Facebook

Google

Twitter

Linkedin

Email

by Peter Cappelli

A recent report showed that 59% of managers said that they had received no training on how to be a manager before becoming one. Management professor and director of Wharton’s Center for Human Resources Peter Cappelli says that stunning statistic is compounded by the fact that most of those managers are now supervising people who were their peers before they were promoted.

“Research tells us that the individual contributors who get promoted — those who are the highest performing when it comes to their individual role — make terrible managers. It’s not just that they’re not good — they’re the worst.”

And yet although the practice (and its poor results) is common across industries, few companies and individual managers figure out why the fail rate is so high (hint: the new role requires completely different skills and behaviors). “To be a good individual contributor,” Cappelli says, “you must think about yourself, your performance, and how you can improve. But once you are a supervisor, you need to think about how to help other people do well. You can’t just expect people to make that kind of change on their own.”

Cappelli says in addition to recognizing that what got you promoted isn’t what you need to succeed in your new role, there are three other common reasons why new managers struggle. The good news? They all involve skills that can be learned.

1. Accept That Social Relationships Have to Change

Not everyone is delighted that you got promoted. Some of your new subordinates may have believed they were in line for management, were better suited for the role, or otherwise resent the advancement. “You have to recognize that your relationships with your former peers have to change,” says Cappelli, “and changes are often unpleasant.”

Specifically, he says the belief that a manager can be the boss in the office and switch into friend mode at the end of the work day is “a division that’s impossible to sustain. It’s the reason why in organizations like the military, where the bosses are in charge of putting people in harm’s way, they don’t even want officers socializing with their direct reports. Problems arise when authority becomes clouded by personal relationships, and that’s just as true in the office. Our MBA students are often surprised by this, thinking that the job of a supervisor is to be a friend to your subordinates. It’s not.”

“Research tells us that the individual contributors who get promoted … make terrible managers.”— Peter Cappelli

Cappelli says although the role of manager has evolved from the “ruler of the office who doesn’t have to worry about the subordinates” to a more collaborative and even compassionate leader, it doesn’t mean managers and their direct reports are on the same level. “One way you might discover that is when you become a supervisor and you don’t get invited to happy hour anymore.”

(more…)

Facebook

Google

Twitter

Linkedin

Email

by David McCann

With remote work destined for good to be a fixture of the modern workplace, almost half of companies are monitoring remote employees’ online activities.

Among 1,000 remote and hybrid U.S. employees who participated in a February survey, 43% said their employer monitors their online activity. That broke down into 48% of hybrid workers and 37% of fully remote ones.

An additional 21% of respondents said they weren’t sure or were unaware whether their employer is monitoring their online activity, according to the survey, which was commissioned by Forbes Advisor and conducted by OnePoll. Forbes Advisor is a platform designed to help consumers make financial decisions, but its report on online surveillance of workers offers some worthy insights for employers.

Monitored activity can include active work hours, websites visited, chats, and messaging logs. Almost a third (31%) of respondents said their employers are monitoring their computer screens in real-time.

Unsurprisingly, many employees dislike the monitoring, and some of their viewpoints might make employers pause. Among the scrutinized workers, 39% said the monitoring has a negative effect on their relationship with their employer, and 43% said it negatively affects company morale.

Further, 27% of survey participants said they would be at least somewhat likely to quit their job if their employer began monitoring them.

On the other hand, 30% said they are “very comfortable” with their online activities being monitored, and 31% reported a positive association with job satisfaction. “This could indicate that a segment of the workforce feels more aligned or accountable when such practices are in place,” the survey report said.

Room for Improvement
According to the report, a “concerning aspect” of the trend is insufficient communication about surveillance policies. Only a third (32%) of those surveyed reported having received clear guidelines or policies regarding the monitoring.

Are there ethical issues with companies monitoring employees’ online activity? Three in five (59%) of the surveyed workers agreed that there are. However, ethical concerns go both ways, as 25% of those whose online activity is monitored admitted to pretending to be online while performing nonwork activities. In fact, 11% of such employees said they use anti-surveillance software, and 9% said they’ve attempted to “trick” the monitoring software.

