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.

How you lead shapes follower-relationships for years

There is no specific Pandemic-Leadership style, in times of home offices and hybrid meetings Leadership is executed more extreme, more radical than before, though. Key for this phenomenon are the fears of executives themselves. According to their respective personalities they are on the one hand providing for too much control (micromanagement due to the fear of failures) and on the other hand too much space (laissez faire due to the fear of frustrating the staff even more). Two famed researchers in Leadership from the University of Miami draw this conclusion in a remarkable article that was published recently in the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies.

Hands on or Hands off – both principles of Leadership we do need the scientists summarize – still: there is a big job to be done in defining exactly where this overdosises here and there counteract the original intentions of the superior.

Also cristalclear is this: how you lead now in these times of crises will be remembered by your subordinates forever and will therefore shape the quality of your relationships for years.

Dasborough/Scandura, „Leading Through the Crisis: “Hands Off” or “Hands On”?, In: Journalist of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1 – 5, 2021

From the practice:

Working as an executive coach it was, is and will be one of my main tasks to reflect with my clients about their fears and sorrows. In this type of sessions I am talking about potential reliefs and options for sustainable solutions, and last but not least I am encouraging men and women alike to go new ways. This I do regardless whether the guys came from the corporate world, scientific community or politics. Who else than one´s coach is a confidential and reliable interlocutor during the crisis?

That´s why I actually consider the contribution of these two US-scientists particularly interesting and that given I confirm from the practice their conclusion 100%: Fear chooses various paths in order to surface more or less covered within our everyday professional routine. Even more: nobody is immune against fears.

So I am coming up with two recos: 1. Please make yourself aware if and how your individual panics shape your leadership. 2. Ask yourself if you – 18 months after the first lock down – have found yet a definitely well working leadership-mix.

Trust needs vigilance and a query of constrasts

Trust may impede our memory performance, whereas distrust sharpens details requested for any reliable report. Responsible for this phenomenon is an automatism within our information process which makes us focus on similarities when we communicate trustfully, blurring by the way differences in content and details, though. In distrustful settings on the contrary we “steer” towards these contrasts automatically. Contrasts which define the relevance of a testimony or a report. That´s the result of an actual publication by Harvard University.

Based on nine single studies the researchers have come to the following conclusion: the precision of our memory performance depends on various factors – neglected so far have been trust and distrust, two parameters omnipresent in social everyday life.

Posten/Gino, “How Trust and Distrust Shape Perception and Memory“ in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2021, 121 (1), 43-58.

From the practice:

Trust is blind – an old saying has been confirmed once again scientifically, at least when it comes to our memory performance. Who communicates in trustful situations without any countermeasures has to be aware of risking accuracy – accuracy which is desperately needed for any cause per se and the people involved.

Certainly that does not mean to skip trust just to get useful testimonies and reports in meetings, negotiations, committees or at court. Having said that I´d like to share with you two concrete recommendations:

1. Please question everything directly during the talk which appears in Spanish.

Don´t think of permanent controls or behaving like a paranoid. Think of an alert mind who wants to clarify ambiguities, superficialities, potential misunderstandings etc. particularly where trust is given and where you therefore never would have thought to question anything otherwise.

2. Ask intentionally for contrasts. So ask colleagues, peers or subordinates not that much “What has happened?” but “What is different to the normal situation? What has happened in contrast to the way we had it before?”. In proceeding like this you may bring together the best of two worlds: You can expect more precise statements AND do not destroy the relationship of trust you have invested in for so long so intensely.

ForscherInnen: Zielgruppen und Videos wirkungsvollste Hebel

Was tun, um angesichts der 4. Welle der Pandemie ImpfgegnerInnen zu überzeugen? Ein Artikel sowie eine neue Studie aus Deutschland bzw. den USA verweisen sehr deutlich auf zwei konkrete Erkenntnisse:

1. Zielgruppenspezifische Ansprache lohnt sich. Sogar Menschen, die aus ideologischen Gründen von Regierungen festgelegte Covid-19-Maßnahmen nicht mittragen wollen, ändern ihre Meinung, wenn sie dezidiert als Eltern angesprochen werden. Vor allem Väter veränderten ihre Haltung zu Impfung, Masken und Mindestabstand, wenn ihnen die Auswirkungen einer allfälligen Covid-19-Erkrankung auf ihre Kinder klargemacht wurde.

