On the eve of my first half marathon of the season, I am keeping off my feet and trying to relax as much as possible in preparation for my effort tomorrow morning. I want to try and maintain an 8 minute pace but the effort involved in doing so does not excite me. Nevertheless, I will likely try and see what happens. I have a tendency mid-way through races to give in to the discomfort and decide the effort and result is not worth the pain, even though the pain is transitory. I am working on this mental flaw.
As I have shared before, I love the NPR show Hidden Brain, and the most recent podcast that I listened to was about boredom. I listened to this podcast while running 4 miles on a treadmill after a snow storm sent me inside. As my feet thumped rhythmically on the human conveyer belt, the monotony of the treadmill got to me within about a minute and I turned on my podcasts. The treadmill, lovingly nicknamed the "dreadmill" by runners, is a site of boredom for me and I suspect many others. I have never understood why runners at any level would choose to run on a treadmill inside when they could go outside. However, this podcast gave me some new insight.
The concept of "effort aversion" explained in the podcast applies here. Our aversion to effort, makes us often choose boring things - jobs, tasks, activities - because we perceive them to be easier even though they are by and large, less fun. The treadmill in many ways involves less effort than running outside overall, especially if it's snowing. If I want to go for a run to reap the physical rewards of exercise, how can I do that with the least amount of effort? The gym is easy. I don't have to map a route, the temperature is constant, my nose hairs don't freeze, and I don't have to deal with wind or hills. I can also stop and use the bathroom without risking arrest for indecent exposure. I am sure the list goes on. The amount of perceived effort involved in running outside outweighs the boredom I might experience by staring at a wall while running on a treadmill. This can also be applied to folks who have the ability to walk to close by locations such as a neighbor's house or a local store, and choose to drive. Driving involves less (perceived) effort.
Effort aversion, the podcast shares, is why many people get stuck in boring jobs for years, where complacency sets in and you no longer seek change, professional development, or innovation. Even though boredom for many is unbearable, the idea of putting in additional effort for the same amount of pay is less desirable. Why work harder when I don't have to? Even if we are mildly to moderately unhappy in our current job, the effort involved in a job search is a deterrent to trying something new. We tell ourselves that if we can stay doing the same thing that is low risk and doesn't involve much effort, at a salary we can manage, why change? The effort involved in changing the status quo is not desirable, even though we are not super jazzed about the work and not very challenged. Comfort, the enemy of organizational change and creativity, is linked with "effort aversion" and works to keep us in the same place.
As my coaching training has taught me, if all you do is run 8 minute miles, then you will get very good at running 8 minute miles. You become comfortable at that pace, and the effort involved to improve may not feel worth it. The initial effort curve to get to the 8 minute mile might be tough, like when you start a new job. It can feel challenging and overwhelming as you learn the role but then after enough practice you settle in and your effort to get the job done decreases significantly. Once you are comfortable, it's like you have settled into your favorite sofa, and quite honestly, why change that? Your job/8 minute mile works just fine for you. Sort of. The memory of the previously exerted effort to learn your job or race at that pace is enough to keep you from exerting effort again to get you to the next step.
I don't like to be bored, and yet I definitely run up against this concept of "effort aversion" in my running, triathloning, and work where I will sometimes take boring over effort. Yet, we also go to great lengths to avoid being bored too. It's such an odd phenomenon. Case in point: A study featured in this Hidden Brain podcast involved folks being locked in a room with nothing but their thoughts for 15 minutes. However, they were also given the opportunity to shock themselves rather than just sit there. Of the participants, about 1/4 of women and over 2/3 of men chose to shock themselves rather than just sit and do nothing. We choose to do bizarre things in the face of boredom yet when our jobs are boring or uninspiring, the effort involved with changing the status quo shuts us down. Or when we want to get to the next level athletically we let mental effort aversion hold us back even if we are getting bored with our same training routine and paces. Why this inconsistency?
I don't have an answer to fix this but I do know that "effort aversion" is detrimental to us individually and for our organizations. We have to harness the desire to avoid boredom (sans electric shocks of course) to move out of our comfort zone and out of complacency. Thinking about the why can be helpful: Why is boredom or status quo more acceptable than change in our professional and personal lives? If we manage an organization, is having a team of long term staff who just kick the can down the road the most effective set up for the future of the organization? If we are bored with our training regime, why is the effort involved in changing it too much? If we want to get faster in our running, swimming, and biking, how can we reconcile the fact that to do so requires more effort even when our sofa's invitation is quite compelling? More effort can equal fun even if the "pay" is the same, we just have to be willing to try.
