# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Katherine May, the best-selling author, has one simple question to help you get started.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
If you want employees in the office, build creative spaces and quiet zones

# data[].attributes.headline
HR Brew: If You Want Employees in the Office, Build Creative Spaces & Quiet Zones

# data[].attributes.subject
HR Brew: If You Want Employees in the Office, Build Creative Spaces & Quiet Zones

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thomas Barwick/Getty Images

Offices are undergoing a (let's be honest) long overdue transformation. As office design decisions have become more closely linked to talent strategy, HR leaders have had to figure out how to reconfigure workspaces in a way that will bring employees back in the door.

"A lot of our clients are actually looking at using this as a time of experimentation and piloting and learning," Janet Pogue McLaurin, global director of workplace research and a principal at workplace design firm Gensler, told HR Brew.

HR leaders looking to make improvements to their cubicle-farm layouts can start with adding spaces for creative group work and individual quiet work, according to recent Gensler research on the office amenities that are most attractive to employees and drive productivity.

What they want. Tech-free zones and innovation hubs were the amenities most closely correlated with workplace experience and effectiveness, according to Gensler's 2022 Workplace Performance Index, which surveyed over 2,000 US workers who have returned to the office at least part-time.

Survey respondents also outlined the different vibes they want from their workplaces. The ideal mix, they said, includes different spaces for the different types of work they do, from collaborative to individual.

"People are more willing to return for their ideal mix of experiences," Pogue McLaurin said. "In fact, 42% said they would come back one more day a week and 24% said they would come back full-time if they had [their perfect] mix."

Perhaps not surprisingly, some preferences varied by generation, with Baby Boomers ranking the "corporate," "residential," "library," and "conference center" environments higher than Gen X, Millennial, and Gen Z workers. But all kinds of spaces are under consideration for some businesses.

"Libraries are making a huge comeback," Pogue McLaurin said, "and it's not about the books, it's about the rules of a library and having a place that you can just quietly get your work done."

New philosophy. Office design decisions were once pretty straightforward. Companies required most employees to come into the office every day and provided them with a space-efficient workspace, Pogue McLaurin explained. Today, that's not enough.

HR is challenging. HR news doesn't have to be.

HR Brew keeps you effective in the fast-changing business environment.

"It's got to be a destination, not an obligation," she said.

This might mean developing workspaces that are more like a hotel lobby or college lounge than a corporate office, and customizing them based on teams' unique tasks.

"We're learning that not all functions work the same, and we really need to think about tailoring this to how their employees work," Pogue McLaurin said. "We are borrowing from hospitality. We're borrowing from everyday life experiences...outdoor spaces, meditation spaces, even nap areas."

Some companies are even migrating to more walkable, urban locations for the amenities available around the building, she added, such as gyms, happy-hour spots, or access to public transportation.

Marriott, she noted, moved about four miles from suburban Bethesda to a downtown, metro-friendly neighborhood. The hotel chain told Fortune that it hoped the new location and surrounding amenities would attract prospective employees.

"We're seeing a lot of our clients relocating to mixed-use developments for that very reason," Pogue McLaurin said. "Because they want to take advantage of all those spaces around them."

First time? When it comes to workplace design decisions, "HR is more involved now than ever," Pogue McLaurin said, echoing sentiments shared by peers in commercial real estate.

"Our client decision-makers have really shifted to be more people-focused and talent-focused," she said.

For those just getting started on an office redesign, Pogue McLaurin recommended asking employees for feedback and noted that large-scale changes are not always necessary. Instead of a major refurbishing or a move, companies can start with smaller changes and pilots.

"We would start by having focus groups," she said, "and talking and listening to what their employees really need, [and] understanding what's around that location that they can take advantage of." -AK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If you want employees in the office, build creative spaces and quiet zones

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Offices are undergoing a (let's be honest) long overdue transformation. As office design decisions have become more closely linked to talent strategy, HR leaders have had to figure out how to reconfigure workspaces in a way that will bring employees back in the door.

# data[].attributes.headline
Terkel: What's the Hardest Question In the World

# data[].attributes.subject
Terkel: What's the Hardest Question In the World

# data[].attributes.body
I was so happy to be able to share my thoughts on this question!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is the hardest question in the world?

From "What is Consciousness?" to "How Are You?", here are 11 answers to the question, "What is the hardest question to answer?"

What is Consciousness?

Why Does It Work that Way?

What is Your Purpose in Life?

What is the Purpose of Our Existence?

Are You Happy in Life?

Where Do You Want to Be in Five Years?

Can a Statement Be True and False at the Same Time?

How Much is Enough?

Is There a God?

What Are Your Weaknesses?

How Are You?

What is Consciousness?

One of the most challenging questions to answer is "What is consciousness?" This concept has been debated for centuries, yet nobody can come to an absolute conclusion about its origin and purpose. Some view consciousness as nothing more than a physical stimulus-response mechanism. Others go as far as suggesting that consciousness is an intrinsic part of the universe, beyond mere biology or materialism.

One thing almost everyone agrees on is how difficult it is to define and study something intangible like consciousness with measurable scientific methodology. Trying to define and explain something that has the power to question itself makes this question truly daunting.

Natalia Brzezinska, Marketing and Outreach Manager, PhotoAiD

Why Does It Work that Way?

This is one of those questions that applies in every industry and every walk of life, and oftentimes being able to answer it means knowing a process forwards and backwards. Plenty of people can tell you how something works. Significantly fewer people can tell you why that thing works the way it does, rather than in a different way.

Dragos Badea, CEO, Yarooms

What is Your Purpose in Life?

When someone asks what your purpose in life is, it can be challenging to know how to respond because the answer can change with every season of life, and one person can represent many things. For example, you may be passionate about the mission of your business and feel called to that purpose - but you may also put your family first and have character traits that make you unique, like being a good listener or making people laugh. It's OK not to have one purpose but many purposes in this life.

Patricio Paucar, Co-founder + Chief Customer Officer, Navi

What is the Purpose of Our Existence?

This question is challenging to answer because it is a philosophical and subjective inquiry that has been the subject of discussion among scholars, religious figures, and individuals throughout history. The purpose of existence is open to various interpretations and may vary from person to person, as it can be shaped by cultural, religious, personal, and philosophical perspectives. Furthermore, there is no one set answer to this question as it can often stimulate a more thorough evaluation of one's values and beliefs, leading to further philosophical exploration.

Georgi Todorov, Founder, ThriveMyWay

Are You Happy in Life?

Relatively straightforward, yet still emotional, this is one of the most difficult questions a person might be forced to answer. Here, the response is not always clear-cut. Happiness is a complex emotion that can vary significantly from person to person and can be influenced by many factors, such as life experiences, relationships, personal values, and beliefs. It is also dynamic, meaning it can change over time, making it difficult to define or quantify.

Determining if we're happy in life requires introspection and self-reflection, which can be difficult and may require the consideration of multiple aspects of one's life. Additionally, there might not be a straightforward answer as life is a mixture of positive and negative emotions and has both joyful and challenging moments. Therefore, the question "Are you happy in life?" can be difficult to answer as it taps into deeply personal and subjective experiences that can be hard to articulate and explain.

Nina Paczka, Community Manager, Resume Now

Where Do You Want to Be in Five Years?

Maybe it's just me, but the excitement of my professional life has been in discovering my latent talents, polishing and leveraging them, and creating new and exciting channels to grow. Doing this has taken me on several different paths in the past five years. Experiences I didn't expect to have. Making new acquaintances, I didn't know I needed in my life. Traveling to places I hadn't ever planned on going (that have been magical). It would have disappointed me had I followed a pedestrian career path.

Certainly, I can answer that question in a way I know will satisfy someone's banal expectations, but that requires me to be not completely honest. My true answer: I plan to stay creative and open to exciting opportunities to grow and develop, and make the most of each day. This can take me on a path (or paths) I am unaware of today - which makes living life such an adventure.

