Category: Gleaner Jamaica

A few years ago I coined a new term – the “promisphere.” It’s a simple place to start in transforming a company’s culture.

If you suspect that there is something wrong with your corporate culture here’s one way to start cleaning things up now, before the situation worsens.

The “promisphere” in your company is defined as a network consisting of every promise ever made. Each individual commitment contributes to the overall promisphere, regardless of its current state. Because a promise is a human invention of the mind, according to Promise Theory by Bergstra and Burgess, it’s little more than a psychological object. However, the promisphere is a powerful indicator of your company’s health as it limits what can be accomplished, especially when it’s in bad shape.

Picture a fish-tank. The fish are like employees and the water can be compared to the promisphere. Each time, when a fish poops, it pollutes its own surroundings just a little. Over time, if nothing is done to correct the situation, the water poisons and kills all its inhabitants.

In like manner, in your company, whenever someone breaks, forgets or abandons a promise it pollutes the promisphere. Eventually, the problem escalates if nothing is done to reverse the effect and getting even simple things done becomes harder. As the bonds of trust fray, people are forced to invest a greater effort to maintain the same level of productivity. After a while, those who care the most get burned out and either stop trying altogether, or circulate their resume in an attempt to abandon ship.

If this resonates with you at all don’t despair yet. Every company has a promisphere and if a leader insists that his firm’s promisphere is absolutely clear… don’t believe him. The reason is simple – companies are staffed with imperfect human beings who make promises every day and fail to keep them. In other words, the promisphere is continuously being polluted, without exception. The danger is not taking urgent action to reverse the decay. What can your organization do to make sure that it’s promisphere is being cleaned up?

1. Prevent “Executitis”
Like pancreatitis, executitis is a slow, silent killer. It’s a condition in which top managers lose touch with their people, including the state of the promisphere. After some time, even well-meaning executives come to believe that broken promises don’t matter very much. They trust that, at the end of the day, staff will give them a big bligh, understand the pressures they are under and just forget about past promises. It’s not an insane tactic. Working Jamaicans trust their leaders far too much, leading to disillusionment when they see them ignoring the promisphere.

They make it too easy for executives to ignore the power and intelligence of the crowd – their staff. Leaders fail to notice that even a brand new employee can recall a broken, unfulfilled promise made decades ago. They don’t simply disappear.

On the flip-side, an executive who understands the promisphere and how it’s being polluted every day, is hyper-aware of every single promise he makes. It’s hard work to stay on top of all of them, but it pays off in the trust it generates.

2. Develop Skills
An executive who is aware of the promises he makes also must become skillful at cleaning things up when they are broken. Sometimes it requires a simple email, for example, apologizing for arriving late at a meeting. At the other extreme, I have seen executives write and read letters to their staff, taking responsibility for failing to perform their duties.

These are the sort of actions that clean up a company’s promisphere. Others include
– telling the truth openly
– seeking reconciliation
– asking for forgiveness
– making amends
– offering apologies.
In all cases, responsibility is taken wherever it has been lacking.

It’s heady, transformative stuff. I have written letters like the ones I described and as gut-wrenching as they are, they often do change everything. The first attempt can be stressful, but anyone can deliberately strengthen their skills via intense practice sessions with a trained coach.

3. Find Courage
Unfortunately, new awareness and skills aren’t enough. It’s challenging to have a confronting conversation with a boss, colleague, direct report or other stakeholder. Cleaning up the promisphere calls for a level of courage many executives don’t possess.

People will do anything to avoid these tough conversations indefinitely, trying hard to find plausible reasons to avoid them altogether. If you doubt this assertion, bring to mind three people you don’t believe you can effectively confront regarding a broken promise either of you has made. (If you cannot find an example, just ask someone who knows you well.)

Courage can be developed with the support of your colleagues. They can provide emotional cover.

Fortunately, the manager who avoids executitis, but grows in skill and courage makes staff members feel respected as they clean up the promisphere. They restore the capacity of their companies to perform.

Francis Wade is the author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity and a management consultant. To receive a free Summary of each of his past articles, send email to columns@fwconsulting.com

Click here to access the online Gleaner version of this article.

I was listening to a Knowledge at Wharton podcast recently in which Peter Capelli was being interviewed. He described the mismatch in the USA between those who are looking to hire talent and those who job-seeking.

At the same time, my wife and I have been sharing about the number of friends we have in the USA who are jobhunting in their 50’s, having recently been laid off. Most are being replaced by younger staff – less expensive, better users of technology who are likely to improve their productivity faster.

Jamaica (and most of the Caribbean) doesn’t have that particular problem, but our youth would argue that we do little to develop new talent. That’s the topic I decided to focus on in this week’s article.

It’s a human resource mistake that appears, at first, to be a smart strategy: only hire people who can hit the ground running, without any training. Unfortunately, your company could be sowing the seeds of mediocrity in the form of a short-cut that draws long-term blood.

