Psychology Today Blogs - Minds at Work

Writing your managerial user's manual

Ben Dattner — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:57:14 -0700

There is increasing interest in the business world in "onboarding", the process by which managers and executives are oriented to, and integrated into, an organization. Books like "The First 90 Days" by Michael Watkins have become bestsellers, and organizations of all sizes are more mindful than ever about the importance of the first three months at a new job.

One tool that I have found effective in working with new managers and executives is a "Managerial User's Manual", a document in which a new leader describes his or her preferences and style to his or her new staff. The benefit of a user's manual is that it provides a basis for accelerating the "getting to know you" process.

The content of a user's manual should include what one values, what one is motivated by, and areas for potential misunderstanding. For example, a client of mine wrote a user's manual in which he let his team know that just because he asks many questions, doesn't mean that he is skeptical about their capabilities, it is simply his style.

In a sense, any interaction between a new leader and his or her team can be thought of as a cross-cultural communication. After all, the new leader comes from another organizational culture, and possibly also a different national culture as well.

By writing a "user's manual" in which one conveys valuable information about oneself, the risk that misunderstandings will occur can be greatly reduced. For example, another client wrote in his user's manual that he was a morning person, and he requested that his new team approach him with issues in the morning rather than in the afternoon. If he had not conveyed that preference, his staff might have approached him in the afternoon and concluded that he did not really want to interact with them or focus on the issues that they werre trying to bring to his attention.

With many people in career transition these days due to the challenging economy, writing a user's manual can be a good use of time, not just because when one finds one's next job the user's manual can be a useful tool, but also because even in the interviewing process, taking time to reflect on one's style and preferences can make it easier to prepare for interviews in which prospective employers may assess self awareness and potential leadership skills.

The psychology of networking

Ben Dattner — Sun, 04 May 2008 06:30:25 -0700

Social networking is becoming an increasingly important part of society in general and business in particular. Major corporations are investing in social networking websites and technologies.

However, in an economy and job market where social networks are more important than ever, most of us do not capture the value that we potentially could out of our social and professional networks.

First of all, most people think of networking as temporary and episodic, for example, as a way to get a job or close a deal, instead of as an ongoing process. This is a mistake for many reasons. Networking only when you "have to" means that you will likely be anxious and stressed, and be more focused on what you need from your network than on what you can offer it. A better practice is to network when you don't need anything in particular, and to focus more on what you can do for others than on what they can do for you.

Secondly, people often make the mistake of thinking that the best way to keep in touch with people is to update them about your activities and accomplishments. While this can be helpful at times, a better strategy is to keep track of their activities and accomplishments, for example by using tools like Google News Alerts, which enable you to enter in the names of people, organizations, or topics that you'd like to be automatically notified about. When setting up a news alert, it's helpful to use quotes around search terms so that you only get alerted when exact terms are matched.

Finally, it is important to use "emotional intelligence" in your networking efforts. In order to network successfully, you need to know yourself- for example, knowing when you are in a state of mind that can enable you to network without conveying undue levels stress or anxiety. It's also helpful to know what exactly others can do to help you. It's easier for others to help you if you have a clear idea of the ways in which they can help you.

Social intelligence is also a critical part of successful networking. Knowing what the people in your network care about and value makes it easier for you to be helpful to them, which in turn makes it more likely that they will practice the norm of reciprocity and be helpful to you. It's also important to demonstrate sensitivity and to allow the people in your network to choose if, when and how they provide assistance rather than making demands on them.

For some additional suggestions about how to build and maintain a professional network, see this presentation.

Re-enacting family dynamics in the workplace

Ben Dattner — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:45:41 -0700

In my consulting work as an organizational psychologist, I often find that people use language to describe bosses or co-workers that sounds like they are describing parents or siblings. For example, bosses can be "supportive" or "critical", and peers can be "competitive" or "favored".

It seems that everyone comes to work each day with a set of assumptions, associations and frames that are substantially influenced by early life experiences in general, and family of origin experiences in particular. There was an interesting article in Business Week a few years ago on this topic.

There is a psychoanalytic notion of "projective identification" that is often observable in the workplace. Essentially, this occurs when two people in a relationship "project" thoughts and feelings on one another, and then "identify" in turn. For example, a positive dynamic would be a subordinate who "projects" kindness on a boss, and sees him or her as benevolent. The boss in turn "identifies" with this view that the subordinate has. The boss may then view the subordinate as loyal and competent, also confirming the subordinate's hopes about him or herself.

Unfortunately, projective identification can also operate in the other direction, and people can confirm one another's fears about who they each are, rather than their hopes.

