidence points to increasingly income inequality in North America, notably in the U.S., and the prevalence of media focus on the lives of wealthy celebrities, athletes and business people as though there was clear correlation between the increased wealth of individuals and their absolute state of well-being and happiness. So too, corporations continue the practice of attracting and retaining the best talent by focusing on financial compensation and incentives. Both perspectives are increasingly myopic and ignore the increasing mass of search that underscores what really motivates employees nd creates conditions for improved performance.

Why the MBA is in decline

Few business school and particularly MBA programs or executive training programs adequately address the importance of developing leaders. For the most part these programs are theory-oriented in nature, and use the traditional tools of conceptual learning–case studies, lectures, films and discussions–relying on the contrast between what managers do and what leaders do. And it appears that the MBA degree and salaries of MBA students are not longer what they used to be.

The problem with many business school leadership programs is that they teach ideas, not real life behaviors, and business school professors are chosen by virtue of their ability to publish detailed research, not having had leadership experience themselves. Understanding something intellectually often has little to do with being able to do it. Adult learners need experiences and coaching to turn concepts into leadership behaviors.

A New York Times article entitled, Is It Time To Retrain B-Schools? has had a massive response. Kelly Holland, the author of the article says among other things, “Critics of business education have many complaints. Some say the schools have become too scientific, too detached from real-world issues. Others say students are taught to come up with hasty solutions to complicated problems. Another group contends that schools give students a limited and distorted view of their role — that they graduate with a focus on maximizing shareholder value and only a limited understanding of ethical and social considerations essential to business leadership .Such shortcomings may have left business school graduates inadequately prepared to make the decisions that, taken together, might have helped mitigate the financial crisis, critics say.”

In an article in the London Times, entitled Harvard’s Masters of the Apocalypse, Philip Broughton, a Harvard Business School graduate and author of What They Teach You At Harvard, says, “ The Masters of Business Administration, that swollen class of jargon-spewing, value-destroying financiers and consultants have done more than any other group of people to create the economic misery we find ourselves in…You can draw up a list of the greatest entrepreneurs of recent history, from Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google and Bill Gates of Microsoft, to Michael Dell, Richard Branson, Lak-shmi Mittal – and there’s not an MBA between them. Yet the MBA industry continues to grow, and business schools provide vital income to academic institutions: 500,000 people around the world now graduate each year with an MBA, 150,000 of those in the United States, creating their own management class within global business. From the Royal Bank of Scotland to Merrill Lynch, from HBOS to Lehman Brothers, the Masters of Disaster have their fingerprints on every recent financial fiasco.”

Henry Mintzberg, a professor of management studies at McGill University in Montreal, also argues that because students spend so much time developing quick responses to packaged versions of business problems, they do not learn enough about real-world experiences. Rakesh Khurana, a professor at Harvard Business School and author of “From Higher Aims to Hired Hands,” a historical analysis of business education, says that business schools never really taught their students that, like doctors and lawyers, they were part of a profession, with professional standards. And in the 1970s, he said, the idea took hold that a company’s stock price was the primary barometer of a leader’s success. This, among other things, changed the business schools’ concept of proper management techniques. Instead of being viewed as long-term economic stewards, he says that managers came to be seen as mainly as the agents of the owners — the shareholders — and responsible for maximizing shareholder wealth. He goes on to say that “we can’t rely on the usual structure of MBA education, which divides the management world into the discrete business functions of marketing, finance, accounting, and so on.”

Warren Bennis and James O’Toole have written how business schools have been on the wrong track for years, claiming among other things that “MBA programs face intense criticism for failing to impart useful skills, failing to prepare leaders, failing to instill norms of ethical behavior.” Rakesh Khurana and Nitin Nohria wrote that schools of management will fail to produce consistently principled, decent leaders until management itself becomes a profession, like medicine or the law which will include a code of conduct.