In the wake of the global recession, U.S. companies are complaining that they cannot find the workers they need. As a result, a huge number of jobs are going unfilled. At the same time, the unemployment rate among recent graduates is disturbingly high, as it is in Jamaica. According to business author Professor Peter Capelli, the reason is simple. Companies are looking for candidates with at least five years experience.

The logic, which also applies to local companies, is understandable. To fill an open position, just find someone with all the experience required. This is an extremely expensive option as these qualified people usually aren’t floating around looking for employment. They already have stable jobs and their employers are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to keep them happy.

This predatory approach is, according to Capelli, a way of compensating for a lack of internal training. In 1979, a young employee received 2.5 weeks of training per year on average. By 2014, only 29% had received any training whatsoever in the past five years.

My observation is that companies are expecting employees to train themselves.

This is not crazy thinking. Back in the 1990’s, thousands of workers sat in classrooms to learn Windows, Excel and Word. Today, almost no-one is trained to use these programmes… instead, without a single paragraph of explanation or a minute of video they get themselves and running in an instant. Today’s employee has learned how to teach themselves.

Unfortunately, this miraculous, modern-day skill doesn’t scale to include other areas of learning. Even the most adept self-learner has a difficult time picking up decent “soft skills” such as negotiation, time management and leadership. Furthermore, the horror stories I hear coming from university departments lead me to think that more academic education doesn’t help.

The ultimate answer is simple: change the way your company conceives of human resources and their role in the enterprise.

Unlike a computing or financial resource, a human resource has the innate ability to learn and grow in stature. However, in most companies how this happens is a mystery. They may have excellent internal processes for tracking every penny, but have no clue how a leader develops within their own walls. The actions required and the time someone needs to invest to learn these skills are the stuff of myths and anecdotes.

Many human resource professionals argue that it’s better to have the perfect training system than to be forced to search for the perfect employee. Yet, your company is cutting back on employee development and doing little to leverage the low-cost training available via the internet. Why is this happening?

Reason #1 – All Costs and No Benefits
Perhaps your internal management systems, like many others, is lopsided. It reports primarily financial metrics which highlight all the costs of a training intervention but none of the benefits. As a result, employee development is the first item your organization cuts from every annual budget. Making a balanced decision to offer training requires different tools, which your company lacks.

Reason #2 – Hiring for the Short Term
Disney and Southwest Airlines are a few of the companies known for their policy of hiring primarily for attitude. This is especially true in customer-facing positions where months (not years) of technical training are required. Their stance is that specific skills can be taught, but the right frame of mind cannot. This particular tactic makes perfect sense when your company takes a long-term perspective.

Reason #3 – Hiring a Whole Person vs. a Functionary
Your company may be typical in these recessionary times, hiring people for jobs they can perform right away. However, it runs the risk of staffing itself with people who are expert at soon-to-be-obsolete functions. A better strategy might be to hire fast learners who can pick up any technology quickly while changing their behaviour to suit new circumstances. Oftentimes, these nimble employees lack experience due to their age, but are better able to transform the job itself. Some of them may already be in your company, stuck in a dead-end job. Most companies are weak at identifying talent that is sitting right underneath their noses.

The trap of mediocrity can be avoided but great companies aren’t built by cherry-picking talent from outside. Instead, they build training systems that take available people, building enduring cultures around them. In these times, this approach “costs” more but there is no such thing as a company cost-cutting its way to market dominance. That only comes from investing in people with the highest potential.

Francis Wade is the author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity and a management consultant. To receive a free Summary of each of his past articles, send email to columns@fwconsulting.com

Click here to read the article on the Gleaner website.

Is Your Company Made Up of Thirds and Fourths?

Some Jamaican executives are caught in an unproductive trap of their own making. By investing as little as possible in their people’s development, they have produced cultures of low productivity. How long does it take for such a policy to bear bitter fruit and how can it be reversed?

Most of us are shocked to hear of a seemingly mediocre acquaintance or colleague who migrates, then accomplishes something miraculous. It’s hard to pinpoint why in every case, but one answer may be that many local companies stifle their staff’s development. By systematically failing to invest in their growth, they reinforce low standards.

In some organizations, the problem starts even earlier. As a former client’s executive team complained: “Our company is filled with under-performers – we only hire thirds and fourths.” That is, whenever they bring people in for interviews to fill a position, they invariably end up hiring the third or fourth choice; never the first or second. The reason? They simply aren’t paying enough.

When asked why they don’t trust their own process, thereby hiring better people then helping them to perform, they further complained. “If our people were to find out how much that new person was being paid, there would be a riot!” With that retort, by the end of the meeting it was clear that the current staff complement would be unable to implement the breakthrough strategy the company needed to ensure its existence. The unplanned choices they had made to hire “thirds and fourths” had become a huge problem that could not be easily fixed.

Like many other companies, they were stuck in a trap
of their own thinking, committing their company to low standards that were now inescapable. What can the average company do to prevent this from happening?