As an aside, Runner's World just posted on Facebook as I was writing this blog an article called "This is what effort looks like." It features a 63 year old Irish runner at the IAAF World Indoor Championships in Portland, Oregon finishing the 800 meters who pulled out everything to finish. Effort doesn't of course have to look exactly like this, but the reward for him, and for us, can be well worth it.
Listen to the Hidden Brain podcast on Boredom from March 15, 2016
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Friday, March 4, 2016
Inclusive Leadership
I have been thinking a great deal about organizational leadership and culture lately, especially as I consider and explore launching a business aimed at helping organizations excel in the area. We spend so much of our time at work, why wouldn't we want these spaces to be happy and healthy? The leaders of our organizations are integral at determining the health and happiness of a workplace but many still either refuse to address concerns or are the concern themselves.
There are two areas I want to address in this blog: toxicity and stagnancy. Many of my friends are struggling with toxic bosses, stagnant or unhealthy work places. I have heard some horrendous stories that leave me wondering how these experiences are even allowed to occur. This is a persistent and enduring issue that arises constantly and I am sure you each have your own stories to share.
Toxic or Unhealthy Workplaces and Bosses
Many individuals have experienced wounding in their workplace, in some cases to the extreme where the psychological impact is long lasting, influencing their professional interactions in their future jobs. It is hard to unlearn the survival behaviors developed in an unhealthy workplace or to manage a toxic boss. This difficulty can sometimes prevent us from flourishing in a new environment. Unhealthy work environments and toxic bosses are debilitating and harmful, this we can all agree, and yet employees often feel powerlessness to change their situation.
Stagnant Employees or Workplaces
Employees who have been at organizations for years without support, professional development, or effective leadership just spin in the hamster wheel. Stagnancy, while not per se abusive, is also harmful to the personal motivation of an employee and to the growth of the organization. Stagnancy, like toxicity, permeates the organizational culture and becomes an accepted norm. This norm can be so pervasive that employees don't even realize things could be different. Leaders perpetuate stagnancy when they neglect their employees or the organizational culture. A lack of attention to community needs and organizational change can lead employees to wonder if change is even possible, leading many great employees to move on. Turnover is as much of a problem as a staff that never leaves. Both are symptomatic of something gone awry and require leaders to notice and commit to engaging in a change process to fix it.
It's Not that Difficult
What I come back to time and time again, is that being a thoughtful and compassionate leader, someone who values and collaborates with their employees, is not that difficult. While many leaders articulate agreement to inclusive leadership, they do not translate that to practice. The incongruence between what is spoken and what is done is sometimes deafening. Some leaders make the choice to manage people using a "power over" approach to leadership, based in distrust or a "leader knows best" philosophy. Others still, are just absent, or so conflict avoidant that they choose to let the chips fall where they may and take no responsibility for the inevitable dysfunction that arises.
In all these cases, someone is making a choice. It is a choice to be absent. It is a choice to treat your colleagues and supervisees with disrespect or aggression. It is a choice to avoid conflict. It is a choice to exclude your employees from decisions that affect them or the organization. How you choose to lead your organization matters.
How We Lead Matters
Leaders fall on multiple points of the management continuum, but there is no denying that how we choose to lead others has dramatic impact. In many of the examples I see or hear about, the hostility or stagnancy exists in spaces that espouse a position of social justice. The organization itself is oriented around addressing issues of marginalization and oppression externally and yet internally perpetuates some of the same attitudes, behaviors and hierarchies it tries to dismantle. Leaders infrequently want to acknowledge this contradiction. Pride, narcissism, obliviousness all get in the way. Leaders must be self-reflective and willing to acknowledge the problems to move forward and shift their organization's culture. Is this easy? No. Is it essential? Yes.
What Can be Done?