For universities, business schools have been a means to an end–money. Business schools are less expensive to operate than graduate schools with elaborate labs and research facilities, and alumni tend to be generous with donations. Business education is big business, too. Some 146,000 graduate degrees in business were awarded in the U.S. in 2005-06; roughly one-fourth of the 594,000 graduate degrees awarded that school year, according to the U.S. Education Department. Still, there have been signs that all is not well in business education. A study of cheating among graduate students by Linda Trevino, Ken Butterfield and Donald McCabe, published in 2006 in the journal Academy of Management Learning & Education, found that 56 percent of all M.B.A. students cheated regularly — more than in any other discipline. The authors attributed that to “perceived peer behavior” — in other words, students believed everyone else was doing it. No wonder the issue of ethics in corporate America has been seen as important.

McCabe, writing in the Harvard Business Review, contends the prevalence of cheating among MBA students is because of the “get-it-done, dam-the-torpedoes, succeed-at-all costs mentality that many business students bring to he game.” McCabe describes an MBA student mentality of getting the highest GPA possible so that they can get the highest paid jobs in the pharmaceutical, high tech and finance industries.

Michael Jacobs, writing in the Wall Street Journal, argues that there have been three profound failures of sound business practices at the root of the economic crisis that have not been addressed by business schools. The first is the practice of financial incentives as a motivation for leadership, which has morphed into greed. The second is the failure of instituting a financial regulatory system and the absence of any meaningful corporate board responsibility and oversight of CEOs. The third breakdown has been the focus on short-term financial gain for the shareholder at any cost.

Some employers are also questioning the value of an M.B.A. degree. A research project that two Harvard professors released in 2008 found that employers valued graduates’ ability to think through complex business problems, but that something was still lacking. “There is a need to broaden from the analytical focus of M.B.A. programs for more emphasis on skills and a sense of purpose and identity,” said David A. Garvin, a professor of business administration and one of the project’s authors.

Indeed, students themselves may welcome an emphasis on character skills and personal development. In surveys that the Aspen Institute regularly conducts, M.B.A. candidates say they actually become less confident during their time in business school that they will be able to resolve ethical quandaries in the workplace.

The value of the MBA degree may also be in decline. Many recruitment experts now see the MBA as having replaced the bachelor’s degree as a threshold for management and leadership positions. John Bryne, in an article in BNET, reports data showing the salaries for MBA graduates from 2001 to 2010 have actually declined, in comparison to the high costs of getting a the degree in the top schools.

In fairness, a number of business schools recognize these problems, and are trying to revise their model and focus but most have yet to realize they have credibility problem. Business schools such as the Rotman School of Business, Carnegie-Mellon, Wharton, Yale, Stanford and others are overhauling the MBA program, with a focus on better problem-solving, decision-making, ethics and social responsibility, along with a greater focus on experiential opportunities.

Angel Cabrera, President of the Thunderbird School of Global Management in Arizona, says that business schools are slowly beginning to move towards accepting the broader responsibility of management, citing the example of more than 200 business schools around the world that have endorsed the Principles of Responsible Management Educaiton, a movement sponsored by the United Nations.

So what should business schools focus on? I would argue that business school or executive training programs should focus more on developing individuals’ personal growth with an emphasis on values, emotional intelligence and ethical behavior in business. The challenge for business schools is how to develop leaders not managers, and who believe that business has bottom lines beyond shareholder value.

Myths That CEOs Continue To Live By

There’s some pretty good evidence that Capitalism could be in deep trouble in today’s world. And stereotypical CEOs, business models, as well as workplace practices are in equally deep trouble. One need only look at the increasing income gaps and disappearing middle class, increasing levels of employee disengagement and distrust of leaders, along with the control of almost all wealth in the hands of the few as evidence. We can point to some destructive myths about economic enterprise, leadership and work as feeding those problems.

Tony Schwartz, writing in the Harvard Business Review identifies four such myths. Myth 1: Multitasking is critical in a world of infinite demand. This flies in the face of recent neuroscience research; Myth 2: Anxiety helps you perform better. This often shows up as bosses putting performance pressure on people which inversely affects motivation and performance. Myth 3: Creativity is a genetic trait and can’t be taught. But we know now that creative thinking can be taught and learned; Myth 4: The best way to get more work done is to work longer hours. This has led to workaholism and burnout and evidence of declining productivity.