1. Seek out Global Best-in-Class Behaviours
Somewhere in the world, there is a company that’s doing the same work, using less people at a lower cost. In some industries, like insurance, benchmarking resources like www.opsdog.com are easy to find and can be used as a ready comparison. Whatever your industry, you need to discover what the best in the world are doing, and use them as a standard. If you find a large gap, you should be alarmed as your industry may be ripe for disruption.

Before a tragedy takes place, use the information to set new goals for your company. Even if you cannot find a direct comparison, understand that a viable business must conduct a relentless search for ways to reduce costs and create value for customers. To fail to do so is to invite disaster.

2. Reengineer Core Processes
One of the easiest ways to reduce costs and create value is to identify and reengineer the company’s core processes. The effect of mediocre staff is only amplified when they are stuck doing things they shouldn’t, in processes that are outdated. It’s tempting to bring in new technology but it’s a mistake to rush into an automation project when the underlying ways of doing work are not well understood. Even the best employees in the world can only do so much when they are limited by poor workflows.

The steps involved in process reengineering are easy to find but most companies can’t summon the will. They fail to see that by not improving their processes, they hasten their own demise as technology changes accelerate.

3. Give up ego
Even companies that see the need to make process changes don’t have the courage to bring in the right staff to lead such efforts. Too many Jamaican executives use all sorts of tricks to make sure they are the smartest people in the room at all times. They shy away from hiring staff who appear to be brighter, or more intelligent. This sometimes unconscious behaviour is in stark contrast to that of the best managers. By contrast, they encourage younger staff to continuously step up to duties requiring greater responsibility and skill. This requires an investment in training but it also represents a willingness to place the company’s welfare over your own personal interests.

4. Develop staff aggressively, for free
As I have mentioned before in this column, too many managers give up on developing their staff because they lack a “proper” budget. The fact is, the on-line world now provides a number of free learning opportunities that can be used in creative ways. Human Resource professionals must sometimes be pushed by executives to find these alternatives, rather than waiting for the funds for classroom training to be made available.

A handful of well-trained, hyper-productive employees can outperform an organization overstuffed with “thirds and fourths.” But the place to start for some companies is by looking and making room for the best. They will never, ever be the least expensive but they may be the ones who more than make up for the extra pay required to bring them in and keep them around.

Francis Wade is the author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity and a management consultant. To receive a free Summary of each of his past articles, send email to columns@fwconsulting.com
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/business/20150705/francis-wade-low-pay-productivity-trap

If you have ready my latest book, you may have noticed the central role that Dr. Brigitte Claessens plays in the re-definition of time-based productivity.

Her work is breathtaking in its impact and I consider her an unsung heroine of the new time management, highlighted by her statement that “time cannot be managed in any sense.” It’s a statement that sits at the heart of our work here at 2Time Labs as she’s the first academic to make that claim in a published, peer-reviewed research paper.

This week’s article is based on another claim of hers that’s garnered from empirical research into different styles of time allocation. She discovered that people allocate time in major tasks in five ways, with some surprising conclusions. Unfortunately, my article only has the space to mention two of them briefly given its limitation of 800 words.

There are other resources available, however. I recommend a paper I presented to the Project Management Institute of Southern Caribbean Chapter 2013 conference entitled “Reducing the Risk of Un-Productive Team Members.” http://bit.ly/16e691R

It’s available as a free download. Within it, you can find a link to Claessens’ original article.

While I don’t dwell on these findings in my books they are a great example of how original research can make a big difference in our understanding of the reality found within companies and the individuals who work within them. I don’t think I’m alone in complaining about the popular anecdotes, tips and tricks that get passed around freely, but are no substitutes for data-driven wisdom.

As business professionals, we often fall into the trap of treating our colleagues as if they manage their time in the same way. Recent research by Dr. Brigitte Claessens from the Netherlands reveals the truth: professionals differ in the way they approach mid and long-term tasks.

Let’s say that you are a manager who has recently accepted a leadership role. Your new team’s capabilities would be unknown, making you wonder how they will perform. Claessen’s research offers important clues, revealing five work styles (A-E) that professionals use to complete tasks.

A. The Early Action Worker
This person starts the job with a full-on attack, getting as much done as early as possible, leaving precious little to do at the end.

B. The Early and End-Term Worker
Starting with a bang, this personality begins working immediately but loses momentum quickly. As a result, they are forced to put in a supreme effort to meet the deadline at the last moment.

C. The Constant Action Worker
This person acts in a steady manner during from the beginning to the end. Their consistent effort makes them equally productive from start to finish.

D. The Mid-Term Action Worker
Someone with this style starts slowly and increases their effort so that it peaks at the middle of the project. Between the middle and end, their effort falls off as their workload decreases.

E. The Deadline Action Worker
This individual also starts slowly but increases their effort so that by the end of the task they are running at full throttle.

In recent speeches, I have explained these five styles, asking audiences to rank order them with regards to the general population. I have used two questions: “Which styles are more productive than the others?” and “Which styles can be found more frequently than others?”