Elizabeth Boyd, Talent Development and Learning | Workplace Experience Consultant, TalentLab.Live

Can a Statement Be True and False at the Same Time?

The Liar's Paradox, a question that has intrigued philosophers for centuries, is whether a statement can simultaneously be both true and false. This paradox is one of the most intriguing and confounding philosophical questions and has no clear answer. While some believe that statements cannot be both true and false simultaneously, others argue that certain statements are self-referential and thus can have different interpretations and be both true and false.

Despite the continued debate, it is unlikely that a definitive answer will be reached, and the paradox may remain an unresolved puzzle for future generations to contemplate. The Liar's Paradox remains a captivating and thought-provoking enigma that continues to challenge our understanding of truth and language.

Burak Özdemir, Founder, Online Alarm Kur

How Much is Enough?

We often want more than we have now: more money, more gadgets, better furniture, a better house, a better car, more clothes, more shoes, more success. And what happens when we get more? We aren't satisfied, because there are new ads for new iPods, new laptops, new iPhones, new cars, and new clothes. We have to have those. It's impossible to satisfy that hunger for more, because our culture is not satisfied with what we have, but is geared toward wanting more. It's consumerism, and it's the official religion of the industrialized world.

If money was the answer to all needs, then why would rich and famous people commit suicide, why would politicians who have money that can last for several generations still be corrupt? The hardest question to answer is "How much is enough?" Ask yourself if there truly is an answer.

Jocelyn Bowmaker, Marketing Manager, The Mindset Development Group

Is There a God?

The hardest question to answer is one that fundamentally challenges our beliefs or values. These questions are difficult because they require us to reflect deeply on our beliefs and values and confront the possibility that our beliefs may be wrong or incomplete.

Questions such as "Is there a God?" challenge us to confront our own beliefs and values and consider the possibility that our answers may be wrong. These types of questions can also be difficult because they require us to think beyond our own experiences in order to consider other perspectives. These questions can be difficult to answer because the answers we give can have profound implications for our lives.

For example, answering that morality is relative may mean that we have to modify or change our behavior or beliefs in order to live in a way that is consistent with that belief. Similarly, answering that there is no God may require us to reevaluate our understanding of the universe and our place within it.

Janie Doyle, Marketing Director, Scvehiclehire

What Are Your Weaknesses?

I find this a really tough question to answer, and that's probably why it's a common job interview question. You want to give a good, honest, and truthful answer, but at the same time, it's hard to know what to say in the context of a job interview, where you're keen to impress. It goes against your instincts to try and give a great impression.

James Townend, Foster Agency Director, Fitzgerald Fostering

How Are You?

It's a deceptively simple question, but one that can be so hard to answer. As a hardworking husband and father, I spend so much time planning, thinking, and doing that I rarely stop to ask myself how I'm feeling, so when someone else does, it can come as a shock. Of course, it's important to consider context. When a waiter politely asks this, they're probably more interested in getting your order than your life story. But when a loved one asks how you are, it can be difficult to know how to respond.

I often have to take a minute to consider, then answer authentically but appropriately. For instance, if one of my kids asks this, and I've had a hard day, I don't want to burden them, but I also want to teach them it's okay to share. I might say something like, "Today's been tricky, but I'm glad to be home." When someone asks me this and really means it, it's powerful. It can open up conversations and strengthen connections. I always ask this sincerely, and it's amazing how people respond.

Shawn Hill, Owner, The Grilling Dad

Submit Your Answer

Would you like to submit an alternate answer to the question, "What is the hardest question to answer? Please share the question in the Header, and your answer for why this is a tough question in the answer box."
Submit your answer here.
Related Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the hardest question in the world? - Terkel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From "What is Consciousness?" to "How Are You?", here are 11 answers to the question, "What is the hardest question to answer?" What is Consciousness? Why Does It Work that Way? What is Your Purpose in Life? What is the Purpose of Our Existence? Are You Happy in Life?

# data[].attributes.headline
INC: My Employee Works Late Every Night, but I Think It's Her FaultHer work habits are to blame, not her workload.

# data[].attributes.subject
INC: My Employee Works Late Every Night, but I Think It's Her FaultHer work habits are to blame, not her workload.

# data[].attributes.headline
ScientificAmerican: The Best Way to Book Workers Mental Health Is to Give Them Good Managers

# data[].attributes.subject
ScientificAmerican: The Best Way to Book Workers Mental Health Is to Give Them Good Managers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Workers are not doing well. Around the globe, employees report rising rates of burnout despite efforts by many organizations to add programs and resources such as counseling, more paid time off and even free access to meditation apps.

The ongoing distress may be because none of these steps directly address one of the biggest impacts on your well-being: your manager. Now a study pinpoints the specific leadership styles that make the largest difference. It also revealed that increasing positive management tactics may be every bit as important as minimizing bad leadership.

This research, published in the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, outlines findings from an analysis of 53 studies that tested how leadership style affects employee mental health. By analyzing results across studies, this meta-analysis provides much stronger evidence than any single investigation on its own. Previous research had established the link between leadership style and mental health, but this new effort goes further: it is the first to explain which styles make the biggest difference. The researchers looked at both the positive impact of helpful styles and the negative effects of unhelpful ones.

The scientists compared seven distinct leadership styles. Among the most common is transactional, in which bosses focus on consistently rewarding and punishing people based on performance. Another frequent style is laissez-faire, where managers largely leave employees to their own devices. Of the seven styles, the analysis found that two had the most significant effects on employee well-being: transformational and destructive.

Managers who adopted a transformational leadership style had the biggest positive impact on their employees' mental health. First defined in the early 1970s, transformational leaders inspire others by painting a vision, encouraging team members to engage in creative thinking and tailoring their approach to the individual needs of each employee. This style had far and away the most positive results, as measured by employee reports of their own well-being. It even beat out the leader-member exchange approach, in which the manager and employee have a tight-knit relationship, and the relationship- and task-oriented leadership styles, which emphasize supportiveness and efficiency respectively.

On the flip side, the researchers also found that destructive leadership styles, where bosses engage in aggressive and hostile behavior, have the largest negative impact on employee mental health. While anyone who has worked for a difficult manager won't find that surprising, the analysis still held a twist. In many psychological studies, scientists have found that " bad is stronger than good " in most people's mind. People generally expect that a truly awful boss is far more detrimental than an inspirational leader can be beneficial. The researchers therefore anticipated that the negative effects of a bad leader would be substantially greater than the positive effects of a good one. Instead they found that transformational leadership was just as powerful in explaining positive mental health outcomes as destructive leadership was in explaining negative outcomes.

This has powerful implications. It means that making average leaders better (specifically by helping them be more transformational) can have just as much of a positive impact as minimizing destructive leadership. To be clear, companies should work to eliminate toxic behaviors in their managers. But the findings suggest that increasing the number of transformational leaders should also be a high priority for companies. Doing that could be just as effective as pouring money into programs such as stress-reduction and mindfulness resources. Given that employees often use those tools to cope with their average or destructive managers, improving leadership through training, for instance, could be a more powerful intervention.

Helping managers identify specific actions and attitudes they should either adopt or avoid will improve the mental health of employees. Better management will lead to a healthier organizational culture overall, one that reinforces what excellent leadership looks like and what types of behaviors are not tolerated. And that change can kick off a virtuous cycle: over time, a healthy culture attracts better employees and better leaders.

Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about for Mind Matters? Please send suggestions to Scientific American 's Mind Matters editor Daisy Yuhas at pitchmindmatters@gmail.com.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Best Way to Boost Workers’ Mental Health Is to Give Them Good Managers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Workers are not doing well. Around the globe, employees report rising rates of burnout despite efforts by many organizations to add programs and resources such as counseling, more paid time off and even free access to meditation apps. The ongoing distress may be because none of these steps directly address one of the biggest impacts on your well-being: your manager.