Another myth is “management efficiency”—of course invented by managers. Tough economic times have produced a flood of management ”experts” and many leaders of organizations whose only strategy for dealing with the downturn in the economy is cutting costs, layoffs and more efficiency-based strategies. The mantra for business for much of the last century has been operational efficiency. So leaders look for ways to cut costs and make the operations lean and mean. Yet much of the rationale for and evidence supporting efficiency as a key management strategy is questionable.

Management theory came to life in 1899 with a simple question: “How many tons of pig iron bars can a worker load onto a rail car in the course of a working day?” The man behind this question was Frederick Winslow Taylor, the author of The Principles of Scientific Management and, by most accounts, the founding father of the whole management business. Taylor’s scientific management principles became the Bible upon which management practices have been used to dominate Western business for the past century. The problem is, that Taylor was a better salesman than a scientist.  Mathew Stewart, the author of The Management Myth: Why The Experts Keep Getting It Wrong, describes how Taylor manufactured his data, lied to his clients and inflated his results. He argues that since Taylor, business programs in universities continue to model much of their educaiton, with emphasis on technical knowledge and the scientific management approach. Stewart, who was for many years a management consultant, argues that the study ofphilosophy and ethics would serve society better as a basis for educating business leaders.

This theme is echoed by Tom Demarco in his book, Slack: Getting Past Burnout, Busywork And The Myth Of Total Efficiency, in which he details American business leaders’ obsession with planning and cost saving efficiency based on a mistaken belief that human beings are efficient in the same way that machines are.

In a similar vein, a ground-breaking book by Dan Coffey, titled The Myth of Japanese Efficiency, challenges the commonly held view based on an earlier MIT study that Japanese car manufacturers pioneered a “lean and flexible” production model, which helped to reinforce the cultish devotion to efficiency.

Aubrey C. Daniels, one of the world’s foremost authorities on management and human performance, outlines management practices that are destructive to organizations during boom or bust times, in his outstanding book, Oops! 13 Management Practices That Waste Time and Money (and what to do instead).

Daniels points out that few managers look for behavioral data to affect employee performance because most managers know very little about the science of behavior and recent brain science or neuroscience, and very few business programs in universities teach it. He says another reason why organizations are fundamentally flawed from a behavioral perspective is that they were designed by those people–those with financial expertise–who have only one purpose in mind, to make money. He says that “how employees are paid, appraised, rewarded, and recognized have financial implications,” but when designed without an understanding of human behavior, you can have get contrary results. For example, there is a mountain of research to show that employees are not primarily motivated by financial rewards over the long term, yet we continue to use that as a management motivational strategy.

Daniels identifies 13 managerial strategies that not only don’t work, but are destructive to organizations and the people in them, what’s wrong with them and what to do about it. Among the most significant of these practices that perpetuate myths about a productive workplace and what leaders should do are:

1. Employee of the Month [and most other forms of recognition and reward] What’s wrong with it: It focuses attention on one employee, but most work is a team effort. What to do about it: Acknowledge achievement for everyone the moment it happens.

2. Stretch Goals. What’s wrong with it: Employees end up overwhelmed and frustrated if they fail to reach aggressive goals. What to do about it: Set achievable short term goals and chart employee progress month by month.

3. Performance Appraisal. What’s wrong with it: It’s hated by both managers and employees; it’s done once a year and then appraisal is ignored for the rest of the year; it’s not motivational. What to do about it: Give immediate management feedback to employees for success or failure.

4. Promoting People No One Likes. What’s wrong with it: employees perform out of fear rather than commitment and loyalty. What to do about it: Promote people who are liked and have superior interpersonal and emotional abilities.

5. Downsizing. What’s wrong with it: Many things including the stress placed on those employees that remain, and the costs of new hires after the recovery. What to do about it: Find more creative ways of costs savings, done by many companies.

Traditional management strategies in organizations are based more on animal training than on human psychology and neuroscience. Leaders promise bonuses and promotions (the carrot) for those who go along with the changes, and punish those (the stick) who don’t with less important jobs or even job loss. This kind of managerial behavior flies in the face of evidence that shows that people’s primary motivation in the workplace is neither money or advancement but rather a personal interest in their jobs, a good environment to work in and fulfilling relationships with their boss and colleagues.