From the answers I have received, I have learned that we don’t possess an intuitive grasp of Claessen’s findings. Here they are in a nutshell.

Finding 1: The least productive is Style B. The full rank order from low to high is B < E < D < A < C

Finding 2: The least frequent of these styles is D. The rank order is from D(13%) < E(17%) < A(17%) < C(23%) < B(31%)

If you spend a moment studying these results you may find a few surprises. Based on these findings, there are a few things supervisors and project managers should do to prepare themselves for a reality they may not be currently managing.

Reality #1 – there’s some bad news… the least productive style (B) happens to be the most frequent. This may explain why the “planning fallacy” (where we routinely underestimate how long tasks take) is so common. As a manager of other people this may come as a shock. Most of your people (almost a third) are likely to get you into big trouble if left to their own devices. Perhaps, like most professionals, you have a tendency to relax in the middle of a project, believing that the early indications of effort are reliable. This is a huge mistake, as the results indicate that you should be planning to launch a major engagement effort in the middle of the project to prevent later disaster.

Reality #2 – how people end, not start their tasks, is more important. The second finding shows that the least productive are those who wait for a looming deadline to put in their hardest effort. As their manager, you probably know that they cause you the most anxiety. Both of the least productive performers (B and C) show this tendency.

A recent study conducted at Warwick Business School backs up this finding. Drs. Arnott and Dacko discovered that students who submitted their essays at the last minute receive, on average, lower grades.

Some may say that you are being pessimistic if you expect low performance before even meeting your team for the first time. However, the science is clear, pointing to an unproductive reality that must be confronted.

The savvy manager can use anecdotal evidence to determine who appears to use a particular style. Yet, there are more rigorous methods. The 11 forms provided in my book are examples of the kind of assessments anyone can use to gain deeper insight into their skills in this area. If you can enrol your employees in completing them, you’ll both know where an employee’s strengths and weaknesses lie and what to do about them.

So far, no-one has come up with a similar assessment tool for Claessens’ 5 styles but her study provides important, early insights that can’t be ignored. These clues can make the difference between your success or failure, which is built on the habits your team members use every day. You need not be caught unawares: instead, bring an informed, nuanced approach to managing their time-based performance.

Francis Wade is the author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity and a management consultant. To receive a free Summary of each of his past articles, send email to columns@fwconsulting.com

Click here to be taken to the article on the Gleaner’s website.

If you have ready my latest book, you may have noticed the central role that Dr. Brigitte Claessens plays in the re-definition of time-based productivity.

Her work is breathtaking in its impact and I consider her an unsung heroine of the new time management, highlighted by her statement that “time cannot be managed in any sense.” It’s a statement that sits at the heart of our work here at 2Time Labs as she’s the first academic to make that claim in a published, peer-reviewed research paper.

This week’s article is based on another claim of hers that’s garnered from empirical research into different styles of time allocation. She discovered that people allocate time in major tasks in five ways, with some surprising conclusions. Unfortunately, my article only has the space to mention two of them briefly given its limitation of 800 words.

There are other resources availale, however. I recommend a paper I presented to the Project Management Institute of Southern Caribbean Chapter 2013 conference entitled “Reducing the Risk of Un-Productive Team Members.” http://bit.ly/16e691R

It’s available as a free download. Within it, you can find a link to Claessens’ original article.

While I don’t dwell on these findings in my books they are a great example of how original research can make a big difference in our understanding of the reality found within companies and the individuals who work within them. I don’t think I’m alone in complaining about the popular anecdotes, tips and tricks that get passed around freely, but are no substitutes for data-driven wisdom.

Here’s the link to the article in the Gleaner. And here is the article in full.

The Right Way to Manage Work Styles

As business professionals, we often fall into the trap of treating our colleagues as if they manage their time in the same way. Recent research by Dr. Brigitte Claessens from the Netherlands reveals the truth: professionals differ in the way they approach mid and long-term tasks.

Let’s say that you are a manager who has recently accepted a leadership role. Your new team’s capabilities would be unknown, making you wonder how they will perform. Claessen’s research offers important clues, revealing five work styles (A-E) that professionals use to complete tasks.

A. The Early Action Worker
This person starts the job with a full-on attack, getting as much done as early as possible, leaving precious little to do at the end.

B. The Early and End-Term Worker
Starting with a bang, this personality begins working immediately but loses momentum quickly. As a result, they are forced to put in a supreme effort to meet the deadline at the last moment.

C. The Constant Action Worker
This person acts in a steady manner during from the beginning to the end. Their consistent effort makes them equally productive from start to finish.

D. The Mid-Term Action Worker
Someone with this style starts slowly and increases their effort so that it peaks at the middle of the project. Between the middle and end, their effort falls off as their workload decreases.

E. The Deadline Action Worker
This individual also starts slowly but increases their effort so that by the end of the task they are running at full throttle.