# data[].attributes.headline
Business Insider: Employers Can't Force You to Keep Quiet to Get Severance!

# data[].attributes.subject
Business Insider: Employers Can't Force You to Keep Quiet to Get Severance!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Companies can't require employees to waive their rights as part of a severance agreement.

In a ruling on Tuesday, the National Labor Relations Board said such requirements are "unlawful."

Workers can't be forced to "choose between receiving benefits and exercising their rights," NLRB's Lauren McFerran said.

Companies that make former workers promise not to disparage their former employers in exchange for a severance payment are breaking the law, the National Labor Relations Board ruled Tuesday, restoring what it said was an "important principle and longstanding precedent" that employees cannot be coerced into waiving their rights.

The decision concerned a Michigan hospital that, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, terminated 11 union employees and asked them - in exchange for a payout - to sign severance agreements barring them from making public comments "which could disparage or harm" the company.

In 2020, the NLRB, at the time operating with a Republican majority, twice ruled that such limits on speech were legal, arguing in one of its decisions that severance agreements with nondisparagement clauses are "entirely voluntary."

But those earlier rulings were flawed, the NLRB's new Democratic majority said Tuesday, asserting that employees cannot waive their rights under federal labor law - and that asking them to could affect the rights of those still on the job.

"We therefore overrule both decisions and return to the prior, well-established principle that a severance agreement is unlawful if its terms have a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights," the board said, referring to the right under federal law to engage in collective action, such as union organizing, to improve workplace conditions.

Nondisparagement clauses, it reasoned, could prevent former workers from being able to assist investigations into ongoing labor law violations.

The NLRB is a five-person organization whose members are nominated by the president. It's current chairperson, Lauren McFerran, is a Democrat who has served since January 2021. The lone dissenter on Thursday's ruling, Marvin Kaplan, was appointed in 2017.

In a statement, McFerran said Thursday's ruling reflected an understanding that "employers cannot ask individual employees to choose between receiving benefits and exercising their rights under the National Labor Relations Act."
Have a news tip? Email this reporter: cdavis@insider.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Employers can't force you to keep quiet to get severance, labor board decides, reversing Trump-era rulings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Companies can't require employees to waive their rights as part of a severance agreement. In a ruling on Tuesday, the National Labor Relations Board said such requirements are "unlawful." Workers can't be forced to "choose between receiving benefits and exercising their rights," NLRB's Lauren McFerran said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Evaluating Managers: 5 heuristics to measure managerial impact

# data[].attributes.headline
Abdulapopoola: 5 Heuristics to Measure Managerial Impact

# data[].attributes.subject
Abdulapopoola: 5 Heuristics to Measure Managerial Impact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evaluating Managers: 5 heuristics to measure managerial impact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Measuring a manager's impact is hard since outcomes take time. The manager takes full responsibility for the team - be it stagnation, execution woes, poor collaboration, churn, or a lack of focus. This post provides early evaluation metrics as well as tips for course correction.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bloomberg: 4-Day Work Week Trial Finds Few Are Going Back

# data[].attributes.subject
Bloomberg: 4-Day Work Week Trial Finds Few Are Going Back

# data[].attributes.headline
INC: New LinkedIn Data Confirms It: Employees Who Can't Grow, Leave

# data[].attributes.subject
INC: New LinkedIn Data Confirms It: Employees Who Can't Grow, Leave

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Research: How Coworking Spaces Impact Employee Well-Being

# data[].attributes.headline
HBR: How Coworking Spaces Impact Employee Well-Being

# data[].attributes.subject
HBR: How Coworking Spaces Impact Employee Well-Being

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research: How Coworking Spaces Impact Employee Well-Being

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Debates over hybrid work policies continue to revolve around two primary work locations: the office or the home. The authors argue this is a limited viewpoint, especially when it comes to addressing the significant problem of employee loneliness. There is a third space to consider: coworking sites. In the authors’ research, knowledge workers rated such spaces as more interpersonally satisfying than working from the office or from home. One big reason is that coworking sites offer better opportunities for employees to relationally craft their jobs — that is, pick which other professionals they engage with during the workday, and how. Social autonomy is a basic need of employees, one that will continue to drive their employment decisions in the years to come. The authors offer five pieces of advice for how employers can leverage the unique assets of coworking sites in designing their hybrid work policies.

# data[].attributes.body
Toxic productivity is leaving little time for meaningful work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Idea in Brief

The Problem

In the corporate world everyone feels busy. "Time poverty" and stress are reducing firm productivity and leading to burnout. Corporations are mistaking activity for achievement.

The Causes

Corporate cultures lionize busyness. Even as the long-term damage of this becomes clear, individuals continue to mindlessly overwork because of an aversion to idleness (it feels good in the moment to be busy) and the need to justify their efforts.

The Solution

Leaders should conduct an audit to see whether employees have time for "deep work." They should mandate paid time off, offer incentives for output, model the right behavior by disengaging from the busyness culture, and build slack into organizations to make them more resilient.

In my 2019 book, The Power of Human, I recount an anecdote about a man who immigrated to the United States and soon came to believe that the word "busy" meant "good" because when he asked people, "How are you doing?" they often responded, "Busy." Nora Rosendahl, the chief operating officer of the performance coaching firm Hintsa, discovered the same thing when she conducted a small social experiment by documenting answers to the question "How are you?" over the course of a week. By her count, nearly eight out of 10 people said, "Busy."

Academic research suggests that our days are becoming increasingly jam-packed. One analysis of holiday letters indicates that references to "crazy schedules" have risen dramatically since the 1960s, for example. And an analysis of Gallup data by Harvard Business School's Ashley Whillans found that the percentage of employed Americans reporting that they "never had enough time" rose from 70% in 2011 to 80% in 2018.

The reasons for the rise in "time poverty" (as social scientists have termed it) are numerous and nuanced, but corporate cultures that value busyness are at least partially to blame-and in theory should also be easy to correct. Put simply, busyness has become a status symbol. Research led by the Columbia marketing professor Silvia Bellezza shows that people perceive others who are busy-and who use products indicating they're busy (like a Bluetooth headset for multitasking)-to be important and impressive. In addition, newly published studies led by the psychologist Jared Celniker have found that across the United States, France, and South Korea, people consider those who exert high effort to be "morally admirable," regardless of their output. This is a marked change from bygone eras. As the sociologist Jonathan Gershuny notes, "Work, not leisure, is now the signifier of dominant social status." Or as Gordon Gekko puts it more prosaically in the movie Wall Street, "Lunch is for wimps."

But when it comes to corporate life, busyness is not a virtue, and it is long past time that organizations stopped lionizing it. Evaluating employees on how busy they are is a terrible way to identify the most creative and productive talent. Yet many firms reward and promote only people who display how "hard" they're working. The effect on companies and their employees is significant. Research indicates that when organizations overload employees, base their incentives primarily on the amount of time they work, and excessively monitor their activities, productivity and efficiency actually drop. Exhaustion among employees can increase turnover, at considerable cost to firms' financial performance. Even if employees don't leave, busyness harms the bottom line by reducing staff engagement and increasing absenteeism. It also impairs workers' health: A 2021 World Health Organization report showed that overwork can increase the risk of stroke, heart disease, and ultimately death. Conversely, research suggests that reducing working hours to manageable levels can enhance productivity.

My sense is that managers now are more open to reconsidering the value of busyness than they have been in a long time. A tight labor market that has increased the negotiating power of overstretched employees is one factor here, but the pandemic has changed the corporate zeitgeist, as time away from offices has led people at all levels to reassess their relationship with their jobs. Last year a TikTok post about "quiet quitting"-when employees refuse to work beyond their prescribed tasks and hours-went viral and became the subject of a media frenzy. Certainly, there's something in the air.

Drawing on academic research that I and others have done and on my experience advising companies looking for humane, productive ways to help employees manage their time, I have uncovered several reasons why the obsession with busyness persists even in today's knowledge economy. I've also identified practical solutions for companies trying to break out of this widespread but destructive pattern.

