In the early 1900s we were an industrial nation and needed 40 hours of work to produce a widget. Today we are an informational age and sadly people are working 60 hours or more a week. Something is wrong with that culture but it can be fixed when managers understand what keeps people healthy and productive, when they understand there is life outside of work.

Organizational culture

A Manager’s Job Is Making Sure Employees Have a Life Outside Work

 

by Arjun Dev Aurora and Raman Frey

March 25, 2016

A young man with cancer at our Silicon Valley firm requested additional sick time for post-cancer treatments and checkups.

Another employee, one who had been born in Vietnam and came to this country with his parents, requested one day per month when he would work remotely. He would return to south central Los Angeles to work a double shift at his parents’ liquor store. Setting up his laptop there meant that his parents could take a brief break from their sixteen-hour days.

Perhaps these seem like reasonable requests that any humane manager would approve. And in both cases, as their supervisors, we did grant these requests.

And yet more often than not, the unspoken rules of “killing it” here in Silicon Valley might prevent people like these from even mentioning their needs to their managers. If you’re not sleeping under your desk, you’re not committed — an attitude we sometimes refer to as “martyr capitalism.”

It’s not just that we want our employees and collaborators to get their jobs done — that’s a given — we want to see them thrive both in and out of the workplace. It’s a magnanimous attitude with no self-evident ROI, and brings to mind Gary Vaynerchuk’s quip with a venture capital professional who was quizzing him on the worthiness of his new business. She kept repeating, “But what is the ROI on this spend?” and he finally snapped and retorted, “What’s the ROI on your mother?!” In other words, not all the value of a company can be quantified.

Instead of being penalized for needing time to process a difficult life change or illness — or even to attend a child’s soccer game — we believe managers should encourage taking the time to have a rich life outside of the cube.

We have both found that encouraging employees to be creative and independent — not obedient soldiers taking orders down the chain of command — makes everyone feel like they have a stake in a positive outcome. Recent research backs this up.

An HBR.org piece from earlier this year references a University of Michigan research study, which found that employees thrive when working in an atmosphere that is “positive and virtuous,” including being treated with respect and compassion, as well as being appreciated for the value for their contributions. Kindness can reinforce competence and lead to greater success. People who are treated kindly and with respect literally operate more from their pre-frontal cortex, associated with nuanced decision making, creativity and abstract thinking, rather than their amygdala, associated with the fight or flight response.

A mean boss may get short-term results, but sows the seeds for long-term systemic failure, as has been shown by Stanford’s Emma Seppala and Georgetown School of Business’s Christine Porath in her research.

We are convinced that a team characterized by trust, respect and admiration, working 40-hour work weeks, will outperform a similarly competent team characterized by fear, mistrust and scarcity thinking, frantically “being productive” 80 hours per week. The statistical evidence overwhelmingly supports that more than 50 hours per week leads to diminished returns.

Fear is not the same as respect, and kindness is not the inverse of competence People who believe their work truly benefits others and who are treated with respect in the workplace simply produce better results.

For managers who would like to move away from a pressure- and fear-based system to a more human way of leading, we suggest the following:

• Get clear on your “why.” Not the what or the how of delivering your product or service, but the deep intrinsic need that’s being met, your own motives and the feelings you create for customers.
• Understand what really matters to someone, whether an entry-level team member straight out of school or a veteran entrepreneur. Seek to understand what they really care about. This may sound obvious, but in the midst of pressure for deliverables, it’s often forgotten.
• Give to givers. Take time to give to folks who give, be cautious of people who always take.
• Give to takers as well. But in moderation and only if it’s immediate and urgent.
• Join communities of people who share your values about work, and meet with them frequently. Help one another as much as you can. The benefits may not be instant or self-evident, but there is cumulative power in ensuring that everyone thrives.

---

Arjun Dev Arora is currently an Entrepreneur in Residence at 500Startups and a co-founder of Immediately, a mobile platform that helps free sales people from their desks and laptops. Previously, he was Chairman and Founder of Retargeter (acquired in 2015) and worked in business development at Yahoo! He advised on M&As and IPOs for various technology companies at investment bank Jefferies Broadview. Arjun is also a notable angel investor and startup advisor.