Die WissenschaftlerInnen empfehlen daher, in der Kommunikation zur Pandemie viel stärker als bisher Menschen in ihren Beziehungsrollen – als Eltern, als Partner, als MitarbeiterIn, als LehrerIn, als NachbarIn – anzusprechen.  Covid-19-Argumentation wirke in diesem Kontext teilweise stärker als vorhandene parteipolitisch getriggerte Widerstände.

2. Storytelling in Videoformaten punkten gegenüber reinen Zahlenfriedhöfen und Wissenschaftstexten. Besonders überzeugend seien vormalige Covid-19-SkeptikerInnen, die sich nun doch impfen ließen und die Geschichte ihrer Haltungsänderung erzählen. Dargestellt in kurzen Videos sind diese Geschichten für jene, die mit herkömmlicher Regierungskommunikation nicht erreicht werden, am glaubwürdigsten.

Zeng, “A relational identity-based solution to Group Polarization – Can Priming Parental Identity Reduce the Partisan Gap in Attitudes Toward the COVID-19 Pandemic”, in “Science Communication”, August 16, 2021.

Dan/Dixon, “Fighting the Infodemic on Two Fronts: Reducing False Beliefs without increasing Polarization”, in “Science Communication”, June 2, 2021.

Aus der Praxis:

Es ist ein uralte Kommunikationsweisheit: Nicht Gießkannenprinzip, sondern differenzierte Ansprache bringt Erfolg. Über die Rolle als Eltern und/oder Ex-ImpfgegnerInnen als Testimonials zu arbeiten, finde ich großartig. Eine andere Möglichkeit, die in dieselbe „Zielgruppen-Kerbe“ schlägt: Erst vor kurzem hat der österreichische Gesundheitsminister Mückstein in einem Video in türkisch, rumänisch und BKS aufgerufen zur Impfung zu gehen. Eineinhalb Jahre nach Beginn der Pandemie war das angesichts eines 17%-igen Bevölkerungsanteils von Nicht-ÖsterreicherInnen zwar spät, aber zumindest ein Schritt in die von den ForscherInnen empfohlene Richtung. Zielgruppen-Kommunikation heißt, der/dem anderen einen Schritt entgegenzugehen und es ihr/ihm leichter zu machen, Botschaften zu hören, zu verstehen und damit zu arbeiten. Das erfordert Empathie, strukturiertes Vorgehen und gutes Training. Aber mittelfristig werden wir nicht anders reüssieren.

It´s the indispensability of each contribution, social comparing and women that count

The largest meta-analysis ever focusing on teamwork and performance refutes the popular assumption, teamwork triggers performance as such. The truth: It is not before three factors got their place in daily team management that team outputs are going up: a) each team member considers his/her contribution to be indispensable for the common goal, b) evaluations or comparisons with others are possible or c) there is a substantial number of women within the team.

These are the unequivocal results of researchers at the TU Dortmund who have gone through 622 relevant papers and more than 300.000 participants involved. Particularly the factor „indispensability“ seems to be crucial: even completely new teams that have to establish processes and relations among each other first can get quickly close to the maximum when motivating team members with their individual indispensability. Additionally helpful: this factor is beneficial for blue and white collar workers alike.

„Together, everyone achieves more – or less? An interdisciplinary meta-analysis on effort gains and losses in team”, Torka/Mazei/Hüffmeier, in: Psychological Bulletin, 147 (5) 2021, 504-534.

