If you constantly find yourself to be the smartest person in every room you’re in, then you need to get you into some different rooms. And that’s the theme of this book: developing yourself or your people by getting out of the ‘room’ you’re in, getting out of your comfort zone, getting better at getting better, working out your change muscles and building up your reservoir of resilience so you’ve got them before you need them.
- Why you should be proactive about change and risk,
- Why most people aren’t, and
- How you can – how you can make a start, build momentum, muscle through when it gets tough and bring others along for the ride.
There is a real concern amongst leaders that their people are unfit for change. Being unfit for change leads to disengaged and burnt-out people who won’t develop themselves nor meet their goals. The lack of development and unmet goals further reinforces negativity and contributes to a downward spiral called ‘Change Extinction’. The more positive alternative choice (and it is a choice) is a pathway called ‘Change Evolution’.
You can start on your ‘Change Evolution’ path by reading this book, doing your own dangerous things, adapting your ‘Danger DNA’, and becoming ‘Change Fit’.
My podcast on structured behavioural event interviewing is my most popular. It’s not ‘soundtrack to a star is born’ popular but helping 11 people a day is a big deal for me (for now). It outlines some fundamental discipline to select people who fit with the potential to succeed. (You can hear it by clicking here).
Here are 9 solid questions that cover a lot of bases:
1. Tell me about the toughest decision you’ve had to make in the past six months.
2. Tell me about a major mistake you made, and what you did to correct it.
3. Tell me about the last time a customer or co-worker got upset with you.
4. Tell me about a time you knew you were right, but still had to follow directions or guidelines.
5. Tell me about the last time your workday ended before you were able to get everything done.
6. Tell me about a time you needed to motivate a co-worker.
7. Tell me about a time you had to raise an uncomfortable issue with your boss.
8. Tell me about a goal you achieved.
9. Tell me about a goal you failed to achieve.
Here’s the cheatsheet text downloadable from the podcast:
The Brain-Based Boss PodCast Episode 32:
Structured Behavioural Event Interviewing (SBEI)
- Develop clear, consistent selection criteria based on people who have been successful and happy in the role. Then, weight those criteria out of 10. Prep a decision matrix with those weighted criteria in anticipation of populating it with data out of your interview notes later.
- Based on those criteria, prepare some effective questions, each following a consistent structured pattern, designed to illicit examples of past behaviour of each of the selection criteria. Take ‘problem-solving’ as an example. “Tell me about a time when you’ve solved a problem”. What was it? What did you do? How did it turn out”? The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. Validating the answers to a sample of these questions can be part of any subsequent telephone reference checking.
- Conduct each interview, starting each with some purposeful ice-breaking questions before the prepped structured competency-based questions. This is to get them at ease and less-stressed so you get a more accurate view of them. Look to create connections between their passions and values, and those of the job. If it’s an architecture job, who is their favourite architect? Which building? Why? Me too – sort of thing. Then briefly outline how you’ll be using structured questions and why. Then proceed through your list of questions. Be prepared to be flexible if something astray crops up of interest but mainly stick to the prepared path, and ensure they do too.
- Debrief with any interview panel partners. Upload your notes and populate the decision matrix.
- SBEI should be part of an array of recruiting tools. A job interview by itself is at risk of being unrepresentative.
- Unless job interviewing for an imagination-based job, why rely on imagination-based questions? “Where do you see yourself in 5 years?” Pfft.
AND, in case you’re an interviewee rather than an interviewer, here’s a structure for you. It helps you handle things with more confidence when you need it, plus makes you seem very organised.
You can use the STAR interview method to prepare for behavioural interviews — a technique that helps you structure your response to behavioural interview questions. Using this method, you create a deliberate story arc that your interviewer can easily follow. Here’s how it works:
- Situation: What is the context of your story? In setting the situation, you are telling your listener when or where this event took place. For example, “We were working on a six-month contract for a high-value client, when our agency merged with another, larger firm…”
- Task: What was your role in this situation? For example, “It was my role to lead the transition for my group while also communicating with our client to keep the project on track.”
- Action: What did you do? For example, “I set up weekly check-ins with the client to update them on the progress of the merger. This cemented an important level of trust between us. I also had regular one-on-ones with each person on the team, both to assess how they were handling the change and to make sure we would meet our deadlines.”