---

Raman Frey is founder of Good People, a social club that fosters community, trust and friendship through food, drink and conversation. He was co-founder of Frey Norris Gallery and has recently contributed in sales, branding and marketing roles at Cronos CCS, Artkick, Collaborative Advantage and other technology startups. His writing appears regularly on Medium.

Whether your business is small or large, whether it has three employees or 3000, creativity is an important seed to organizational growth. It is one thing having creative individuals working for you and another thing entirely to have groups of people working creatively not as individuals, but as the group collective. Often thought to be an individual expression, creativity by a group can be even more dynamic. A Harvard Business Review article explores the topic.

Resolving the Paradox of Group Creativity

by Andre Walton

Researchers have been studying creativity for more than 150 years, yet it still remains elusive. We’re not much closer to understanding what it is exactly that sparks unique ideas. One reason for this lack of insight may be that so much research has looked at the wrong things. Until quite recently, creativity has been studied from the assumption that it is a function of particular individuals and their characteristics.

Researchers have asked, “What is it about certain people that causes unique ideas to emerge from their minds?” But some students of creativity are now beginning to realize that this question ignores other critical factors that can promote or inhibit novel thought patterns that lead to unique, creative works.

One of the fundamental drives that motivates people in their careers and personal pursuits is the need to be distinctive — to leave a mark on the world through personal achievements. In Art and Artist, psychoanalyst Otto Rank suggests that people’s desire to be creative stems from their need to feel immortal, symbolically at least, and to leave their indelible mark on future generations in the form of artworks. If Rank is to be believed, this drive to be unique may be the primary motivation for many of us to follow a path of creativity.

On the other hand, we humans are a mass of contradictions, and there’s another drive that has the potential to undermine our motivation to seek uniqueness: our need for connection with others. As psychologist Abraham Maslow suggested, we all need to belong to groups, to feel, to be seen, and to have things in common with others. Those who do not fulfill this need to belong may have considerably less resilience in terms of emotional stability; the link between creativity and “poor mental health” has been well documented and may stem from this underlying sense of being an “outlier.”

When we’re group-oriented, enjoying the safety and sense of companionship that group membership provides, it is our similarity to others that is salient. And when we’re indulging in our need for individuality, enjoying a sense of uniqueness, it’s our dissimilarity from others that is critical. As my own research has shown, this dissimilar condition is what helps us explore cognitive paths that are different from those trodden before — either by us or by those around us.

These two intrinsic, human drives operate in opposite directions, with our sense of group membership encouraging cognitive processes similar to other group members and undermining the motivation to think uniquely — that is, undermining creativity itself.

Several studies lend practical support to this theoretical notion. In times of trauma or potential stress, we tend to gravitate toward being with others, identifying closely with our in-groups, by flying the national flag or going to church more often. But creativity seems to decrease under these circumstances.

So when you’re managing a team or working in a group, what can you do to help foster creative thinking?

In team settings, the “group vs. individuality” dynamic depends on whether the team has a collectivist orientation, where the good of the group is expected to prevail, or an individualist orientation, when it is expected that individuals will strive for their own benefit and that of their immediate families. It’s no coincidence that the U.S., arguably one of the most individualist countries in the world, is also the most creative in terms of patents generated, innovation, and scientific research publications. The result of individualists working within an individualist culture, then, is likely to be a high level of innovation.

However, let’s consider a Portuguese or Asian culture — both highly collectivist, compared to the U.S. — such as a Portuguese subsidiary of a U.S. multinational. It’s not uncommon for the parent company to “import” its underlying corporate modus operandi into the environment of its subsidiaries, sometimes as a matter of policy but sometimes simply because management teams from the central office have set up the structure and practices of the subsidiary. Under these circumstances, employees drawn from the local community can find themselves in a collectivist environment at home but in an individualist workplace.

The implications for creativity become difficult to predict under circumstances like these. While more research is needed to determine how these “hybrid” circumstances affect creativity, it’s reasonable to assume that people will adapt to different cultural norms in different circumstances.