Charles Jacobs, author of Management Rewired: Why Feedback Doesn’t Work and Other Supervisory Lessons From The Latest Brain Science, says the brain is wired to resist what is commonly termed constructive feedback, but is usually negative. When people encounter information that is in conflict with their self-image their tendency is to change the information, rather than change themselves. So when mangers give critical feedback to employees, the employees’ brain defense mechanism is activated because that information conflicts with what the brain remembers and knows.

Brain science has huge implications for the way we manage organizations, and equally significant implications for HR practices. Compensation, benefits, rewards and other current methods of employee motivation are much the same as they were three generations ago, ignoring all the research evidence from psychology and brain science. So too is the evidence about how psychological states and their brain characteristics—for example, happiness–have a direct impact on employee engagement, creativity and productivity.

In my April 26, 2009 article in Psychology Today, I said, “ Leaders can change their own behavior or influence that of other people by focusing on creating new behaviors rather than trying to fix old ones. In a world with so many distractions, one of the biggest challenges is being able to focus enough attention on any one idea. Leaders can make a difference by eliciting attention on only the most important things and focusing their feedback to employees on things that work well. Focusing on solutions and not problems, and allowing employees to generate solutions and developing new positive behaviors become a critical management strategy to increase success.”

Why have the great corporations, both in North America and elsewhere, fallen into such disrepute, and failure? Some very well known and once invincible bastions of our capitalism system have either failed or are in trouble.

Jim Collins, author of Good To Great, and How The Mighty Have Fallen, gives us a glimpse into the reasons for the fall.

Collins outlines the five stages of corporate decline as: hubris born of success (arrogance) the undisciplined pursuit of more (greed), the denial of risk and peril; grasping for salvation (being a victim); and capitulation to irrelevance or death.

Collins poses a critical question: is the U.S. or even North America, on the brink of decline? Is it possible that the predominant paradigm of capitalism practiced so well in the U.S., may actually be the cause of our economic problems?

The kind of leadership we have in organizations is critical to the decline of the corporate world. Collins outlines the characteristics of teamwork that’s gone sideways in organizations as: Leaders asserting strong opinions without any evidence; team members passively accepting decisions but not actively trying to make the decisions work; team leaders asking few questions and avoiding critical input; team members seeking individual credit and self interest rather than the team’s interests; teams blaming someone when things go wrong; and teams failing to deliver results.

In contrast, Collins points to the kind of leadership that has helped companies remain successful even through the recession: the truth is told by everyone in the organization to leaders; evidence supports decisions; teamwork is marked by extensive questioning and feedback; team members make decisions work once they’re made; team members credit each other for success; failures are seen as learning experiences, and no one is scapegoated; each team member is accountable for results and delivers them without excuses.

Survey after survey of employees in a wide range of industries and countries reveal a basic lack of trust for political and business leaders. In the businessworld, at the same time, the gap between CEO compensation and that of the average worker-particularly in the U.S.-is increasing, regardless of the business results of the respective company. We continue to measure our well-being in terms of productivity, GDP and economic output, paying scant attention to other measures of well-being, particularly social measures and levels of happiness. There is more than adequate evidence now that the countries and societies-such as Denmark-that have the highest measures of social well-being, also have less of a problem with income disparity.

One of the most robust findings in political psychology is that liberals tend to explain both poverty and wealth in terms of either luck and the influence of social forces while conservatives tend to explain poverty and wealth in terms of effort and individual initiative. Mark Harmon argued in a paper presented to the MidWest Political Science Association in 2010, tested these conclusions against six U.S. public opinion polls. Secondary analysis found consistent and strong relationships. Conservatives and Republicans overwhelmingly attributed poverty to the personal failings of the poor themselves (lazy, drunk, etc.) while Democrats and liberals consistently offered social explanations like poor schools and lousy jobs for poverty. Later he looked at the inverse question, the reasons respondents give for others obtaining wealth. Generally he found that Democrats and liberals attributed wealth to connections or being born into a wealthy family, while Republicans and conservatives declared wealth comes from hard work. It is clear that in the past two decades, the conservative perspective, while not held by the majority of the population, is one embraced by the media and the people who wield power and control wealth.

When will we wake up to the reality that our current concepts of free market capitalism, the structure of the workplace and how people should lead others in the 21^st century no longer works, is based on myths and needs to change?