In either case, "transference" of earlier life experiences is influencing both parties, both in terms of reciprocal projections and identifications, and often, this is how family dynamics or other early life experiences get re-enacted in the workplace.

For more detail about projective identification, here's an interesting article about how it can play out in supervisor-subordinate relationships.

What if a prospective employer asks you to take a personality test?

Ben Dattner — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:32:38 -0700

Statistics collected by the Association of Test Publishers indicates that the use of pre-employment personality testing is growing by around 15% per year.

What do you need to know if a prospective employer asks you to take a test?

First of all, although it doesn't make sense to try to "game" the assessments (after all, if you misrepresent yourself, you may either be flagged by the assessments as "faking" your personality, and/or end up in a job or at an organization that isn't a good fit for you), it is helpful to know what kinds of dimensions are assessed by well established pre-employment tests.

It can also be helpful to know how these tests reflect your personality. Here is a well-established free assessment of the Big Five personality dimensions. The report will be instructive about how you come across on this kind of assessment.

Secondly, you need to know your legal rights. You can always refuse to take a personality or cognitive ability test, but the prospective employer is then free to end your candidacy. Employers have an obligation to follow certain legal guidelines with respect to pre-employment assessment.

Finally, it's important to understand that the assessments an organization uses to assess you might be more diagnostic of the organization than of you. By understanding the criteria the organization considers important, you get valuable information about the organization as well, and this can help you determine fit as well.

For a more in-depth discussion about personality testing for the purposes of pre-employment assessment, you may find this radio program of interest.

The Benefits of a Little Wackiness in the Workplace

Ben Dattner — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:26:48 -0700

Most management theorists posit that people who are calm, confident and self controlled succeed in the workplace. Leadership books extoll the value of being rational and friendly at work, using self awareness to build on strengths and to remedy development needs.

However, anyone who works in any kind of real workplace knows that the calm, rational, and emotionally intelligent do not necessarily succeed or move up the ranks.

Perhaps some highly successful people actually leverage what might be considered personality flaws, like narcissism, obsessiveness or manic moods?

Team Building Offsites From Hell

Ben Dattner — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:45:40 -0700

Organizations of all kinds and sizes bring people together for offsite retreats. While the intention is to build a sense of team spirit, the planned activities, such as go-karting or paintball, often bring out individual competitiveness rather than team collaboration.

Participants are often amazed, not only at how unpleasant the "fun" activities are, but also by how ephemeral the benefits of the time away from the office are. On the other hand, the memory of listening to your co-workers sing "Dancing Queen" might endure much longer than you want it to.

What is the social/psychological explanation for the poor performance record of team offsites? Is it an ambivalence about change? A fear of speaking truth to power? The impulse of individuals to assert themselves as taking primacy over the team? A preference for karaoke over real work?

Can you share any team building horror stories, dear readers?

How Racist Are You?

Ben Dattner — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:52:07 -0700

In his speech in Philadelphia yesterday, presidential hopeful Barack Obama discussed many aspects of race and racism in America, considering what has changed in the last 50 years, and mentioning what, in his view, still needs to change. He differentiated between the more overt forms of racism in the past and the more subtle kinds of racism that exist today.

In the contemporary workplace, there is a high degree of subjectivity in terms of hiring, firing, giving promotions, and compensation. Racial biases, along with other stereotypes about gender, age, religion, socioeconomic background, and sexual preference can be important influences on some of the judgments made by managers and employees alike.

Are you thinking that you're exempt from such prejudices? You may be surprised. To assess the degree and kind of unconscious, implicit associations that may be influencing your perceptions in the workplace, visit Harvard's "Implicit Associations Test"

It's a quick and fun test to take. I will be interested to hear your reactions to your results, so send them in.

The Psychology of Job Interviews

Ben Dattner — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:42:38 -0700

Job interviews are still the most common, and the most heavily weighted, pre-employment assessment tool. Most people think that they are pretty good judges of candidates' intelligence, motivation, interpersonal skills and leadership potential. However, research has shown that unstructured job interviews have a validity of roughly 20%, meaning that flipping a coin would actually be more likely to predict who will succeed in the workplace. Training interviewers and structuring interviews can boost validity to roughly 50%. Given that a back-of-the-envelope calculation is that each poor hire costs organizations one year's total compensation (to recruit, process and train a replacement), it is somewhat mysterious that more organizations do not train interviewers, structure interviews, or hold hiring managers accountable for their hiring decisions. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a great article about the basic psychology of interviews in The New Yorker a few years ago.