In recent speeches, I have explained these five styles, asking audiences to rank order them with regards to the general population. I have used two questions: “Which styles are more productive than the others?” and “Which styles can be found more frequently than others?”

From the answers I have received, I have learned that we don’t possess an intuitive grasp of Claessen’s findings. Here they are in a nutshell.

Finding 1: The least productive is Style B. The full rank order from low to high is B < E < D < A < C

Finding 2: The least frequent of these styles is D. The rank order is from D(13%) < E(17%) < A(17%) < C(23%) < B(31%)

If you spend a moment studying these results you may find a few surprises. Based on these findings, there are a few things supervisors and project managers should do to prepare themselves for a reality they may not be currently managing.

Reality #1 – there’s some bad news… the least productive style (B) happens to be the most frequent. This may explain why the “planning fallacy” (where we routinely underestimate how long tasks take) is so common. As a manager of other people this may come as a shock. Most of your people (almost a third) are likely to get you into big trouble if left to their own devices. Perhaps, like most professionals, you have a tendency to relax in the middle of a project, believing that the early indications of effort are reliable. This is a huge mistake, as the results indicate that you should be planning to launch a major engagement effort in the middle of the project to prevent later disaster.

Reality #2 – how people end, not start their tasks, is more important. The second finding shows that the least productive are those who wait for a looming deadline to put in their hardest effort. As their manager, you probably know that they cause you the most anxiety. Both of the least productive performers (B and C) show this tendency.

A recent study conducted at Warwick Business School backs up this finding. Drs. Arnott and Dacko discovered that students who submitted their essays at the last minute receive, on average, lower grades.

Some may say that you are being pessimistic if you expect low performance before even meeting your team for the first time. However, the science is clear, pointing to an unproductive reality that must be confronted.

The savvy manager can use anecdotal evidence to determine who appears to use a particular style. Yet, there are more rigorous methods. The 11 forms provided in my book are examples of the kind of assessments anyone can use to gain deeper insight into their skills in this area. If you can enrol your employees in completing them, you’ll both know where an employee’s strengths and weaknesses lie and what to do about them.

So far, no-one has come up with a similar assessment tool for Claessens’ 5 styles’ but her study provides important, early insights that can’t be ignored. These clues can make the difference between your success or failure, which is built on the habits your team members use every day. You need not be caught unawares: instead, bring an informed, nuanced approach to managing their time-based performance.

Francis Wade is the author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity and a management consultant. To receive a free Summary of each of his past articles, send email to columns@fwconsulting.com

In today’s Sunday Gleaner column, you may recognize a familiar theme if you are a regular reader – that it doesn’t make sense to expect a behaviour change without detailing the new steps required. The only difference is that this time around we’re looking at a different kind of end-result… an emotional state.

In the article I share a simple practice I have used for over a decade. As time has progressed, the effects have accumulated – a fact I didn’t mention in the article. But I think it makes sense that if you pick a single useful habit and repeat it often enough with an intention to make improvements, the benefits will increase over time.

This is exactly what’s happened in my case which is why the research I quote caught my attention… what if a simple emotion we all want, like happiness, was available to us in greater, steadier quanta? What if we could develop the discipline to be more happy? For example, meditation has been shown by researchers to produce repeatable benefits, yet the number of who have actually tried it in the Caribbean remains small.

Would corporations, or more specifically, your boss, be interested in learning how to teach the practices required to produce happiness? I suppose the answer varies from one organization to any other, but we do share a common humanity in which we desire many of the same things.

I’d love to hear what you think of the article either on my Facebook page or on Twitter (@fwconsulting99) or even my email – http://ReplytoFrancis.info. Here it is below in full, or on the Gleaner website.

How Managers Can Make Employees Happy

It’s easy in these times of economic difficulty to focus on the bad news. The fact is, just the exercise of watching prices rise and exchange rates falter gives each of us evidence that being unhappy is no longer a choice, but a consequence.

In corporate Jamaica, executives who trust in the link between employee productivity and happiness scratch their heads wondering what to do. They conclude that employees who can influence their state of mind can also be more productive. They know that giving away more money doesn’t work for more than a short time, that engagement is not something that can be bought or sold at a price. It must come from inside.

However, they typically have a difficult time translating this knowledge into concrete action. For example, employee appraisals often devolve into little more than cliches. This confuses the recipient, who based on the feedback, has no idea what to do differently.

An example borrowed from a recent study highlights the need for managers to do their own research. Happiness, it appears, is not a random mood that descends out of nowhere. Instead, it’s strongly correlated to particular habits.

First, let’s consider the opposite. I have a friend who has a habit of recreating past disappointments with remarkable ease. She not only remembers the details, but evokes all the emotions that were present in that moment, no matter how long ago. She is well-practiced.

Contrast her routine with one described by University of Pennsylvania professor Martin Seligman. “Every night for the next week, set aside ten minutes before you go to sleep. Write down three things that went well today and why they went well. Next to each positive event, answer the question ‘Why did this happen?'”