A further example of how the group-versus-individual dynamic affects creativity is the act of brainstorming. During the last half of the 20th century, companies that wanted to encourage creative thinking relied on brainstorming and team building as important tools in their toolkit. But in both situations it’s the group that becomes important, which is perhaps the reason why brainstorming has never fulfilled its original promise.

When advertising executive Alex Osborn popularized brainstorming in the 1953 book Applied Imagination, he predicted that it would double the number of ideas that a group of people would generate in response to a problem or challenge. However, it proved not to live up to his expectations. As later research showed, brainstorming actually reduces the number of ideas a group produces when compared with the number of ideas that can be generated by those same individuals on their own.
So if you can’t rely on brainstorming and teamwork to elicit more creative ideas, what can you do?

One remedy is to make sure that individuals have plenty of space for individual contemplation and input. In a brainstorming situation, this might mean having group members take time to generate ideas on their own (not in the immediate environment of other group members). Individuals can then come back together to share their ideas and discuss how their individual contributions relate to the task at hand. They may diverge one or more times to generate ideas that build upon the original contributions. In our everyday work environments, this ability to find personal time and space to think is crucial to enabling creative thought.

But even when given the space and freedom to flourish, creativity can be an elusive and fragile phenomenon, which can be affected by factors such as leadership style, stress, and organizational culture. A corporate philosophy that lets people know it’s OK to be creative is critical, as is leadership that promotes the notion that everyone’s creative contribution will be taken seriously. Given the importance of innovation in contemporary organizations, isn’t it time we all started taking creativity more seriously?

---

Andre Walton is a visiting professor of creativity and entrepreneurship at the University of South Wales. He’s also the author of Embracing the New Era: Managing oneself and others into the era of creativity.

Often, new organizational leadership comes in and feels a need to "shake things up" in an effort to make what they believe to be positive changes. But there needs to be sense to the change management equal to the development of those new leaders charged with enacting it. A new Harvard Business Review article discusses why they need to mesh.

 

 

Change Management and Leadership Development Have to Mesh

 

By Ryan W. Quinn & Robert E. Quinn

January 07, 2016

 

Leadership development and change management tend to be top priorities for many organizations. In spite of this, a majority of organizations tend to fall far short of their goals for both. One major reason organizations struggle is because they treat both leadership development and change management as separate rather than interrelated challenges. Cultural changes cannot happen without leadership, and efforts to change culture are the crucible in which leadership is developed.

For better results, organizations should coordinate their leadership development and change management efforts, approaching them as one and the same. True leadership involves deviating from cultural expectations in ways that inspire others to choose to follow. What’s more, leadership is not the sole responsibility of the C-suite. Managers at all levels of an organization must overcome resistance if genuine cultural change is to occur. Thus, change initiatives—which require a deviation from a dominant set of norms and behaviors—are the best learning environments for star managers to develop leadership skills, as well as a necessary component of a successful culture-change initiative.

How then, should organizations go about integrating their change management and leadership development initiatives? We recommend an approach that is both top-down and bottom-up.
The bottom-up part of the integrated development and change process requires potential leaders throughout the organization to engage in a process of learning how to enact a desired change in an organization’s culture in the everyday experiences of organizational life.

For example, one company suddenly found itself audited at the request of their largest client and were told that they needed to change their accounting procedures. In response, many employees insisted that the changes could not be made by the demanded deadline. They were impeded by cultural beliefs around how quickly the organization could mobilize and complete complex tasks. Janet, a member of the task force assigned to handle the requirements of the audit, was participating in leadership development training at the time.

 Using a leadership tool we developed called  the fundamental state of leadership, she decided to reach out to employees who had a stake in the new requirements to understand their perspectives (rather than wait for others with more authority to tell her what to do). She gathered new information and discovered their fears, while simultaneously coming to the realization that the deadline could be met.

With this new understanding, she was able to help other employees question their beliefs and come up with creative ways to streamline the accounting procedures so as to meet the deadlines.