- Result: What did your actions lead to? For example, “We ended up completing the project on time, meeting all of their specifications. It was incredibly rewarding to navigate a lot of change and succeed under pressure.”
With the upcoming release of my new book, I’m updating and relaunching my earlier books. The first is ‘Live Work Love: #Add10QualityYears’.
The book is available now on Amazon, down to $1 for a limited time at http://bit.ly/LiveWorkLove .
Our longevity, health and quality of life are due 30% to genetic luck and 70% to our choices and behaviours. We’re dealt some cards and this book is about how to play the best hand, given those cards we’ve been dealt. No one wants to live forever but most of us would like to get the most out of whatever we’ve got coming. The vast majority of us would like to keep on going until we don’t, not taper off to a long unhealthy tail-end of life. Regardless of how long we have, how do we stay healthier longer, optimise our happiness and make it all worthwhile?
Reviewing and summarising much of the recent research on life expectancy, quality of life and personal productivity, this book then focuses on adding ten productive years to your work life. (Work in the broadest sense of the word.)
Currently, there is a lot of concern and uncertainty about living longer with less money, poorer health and disconnected people. The baby boomers are the most significant moneyed demographic and they’re greying at a pace. Now is a time of unparalleled affluence and longevity, yet we are faced with low quality-of-life issues driven by stress, obesity and unwise lifestyle choices. Forget waiting for that illusive magic blue pill or silver bullet when we can do a few little things every day that add up to a massive high-quality chunk of extra life that funds itself.
The book provides 12 controls for people to nudge their lives towards a better direction by influencing our physical, mental and social lives.
The book is available now on Amazon, down to $1 for a limited time at http://bit.ly/LiveWorkLove .
For about a decade, I’ve been describing the colour of my hair as ‘salt and pepper’. It’s probably time I accepted that it’s now about ninety eight percent salt. (That might explain my blood pressure). Recently, I was in a conversation with a twenty-something who colloquially referred to Wednesday as ‘Weddy’ because apparently now days of the week require cool nicknames. (That might further explain my blood pressure). At my age, days of the week barely even require names at all. To me, there’s ‘today’, ‘tomorrow’ and ‘maybe if I’m lucky’. Just jokes folks. I’m not really a grumpy curmudgeon, as much as I’d like to be. Intergenerational communication would be so much simpler and easier if it was acceptable for me to shout, “Get off my lawn” at people in meetings in character as the last twelve movie roles played by Clint Eastwood.
I’ve never liked the term ‘workforce’. It implies either a militarily structured group with the archaic command-and-control model, or that people need to be forced to work. Entry to the workforce has traditionally come via afterschool part-time jobs like delivering newspapers. It won’t be long until actual paper newspapers are a thing of the past like VCRs, perms and the correct use of apostrophes. It’s not quite the same zooming along on your bike hurling iPads at lawns and mailboxes, especially if that iPad hits windows. (I was going to attempt some humour around iPads and Windows software, but it got all too confusing and hard work – a bit like Windows).
Leaving aside actual specific and technical work skills, these little pre-entry-level jobs introduced young people to concepts and attitudes that school may have struggled to do. (Like what prepositions not to end a sentence with). Comedian Mitch Hedberg commented that, as a child, his job required him to have the discipline and work ethic to deliver newspapers to three hundred homes or one dumpster. Among these concepts would be self-discipline, punctuality, perseverance, goal-setting and getting along with people.
Calling paper-delivery a job is perhaps a convenient and romantic rose-coloured recollection. It might be more accurate and helpful to frame such roles as the shallow end of the self-employed sub-contractor pool. Given that such ‘jobs’ were often volume-based and geographically defined, they might be considered precursors to franchises. Maybe apart from income and job skills, they stimulated and reinforced behaviours that might benefit a future entrepreneur or self-employed contractor in a future virtual team? Are young people really garnering the same from becoming an instagram influencer?