Source: cfo.com

Facebook

Google

Twitter

Linkedin

Email

by Rebecca Knight

Do you have what it takes to be a great leader?

It helps if you excel at communicating. And, of course, you need to be adept at planning, problem-solving, and delegating. You also need to be capable of navigating any and all challenges that arise.

Beyond these skills, though, the qualities that set great leaders apart are more elusive and can at times appear otherworldly. Exceptional leaders possess a certain X-factor that makes it seem as though they inherently know what to do.

But according to Harvard Business School professor Linda Hill, one of the world’s top experts on leadership, star leaders aren’t born with superhuman capabilities. Rather, they tend to have intentionally put themselves in situations where they have to learn, adapt, and grow — a crucible for developing the tenacity and fortitude to motivate and guide others.

“Leadership is a process of self-development, she says. “No one can teach you how to lead; you need to be willing and able to learn how to lead. Mostly we learn from our experiences and facing adversity. Stepping outside of the spaces where we feel safe — is a powerful teacher.”

Here are what Hill says are the top eight most important qualities for successful leadership — along with ideas on how to cultivate them.

1. Authenticity

Being genuine and true to who you are is fundamental to success in any role. Hill says that as a leader, you must embody your best self — the version that’s not only highly effective but also capable of motivating and inspiring those around you.“Your competence is not enough; people need to trust your character and connect with you, otherwise they will not be willing to take risks with you,” she says. This understanding ties deeply with your ability to be self-aware: “You need to figure out how to create the conditions for your success, and don’t assume others will do it for you.”

How to show up as your best self.

Understanding how people perceive you is crucial for growth. But asking for and receiving feedback can be complicated and emotional, says Hill. She recommends seeking feedback at a time when you can remain open, without becoming defensive.

Start by asking for feedback from peers in low-pressure situations and work your way up to higher-stakes scenarios. Say something like: “I’m trying to understand my impact and the kind of experiences I am creating for those who work with me. Can you give me some sense of what I should keep doing, start doing, and stop doing?” Finally, don’t dwell on the negative and the things you need to fix. Instead, Hill recommends you “home in on the positive.” (more…)

Facebook

Google

Twitter

Linkedin

Email

by Dylan Seltermann

One of the big recent cultural shifts in America has been people claiming that they want to strive toward greater authenticity in their lives.

Perhaps this was brought on by a feeling that people are increasingly “fake” in their online personas, especially on social media and dating app profiles, or in routine interactions with acquaintances or colleagues that might seem forced and mundane. Whatever the reason, people seem to be strongly craving a connection with their true selves and to bring more authenticity into their lives.

There’s just one problem. There is no true self, at least not in any sense of the self that we can understand through science. We should seriously question the idea of authenticity as a meaningful construct in our lives.

A Psychological Quirk
We might naively assume that everyone has a true and authentic core “self,” almost like believing in a secular version of a soul. But this assumption is based on a psychological quirk. Humans are essentialist thinkers, which means we wrongly assume that all beings have a stable underlying essence, or a je ne sais quoi. But when it comes to living, growing life forms, this is an illusion. Lots of people say that in order to have a happy, meaningful life, we just need to get in touch with that core, essentialist part of ourselves and behave in ways that are consistent with this. I suggest this is a false and unhealthy way of thinking. This concept of authenticity isn’t useful because it’s based on a flawed assumption of how human psychology works.

Previously, I suggested that people actually change a lot throughout their lives. But the pace of change diminishes throughout adulthood, so it may not feel subjectively like we’re changing very much from year to year when, in fact, we do. This also helps explain why it may not be possible to have one true authentic self, because the self is almost always changing. Striving for authenticity may be like trying to hit a moving target. If you’re always in motion, or if your north star keeps shifting, then getting to an authentic state would be a fool’s errand. Developmental psychology is, in a sense, the study of change. The more we change, the more it should be apparent to us that there isn’t a fixed, static thing that we should use to define ourselves. (more…)