As part of a class assignment from her leadership training, she also reflected on the experience and used her own (and others’) reflections to inform her subsequent plans and actions. Eventually, more and more of her colleagues began to accept the importance of the accounting changes and their accompanying deadlines, and were participating in creative action.

Their actions led to bottom-up change: the emerging culture and accounting policies could not have been planned in advance, but came from the ideas and actions of motivated employees and were uniquely suited to the local challenges they faced. Janet, however, was more than just a change agent in this one situation. Her planning, acting, reflecting—and planning again—demonstrated true leadership.

But a bottom-up process is unlikely to work unless it is also embedded in a top-down learning process. A top-down process creates structure and motivation for employees to maintain engagement in the change/leadership development process. If done well, it also provides emotional and social support potential leaders, because deviating from cultural expectations can be a lonely endeavor.

A successful top-down process begins with executives clarifying desired results for change management/leadership programs. For example, executives may want to change accounting procedures or inspire creativity in order to become more efficient, as in Janet’s company. Or they may want to lower barriers between departments or create financial stewardship throughout the organization. The goal depends on the organization and its situation, but what is important is that it is specific (ideally, with a measurable outcome) and accepted by all members of the executive team.

Once the goal is clear and accepted, executives can identify potential leaders throughout the organization to engage in the leadership development/change management process. These may be executive team members, people in key positions, people who have shown a passion for this specific change, people who are deemed to be “high potential,” or some combination of these characteristics.

 Many variables about the type of change program could drive the decision about which potential leaders to include, such as strategic, the number needed for a critical mass, the need to stage the change process, the amount of support that can be provided, geographical dispersion, the diversity of expertise or demographics involved, and so on.

Selected leaders should be given structure, accountability, support, and motivation as they engage this process—but also the freedom to create their own solutions, as Janet did with the help of the accounting team. The objectives of the change and development effort, the scope of initiative, the time frame, the type of support to be given, and the rewards for success should be made clear when invitations are extended.

 Classes can offer advice but the key is to instill a plan-act-reflect cycle—and then support managers as they learn on the go. The attention of senior executives and the needed financial support should be guaranteed; a worse-case scenario is for a fledging leader to have the rug pulled out from under them partway through the change and development process.

Once the structure and motivation is secured and outlined, potential leaders can launch their repeated efforts at creating experiences that enact the new objectives using the plan-act-reflect cycle. Ideally, reflections could be shared so that potential leaders learn from each other as well as from their own efforts.

Change management and leadership development programs have a woeful record at most organizations. In large part that’s because they come up against a common challenge—deviating from a dominant culture (the true test of leadership) is very difficult. Tasking managers with driving bottom-up cultural change will provide leadership training in itself. They will require top-down support to succeed.

---

Ryan W. Quinn is an associate professor of management at the University of Louisville College of Business.

---

Robert E. Quinn is the Margaret Elliott Tracy Collegiate Professor of Business Administration in the organization and management group at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business in Ann Arbor.

Now that the New Year is over and we're heading toward the Superbowl, you may have noticed that your alcohol consumption has risen over the holidays. Like many others, drinking is often associated with celebrations, but moderate regular consumption of wine has its health benefits as well, according to this New York Times article.

Drink to Your Health (in Moderation), the Science Says

 

Aaron E. Carroll

THE NEW HEALTH CARE DEC. 21, 2015 / NEW YORK TIMES

 

Moderate consumption of alcohol is generally safe, as long as it doesn't lead to abuse, and may even be healthful for some people. Credit Matthew Staver for The New York Times 

 

Over the past year, I’ve tried to clear up a lot of the misconceptions on food and drink: about salt, artificial sweeteners, among others, even water.

Now let me take on alcohol: wine, beer and cocktails. Although I have written about the dangerous effects of alcohol abuse and misuse, that doesn’t mean it’s always bad. A part of many complex and delicious adult beverages, alcohol is linked to a number of health benefits in medical studies.

That doesn’t mean the studies provide only good news, either, or that the evidence in its favor is a slam dunk. You won’t be surprised to hear that, once again, my watchword — moderation — applies.