Why We Revere Busyness

One of social psychology's canonical findings is that the harder people work to achieve something, the more they value it. Known as "effort justification," this tendency arises even when a task is meaningless. And the more demanding the effort is, the more commitment people feel. New hires forced to work long hours on a graveyard shift, for instance, might persuade themselves, If I work this hard, I must really want to be here. The problem is that while we go on justifying the slog, we fail to notice burnout creeping up on us.

Once a culture of busyness is established, it tends to persist unchallenged. In an influential 1988 article, the management scholars Blake Ashforth and Yitzhak Fried wrote that a lot of organizational behavior is mindless. Production workers "go on automatic," employees follow established rules and procedures without questioning their effectiveness, and managers make hires and promotions based on superficial cues and first impressions. Indeed, much of what managers believe to be institutional knowledge and culture is actually just bad habits.

Dru Armstrong, an experienced CEO whom I have done some consulting work for and who is now the head of the fintech company AffiniPay, has observed that sometimes "busyness becomes the fabric of organizations." In other words it gets embedded in day-to-day activities unless leaders can explicitly root it out through a strategic plan. "Absent very clear strategic priorities, people create endless amounts of work based on what they think matters," she explains. "You'll say, 'I need you to focus on this priority,' or 'I need you to move on price,' or 'We need to go buy a company or partner with a new organization.' And everyone goes, 'Well, I can't-I'm way too busy.' And then you say, 'Busy doing what?'"

When organizations encourage busyness, employees rarely resist. That's because even if they recognize the downside of unproductive efforts over the long term, in the moment they deplore idleness. In one famous experiment, the psychologist Timothy Wilson and his colleagues found that 67% of men and 25% of women chose to press a button to electrically shock themselves rather than sit still with their own thoughts in a lab room. Before entering the room, participants had stated that they would pay money to avoid an electric shock, but once they were left alone, the inactivity became too much to bear, and people sought to fill the void.

Other work on " idleness aversion " led by the behavioral science professor Christopher Hsee shows that people will choose to do something that keeps them busy (such as disassembling and reassembling a bracelet) rather than wait idly for 15 minutes, as long as they can generate even the most vaguely justifiable reason.

Even an epoch-changing pandemic could not shake this aversion to idleness. While managers worried that new work-from-home arrangements brought on by Covid-19 would cause employees to slack off, in fact remote employees in the United States worked longer hours in the early months of the pandemic, even as the economy slowed. Unfortunately, their desire to stay busy may have made them generate unnecessary work and stretch out the time it took to complete existing tasks, exacerbating their burnout.

A final reason organizations value busyness is that their customers do. In many cases customers equate effort with worth. In one simple demonstration of this phenomenon, experimenters showed that participants liked various items (such as a poem, a painting, and a suit of armor) more and rated them higher in quality and value when they thought more effort had gone into producing them. Research by the HBS operations professor Ryan Buell found that cafeteria customers reported greater satisfaction with their service when a sandwich was made in front of them-when they could observe the work that went into it-than when an identical sandwich was delivered to them. Like a foreman telling his crew to "look sharp" because a client is approaching, bosses will sometimes keep their employees busy because it seems that's what their customers want.

How to Reverse Course

What can organizations do to beat back the scourge? I believe that five approaches can help them overcome the obsession with busyness.

Reward output, not just activity.

As the old saying goes, you get what you pay for. So unsurprisingly, paying people for effort can lead to more effort rather than greater productivity. Recent research led by the University of Texas accounting professor Eric Chan shows that when workers diverge in natural ability on a collaborative task (in this case, solving anagram puzzles) and are paid only for the time they spend on it, they end up working longer but less intensely-getting less done-in part because they perceive the incentives to be unfair. Even when such incentive approaches are well-established, their effectiveness is negligible. A classic study of the legal profession led by Suffolk University's Renée Landers, for instance, shows that law firms' tendency to promote associates who have the most billable hours leads to a rat-race mentality and causes lawyers to work too many hours and be inefficient.

Shifting to performance-based pay can enhance worker productivity but comes with its own risks. The economist Edward Lazear found that when the automobile-glass-repair company Safelite switched from hourly pay to pay based on number of windshields installed, average worker productivity rose 44%. Of course, employees should not be rewarded solely for output, as that can encourage overwork and burnout if people get too wrapped up in chasing rewards. Incentives focused just on output can also impede innovation, which often requires "inefficient" misfires and failures. Ideally, compensation programs will combine incentives based on both input (to encourage risk-taking and innovation) and output (to maximize overall productivity). Meanwhile, rewarding workers at least in part for the quality of their results will communicate the message that you don't value busyness alone.

Assess whether your organization is generating deep work and eliminating low-value work.

The computer scientist Cal Newport has detailed how important it is for companies to enable what he calls "deep work," or sustained attention to cognitively demanding tasks. Unfortunately, many workplaces bombard employees with shallow work (data entry, nonessential meetings, filing expense reports, and so on), interfering with their ability to do deep work. Indeed, a large body of research shows that multitasking reduces productivity by as much as 40%. Because multitasking feels more productive than doing just one thing, it's easy to overlook the accumulation of "switching costs" (shifting between tasks). To truly overcome the busyness epidemic, organizations should perform audits of whether work does in fact engage employees rather than simply keep them on the clock.

How can you do such audits? Start by surveying employees and asking them to list every activity they do on a weekly basis and to rate on a five-point scale how cognitively demanding each task is, how much focus it involves, and how much training it requires. Once the shallow tasks (ones that score low on these metrics) have been identified, managers can determine whether to eliminate them or replace them with something more efficient. After doing this type of self-assessment, some companies, like MT Online, a personal loan and insurance marketplace, and Treehouse, a tech company, have chosen to eliminate email, shifting to more-customized communication platforms-and have reported productivity increases. Other companies, like the digital studio TheSoul Publishing, boosted efficiency by introducing a "no meetings policy." I myself decided to eliminate phone calls, which disrupt my deep work because I feel I can't respond to them on my own schedule.

Before you eliminate shallow tasks, however, it's important to consider what the organization and its employees believe is feasible. When I recently spoke to a Dutch electronics company about these strategies, one employee stated, "This no-calls policy seems ridiculous to me." It could be that this person relied on the phone for quick, synchronous communication or that phone calls were just a big part of that company's culture.

Force people off the clock.

Just as managers erroneously worried that employees would take advantage of working remotely during the pandemic, many companies fear that employees will abuse generous leave policies. When I gave a lecture to business leaders about the motivational benefits of time off and mentioned that some companies offer unlimited vacation days, one executive said that if his company did that, people would take a holiday and never come back. In reality, the most generous companies (and the people who have worked for them) know that employees who have unlimited vacation often end up taking less time off. Surveys repeatedly show that more than half of American workers don't use all their paid vacation days, and most work on vacation. Studies also show that significant majorities of employees check work email during off-hours, spurring governments in France, Spain, and Portugal to pass laws requiring organizations to allow employees to disconnect from work communications after hours.

Such policies should not fall to governments, however, and thankfully some companies have realized the upside of forcing their employees off the clock (or at least nudging them to work less). Several organizations, including the pet-wellness company Honest Paws, the photobook company Chatbooks, and the airline marketing strategy firm SimpliFlying, have successfully implemented compulsory-paid-time-off policies. Others, like the software company FullContact, incentivize true time off by paying people to take vacations and stipulating that if employees open a work email, they must return their vacation stipend. In 2014 the German automaker Daimler (now Mercedes-Benz) enabled employees to use an out-of-office email program that automatically erased any emails they received on holiday, informing the senders their emails had been deleted and that they could contact someone else in case of an emergency. Such policies signal that the company values employee well-being over mere busyness.

