New insights support singletasking

Being involved in a telephone conversation reduces speed and quality of the response substantially. Our ability to make the right decisions is affected particularly. This means in detail: phoning still does make us altert and oriented, the execution of successful measures falls short, though, according to a reduced amount of information which can be processed in such a multitasking scenario. A recently published British study emphasizes this based on 2 subsequent and interdependent experiments. So previous insights and conclusions where singletasking is strongly to be preferred in case of complex tasks get additional support.

The researchers refer in their paper predominantly to the usage of mobil phones during driving.

Gunnell/Kunar/Richards/Watson, „Telephone conversations affetct the Executive, but not the Alerting or Orienting Network”, in: Journal of the Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2022, vol. 28, nr. 2, 249-261.

From the practise:

In any office there are lots of comparable situations where it is definitely not a good idea to make a call in parallel: meetings or while controlling of performance and/or data. This British study demonstrates: even if you realize and localize developing dangerous dynamics in front of you you will not take the necessary steps in the familiar quality. OR let me put it like this: as long as you do not interrupt and stop your call you will make easily make false decisions, put inadequate reactions in place or deliver non-helpful messages towards your employees or participants of your meeting. Singletasking is doubtlessly not only a matter of the respective code of conduct, but a path everyone should go to guarantee better results during complex challenges.

No, it is not an old hat, it is still highly accurate: no phone when it really matters.

If relations are key, meet in person

100% Online Meetings are a substantial risk for your leadership and for your team´s entitativity: one who perceives all the others at the table just two-dimensionally, is not able – even with the best of intentions – to develop any deeper understanding for them. On the contrary: clichès and prejudices are popping up quickly and can be reduced not before you have met in person. Only non-virtual meetings provide opportunities to capture colleagues (and leaders alike) with all our five senses. And only then we get to know each other faster and better and are capable to interpret statements and behavior (more) correctly.

With a lack of entitativity or team spirit, though, meetings – please see my blog from June – may get chewy and leadership gets tougher than necessary.

The US-researchers recommend to all superiors: get out of the online-mode and get back to personal gatherings in case relations are key.

Blanchard/McBride/Allen, „Perceiving Meetings as Groups: How Entitativity Links Meeting Characteristics to Meeting Success”, in: Psychology of Leaders and Leadership”, 2022, vol. 25, nr. 2, 90 – 113.

From the practice:

Online-Meetings do have a lot of benefits. But with them teams also do fall apart in the long run – no doubt.

If you as a leader or the host of a meeting want to avoid that you should take this checklist as a tool: 1. Provide opportunities for getting to know each other better within the call –circumvent the old fashioned boring introduction rounds, but ask all participants to explain their suggestions more clearly, observe mimics and gestures of everyone at the virtual table more carefully and address them if you notice anything outstanding or request regularly that the guys raise among themselves questions of any kind. 2. Arrange common topics as part of the agenda – common goals, common worries, joint solutions.

All of this connects – perhaps more than you might think. And it overcomes the virtual canyon that develops automatically by the screen.

Establishing meetings as role model for team spirit and culture

Team spirit, group identity or entitativity: the feeling to belong is a substantial parameter whether meetings are effecitive or not. Best preparation, tough moderation and consequent follow-ups are not sufficient if participants not perceive themselves as a group that a) has common goals, b) meet over a longer period of time and c) interact regularly. This is the conclusion of a recently published US-study. Apropos interaction: entitativity is mainly triggered by a support of dissent – where there is always space for discussing controversial opinions positive group identity rises.

Managers should therefore, according to the researchers, establish meetings frequently as role models for high quality collaboration. If dissens is not managed professionally in meetings, it won´t happen anywhere else in the working place as well.

Blanchard/McBride/Allen, „Perceiving Meetings as Groups: How Entitativity Links Meeting Characteristics to Meeting Success”, in: Psychology of Leaders and Leadership”, 2022, vol. 25, nr. 2, 90 – 113.