Research into how alcohol consumption affects health has been going on for a long time. A 1990 prospective cohort study included results of more than 275,000 men followed since 1959. Compared with those who never drank alcohol, those who consumed one to two drinks a day had a significantly reduced mortality rate from both coronary heart disease and “all causes.” Those who consumed three or more drinks a day still had a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease, but had a higher mortality rate over all.

A 2004 study came to similar conclusions. It followed about 6,600 men and 8,000 women for five years and found that compared with those who drank about one drink a day on average, those who didn’t drink at all and those who drank more than two drinks a day had higher rates of death. Results like these have been consistent across a number of studies in different populations. Even studies published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research agree that moderate drinking seems to be associated with a decreased risk of death over all.

However, alcohol seems to have different effects on different diseases. Almost all of the major benefits of drinking are seen in cardiovascular illnesses. In fact, with men, even consumption of a surprisingly large amount can seem protective.

When it comes to cancer, the picture isn’t as rosy. For instance, a 2007 study involving the Women’s Health Study cohort found that increased alcohol consumption was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. More broadly, a 2014 systematic review of epidemiologic and experimental studies looking at alcohol and breast cancer found that the overall consensus is that each additional drink per day increases the relative risk (comparing the risk in two groups) of breast cancer by a statistically significant, but small, 2 percent — although not the absolute risk.

A meta-analysis of colorectal cancer and alcohol found that heavy drinkers, but not light or moderate drinkers, were at increased risk of the disease. No relationship is seen with respect to bladder cancer or ovarian cancer. A study that included all cancers found that light drinking was protective; moderate drinking had no effect; and heavy drinking was detrimental.

Moderate alcohol consumption has been found to be associated with other benefits, though. A cohort of about 6,000 people followed in Britain found that those who consumed alcohol at least once a week had significantly better cognitive function in middle age than those who did not drink at all. This protective effect on cognition was seen in people who drank up to 30 drinks a week.

A 2004 systematic review found that moderate drinking was associated with up to 56 percent lower rates of diabetes compared with nondrinkers. Heavy drinkers, though, had an increased incidence of diabetes.

This is where savvy readers should be asking: What about randomized controlled trials? After all, epidemiologic evidence and associations only go so far; they cannot get us to causation.

Recently, in Annals of Internal Medicine, such a trial was published. Patients with well-controlled Type 2 diabetes were randomized to drink 150 milliliters of water, white wine or red wine with dinner for two years. The beverages were provided to patients free of charge. They were all placed on a Mediterranean diet with no calorie restrictions.

Researchers found that those who drank the wine, most notably red wine, had a reduction in cardiometabolic risk factors, or those for heart disease, diabetes or stroke. This was especially true in patients who had certain genotypes. Further, no one had any significant adverse effects from being randomized to drink the alcohol.

In another analysis of that randomized control trial published this year, the most interesting finding was about blood pressure. In this study, some people saw a reduction in systolic blood pressure. Again, the alcohol was not associated with significant adverse effects. This contradicts the findings from systematic reviews of epidemiologic studies that show alcohol intake may be associated with a small but significant increase in blood pressure.

Adding further complications was a shorter-term trial looking at red wine consumption that found it had no effect, positive or negative, on blood pressure in patients with atherosclerosis. A different analysis of that study found that it did result in improved cholesterol levels, even though many patients were already being treated with statins.

A 2011 meta-analysis examined 63 controlled trials of wine, beer and spirits, and found that all of those beverages increased levels of HDL cholesterol (the good cholesterol). There was even a dose-response, with more alcohol consumed having more of an effect.

Synthesizing all this, there seems to be a sizable amount of evidence that moderate alcohol consumption is associated with decreased rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and death. It also seems to be associated with increased rates, perhaps to a lesser extent, of some cancers, especially breast cancer, as well as some other diseases or conditions. The gains from improved cardiovascular disease deaths seem to outweigh all of the losses in other diseases combined. The most recent report of the U.S.D.A. Scientific Advisory Panel agrees with that assessment.