One of the most interesting discoveries in neuroscience over the past 20 years points to another good reason for forcing employees to disengage. Researchers found that activity in the network of brain regions involved in attention-demanding tasks (known as the "task-positive network") tends to be negatively correlated with activity in the network of brain regions involved in thinking beyond the present (known as the "default network" because of its tendency to be active-by default-during moments of rest). This means that the more the brain is engaged in a specific task (even busywork), the less it can transcend the here and now. My research has shown that such transcendence is linked to experiencing meaning in life, creative expertise, and even prosocial behavior. If you want your employees to truly thrive, you need to allow time for their minds to wander.

Model the right behavior.

The message that companies value well-being over busyness will resonate with employees only if they see their bosses take time off too. The boldest leaders aren't those who burn the midnight oil; they're the individuals who set the norm by taking a pause. Indeed, when managers demonstrate that their own busyness is not a prerequisite for success-being careful of course not to just dump their workloads on subordinates when they clock out-employees are more likely to believe it.

Norms around CEO behavior are changing. Mark Zuckerberg, for instance, decided to take two months of paternity leave while running Meta. Todd McKinnon, the CEO of the software company Okta, set an example by not only asking his employees to share their vacation plans but telling them of his own upcoming vacation in Napa Valley. More than a thousand employees emailed him about their plans for time off.

I have also personally benefited when a leader set norms around work/life balance. In graduate school I noticed that my academic mentor always arrived in the office before me and always stayed after I left, implicitly suggesting that academic work was to be done at all hours. One day, however, he told me that when he was in graduate school, if he found himself distracted or unmotivated, he would leave the office in the middle of the day and go for a run. Simply hearing this from someone I admired (and who was the hardest worker I knew) helped me see that disconnecting from work was not only acceptable but critical and would help my academic career.

Build slack into the system.

Beyond the psychological factors, the major causes of busyness are constraints on time and resources. When hospital systems face budgetary cuts, acute events like the Covid-19 pandemic overtax medical staff, increasing wait times and even contributing to unnecessary deaths of people who need urgent care. When supply chains are disrupted, companies get bogged down handling customer complaints, managing fluctuating prices, and figuring out alternative ways to get products delivered.

As the serial entrepreneur Seth Godin puts it, "Systems with slack are more resilient."

What does slack look like? In their work the engineering professor Riccardo Patriarca and others describe various types of it, including: (1) Enhanced resources-that is, more time, money, space, people, and equipment. (2) Reallocation of existing resources-for example, the conversion of convention centers into hospitals during the pandemic. (3) Margins of maneuver-fostering the ability to deviate from standard operating procedures, such as when an incident commander in a firefighting squad deploys a new method on the fly. (4) Human redundancy-having people duplicate one another's work, often with one person providing a check on the other (having a shift technical adviser work alongside the operating team of a nuclear power plant).

For many, these strategies might sound expensive if not downright wasteful. (Why hire someone to do the same job as another person?) Yet slack is essential when you're managing a crisis and even when you're trying to keep everyone's day-to-day workload manageable. Building up resources will always be expensive, but losing good employees or loyal customers because of a burdensome, overly busy work environment or slow service will ultimately be more costly.

. . .

The famed UCLA basketball coach John Wooden once said, "Never mistake activity for achievement." Yet companies keep falling into that trap, despite considerable evidence that increased work doesn't necessarily lead to increased productivity. Given that the prevailing corporate culture continues to reward busyness, it can be tempting to go with the flow instead of fighting to reform broken incentive structures. Yet doing so would be not only unwise but quite possibly deadly. Research shows that since the 1990s, employees increasingly have been working harder and under tighter deadlines and more stressful conditions as they try to master additional skills to outpace the robots gunning for their jobs and as digital devices trap them in a 24/7 workplace. This has taken a significant toll on mental and physical health. Businesses and leaders must step up to take a stand against the busyness epidemic so that we can begin to create not only more sustainable organizations but also more sustainable jobs.

A version of this article appeared in the March-April 2023 issue of Harvard Business Review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Once upon a time, leisure was a sign of prestige. Today that idea has been turned on its head, and busyness is the new status symbol. Busy people are considered important and impressive, and employees are rewarded for showing how "hard" they're working. Such thinking is misguided.

# data[].attributes.headline
HBR: How to Help Your Team Learn in the Flow of Work

# data[].attributes.subject
HBR: How to Help Your Team Learn in the Flow of Work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When we ask teams across different companies and geographies how often they're learning at work, they typically respond with "occasionally" and "infrequently." And when we ask what that learning looks like, the answer is often "when I took a course."

For many people, learning is still seen as something formal, structured, and scheduled - owned by organizations and delivered by experts. But in a work context characterized by complexity and uncertainty, it's a dangerous strategy to limit learning to something that's separate from our day jobs.

Failure to incorporate learning into the day-to-day creates challenges at every level in an organization. Learning in the flow of work - when learning happens in the moment and as part of the regular working day - is essential for everyone. For individuals, if learning is always an extracurricular activity, it reduces employability and career resilience. When teams don't find ways to learn as they work, they limit their performance. And for organizations, an absence of learning in flow reduces their ability to respond to change and compete in the market.

When individuals, teams, and organizations find their learning flow, it becomes so embedded into daily routines and rituals that it's no longer labelled as "learning," and instead becomes an integral part of how work happens. Here's what managers need to know about learning in the flow of work - and how to implement it on their teams.

3 Principles of Learning in Flow

There are three principles to keep in mind when creating a culture of learning in flow:

Learning is integrated.

Whereas we used to go to work to learn to do a job, learning now is the job. It's not something that should be scheduled for an hour each week or a day each month. The priority is to increase the learning people gain from the meetings, projects, and tasks that are already part of their jobs.

Learning is active.

Waiting or hoping for learning to come our way is the opposite of learning in flow. Instead, a proactive mindset and skillset is a must-have for learning in flow to take place. For learning in flow to become a reality, it requires continual and consistent actions by individuals and teams.

Learning is routine.

When learning in flow is effective, it becomes embedded into the rhythms, routines, and rituals of the way people work. Learning isn't owned by any one person - it's a collective responsibility and part of a team's culture. It shows up in the language that's used and the way people work together.

How to Help Your Team Learn in Flow

Here are three practices to help your team start learning in the flow of work:

Mistake moments

Everyone makes mistakes. It's whether people learn from those mistakes that makes the difference to individual and collective performance. When mistakes happen, it's easy to miss the learning opportunity, as we tend to focus on finding solutions quickly - while simultaneously beating ourselves up for getting something wrong in the first place.

Mistake moments are a simple way of learning in flow when things don't go to plan. This approach normalizes making mistakes, so employees fear them less and learn from them more. The idea is to quickly share with someone else when a mistake is made. The question to focus on isn't "What mistake did you make?" but instead "What did you learn from that mistake?"

In our organization, Amazing If, where everyone is based in different places, we've made it a team norm to share our mistake moments in a Teams channel the same day they happen. Role modeling is critical. As a manager, you could choose to start a monthly team meeting by sharing an insight you learned from a mistake you made. Normalizing mistake moments can also be as simple as suggesting a phrase that people feel comfortable saying to each other, such as: "I've had a mistake moment. Do you have five minutes to chat?"

Strengths spotting

Feedback is a powerful way people can learn at work, but all too often, formality, time, and process become blockers. When we find ways to bring feedback into the meetings and conversations that are already part of our work week, we increase the opportunity for learning in flow.

Consider a meeting or project you're currently leading. A small change to the format can make feedback a part of the agenda rather than an "add-on." For example, reducing the number of agenda items to create time for people to share in the moment "what worked well" and what would be "even better if" feedback on presentations is a quick way for people to learn. Or changing an existing meeting agenda once a month to focus on "challenge and build" creates an opportunity for everyone to practice raising concerns, discussing risks, and offering ideas for improvement in a safe way.