From the practice:

Any study that contribute to more effectiveness of meetings – currently only 50% of all meetings are considered to be effective, the other half seems to be waste of time – is warmly welcomed. It is unbelievable how much time and money is lost by bad and unprofessional meetings, let alone how this gets on anybody´s nerves.

What I do like when going through the actual study is the idea that meeting are role models for the targeted sort of collaboration. Let me summarize like this: 1. In relevant, periodical meetings employees can perceive themselves as groups – frequently better and more sustainably than by all those extra team building events. 2. In these meetings they should experience how they, how groups in this specific working place are functioning at a highest standards. This means, though that we do need much much more competence of managers in developing, running and leading meetings.

The more change is needed the more employees´ inputs become matchwinners

The Ukraine-war, rising prices in the energy field, inflation and the climate issue: almost any organization is facing increasing exogenous threats. In this context two subsequential connecting studies in the US which have gone into depth with “voice” as a success factor in times of change gain major attention. The conclusion: it´s the Timing that counts.
Accordingly supports prohibitive voice in the beginning of any crisis (disruptive stage) when managerial errors have to be avoided. On the other hand promotive voice when innovative ideas by the staff are brought up does have its particular positive effects during the socalled recovery stage.
And: the more change is needed, the more an existing culture of voice makes the differences whether an organization succees or fails. The American scientists therefore recommend to accept voice beside leadership and the composition of teams as relevant for crisis resilience, too.
Li/Tangirala, “How employees´ voice helps remain resilient in the face of exogenous change”, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 07/2022, pg. 668 – 692.

From the practice:

Let me add and differentiate:
1. In any accurate threat top management is well advised to invite personell to prohibitive voice – meeting by meeting. It seldomly comes by itself. 2. To generate promotive voice it most often needs separate platforms like team workshops – jour fixes are definitely the wrong format. 3. „Culture of voice“ does not mean grassroots democracy which is proven to be fatal in the times of crisis. In light of these new academic findings superior should give employees voice specifically – at the right time and with the right direction.

Conclusion: more support or hands off

The new Code of Ethics for superiors as coaches consist not of 10 commandments, but 9 rules. 9 rules which Australian researchers have presented recently based on a survey among 580 managers: 1. Define and communicate which sort of coaching you apply in your organization, 2. Be transparent regarding potential conflicts of interest, 3. Agree upon the degree of confidentiality with the coachee, 4. Use your influence as the coach with responsibility, 5. Leave it up to the coachees to participate in the coaching, 6. Stay within professional paths, 7. Clarify which degree of empowerment you want to achieve and when therefore the coaching has to be finished, 8. Avoid dependencies, 9. Do treat al employees in the same way regardless if they are your coaches or not.

Additionally the scientists conclude: managers who also work as coaches with their employees were too often kept alone by their organisations. More supervision and trainings are desperately needed, more ethical framework instead of more skills has to be established, though.

Milner/Milner/McCarthy/Veiga, „Leaders as Coaches: Towards a Code of Ethics“, in: The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 1-25, 2022.

From the practice:

Always I was sceptical when it came to superiors as coaches. For me the conflict of interest between the superior who has to thrive the interests of the organization and the coach who has to support the coachee without any limits is almost impassable. Let´s assume that the coachee wants to leave the company due to career ambitions, but the company has to hold him/her within in the organization under all circumstances. How should the superior as the coach behave professionally in such a situation? Also we have to take into account that effective coaching needs time, time superiors normally do not have as wished: 10 hours per coachee as the minimum. On the other side I do believe in a constant integration of coaching techniques in superior´s everyday life, i.e. to guide employees step by step towards the results desired. This is a much much better strategy than to articulate targets only and not to take care of how their teams get there – procedures you quite often can observe when looking into the depth.

The Code of Ethics still is a helpful added value for managers and organisations alike. Congrats!