I can speak to the power of such a practice. For the past 13 years or so, I have recorded a list of things I am grateful for, before sending it via email to another person. Today, it’s an activity scheduled in my calendar each week that I hope to become as routine as brushing my teeth.

The effect, which Seligman details, is remarkable. After I hit “Send” I feel immediately different. The fact that someone close to me is reading the list makes a big difference because it’s a peek into some of my innermost thoughts. It acts as a powerful reminder of what’s important.

As you may imagine, these two contrasting sets of habits produce opposite results. Is it conceivable that this simple technique could be taught in corporations? In the right context, “Yes.” Employee resilience is an attribute companies say they care about a great deal, but do little to help employees develop. The few who attempt to hire “Rah-Rah” motivational speakers discover that this effect doesn’t last long. What endures for much longer are new repetitive behaviours like the ones Seligman uncovered.

The best news of all is that the technique of translating an emotional state into practical, teachable behaviour changes is one that anyone can learn. In fact, it’s a must if you, as a manager, hope to create new productive habits among your employees. Here are some guidelines.

1. Translate Emotions into Behaviours
Take a long, hard look at the end-result: an emotion, feeling or attitude you want. (It may be quite vague at first.) Then, decide which observable behaviours can be used as a proxy. In other words, ask yourself: If someone were to implement the chosen behaviours, would it be reasonable to assume that the end-result has been achieved? For example, if someone consistently makes a Seligman-style bedtime list, is it reasonable to conclude they will become more happy?

2. Do Research
Much of our conventional wisdom around creating emotional results is just plain wrong, and our intuition is sometimes misleading. For example, many executives are motivated by corporate profits. They are baffled as to the reason why employees don’t share this ambition. To get past these biases, use studies in psychology and management to separate fact from fiction. Then, convert research results (which usually come from outside the Caribbean) into local language and practice.

3. Coach
The average employee isn’t born with enlightened habits of mind and must be taught. The best method is usually some kind of coaching that involves their immediate supervisor. However, managers often don’t attempt to model the desired behaviour and are reluctant to share their personal struggles. If you find yourself disconnected from your employees, this may be part of the problem.

Ultimately, the best way to start (as a manager) is by helping yourself, even if the pain isn’t acute. Your direct experience is an invaluable asset if, like author Tim Ferris, you try your recommendations on yourself first. This is one powerful way to give yourself choice over what you feel, which is exactly what your employees want also.

Francis Wade is the author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity and a management consultant. To receive a free Summary of each of his past articles, send email to columns@fwconsulting.com

My Sunday column  today describes a problem that both Trinidad and Jamaica are facing. How do they make civil servants more attractive to the private sector?

A startlingly high number of executives in Jamaica show Type A traits, according to my informal observations. This parallels the findings of research in a number of cultures.

Their extremely high concern for time-based results is no accident – it’s a strength that propels them to the highest levels. However, they also have an interest in peace of mind and that can only be preserved if they pay close attention to their time-based productivity skills.

Here’s my latest article from the Jamaica Gleaner.

How to Thrive as a Type A Personality

Most leaders of Jamaica’s companies share a single trait – the Type A personality. It means they face some unique and growing challenges to the realization of their goals.

A Google search offers up many definitions of this trait, some of which are quite extreme. Most leaders, however, aren’t the hypertensive, unfeeling, Machiavellian types who are often used to dramatize the

definition. Instead, they have deep, passionate commitments and love to solve real problems, the bigger the better.

Using time effectively is an imperative: they are often impatient, hard workers who don’t know what it’s like to leave work at 4:30 PM… unless it’s to arrive on time for another obligation. They are a distinct group, but just being a Type A doesn’t mean that you have a free ticket to the executive suite. However, according to research by Dr. Meyer Friedman, a disproportionately high number of executives (75%) are Type A’s. That’s twice as high as the general population.

Their proactive nature means that they often show up in my local productivity training programs with sturdy habits already in place, but with no way to get better. Based on empirical data collected from over 150 participants, here are three facts you may need if are a Type A looking to improve.

Finding #1 – Your skills must evolve in order to reach new goals
Type A’s are perhaps the most ambitious employees. They are always on the hunt for better results, which means they are eager to process more time demands with greater speed. Unfortunately, if you belong to this group, you may be making a common mistake.

These high performers have learned that being more forceful gets them closer to what they want, especially when success relies on driving themselves to higher performance. In other words, they have found that “working harder” works.

In my training, it comes as a surprise to many Type A’s that their daily practices are quite common. Furthermore, the data shows that what has worked for them in the past will no longer work in the future. This is easy to see once they confront the modern fact of information overload caused by a combination of mobility and internet availability. They must find new ways to operate if they hope to cope.

While this might be obvious to others, Type A’s are often too busy to step back and notice when they need to evolve and develop new skills.

Finding #2 – Your evolution requires that you use less memory
As a Type A, you probably have a quick mind which retains lots of facts, developed through years of memory-based schooling. You are quite good at recalling time demands – maybe better than anyone you know.