Being on-call and part of a casual pool was not what was envisioned when the powers-that-were set things up around the time of the industrial revolution. Back then, workers were mere cogs in the machine. Sometimes that was metaphorical with human labour being routinised and commoditised. Sometimes, with the deplorable lack of care afforded to human health and safety, people may have literally ended up with cogs in machines. With urbanisation and industrialisation, business lobbyists and Governments composed another production line – that of children in schools being processed into workers to join factories. The schools were, in effect, education factories and the students were the products. They’d get just enough education to enable them to be able to be productive but not so much that they’d get revolutionary. There were no stages between student and worker, and there were minimal options other than working or not working. The paperboy and matchsticks girl were legit options back then right up until they became caricatures in Dickensian musicals as foils to someone usually named ‘guvnor’.
A recent Government-funded report found an ‘attitude gap’ between employers and young potential employees. They noted the gap is self- perpetuating. Bad experiences equal more disengagement for both employers and young people. The ‘gap’ is more than just attitude, but a complex clash of norms and expectations, as well as ethnic and generational differences that occur throughout the employment journey. I want to focus in on one key insight from the report and link it back to my lament of the loss of paper delivery job types. Employment expectations and ambitions of young people are built through the experiences they have early on, so having positive connections with employers is important for building ambition and networks for young people. (It’s not what you know, it’s who you know).
As with most of these attitude gaps in society, be they employer vs employee, young vs old, your culture vs that other culture, a pretty effective means of addressing it is exposure. What can be done to get employers and potential employers in front of the youth who want a job and don’t want to be stranded as part of the gig economy delivering newspapers, selling matchsticks or instagramming harmful diet products? There’s work to be done and questions to be asked. Why, for example, when I’m writing about the challenges of the old accepting the new does spellcheck refuse to accept the word ‘instagramming’? It turns out, spellcheck will accept it but only with a capital I. No! Get off my lawn Instagram!!
More at www.2dangerousthingsayear.com
Social media platforms are rightly being criticised in the wake of the Christchurch tragedy. The good elements of social media are great. The bad are horrific. Being social is an essential part of being human. Collective social effort is what kept us alive when we emerged from caves. Together we protected ourselves from predators and together we hunted and fed more effectively. Soulless corporations are not humans, even if they try to individualise themselves to a Jack or a Zuck or a Tom. (Whatever happened to Tom?)
The social connectivity mega social tech companies enable has industrialised and created a scale that humans are not used to or meant for. Some thinkers reckon we are best in a group of about one hundred. Some more dangerous thinkers would prefer that the hundred would be people we pick and choose or people we are like. I reckon homogeneity is a risk and diversity is a strength. Diverse perspectives and skills strengthen the group, even if it needs a bit more effort to manage. This is true of workteams as it was of our cave groups millennia ago. It’s true of of our social groups now. How are yours?
Please don’t stop critiquing the effort, motivations and performance of Jack and Zuck. It’s woefully inadequate and clearly tremendously damaging, despite the best efforts of their PR damage-control crews. But we are not blameless. Our eyes, clicks, shares and purchases drive their behaviour. When a beloved celebrity is killed in a car crash being chased by paparazzi, the driver and the photographers are very much to blame. But so too is anyone who ever bought a magazine or clicked a link with one of those photos. We may only be individuals but we contribute. Our contribution may be small but collectively and socially they add up. And they have consequences.
Our shares are probably well-intentioned. The photo at the top of this post is a widely shared leadership meme. The basic oft-repeated refrain is that wolfpacks are led by the weakest wolves because they look after them and great teams care about everyone etc. Insert your own glib cliche. It sounds great. Who wouldn’t want that to be true? Who wouldn’t instantly and unthinkingly just click ‘like’ or ‘share’ or ‘retweet’? Who would waste 90 seconds checking it first? It isn’t true. Wolves are wild animals and they are not tree-hugging hippies. It’s made up but it is so on-shared that many people just accept it. Even when confronted with the evidence, the response is often defensive, justifying it on the basis that it’s just a metaphor. The same goes for uncited motivational quotations. Or your friends who constantly fall for those chain posts about FaceBook privacy etc.
I’m guilty of this. I’m trying to be less so. We could all at least try. Then we can focus our criticism on Jack and Zuck with a clearer conscience, and sort out their taxes too.
It’s a small step from inaccurate motivational wolf memes that aren’t true to ‘fake news’ stories and gossip. We shared these in our tribes of 100 and when they turned out to be fake, only a small number of people had their feelings hurt a little bit. Now when we do it by the millions, the consequences can be devastating and severe.