Fazit: Mehr Unterstützung oder Finger weg

Nicht 10 Gebote, sondern 9 Regeln beinhaltet der neue Code of Ethics für Führungskräfte als Coaches, den australische ForscherInnen basierend auf einer Umfrage unter 580 ManagerInnen soeben vorgestellt haben: 1. Definieren und kommunizieren Sie die Art des Coachings in Ihrer Organisation, 2. Seien Sie transparent bzgl. möglicher Interessenskonflikte, 3. Vereinbaren Sie den Grad der Vertraulichkeit mit dem Coachee, 4. Setzen Sie Ihre Macht als Coach verantwortungsbewußt ein, 5. Stellen Sie die Teilnahme am Coaching frei, 6. Bleiben Sie immer innerhalb professioneller Grenzen 7. Stellen Sie klar, welchen Grad an Empowerment Sie erreichen wollen und wann daher der Coachee  das Coaching beenden wird, 8. Vermeiden Sie Abhängigkeit(en), 9. Behandeln Sie alle MitarbeiterInnen gleich – egal ob sie Ihre Coachees waren oder nicht. Außerdem: ManagerInnen, die als Coaches aktiv sind, werden zu oft allein gelassen. Mehr Supervision und Schulungen täten not, die WissenschaftlerInnen meinen allerdings, dass es viel mehr ethischen Rahmen als noch mehr handwerkliche Skills bräuchte.

Milner/Milner/McCarthy/Veiga, „Leaders as Coaches: Towards a Code of Ethics“, in: The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 1-25, 2022.

Aus der Praxis:

Ich hatte immer schon Bedenken gegen coachende Führungskräfte. Ich halte nämlich den Interessenskonflikt zwischen dem Vorgesetzten, der die Interessen der Organisation vorantreiben muss, und dem Coach, für den die Interessen des Coachees im Mittelpunkt stehen, für nahezu unüberwindbar, zB wenn letzterer unbedingt weg will, die Firma ihn oder sie aber unter allen Umständen halten will oder muss. Wie soll der Vorgesetzte in der Rolle des Coachs sich hier professionell verhalten? Dazu kommt – und das sage ich nach 23 Jahren als externer Coach – dass wirkungsvolles Coaching rein schon aus Zeitgründen nicht von Führungskräften ausgeübt werden kann: Es sind jedenfalls 10 Stunden pro Coachee, um effektiv zu sein. Woran ich aber sehr glaube: dass Chefs und Chefinnen hin und wieder Coaching-Techniken anwenden wie zB MitarbeiterInnen Schritt für Schritt zum gewünschten Ergebnis zu führen und nicht nur Ziele formulieren und sich nur graduell darum zu kümmern, ob und wie der/die Einzelne dorthin kommt.

Ein Code of Ethics ist dennoch eine wesentliche Bereicherung der Szene. Gratulation!

Why employees react counterproductively in case of leader´s mistreatment

Employees react promptly when they feel mistreated by their superiors. Regularly they behave unconstructively – from being passive and not forthcoming to aggressive or even business impeding.

They do so in order to handle the stress which has popped up in this negative atmosphere. Hence it is not revenge, or a question of morals or sort of reflex – if you are not good to me I am not good to you – which leads to CWB, counterproductive work behavior. These were the results – more unequivocal than expected – a recent Canadian meta analysis which has worked thoroughly through the myriads of hypothesis and theories that tried to explain this phenomenon.

According to the researchers these findings have a couple of practical implications: Employees should not be put down when they feel legitimately disappointed or embarrassed about their boss ´ deficits, but be motivated to react constructively.

Laing/Nishioka/Evans/Brown/Shen/Lian, „Unbalanced, unfair, unhappy, or unable? Theoretical Integration of Multiple Processes Underlying the Leader Mistreatment-Employee CWB Relationshop with Meta-Analytic Method“, in: Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies“, 2022, Vol. 29 (1), 33 – 72.