As a manager, another simple change you can make is to start one-on-one conversations by sharing some strengths-based feedback. The best managers proactively point out to their teams what they're doing well, which increases confidence and prompts people to stretch their potential. This could sound like, "I see you at your best when..," "One of the ways I see you have a positive impact is..," or "This week I really appreciated how you..."

Pitch, prototype, pilot

Experimenting is a natural opportunity to encourage learning in the flow of work. What often gets in the way of experiments is how to apply the concept practically and usefully as a manager of a team. Managers need to be on the lookout for easy opportunities to encourage everyone to experiment as part of their roles. We've found that using a "pitch, prototype, pilot" framework is a good way to get started.

Pitching creates the space for sharing new ideas, prototyping focuses on how ideas might work in practice, and piloting tests an idea in a "live" environment. The manager's role is to provide prompts and opportunities for team members to use this framework as part of their existing roles, reenforcing its relevance for everyone. Managers can start this process by asking everyone to consider three questions:

1. Pitch: What is one idea for improvement that would support you to achieve your objectives for this quarter?

2. Prototype: To make that idea happen, what would need to start, stop, or change?

3. Pilot: How could you test that idea quickly?

Once teams become familiar with the framework, they often start applying it proactively across different parts of their role. For example, a team member might initiate saying to their manager, "Can I use our catch-up to pitch an idea I've got?" and teams will begin to spot opportunities to prototype together.

. . .

Learning at work is fundamental to our roles and our resilience. If learning is always an add-on, the risk is that it never gets done. Learning in the flow of our work means it becomes part of our conversations and our culture, and small changes to how we approach what we're already doing can make a big difference to our development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Help Your Team Learn in the Flow of Work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learning in the flow of work - when learning happens in the moment and as part of the regular working day - is essential for everyone. When teams don't find ways to learn as they work, they limit their performance.

# data[].attributes.headline
HBR: What the Most Productive Companies Do Differently

# data[].attributes.subject
HBR: What the Most Productive Companies Do Differently

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Improvements in labor productivity have been the engine of U.S. economic power and prosperity since World War II. But in the past 15 years, productivity growth has faltered averaging just 1.4% annually, compared to long-term rates of 2.2% since 1948.

These small differences add up: If the United States can get back to the long-term trend, it could be worth $10 trillion in cumulative GDP by 2030. And the benefits of productivity would help the country meet longer-term challenges like the looming national debt, underfunded entitlement programs, and the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Companies have a starring role to play in this putative productivity miracle. Our research found striking variations in productivity among leading and lagging firms within each sector. Manufacturing provides a particularly stark example, where leading firms operate at 5.4 times the productivity of laggards. Academic researchers have documented similar trends in services, particularly information and communications, which show wide disparities between leading firms and the rest.

Not only are productivity disparities within sectors quite wide - they're also getting wider. Our research shows that in manufacturing, the gap was 25% wider in 2019 than it was in 1989. Some analysts suggest this growing gap is the result of accelerated growth among leading firms coexisting with stagnation among the rest. That's encouraging: It suggests that if those in the rear can match the leaders, the United States could restore productivity growth to historical levels.

These productivity gaps also suggest that firms can raise their own ambitions. Doing more with less, or doing more with the same, shows up in corporate income statements as higher margins and stronger revenue growth. And in aggregate, those performance improvements lead to economy-wide changes in productivity.

Lessons from the Most Productive Firms

For business leaders looking to unlock performance, there's something to be learned by observing the companies at the top of the productivity heap. These frontier firms are usually larger than others (though not always, as we discuss below). They are present across most sectors and geographies.

What they have in common is a playbook with the following four elements:

They capture value from digitization.

From 1989 to 2019, our research finds a strong correlation between sectors' productivity growth and their level of digitization. Other researchers have found a similar connection between firm productivity and digitization; frontier firms are better able to technologically innovate than their peers.

However, many firms investing in technology are not seeing its benefits. McKinsey research finds that firms typically realize only about 25% to 30% of the expected value of their digital transformations. Much of the shortfall comes from not properly updating the firm's strategy and business model to take advantage of new digital strengths.

Frontier firms set bold business goals enabled by technology. They reconfigure their organizations to digitize their operations and capture the benefits of technology, rather than augment existing ways of working. And they drive accountability for results across the organization.

They invest in intangibles.

Frontier firms go beyond technology investments and also place bets on complementary intangibles such as R&D, intellectual property, and the capabilities of their workforce. Our research finds that frontier firms invest 2.6x more in intangibles compared to other firms.

For many of these firms, taking a long-term perspective is critical. These investments likely create a productivity J-curve, in which the early benefits of investments are small, but compound rapidly over time to create outsized long-term value.

They build a future-ready workforce.

Frontier firms also disproportionately secure the skilled talent they need to get the most out of technology, either by attracting top talent or by an in-house investment in employee skills.

Both frontline talent and tech-savvy executives are necessary to successfully navigate the reconfiguration of complex firms. Leaders are winning the talent war by recognizing the value of employee experience, investing in on-the-job training programs, and expanding policies that make it easier for parents and aging workers alike to stay in the labor force.

They adopt a systems approach.

Frontier companies are typically system thinkers, looking for opportunities to access new markets or collaborate creatively with stakeholders.

High-performing firms tend to be more connected to global value chains, giving them access to global markets, ideas, and talent. They collaborate with suppliers and customers to form new ecosystems that benefit from agglomeration effects and create shared pools of value. They also look for opportunities to collaborate more closely with their public-sector counterparts to solve for challenges in skilled talent and physical infrastructure.

America's New Productivity Champions

The opportunity to apply these lessons is wide open to firms of all sizes and shapes. Many frontier firms are part of what we call the Titanium Economy - small, often privately held industrial-technology companies that are among the fastest growing and most profitable enterprises in the country. These companies are often based in smaller cities, sometimes even in rural areas, and present across a variety of sectors.

Take Dot Foods, a foodservice distributor based in Mount Sterling, Illinois, population 2,006. For Dot, everything starts with the employee. "Our volume is off the charts and we can't staff it... we're typically 500 employees short," CEO Joe Tracy told us.

To attract workers, Dot rewrote its shift schedules in ways that give employees more flexibility to take time off. The company invested in automation to do the jobs that no one wants to do, like slinging cases in the freezer on the night shift. It embraced technology throughout the operation and invested time in teaching workers the skills needed to operate the equipment. It worked to integrate logistics with advanced analytics, so that customers receive the products they want as fast as possible. And it acquired ShopHero to give its customers a customized, locally branded e-commerce platform replete with video and photos. Dot Foods is now the nation's largest foodservice distributor, delivering more than 125,000 products from 1,000 suppliers to all 50 states.

Dot's growth story is typical of Titanium Economy companies - and the opportunity for others to join them is vast. Recent data indicates that small and medium-size companies are less productive on average than large firms. But in some sectors where niche products or services can be offered at higher price points, small companies can be as productive as their bigger rivals. These data should give plenty of encouragement to business leaders looking to drive improvements in their business.

Neither size nor sector is the full measure of a company's destiny. To be sure, grocery store owners cannot snap their fingers and suddenly enjoy the profit margins of software makers. But almost all firms can increase their productivity to approximate that of the frontier firms.

. . .

Ultimately, changes in firm strategy and management will have to deliver the gains in productivity needed to get back on the long-term trend and capture the $10 trillion prize. For business leaders, the productivity gap should be ample motivation to raise their own ambitions. Now, it's also clear that the work they do will ultimately make all the difference to the country's prosperity and well-being.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What the Most Productive Companies Do Differently

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new report from McKinsey Global Institute finds that U.S. productivity growth has slowed in the last 15 years to 1.4% annual growth (as compared to long-term rates of 2.2% since 1948). It also found striking variations in productivity among leading and lagging firms within each sector - a gap that is only widening.