I’m not saying don’t ‘like’ and ‘share’. I am suggesting we all pause and ask a few quick and simple questions. Stop. Think. Act.
Thank you for your time. Please share this post.
SUBSCRIBE TO TERRY’S MONTHLY EMAIL
Sign up now and receive a link to download a free pdf copy of my first book ‘The Guide: How to kiss, get a job & other stuff you need to know’. Once a month you’ll get a single email digest of the articles, posts and updates from Terry Williams – The People Engagement Expert. Laugh & Learn! https://www.terrywilliams.info/signup-to-newsletter
What is a ‘BackBrief’? I first encountered the concept running a delegation workshop for a prestigious lawfirm.
The point of delegation is to drive optimal productivity, right. The lowest cost resource that can do the work should be assigned to do that work. The high-cost resources such as the partners, specialists and so forth should be doing high value work. Those in supervisory roles need to be delegating effectively, using systems to ensure work is done to standard, to time, and on budget.
There’s a lot that I could write about delegation and perhaps will in future but, for now, I want to focus in on one person. That person is a senior solicitor in that firm. He knew at a logical level that he should be delegating but his personality was such that he struggled. “No one can do this as well as me”. “Even if someone could do this as well as me, it won’t be the way that I would do it”. “Look, it’s just quicker and easier if I do it myself”.
Obviously those are just excuses and you can probably counter those excuses yourself. It’s short-term thinking, ultimately unsustainable, and certainly not optimal productivity. He was however able to cite several instances where he’d assigned work that ended up being poorly done, or not done at all, due to a lack of understanding on the part of the people being assigned the work. You could argue that adult professionals should not go around nodding that they can do a task when they aren’t sure. You could assign blame to the delegator who is ultimately still accountable for the work and its quality and timeliness. Better is to implement a simple system that invests a small amount of time upfront that ensures there is accurate understanding or there isn’t. Another lawyer in the room was ex-military and she introduced us all to the concept of the ‘BackBrief’.
A ‘BackBrief‘ is exactly what it sounds like. The person or people receiving the instructions give a synopsis of the instructions they just received. The person originally giving the instructions can then determine whether the message was received properly. If it’s a small task, then the ‘BackBrief’ might be a swift verbal remark. If it’s a task of substance, then it might warrant some time and a small presentation.
It’s a great idea I’ve been introducing in my workshops that a lot of professional non-military workplaces are picking up on.
At the end of last year and into this fresh new year, I’ve been running some workshops with a big corporate on critical thinking. The emphasis is not so much about the mechanical elements like models, tools and processes, although they do prove popular. The intent is much more about creating, maintaining and supporting a culture that is friendly to critical thinking and thinkers. They’d like a ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ kind of vibe.
Like any organisation attempting to bolster its stock of skills, there are a few ways of going about it. Training is an obvious one and, as a trainer by trade, I am not going to talk you out of that. Depending on the money you’ve got to throw around as an incentive and what time pressures you’re under, another option is to recruit or outsource that skill. What if we’re not talking about the skill of critical thinking though; what if we’re talking about the critical thinking attitude? Do we recruit that? Could we outsource it? Is it even possible to train it?
Before we tackle these questions, let me start by saying the moment you reveal to any trainees a bunch of critical thinking tools, they may well have the intention of applying these on serious strategic and operational work issues and projects but that’s not the first thing they think might benefit from the tools. People default to their personal lives and decision matrices, forcefield analyses and cause-effect diagrams get applied to wedding plans, house purchases and to relationships (both forwards and retrospectively). I swear there is a fortune to be made for critical thinking trainers in relationship decision-making, although that is a workshop I definitely do not want to run!
All jokes and broken marriages aside, providing tools that normal people can see as relevant and applicable to their personal and work lives is one element of nurturing a culture. Get enough people engaged like that and you generate noise and interest. Soon there is a critical mass and a tipping point. It’s less some weird new thing that we learned on a course that we use on special occasions; it’s become more of ‘the way things are done around here’.