If you were to retain very few commitments in life, this approach would work just fine. However, Type A’s have a propensity to take on greater responsibilities at home, work, community and in their personal lives. When combined with the challenge of information overload, they constantly feel time-starved.

As a result, they can’t survive in the future by using memory and must transition to the use of paper, digital devices or an administrative assistant.

Those who insist on using memory for this purpose may function for a while and even use their quick thinking to stay out of trouble. But at some point their advancing age betrays them. Some try in vain to improve their memory, but the research is clear: they will one day fail.

Finding #3 – Replacing memory with a list, and ultimately with a schedule
If you commit to replacing your memory with other means of storage, that’s just the beginning. Due to the constraints of the human mind, research shows that there is a progression of skills you must follow if you hope to manage an increase in time demands.

Most people start by trading the use of their memory for a ToDo list. This helps in the beginning unless there is a further increase that causes this technique to falter. Then, you must switch over to using multiple lists, sorted by a set of custom categories.

Ultimately, if the number increases even further even this approach fails. The final transition to make is to the use of a schedule or calendar. While most people only use a calendar to record appointments with other people, competent Type A’s are more likely to use their calendar to manage all their time demands. They focus on scheduling those tasks which are non-habitual and require conscious attention to prevent them from disappearing.

As you may imagine, after you decide to make these transitions, they don’t happen overnight. There are a number of intricate habits, practices and rituals for you to master – unlike the habit of “working harder” they don’t come easily. Thriving as a Type A means continuously teaching yourself new skills with respect to your time demands – a new requirement if you hope to realize your goals in today’s world.

Francis Wade is a management consultant and author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity. To receive a Summary of Links to past columns, or give feedback, email: columns@fwconsulting.com

Some fascinating new research reveals that part of what determines our propensity to be on time is an unconscious frame called an On Time Window (OTW.).

Here is the article I wrote for the Gleaner on this topic and how it applies to us here in the Caribbean.

Does our on time window make us less productive?

Why does a Jamaican employee struggle with being on time? Is “laziness” the right answer? Or is it due to something else we can actually transform?

In a Gleaner column on May 25, 2013, I made the point that people who live next door are often the last to arrive at work in the morning. I suggested why this is true: as it turns out, I was a bit wrong.

I stand corrected by an article in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Apparently, all adult human beings operate with an invisible “On Time Window” (OTW). To explain, let’s imagine that you have an event at 1:00 PM. What’s the earliest and latest you can arrive without causing a fuss? The answer, consisting of two separate times, defines your OTW.

According to Dr. Lawrence White from Beloit College and his team, your OTW is influenced by three factors.

Factor 1 – Social vs. Business Events

Once when I lived in New Jersey, I invited some colleagues from the office to a BBQ, telling them that it started at 2:00 PM. When my doorbell rang at 1:55 PM I was shocked (and unbathed). Clearly, their OTW for a casual party was different than mine, and more like the OTW we shared at work.

White’s research shows, in general, that we have different OTW’s for work and leisure. For example, in American, Estonian and Moroccan cultures, it’s OK to arrive 40 minutes late for lunch with a friend, but only 12 minutes late for a business meeting. Problems occur when people aren’t aware of the difference.

Factor 2 – Cultural Differences

People often remark that Jamaicans who migrate to the US learn to be on-time in a hurry… or else. Based on the study, it’s clear that they are adopting the OTW of a different culture.

Furthermore, they are often learning to be more precise. A book by Robert Levine entitled “A Geography of Time” is sub-titled “How Every Culture Keeps Time Just a Little Bit Differently.” It shows that Americans keep track of time in 5-minute increments. However, Arabs tracks time in 15-minute increments. For example, Americans are more likely to say they are running 5 to 10 minutes late while an Arab might report they are a quarter to half-hour late.

Lawrence wonders out aloud: Is lateness measured by psychological units, rather than by the clock? In other words, is an American who is late by 10 minutes psychologically equivalent to an Arab who is late by half an hour? After all, each is late by exactly two units.

What does that say about Jamaicans? In my mind, a BBQ that is slated to start at 2:00 PM (even if it’s in the USA) indicates that no-one should even think of arriving before 2:30 PM. Does this mean that in our culture we think in 30-minute increments? Is a business meeting in Kingston that starts an hour late the equivalent of starting a New York meeting ten minutes late? Do we automatically give each other half-hour blighs? I don’t have exact answers, but my anecdotal experience tells me that this might be so.

Factor 3 – Status

Disturbingly, a different 1980 study asked professors and students how long they would wait for a student or professor who was late for an appointment. All 248 respondents were clear: they would wait longer for the higher-status professor.

White and his colleagues conducted more detailed experiments showing that a person of higher status was allowed, on average, to be 14 minutes late. Others were permitted to be late by only 10.7 minutes. This finding was true across all three cultures mentioned earlier.