From the practice:

You can work with stress or stress relief as a motive for counterproductive behavior in case of leadership failures. Employees can be trained and inspired 1. To address the respective superior directly, 2. To go as a group for a workshop where they can reflect and interact or 3. To approach the next higher level – the bosses of the boss, the HR department or even the works council. For the leaders themselves I do recommend: When you realize your mistreatment, please apologize asap and avoid on the other hand any justifications or tirades of excuses, when you are addressed by your team. And based on this meta analysis let me add from today on: please keep in mind that in these specific situations employees are not angels of revenge, do not feel superior morally and do not behave irrationally at all. It´s the stress – stupid.

Utilizing humor strategically organisations could benefit a lot

In the employee-to-employee communication humor has got 4 functions: 1. As facilitator for onboarding procedures when new colleagues are connecting with the existing team and culture. 2. As mark of a group when departments are differentiating themselves from each other by specific humor. 3. As instrument of power when humor is applied for pushing through and convincing fellow campaigners 4. As method for de-escalation to relieve awkward situations and defuse conflicts. These are the conclusions of a meta-study conducted by the British Lancaster University having analysed 23 relevant academic papers. Additionally humor is capable to connect between hierarchies and contexts within any organization.

That given the researchers consider humor at the working place as an option for further impact far beyond the “Having-fun” aspect. Managers, they continue, should acknowledge, foster und utilize humor in his various functions selective and targeted to the benefit of the company.

Taylor/Simpson/Hardy,  „The Use of Humor in Employee-to-Employee Workplace Communication: A Systematic Review With Thematic Synthesis”, in: International Journal of Business Communication, 1 – 25, 2022.

From the practice:

Humor is simply great. But: humor can be tricky – that´s what we all have to be aware of (also privately): 1 Humor can hurt since mockery is often more insulting than tough criticism.

2. Humor never should come across manufactured or artificial. Spontaneity and unaffectedness do pay off when you want to be humorous AND credible. So what can managers basically do in order to allow humor to flow while still trusting in the ambition and efforts of their teams? Humor is not easy for everyone after all. My suggestion to clients is: don´t try to be funny, go for personal friendliness. That´s doable for men and women, old and young, pioneers and conservatives alike. And from friendliness humor develops often pretty quickly.

High Performer much stronger in activating contacts beyond the own team

During the crisis High Performer are establishing and reactivating virtual networks beyond their own team 22% more – regardless of their status in a company´s hierarchy. They do so in order to gain strategic advantages: getting more information, having better access to ressources and recognizing developments within their organization faster than their colleagues. Interestingly still they are able to keep up their existing communication with their direct co-workers. These are the outcomes of a recent study conducted by Northwestern University/Illinous where 200 employees of a multinational manufacturing company with 18 locations and 17 teams have participated in.

Consequently the researchers recommend superiors of any level to consider the willingness and ability to get in touch with other departments and groups inside the company as an indicator for high performance.

„Teamwork in the Time of Covid-19: Creating, Dissolving and Reactivating Network Ties in Response to a Crisis“, Wu/Antone/Srinivasan/DeChurch/Contractor, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 2021, vol. 106, nr. 10, 1483-1492.

From the practice:

Networking triggers opportunities – in an analogue setting like events where people are gathering before and after shut downs due to the Pandemic and virtually when it comes to attending webinars or utilizing online platforms (i.e. Linked-in, XING) for applications or new business. Moving here around systematically and proactively is crucial for your success in the market. It is news, though, that internal virtual networking, too, has become more and more beneficial during the Pandemic and has emerged as a clear hint for High Performers.

Discussing new networking strategies with my clients always leads to a very direct recommendation: Do it the same professional way you do the external networking! This means primarily: tell also colleagues how they can benefit from you and where you have your assets and special expertise, listen carefully to the needs of other departments and create a sense of attentiveness, a mood of cooperation and an an atmosphere of reliability.

Due to my experience this works not only in volatile times for your own PR but brings also your team option to lead.