Yes, you can train it. Yes, you could accelerate the process by recruiting it. As long as you are adding competencies like teamwork, customer service, and problem solving to your list when recruiting, would one more hurt? The trick in the tale though is if you recruit critical thinkers or people inclined to do so, but then once they arrive it becomes clear quickly that critical thinking is not the ways things are done around here. Training is not going to solve anything other than a skill issue. What would be helpful is some role modelling and structural elements that make critical thinking part of business as usual. When newbies witness someone sticking their head above the parapet to critique something in a healthy way, what happens next is a powerful and essential indicator of the extent to which they’ll ever stick their own head up. As part of any onboarding / induction process, it would be helpful to create or immerse new arrivals into situations or simulations where people do apply critical thinking and their input gets acknowledged, addressed and perhaps even rewarded.
When you google the term ‘critical thinking’, the top three results are: what are the five critical thinking skills; what are the six critical thinking skills; what are the seven critical thinking skills. Are critical thinking skills like razors? They just keep adding another blade as some never-ending marketing game of chicken? I think the ‘five people’ should talk to the ‘seven’ people. I think a critical component of critical thinking isn’t the comprehensiveness of the toolkit nor the 5-7 skills required. I think it’s the ability to better understand the way we think and the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of getting to our conclusions. That requires a self-awareness or a desire for a self-awareness that should be aimed for in recruiting, supported during onboarding and boosted via subsequent training and practical application and reinforcement.
It’s fantastic that for years we’ve been able to walk into parent-teacher meetings in many New Zealand primary schools and see DeBono’s six thinking hats posters on the wall. (Look it up). A classic critical thinking tool being used by educators across a society to enable kids to think critically and examine ideas from differing perspectives if they choose to do so. (That’s the trick, especially during election time). Kids, the employees of tomorrow with ever changing and expanding content need to know how to think not just what to think today. I’m not sure how many boardrooms or planning spaces have those posters. The google debate rages over whether there are five or six or seven critical thinking skills but there are always only ever six thinking hats.
Find out more about getting ‘Change Fit’ and advancing your own ‘Change Evolution’ at www.2dangerousthingsayear.com
Here is an excerpt from my book ‘Live Work Love: #Add10QualityYears’. Available on Amazon.
“Relationships come and go but friends are for life.” – Somebody that I used to know
The British Medical Journal in August 1999 published a study of 3000 people aged over 65 that they followed for 13 years. The study tracked their participation in activities such as swimming, walking, shopping, volunteer work, social group activities and so forth. It transpires that social engagement is the best medicine.
Thomas Glass at Harvard’s School of Public Health studied 2761 people over 13 years and their socialising, concluding that it could increase longevity by 20%. As the Harvard Gazette put it, “Scientists are always coming up with ways for older people to live healthier and longer lives, such as doing exercises they can’t or don’t want to do. Now, researchers have found an easier way: people 65 years and older can extend their lives by doing things that are easy and enjoyable, like going to church or movies, shopping, gardening, and even playing bingo.”
“Such activities should not replace exercise,” Glass cautions, “but exclusive emphasis on exercise may be overly narrow. It is clear from our study that social engagement can have as much effect on prolonging life as fitness activities.” The smart move at whatever age is to double up and participate in exercise-based social activities. Notice now the massive increase in the popularity of group sessions at gyms and with personal trainers. It’s not just another way for gyms to charge multiple people at once instead of a single-customer personal training session. The evidence suggests you might get as much benefit from the interaction as from the exertion. The exercises might change by the time you’re 70 but the social benefits remain the same.
The Harvard Gazette went on to report that Glass admits he doesn’t know precisely why. However, he believes that keeping social and busy “evokes changes in the brain that protect against cognitive decline. This, in turn, influences physical processes regulated by the brain such as cellular immunity or mobilizing the body’s defences against disease.”
In other research, Glass and two colleagues tracked the effect of social disengagement on 2,812 people 65 years and older for 12 years. They found the odds of experiencing cognitive decline were approximately twice as great in those reporting no social ties than in those who had frequent contact with relatives and friends, attended religious services, or participated in regular social activities.
Another study revealed that rats who sustain brain injury and who socialize and have fun during recovery do much better than those who are socially isolated, even when both groups receive optimum physical care. This is why I’m not a scientist – I don’t know what rats do for fun.