Simple behaviors like learning about your staff, their interests, hobbies, families can go a long way. Allowing flexibility or work from home can demonstrate trust. Offering professional development can ensure your staff have access to opportunities that help them grow so they don't stay in the same job for 20 years without any advancement or innovation. Reflecting on how you communicate with your staff when you are upset about something and choosing to be constructive vs. destructive. Including staff in decisions that affect them, employing transparent processes for change, communicating what and why you are deciding something in a timely manner. These are all easy to implement and yet, so often forgotten. In the latter examples, research shows that when team members are included in a process and feel informed about the how and why, they are more likely to accept an outcome even if the outcome is not agreeable to them (Hicks et al., 2008; Wolff, 2002). When folks are shut out of the decision making process or information is hoarded and slow to disseminate, the end result is often a feeling of disempowerment.
But it's Lonely at the Top...
While the adage goes something like "life at the top is lonely" because leaders have to make the "hard" decisions nobody likes, I don't necessarily agree that it has to be this way. I also don't think many leaders make the "hard" decisions. How you choose to engage in the workplace and demonstrate the value your staff brings to the organization in many ways determines how lonely you feel. There will always be conflict, and certainly it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to please everyone all of the time. Yet, through transparent leadership and thoughtful management, leaders do have the capacity to minimize the negative impact on their staff and the sense of loneliness they might feel "at the top." Again, I think it is a choice. If you lead from a place of isolation (e.g.: making decisions on your own), then the likely result is your own sense of exclusion. If you lead from a place of inclusion, you will develop a culture that includes you rather than eschews you.
Communication
Communication is at the heart of all of this. Leaders are busy, and yet they must make time for communication. Transparent, engaged, and regular communication is critical for healthy organizations. If leaders communicate with their teams, team members will engage in the process, whatever it may be. If they feel excluded, they will likely disengage because "what's the point? My opinion doesn't matter." It is a cycle that only intentional, inclusive leadership can break:
1. Staff disengage because they feel their voice doesn't matter;
2. Leadership disengages from their staff, because they see and feel the disengagement;
3. Repeat.
Recently, a colleague sent me an article in the New York Times about building a perfect team. Essentially, it arrives at the need for psychological safety and communication within teams. When these are present, teams are highly functional no matter the personalities or experience level. The article states:
"In the best teams, members listen to one another and show sensitivity to feelings and needs."
(See: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?emc=eta1)
I still don't think any of this is rocket science and so many leaders and organizations struggle. I also know there are other factors that interface with what I have stated here such as structural impediments, inequity, and burn out. Still though, I believe that if leaders strive to be inclusive, communicate openly and often, the psychological safety the New York Times article talks about (derived from research at Google) can exist. Organizations and their leaders have to lay the ground work. Managing without intentionality and compassion breeds dysfunction, isolation, damage and stagnancy. No one really wins in those cases.
There are two areas I want to address in this blog: toxicity and stagnancy. Many of my friends are struggling with toxic bosses, stagnant or unhealthy work places. I have heard some horrendous stories that leave me wondering how these experiences are even allowed to occur. This is a persistent and enduring issue that arises constantly and I am sure you each have your own stories to share.
Toxic or Unhealthy Workplaces and Bosses
Many individuals have experienced wounding in their workplace, in some cases to the extreme where the psychological impact is long lasting, influencing their professional interactions in their future jobs. It is hard to unlearn the survival behaviors developed in an unhealthy workplace or to manage a toxic boss. This difficulty can sometimes prevent us from flourishing in a new environment. Unhealthy work environments and toxic bosses are debilitating and harmful, this we can all agree, and yet employees often feel powerlessness to change their situation.
Stagnant Employees or Workplaces
Employees who have been at organizations for years without support, professional development, or effective leadership just spin in the hamster wheel. Stagnancy, while not per se abusive, is also harmful to the personal motivation of an employee and to the growth of the organization. Stagnancy, like toxicity, permeates the organizational culture and becomes an accepted norm. This norm can be so pervasive that employees don't even realize things could be different. Leaders perpetuate stagnancy when they neglect their employees or the organizational culture. A lack of attention to community needs and organizational change can lead employees to wonder if change is even possible, leading many great employees to move on. Turnover is as much of a problem as a staff that never leaves. Both are symptomatic of something gone awry and require leaders to notice and commit to engaging in a change process to fix it.