But alcohol isn’t harmless. Many people with certain diseases or disorders, and women who are pregnant, need to avoid it. Others who can’t keep their consumption to acceptable levels need to abstain. Alcohol is very harmful when abused, so much so that it’s difficult for me to tell people to start drinking for their health. That’s rarely the conclusion of any studies about alcohol, no matter how positive the results. Nor is it the advice any doctors I know give.

However, the evidence does seem to say that moderate consumption is safe, and that it may even be healthy for many people. If you’re enjoying some drinks this holiday season, it’s nice to know that they may be doing more than just bringing you cheer.

Correction: December 21, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated the effect that alcohol was shown to have on HDL cholesterol in a 2011 meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found that wine, beer and spirits increased levels of HDL cholesterol (the good cholesterol), not decreased them.

When confronted with pain, the consumer most often turns to painkillers, whether over-the-counter or prescribed. Understandably, no one wants to spend a day in pain so taking a pill is easy even if there are many more conservative approaches. But what should be even more painful, as described in an article from The Guardian, is the way pain treatment is marketed causing the consumer to overpay when it is not necessary. Once again, the public should be reminded to read labels, not just on their cereal boxes, but on their medicines as well.

Targeted painkillers zero in on one vital organ – the wallet 

  

 
Suzanne Moore / The Guardian
 

It is no surprise that Reckitt Benckiser could mislead customers with its Nurofen Specific range. When ill or in pain, we will pay for any promise of a magic bullet 

Ever since I tried to give a headachey guy at a party a painkiller marketed for period pain, I have wondered how exactly these things work. His reluctance to take it was remarkable. What did he think was in this pill? Some marvellous chemical that only those who menstruate respond to? Still, the packaging was pink, so, you know … anything might happen.

 

‘In Australia the federal court has just ruled that Reckitt Benckiser, which makes Nurofen, has misled consumers with its Nurofen Specific pain range.’ Photograph: Dinendra Haria/Demotix/Corbis  

Nurofen's maker misled consumers over painkillers' contents, court rules

Indeed, targeted pain relief in the form of over-the-counter medicine appears to be largely about targeted marketing yet, as the choice becomes bewildering, this marketing has been very effective. In Australia the federal court has just ruled that the multinational drug company Reckitt Benckiser, which makes Nurofen, has misled consumers with its Nurofen Specific pain range. It sells Nurofen Back Pain, Nurofen Period Pain, Nurofen Migraine Pain and Nurofen Tension Headache for almost twice the amount it charges for plain old Nurofen, but all these medications actually have the same active ingredient, 342 milligrams of ibuprofen lysine.

Nurofen is already more expensive than generic ibuprofen, but we down great quantities of it. Painkillers are increasingly sold as “fast-acting” as well as able to mysteriously travel to the one part of the body that hurts, able to somehow discriminate between different kinds of headaches, to “know” the difference between lower back pain and a fever.

The drugs work, to an extent, but the claims made for them depend on us not being able to read the labels

Such customised pain relief depends on magical thinking, in which we hand over money for the idea that all everyday aches and pains can be treated with these magic little bullets. The drugs work, to an extent, but the claims made for them depend on us not being able to read the labels or understand them. We are bound to be more susceptible when we are ill or in pain. Ibuprofen is remarkably useful, there is no need to make any snake oil claims for it, but this has not stopped companies doing it.

The company’s spokeswoman told the Sydney Morning Herald that this specific-pain range was “to help consumers navigate their pain relief options, particularly within the grocery environment where there is no healthcare professional to assist decision making”. Such bunkum should give us a headache, all right.

When we choose to medicate ourselves with over-the-counter remedies, we are also buying comfort. These pills will not only stop our pain, but also feel it and understand it. All those ads which show parts of the body lit up reinforce this idea. If we go to a doctor and leave without a prescription, we may feel short-changed. The desire to take something, anything, fuels the scam of the multivitamin market too.

How easy it is to mislead us as consumers. We all want to feel better, not to know better. That’s why we swallow wishful thinking down with our “fast-acting” pills, gel caps, capsules, soluble tablets. Where does it hurt? Everywhere. What part of the body is really targeted? That vital organ : the wallet.