We get influenced by the habits of our friends. We get a sense of belonging, purpose and self worth. It also works the other way though. For example, 56% of people trying to eat healthily will eat crap to avoid insulting a host, boss, client or family member. 51% will eat crap to fit in with the group. So, it pays to choose our friends wisely and ‘audit’ your ongoing value to each other.
If you have a best friend at work, you are seven times more likely to feel engaged in your job.
Friends have a powerful social influence. For one obvious example, be observant the next time you’re out for dinner with a group of friends and you get to that point of the evening when the waiter or waitress shows up and asks, “Would anyone like to see the dessert menu?” I’d gotten into the habit of saying something witty about just having a look, or at least something as witty as I was capable of after however much wine had entered my system before dessert. (ie most of it.) Now, I shut up and watch. You should too. The most common group dynamic when that question is asked is a fleeting flurry of eye contact amongst all members of the table. Each member of the group is determining their response to the question based on their perception of the likely reaction of everyone else. Again, the first person to react over-influences the subsequent responses of everyone else.
The restaurants know this. It is in their interest to sell more desserts and to keep you drinking the higher profit margin drinks, and if you stay for dessert, you’ll be there longer and you’ll get more drinks. Again, observe the waiter or waitress. They do not just ask the general group of people at the table a question. The question is directed at the person they think is most likely to answer, “Yes.” Just like lions hunting gazelles, the restaurants prey on the weakest member of the herd. And, in your group of friends, you all know who that is. If you don’t, it’s you.
Psychological priming is where a behaviour can be steered by exposure to a previous stimulus. Give two groups of research participants free cookies while filling in a fake quiz but expose one group to the smell of cleaning products and you’ll find the clean smell-primed group tidies up their crumbs and plates twice as often. The social influence of friends and menu choices is a form of priming. But priming doesn’t work if you know it is happening. So, armed with this knowledge, take a bit more control over what you consume and spend. Tell your friends. That’s what friends are for.
In a very recent piece of research, ‘Bad Boys: The Effect of Criminal Identity on Dishonesty,’ Alain Cohn, Michel Andre Marechal, and Thomas Noll reveal a potential negative application of priming effects that you and I might be able to flip and use with our friends to more positive ends. In a maximum security prison they had prisoners privately toss coins and then say how many times the coin landed heads. The more heads turned up, the more money the prisoners got paid. The researchers couldn’t tell if any single prisoner was honest or dishonest but they did know that on average heads comes up half the time, so they can assess in aggregate how much lying there is. Before the study, they had half the prisoners answer the question “What were you convicted for?” and the other half “How many hours per week do you watch television on average?” The result: 66% heads in the treatment where they ask about convictions and “only” 60% heads in the TV treatment. Being reminded or primed about their dishonesty drove greater dishonesty in their behaviour.
How dishonest are prisoners versus everyday people? When they play the same game with regular citizens, the coin supposedly comes up heads 56% of the time. Most people are also dishonest but less so than primed or unprimed prisoners.
Flipping this notion of priming, we need to find ways of subtly ‘reminding’ ourselves or our loved ones that we are the sort of person who behaves in ways that support us in boosting our healthy and productive lifestyles. This would vary from person to person and over time. One suggestion might be agreeing to exchange a daily text at an agreed time with a buddy. Nothing arduous, mentally taxing, syrupy or faux motivational – just some words about whatever it is you’re trying to support each other on. Remind them that they are whatever they need to be. Routinise it and prioritise it.
A University of Virginia study looked at participants sent out to estimate the steepness of a hill before setting out to climb it with a weighted backpack. Half the participants had a friend with them and half did not. Those with friends guessed lower steepness levels and the longer the friendships with their climbing companions, the greater the underestimation of steepness. Having a friend with you not only lowers your stress levels as we’ve identified earlier, it makes the task ahead seem less foreboding. And we know how our perceptions and preconceptions can affect us physically.
Even if your buddy and you end up in a debate over things, that’s not inherently bad. In fact, it is really only your good friends with whom you can genuinely argue and care about the meaning of the result. Arguments with friends stimulate the plasticity of the brain. Surround yourself with people with helpful values, not necessarily the same as yours. Identify your ‘inner circle.’ Be likeable. Create time and opportunities to be together.