Former President Bill Clinton was famous for running late, but this finding may show why it amounted to little more than an afterthought. His status as leader of the free world allowed him an out-sized measure of automatic forgiveness.

Why is this disturbing? I have worked with a number of CEO’s who fail to realize the impact their lateness has on others. They don’t see that their workers watch them for clues to their success. It’s therefore not hard for a single, habitually late leader to create a legion of followers who aspire to the kind of casual lateness that provokes no complaints.

A casual relationship to lateness has consequences, however. A company which announces an 8:30 AM opening time but takes no issue with employees sauntering in at 8:35, insults the customer. In fact, it’s common for those who arrive just a bit earlier than the advertised opening time to see the place locked up, showing “no sign of life” whatsoever.

In my prior article, I argued that arriving at work on time is a skill that must be taught. Now, these studies show that
an employee’s OTW is a powerful influence. Companies can help employees at every level see that their OTW’s must be re-shaped if the company is to thrive.

Francis Wade is the author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity and a management consultant. To receive a free Summary of each of his past articles, send email to columns@fwconsulting.com

To read the original article online, click here – http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/business/20150426/advisory-column-does-our-own-time-window-make-us-less-productive

I have worked with many companies whose value statements all look alike, and do little to guide people’s actions.

Here’s a column I wrote that describes one way to ensure that the effort to define values isn’t wasted.

Converting Abstract Corporate Values into Profitable Action

You are sitting in your CEO’s office and she wants to know why the list of company values isn’t working. After all, she complains, “We spent two days at last year’s retreat coming up with it. Everyone was involved, so buy-in was never an issue. Why then has nothing changed?”

As a manager or executive, you are caught off-guard. You see the values plastered on walls all around the office. Each person carries a little laminated card in his/her purse or wallet. Why are they not working?

What you may fail to realize is that engaging employees is only a small (but necessary) start. To go further, you need to shed a particular mental model that is limiting your company’s success.

It all starts with a mistaken assumption. In companies, people assume that when it comes to understanding corporate values, everyone is on the same page.

The facts say otherwise. When leaders speak about values they often use them as “valence issues”: non-controversial topics that cannot be argued with, such as “Integrity” and “Respect.” They are a favorite tool of politicians who rely on the technique to get all heads nodding: even those of their opponents.

However, a deeper dive reveals the truth. Executives have a habit of turning values into valence issues, causing them to fall flat.

The best way to convert abstract values into profitable action is to translate them into norms – a step most companies don’t take. For example, one employee may interpret the value “We Put People First” as a suggestion to say “Hello” to each person they pass every morning. Another might see the act of greeting people they don’t know (or like) as one of insincerity and disrespect.

In other words, both employees might believe that they are being true to the value, while acting in opposing ways.

The chances are high that in your company, the values that you promote so stridently are causing opposite effects. They end up creating discord, burning up energy and wasting motion that distracts from the bottom line. What can your executives do to make sure that your investment in the retreat isn’t frittered away?

1. Learn the Video-Tape Test
To solve the problem of poor coordination, focus on defining behaviours that can only be observed with the naked eye, and be recorded on video. That is, they need to be the kind of actions anyone can see. For example, the act of “prioritizing” fails the test. By contrast, “writing up a prioritized list of potential tasks” passes. When this distinction is clear, new behaviours become easy to learn and understand because they can be passed on by the average worker.

2. De-construct Values into Behaviours
With the video-tape test in mind, you can break down any corporate value into its component behaviours. Just set up an executive brainstorming session, explain the distinction, and ask for examples of behaviours. Keep going until you have a list that meets the criteria.

As you take this step, go for extra credit: craft new behaviours that represent an evolution of your company culture. Start with what people do today, and then improve it by several steps. Also, don’t be generic… instead, look for fresh language that shouts: “Here is something you don’t already know.” This helps you avoid valence issues.

3. Convert Each Behaviour into a Performance Matrix
It’s tempting (and a mistake) to believe that someone is either demonstrating a particular behaviour in full, or not at all. A better alternative is to think in terms of a continuum of performance ranging from “novice” to “expert”.

For example, if the chosen behaviour happens to be “Greet colleagues each morning,” a novice, who is new to the company, might struggle to remember to enact the practice. However, an “expert” who has been around for some time would already have converted the behaviour into an automatic habit that never fails.

With such a matrix of behaviours, it’s much easier to evaluate oneself, a boss, direct reports and one’s peers. Now, you have an objective baseline that serves as a starting point. Build on it by creating a personal improvement plan that helps guide you through simple new practices, a few at a time. Ensure that you aren’t trying to change too many things at the same time, and build a support system just in case your willpower flags.

Before long, the entire organization will be moving in the direction of the retreat’s values because there will be an alignment of key behaviours. Your company will be far more likely to see an all-important impact on the bottom-line.

Francis Wade is the author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity and a management consultant. To receive a free Summary of each of his past articles, send email to columns@fwconsulting.com