# data[].attributes.body
A refreshing take on keeping things simple

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
The LeaderLab powered by LifeLabs Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The LeaderLab powered by LifeLabs Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Why Everyone Feels Like They're Faking It

# data[].attributes.headline
The NewYorker: Why Everyone Feels Like They’re Faking It

# data[].attributes.subject
The NewYorker: Why Everyone Feels Like They’re Faking It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The concept of Impostor Syndrome has become ubiquitous. Critics, and even the idea's originators, question its value.

Long before Pauline Clance developed the idea of the impostor phenomenon-now, to her frustration, more commonly referred to as impostor syndrome-she was known by the nickname Tiny. Born in 1938 and raised in Baptist Valley, in Appalachian Virginia, she was the youngest of six children, the daughter of a sawmill operator who struggled to keep food on the table and gas in the tank of his timber truck. Tiny was ambitious-her photograph appeared in the local newspaper after she climbed onto a table to deliver her rebuttal during a debate tournament-but she was always second-guessing herself. After nearly every test she took (and usually aced), she would tell her mother, "I think I failed it." She was shocked when she beat the football-team captain for class president. She was the first in her family to go to college-a high-school counsellor warned her, "You'll be doing well if you get C's"-after which she earned a Ph.D. in psychology, at the University of Kentucky. But, everywhere she went, Clance felt the same nagging sense of self-doubt, the suspicion that she'd somehow tricked everyone else into thinking she belonged.

In the early seventies, as an assistant professor at Oberlin College, Clance kept hearing female students confessing experiences that reminded her of her own: they were sure they'd failed exams, even if they always did well; they were convinced that they'd been admitted because there had been an error on their test scores or that they'd fooled authority figures into thinking they were smarter than they actually were. Clance began comparing notes with one of her colleagues, Suzanne Imes, about their shared feelings of fraudulence. Imes had grown up in Abilene, Texas, with an older sister who early on had been deemed "the smart one"; as a high schooler, Imes had confessed anxieties to her mother that sounded exactly like the ones Clance had to hers. Imes particularly remembered crying after a Latin test, telling her mother, "I know I failed" (among other things, she'd forgotten the word for "farmer"). When it turned out that she'd got an A, her mother said, "I never want to hear about this again." But her accomplishment didn't make the feelings go away; it only made her stop talking about them. Until she met Clance.

One evening, they threw a party for some of the Oberlin students, complete with strobe lights and dancing. But the students looked disappointed and said, "We thought we were going to be learning something." They were hypervigilant, so intent on staving off the possibility of failure that they couldn't let loose for even a night. So Clance and Imes turned the party into a class, setting up a circle of chairs and encouraging the students to talk. After some of them confessed that they felt like "impostors" among their brilliant classmates, Clance and Imes started referring to the feelings they were observing as "the impostor phenomenon."

The pair spent five years talking to more than a hundred and fifty "successful" women: students and faculty members at several universities; professionals in fields including law, nursing, and social work. Then they recorded their findings in a paper, "The Impostor Phenomenon in High Achieving Women: Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention." They wrote that women in their sample were particularly prone to "an internal experience of intellectual phoniness," living in perpetual fear that "some significant person will discover that they are indeed intellectual impostors." But it was precisely this process of discovery that helped Clance and Imes formulate the concept-as they recognized feelings in each other, and in their students, that they'd been experiencing all their lives.

At first, the paper kept getting rejected. "Weirdly, we didn't get impostor feelings about that," Clance told me, when I visited her at her home, in Atlanta. "We believed in what we were trying to say." It was eventually published in 1978, in the journal Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice. The paper spread like an underground zine. People kept writing to Clance to ask for copies, and she sent out so many that the person working the copy machine in her department asked, "What are you doing with all these?" For decades, Clance and Imes saw their concept steadily gaining traction-in 1985, Clance published a book, " The Impostor Phenomenon," and also released an official "I.P. scale" for researchers to license for use in their own studies-but it wasn't until the rise of social media that the idea, by now rebranded as "impostor syndrome," truly exploded.

Almost fifty years after its formulation, the concept has achieved a level of cultural saturation that Clance and Imes never imagined. Clance maintains a list of studies and articles that have referenced their original idea; it is now more than two hundred pages long. The concept has inspired a micro-industry of self-help books, ranging in tone from #girlboss self-empowered sass (" The Middle Finger Project: Trash Your Imposter Syndrome and Live the Unf*ckwithable Life You Deserve") to unapologetic earnestness (" Yes! You Are Good Enough: End Imposter Syndrome, Overthinking and Perfectionism and Do What YOU Want"). " The Imposter Syndrome Workbook " invites readers to draw their impostor voice as a creature or a monster of their choosing, to cross-examine their negative self-talk, and to fill a "Self-Love Mason Jar" with written affirmations and accomplishments.

The phrase "impostor syndrome" often elicits a fierce sense of identification, especially from millennial and Gen X women. When I put out a call on Twitter for experiences of impostor syndrome, I was flooded with responses. "Do you have room in your inbox for roughly 180,000 words?" a high-level publishing executive wrote. A graduate of Trinity College Dublin confessed that her feelings of fraudulence were so strong that she'd been unable to enter the college's library for her entire first year. A university administrator said, "I grew up on a pig farm in rural Illinois. Whenever I attend a fancy event, even if it is one I am producing, I feel like people will still see hayseed in my hair." An artisanal-cider maker wrote, "I've made endless ciders, but each and every time that I start fermenting, my mind goes, 'This is the one when everyone will find out you don't know what you're doing.' "

The eminent are not immune. In fact, Clance and Imes argued forcefully in their original study that success was not a cure. Maya Angelou once said, "I have written eleven books, but each time I think, Uh-oh, they're going to find out now. I've run a game on everybody, and they're going to find me out." Neil Gaiman, in a commencement address that went viral, described his fear of being busted by the "fraud police," whom he imagined showing up at his door with a clipboard to tell him he had no right to live the life he was living. (Although men do report feeling like impostors, the experience is primarily associated with women, and the word "impostor" has been granted special feminized forms-"impostrix," "impostress"-since the sixteen-hundreds.)

Clance and Imes remain stunned by how broadly their idea has circulated. "We had no idea," Imes said. "We were just as surprised as everyone else." But their ambitions were never small. "We saw suffering in a lot of people, and we hoped we could help," Imes told me. "We wanted to change people's lives."

Clance lives in a craftsman bungalow in Druid Hills, a leafy Atlanta neighborhood. When I visited, the first thing that I noticed in the front hallway was a wooden statue of a naked woman triumphantly holding a mask above her head. Masks feature prominently in Clance's writing on the impostor phenomenon. Her book has three main sections-"Putting on the Mask," "The Personality Behind the Mask," and "Taking Off the Mask"-and argues that impostor feelings come from a conviction that "I have to mask who I am."

Now eighty-four years old, Clance has a slight, birdlike frame and is nimble-minded and affable. Draped in a wool blanket and sipping on a protein shake, she told me about years of therapeutic work with clients experiencing the impostor phenomenon, work that often focussed on early family dynamics. Clance and Imes's original paper identified two distinct family patterns that gave rise to impostor feelings: either women had a sibling who had been identified as "the smart one" or else they themselves had been identified as "superior in every way-intellect, personality, appearance, talent." The pair theorized that women in the first group are driven to find the validation they didn't get at home but end up doubting whatever validation later comes their way; those in the second group encounter a disconnect between their parents' unrealistic faith in their capacities and the experience of fallibility that life inevitably brings. For both types of "impostors," the crisis comes from the disjunction between the messages received from their parents and the messages received from the world. Are my parents right (that I'm inadequate), or is the world right (that I'm capable)? Or, conversely, are my parents right (that I'm perfect), or is the world right (that I'm failing)? This gap gives rise to a conviction that either the parent is wrong or the world is.

The impostor begins to do everything possible to prevent being discovered in her self-perceived deficiencies. Clance and Imes cite one client who, as a child, "pretended to be 'sick' for three consecutive Fridays when spelling bees were held. She could not bear the thought of her parents finding out she could not win the spelling contest." Another client pretended to be playing with art supplies instead of studying whenever her mother walked into the room, because her mother had taught her that naturally smart people don't have to study.