If you want to broaden or replace your social circuit, here are some tips:
- Walk your dog (or child.) At least, they’ll be good conversation starters,
- Work out,
- Do lunch,
- Accept the next 3 invitations you get regardless,
- Attend community events,
- Take classes,
- Fake a faith. (Faith is like sincerity, in that if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.)
Social isolation is a major risk factor. Having no friends or low-interaction friends is as bad as smoking 15 cigarettes a day, as dangerous as being an alcoholic and twice as harmful as obesity. In a six-year study of 736 middle-age Swedish men, attachment to a single person didn’t appear to affect the risk of heart attack and fatal coronary heart disease, but having friendships did. Only smoking was as important a risk factor as lack of social support.
The New York Times reported on some sub-research by a pair of social scientists named Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler using the information collected over the years by the Framingham Heart Study. Founded in 1948 by the National Heart Institute, the study follows more than 15,000 Framingham residents and their descendants, bringing them in to a doctor’s office every four years, on average, for a comprehensive physical. By analysing the Framingham data, Christakis and Fowler say, they have for the first time found some solid basis for a potentially powerful theory in epidemiology: that good behaviours, like quitting smoking or staying slender or being happy, pass from friend to friend almost as if they were contagious viruses. The Framingham participants, the data suggested, influence each another’s health just by socializing. And the same was true of bad behaviours — clusters of friends appeared to “infect” each other with obesity, unhappiness and smoking. Staying healthy isn’t just a matter of your genes and your diet, it seems. Good health is also a product, in part, of your sheer proximity to other healthy people.
You don’t need a lot of friends but you do need the right ones.
So next time you suggest to someone that you become ‘friends with benefits’, be sure to stress that you mean health benefits…
“Anybody can sympathise with the sufferings of a friend, but it requires a very fine nature to sympathise with a friend’s success.” – Oscar Wilde
That was an excerpt from my book ‘Live Work Love: #Add10QualityYears’. Available on Amazon.
Here’s an excerpt from my latest book ‘2 Dangerous Things A Year: Your ‘Change Evolution to get ‘Change Fit”. There are four stages in a person or team’s progress in evolving their change readiness: ‘Change Sloth’, ‘Change Strain’, ‘Change Workouts’, and ‘Change Fit’. Available on Amazon in paperback or Kindle. Sign up for a monthly email summarising posts like these.
One example of a practice that may indicate you’ve entered the ‘Change Workouts’ stage is ‘Workplace Exaptation’. Exaptation is an evolutionary term for adaptations that evolved for one reason but later turned out to be useful for other things. Bird feathers originally were for warmth and attracting mates. It was only subsequently that they assisted in flight. There are plenty of Exaptation examples in business and workplaces too – what I call, ‘Workplace Exaptation’. Viagara, for example, was originally developed as a heart medication.
Another significant benefit of taking a more proactive stance on change, trying new things, or doing 2 dangerous things a year, is that you test many small ideas. Even if those ideas don’t initially work out or seem to amount to much, you still have those ideas. Keep them. Store them clearly and logically so they’re retraceable for future reference.
Both my kids worked their way through high school and much of university at the same local supermarket. That store had an idea. The idea even had a name – ‘Fresh Eyes’. Originally, and very successfully, the idea was that the weekly audit walk by managers required in their departments assessing things against a prescribed checklist should be rotated so that the audit walk was still conducted each week, in turn, but a different manager did it of a different department. It lessened the danger of over-familiarity and assumptions so they wouldn’t see the wood for the trees.
The idea worked (and works) great so they could quite reasonably have left it at that and patted themselves on the back. But they didn’t. They asked themselves – if this is such a great idea, where else might it be applied. ‘Workplace Exaptation’ in action.
They took that original idea of responsibility rotation and ‘Fresh Eyes’ and used it with job interviews. My son was employed in the seafood section. He was originally interviewed by someone from HR, not because they were from HR but because it was their turn. Next, it was someone from Produce, a less-experienced supervisor. They had fresh eyes and a different perspective on my son, plus it gave the interviewer some experience. Win-win! Lastly, he was interviewed by the manager of the seafood department. It’s a robust process structuring-in diverse perspectives, yet retaining consistency with a prescribed checklist. Successful ‘Workplace Exaptation’ in action.