It's Not that Difficult
What I come back to time and time again, is that being a thoughtful and compassionate leader, someone who values and collaborates with their employees, is not that difficult. While many leaders articulate agreement to inclusive leadership, they do not translate that to practice. The incongruence between what is spoken and what is done is sometimes deafening. Some leaders make the choice to manage people using a "power over" approach to leadership, based in distrust or a "leader knows best" philosophy. Others still, are just absent, or so conflict avoidant that they choose to let the chips fall where they may and take no responsibility for the inevitable dysfunction that arises.
In all these cases, someone is making a choice. It is a choice to be absent. It is a choice to treat your colleagues and supervisees with disrespect or aggression. It is a choice to avoid conflict. It is a choice to exclude your employees from decisions that affect them or the organization. How you choose to lead your organization matters.
How We Lead Matters
Leaders fall on multiple points of the management continuum, but there is no denying that how we choose to lead others has dramatic impact. In many of the examples I see or hear about, the hostility or stagnancy exists in spaces that espouse a position of social justice. The organization itself is oriented around addressing issues of marginalization and oppression externally and yet internally perpetuates some of the same attitudes, behaviors and hierarchies it tries to dismantle. Leaders infrequently want to acknowledge this contradiction. Pride, narcissism, obliviousness all get in the way. Leaders must be self-reflective and willing to acknowledge the problems to move forward and shift their organization's culture. Is this easy? No. Is it essential? Yes.
What Can be Done?
Simple behaviors like learning about your staff, their interests, hobbies, families can go a long way. Allowing flexibility or work from home can demonstrate trust. Offering professional development can ensure your staff have access to opportunities that help them grow so they don't stay in the same job for 20 years without any advancement or innovation. Reflecting on how you communicate with your staff when you are upset about something and choosing to be constructive vs. destructive. Including staff in decisions that affect them, employing transparent processes for change, communicating what and why you are deciding something in a timely manner. These are all easy to implement and yet, so often forgotten. In the latter examples, research shows that when team members are included in a process and feel informed about the how and why, they are more likely to accept an outcome even if the outcome is not agreeable to them (Hicks et al., 2008; Wolff, 2002). When folks are shut out of the decision making process or information is hoarded and slow to disseminate, the end result is often a feeling of disempowerment.
But it's Lonely at the Top...
While the adage goes something like "life at the top is lonely" because leaders have to make the "hard" decisions nobody likes, I don't necessarily agree that it has to be this way. I also don't think many leaders make the "hard" decisions. How you choose to engage in the workplace and demonstrate the value your staff brings to the organization in many ways determines how lonely you feel. There will always be conflict, and certainly it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to please everyone all of the time. Yet, through transparent leadership and thoughtful management, leaders do have the capacity to minimize the negative impact on their staff and the sense of loneliness they might feel "at the top." Again, I think it is a choice. If you lead from a place of isolation (e.g.: making decisions on your own), then the likely result is your own sense of exclusion. If you lead from a place of inclusion, you will develop a culture that includes you rather than eschews you.
Communication
Communication is at the heart of all of this. Leaders are busy, and yet they must make time for communication. Transparent, engaged, and regular communication is critical for healthy organizations. If leaders communicate with their teams, team members will engage in the process, whatever it may be. If they feel excluded, they will likely disengage because "what's the point? My opinion doesn't matter." It is a cycle that only intentional, inclusive leadership can break:
1. Staff disengage because they feel their voice doesn't matter;
2. Leadership disengages from their staff, because they see and feel the disengagement;
3. Repeat.
Recently, a colleague sent me an article in the New York Times about building a perfect team. Essentially, it arrives at the need for psychological safety and communication within teams. When these are present, teams are highly functional no matter the personalities or experience level. The article states:
"In the best teams, members listen to one another and show sensitivity to feelings and needs."
(See: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?emc=eta1)
I still don't think any of this is rocket science and so many leaders and organizations struggle. I also know there are other factors that interface with what I have stated here such as structural impediments, inequity, and burn out. Still though, I believe that if leaders strive to be inclusive, communicate openly and often, the psychological safety the New York Times article talks about (derived from research at Google) can exist. Organizations and their leaders have to lay the ground work. Managing without intentionality and compassion breeds dysfunction, isolation, damage and stagnancy. No one really wins in those cases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)