From the practice:

Exactly. The team for the sake of the team is rather seldom a good idea. Leaders often think they could earn some points of sympathy or motivation just because they are building teams. They underestimate how important the set up of the team work is – an aspect they are responsible for, too. Based on my experience especially when working with and in teams you have to implement straight rules (i.e. what is the duty and what is the free choice of the team?), monitor the performance and provide feedback. If not so, superiors or project managers are regularly confronted with weak results. This is also true for agile working.

A leader who cannot communicate requirements and leeways clearly and who is ducking off when it comes to a precise look at quality and potential follow ups is now at least getting some recos by the scientists from Dortmund: If you want to improve team performances then 1. Communicate unambiguously how and why each contribution in the team is indispensable 2. Make Perfomance of individuals and teams visible in order to nourish constructive competition and mutual support and 3. Keep an eye on lots of women in your teams.

You lose the option of strengthening relationships

It´s better to share than to hide success. At least when we are talking about people you are having close ties with: family, selected friends, business partners and peers. This is because by sharing success you are definitely strengthening relationships with individuals who are important to you. The logic goes like this: You apparently trust them to rejoice with you instead of being envious about what you worked out so well.

On the contrary: any direct reference person of yours interprets hiding of success either as rejection or as arrogance. The common approach not to talk proactively about things which went fine because your interlocutors would then feel bad or perceive you as a bragger is not true anymore. Or is to be seen differentiated to say the least.

These are the key findings of a recent US research. The scientists point out: you are paying a high emotional and social price if you keep believing hiding success means not to damage sensitivities of others.

Roberts, A. R., Levine, E. E., & Sezer, O. (2021). Hiding success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(5), 1261–1286. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000322

From the practice:

It is simply terrific to tell people who are close to my heart unlimitedly about my successes. I got it. And still I have to warn of potential pitfalls:

Even if everything is 100% correct what you are mentioning about the things which you have managed cleverly, please beware of

1. Talking constantly about your successes – one might think you are dependent on constant praise
2. Talking excessively about your successes – people can perceive you as penetrant.
3. Using words and tone too self-importantly when talking about your successes – the other one might interpret this behaviour as exaggeration or yourself or as devaluation of him/herself.

So we get back a very old story: It is the How which is as crucial in communication as the What.

Interesting intervention leads to new opportunities to convince people

For decades we have learned and practised not to use negations when it comes to persuade someone. The socalled positive argumentation, the dogma said, was always the better idea. We need to leave this standpoint. A recent research of the Leibniz Institute for Knowledge Media concluded that negations can have indeed their effects, sometimes even much better than anything else in rhetoric: if outgroup attitudes are to be changed. It is crucial for the success of this endeavour though, to address – before negating them – the very same attitude explicitly in the words used by the respective interlocutor. A negative outgroup attitude may be transferred into a more positive opinion about an individual or a group.

That means according to this German study: „Mr. Maier is lazy“ can be successfully counteracted with „No, Mr. Maier is not lazy”, by avoiding to speak out the well-intended “No, Mr. Maier is ambitious”. What mechanism lies behind this effect? Who is hearing one´s own words particularly in the beginning of any discussion (and is NOT filled up with counterarguments at once) feels perceived and listened to – even if these own words are negated. At this particular moment people start to be willing to stay in the discussion in a constructive way – the cognitive system has been activated.

Winter/Scholl/Sassenberg, A matter of flexibility: Changing outgroup attitudes through messages with negations, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2021, 120(4), 956–976

From the practise:

After having read this paper for the first time I was puzzled. Have I been confronted here with a fundamental change of directions in the field of argumentation? Yes and no.

Yes, because these findings relativize the absolute and everlasting triumph of positive argumentation. But still no, since if you look closer we identify also common knowledge in a new look.

Who is using „You have not done this well“ as a feedback intentionally wants to get criticism more accepted. We are aware of the fact that the negation ahead of the word „well“ is not perceived that strong. “Well“ resonates much longer and prevents immediate defense tactics or counter attacks by the one who has received this feedback. Nothing else gets into effect in the logic I have described and presented above.

To put it in a nutshell : let´s practise negations – but only if we select our words thereafter precisely. In this or in another case.