If you’re curious as to the extent to which your personality’s natural predisposition towards risk is contributing to being a handbrake or an accelerator on your progress, you can take my online assessment and find out. It’s at www.amIdangerous.com .
More at www.2dangerousthingsayear.com
I was pondering analogies to help me start writing this article. (If you don’t know what an analogy is, it’s like a simile or a metaphor. An analogy is comparable to metaphor and simile in that it shows how two different things are similar, but it’s a bit more complex. Rather than a figure of speech, an analogy is more of a logical argument).
Analogy is a great joke-writing mechanism. If comedy pixies sprinkle their inspiration dust on comedy writers and jokes just occur to them, then that’s great but inspiration is fickle. If you’re hosting the concrete awards then you need twenty original concrete jokes in a hurry and that can be hard, um ,challenging. So, writers develop systems to prompt the elusive creative juices. Edward DeBono, in his book ‘Serious Creativity’ wrote about how many of these same creative processes can also be applied to innovation and problem solving in a workplace context.
One common comedy creation approach is to brainstorm around a topic and list those things which are both similar to, or different from, that topic. Recently, when the news was all about a property developer’s proposed plan for a flash new waterfront stadium for Auckland, I applied that technique to create a joke. Jokes can be simply entertaining, or at least attempts to be entertaining, or they can also make a point. The point I wanted to make was that ambitious plans by private folk for public projects are notorious for big promises up front followed by cost escalations. You could write a thousand-word editorial about it or you can make the same point impactfully in an accessible joke, such as “The proposed Auckland waterfront stadium is estimated to cost 1.8 billion dollars. Although, that is just a ballpark figure”.
My theme for this article is the workplace environment, so let’s analogise the workplace environment with the environment per se. If life is like a race and finding the best employees is like looking for a needle in a haystack, then maybe the workplace environment is like the actual environment?
The environment is everything that is around us. It can be living or non-living things. It includes physical, chemical and other natural forces. Living things live in their environment. They constantly interact with it and adapt themselves to conditions in their environment. Sounds like work to me.
Fun fact: In 2011, Matthew Davis, a psychologist and business professor at the University of Leeds, reviewed more than a hundred studies on workplace environments. His findings conclude that the noise and interruptions by colleagues in open offices had a negative effect on employees’ productivity, creativity and satisfaction. I work with a couple of big firms that have taken up brand new premises recently. They had every opportunity and the budget to pour over all the research on how workplace environment affects productivity and retention. They chose modern technology and it’s all very shiny. One choice interests me. They did their maths and found that on average only eighty percent of their people were in the building at any one point in time. Why, therefore, should they provide enough workspace for all one hundred percent? They provided space for just over eighty percent. Oh, and it’s all open plan. This goes beyond hotdesking and into ‘Lord Of The Flies’ territory as people battle for primo real estate as they arrive. Not to be confused with ‘Lord Of The Fries’ which would be a welcome addition to any workplace environment.
‘Lord Of The Fries’ claim to aim for ethical fast food, including sustainability. Noble intent. Some workplaces are going for that too. Recycling grey water, solar panels and providing homes for bees on their roofs, these firms not only want to have noble intent, it is very important that everyone knows they have noble intent. I think this is wise. Sure, talented potential employees comparing firms competing for their talent will think prospects, remuneration and skill development but, all those things being equal, this aspect of workplace environment could be a difference maker. Carbon neutral could be employee positive.
Earlier I wrote that creativity can be stimulated. The environment can do this, or it can suppress it. In researching a presentation on creativity, I found a survey of executives ranking the locations where ideas were first come up with. In last place was ‘the office’. In first place was ‘travelling’. In second place was ‘the bath’. I found a chap who was a former bigwig in an international advertising agency based in London. They had a big map into which they would push pins to mark the geographical location where every account-winning idea was first concocted. Again, in last place was ‘the office’. In first place was ‘the pub across the street’. All of this certainly has implications for workplace environment. If nothing else, it’ll give the twenty percent who couldn’t find a desk somewhere to go with some justification.
Learn how to move people towards change at 2dangerousthingsayear.com
More ideas at http://gettingbetterbuyin.com/