Clance and Imes describe the cycle that impostor feelings often produce-a sense of impending failure that inspires frenzied hard work, and short-lived gratification when failure is staved off, quickly followed by the return of the old conviction that failure is imminent. Some women adopt a kind of magical thinking about their pessimism: daring to believe in success would actually doom them to failure, so failure must be anticipated instead. The typical case hides her own opinions, fearing that they will be seen as stupid; she might seek the approval of a mentor but then believe it has been secured only because of charm or appeal; she may hate herself for even needing this validation, taking the need itself as proof of her intellectual phoniness.

Repeated successes usually don't break the cycle, Clance and Imes emphasize. All the frenzied efforts and mental calculations that are directed into preventing the discovery of one's inadequacy and fraudulence ultimately just reinforce the belief in this inadequate, fraudulent version of the self.

Clance has seen clients healed not by success but by the kind of resonance she found with Imes. Bolstered and sustained by group therapy with other women-it's easier to believe other women aren't impostors-they can then bring this recognition of others' delusion back to themselves. Sometimes Clance asked clients to keep a notebook recording how they deflected compliments (reminding me of a woman who tweeted about reckoning with impostor feelings by creating a file on her computer called "evidence I'm not an idiot"). Clance also often gave clients "homework assignments," such as asking them to study for only six hours for an upcoming test, rather than twelve. The mere idea of this gave me a pang of anxiety, and I ventured that it would be terrible if they ended up failing as a result. She nodded. "Yep. Then you really set them back."

Clance and Imes have remained friends, and both relocated from Ohio to Atlanta nearly forty years ago-Clance to teach at Georgia State, Imes to get a Ph.D. there. For a while, they even practiced therapy in the same building, a stucco house tucked away at the end of a long, shaded driveway, where Imes still sees clients. I met her there the day after Stacey Abrams lost her second gubernatorial bid, and the neighborhood was peppered with lawn signs that now seemed elegiac. Imes's office was a cozy den of soft couches and throw pillows, walls hung with quilts, and a Peruvian rice goddess dangling above us-necklace-draped, wings outstretched.

Imes has white curly hair and wore dark-red lipstick and bulky clogs that she slipped off immediately-"I think better without my shoes"-so that she could place her feet beside me on the couch. (Later, she told me she has written on the role of physical touch in therapy.) A bookshelf behind her featured family photos from her clients. Imes asked if I got anxious before interviews like this-confessing that she always does-and soon I was talking about how shy I'd been in junior high school, and how I still worried that the wrong interview questions would expose how little I knew about the subject, or somehow reveal that I'm not a "real" journalist. Run-of-the-mill impostor feelings.

Imes told me that her own impostor feelings flared up when she was applying for Ph.D. programs while studying at the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland. But as a therapist she found the Gestalt approach well suited to reckoning with such feelings; she explained that the Gestalt method involves owning all the various parts of yourself, accepting them instead of trying to get rid of them, and understanding their function in the larger whole. In this way, the approach offers not only an antidote to the belief in a shameful self at the core of one's being, a kernel that must be concealed, but also an intrinsic understanding of the self as many selves, rather than static or overly coherent.

Both Imes and Clance underwent Gestalt therapy, and Clance found that the work helped her recognize more fully what her mother-not always a deeply nurturing presence in her life-had done for her, and for their whole family. When I asked Clance if reckoning with delusions about her own deficiency had been connected to reckoning with the primal delusion of her mother as a "deficient" mother, she said yes, absolutely. Ultimately, she felt that her mother was able to appreciate the career she'd built, and the person she'd become. One time, she was visiting home and her mother called on her to talk to a relative in distress: "Tiny, you need to get down here, because he's going to kill himself!" The request seemed like proof that her mother understood the importance of her work. In that moment, Clance felt some congruence between the messages she was getting from the world and the messages she was getting from her mother, a bridging of the gap she'd helped other women notice in their childhoods.

As part of the process of understanding and accepting various aspects of the self, Gestalt often involves "empty-chair" work, in which you might have an imagined conversation with someone important-a dead mother, a former lover-and play out both parts of the conversation, sometimes switching chairs, in order to reckon with the lasting influence of the relationship. A philosophy pointed toward integration makes sense as an antidote to impostor feelings, which can fuel a selective self-presentation driven by shame: I can show only this part of myself and must keep that part of myself hidden.

One of the cornerstones of the work Clance and Imes did with their clients was an empty-chair exercise in which they were asked to imagine having conversations with all the authority figures they'd ever "tricked" into thinking they were smarter or more competent than they actually were. Clance would gently invite them to consider the ways that their impostor feelings constituted, implicitly, a kind of solipsism-understanding everyone else as so easily tricked-telling them, "Line up all the professors you fooled and say, 'I fooled you!' "

The first time I used the phrase "impostor syndrome" about myself, I was-as it happens-describing experiences I'd had with my own professors. This was 2015, and I'd given a lecture at a small liberal-arts college in Michigan. At a dinner afterward, I found myself telling a professor about the anxieties I'd experienced as a Ph.D. student. In seminars, I often felt as if anything I said aloud would reveal that I did not understand the first thing about Heidegger; or that I had read only three chapters of " Discipline and Punish." Once, in a moment of panic, I'd said I loved Donna Haraway, afraid to confess that I'd never read her at all, and I was sometimes confronted with this fraudulent love, an impostor even in my affinities.

The experience I was trying to describe was more specific than mere self-doubt; it was a fear of being found out, revealed for what I really was. And it was an anxiety that I felt complicit in, having produced these false fronts with my lies. I didn't feel that I was saying anything particularly dramatic. By then, impostor syndrome was already something that people routinely confessed about their experiences in high-achieving environments. But it did feel like a genuine exposure of various low-key humiliations: the blooming circles of dark sweat under my armpits as I larded my sentences with jargon, the scrambled, panicked posturing of theoretical preferences.

Once I'd finished this brief summary of my impostor syndrome-trying on the term, which wasn't one I could remember using before-my dinner companion, another white female academic, replied curtly, "That's such a white-lady thing to say."

In the wake of her comment, the table quieted a bit as people sensed-the way a constellation of strangers often can-the presence of some minor friction. My seatmate and I turned to the only woman of color at the table, a Black professor, so that she could, presumably, tell us what to think about the whiteness of impostor syndrome, though perhaps there were things she wanted to do (like finish eating dinner) more than she wanted to mediate a spat between two white ladies about whether we were saying white-lady things or not. She graciously explained that she didn't particularly identify with the experience. She hadn't often felt like an impostor, because she had more frequently found herself in situations where her competence or intelligence had been underestimated than in ones where it was taken for granted.

In the years since then, I've heard many women of color-friends, colleagues, students, and people I've interviewed on the subject-articulate some version of this sentiment. Lisa Factora-Borchers, a Filipinx American author and activist, told me, "Whenever I'd hear white friends talk about impostor syndrome, I'd wonder, How can you think you're an impostor when every mold was made for you? When you see mirror reflections of yourself everywhere, and versions of what your success might look like?"

Adaira Landry, an emergency-medicine physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, told me about her first day at the U.C.L.A. med school. Landry, a first-generation college student from an African American family, met a fellow first-year student, a man, who was already wearing a white coat, although they hadn't yet had their white-coat ceremony. His mother was in health care and his sister was in med school, and they'd informed him that if he wanted to be an orthopedic surgeon, which he did, it would be beneficial to start shadowing someone immediately. Landry went home that night feeling dispirited, as if she were already falling behind, and a classmate told her, "Don't worry, you just have impostor syndrome."

For Landry, this was only the first of many instances of what she calls "the misdiagnosis of impostor syndrome." Landry understands now that what her classmate characterized as a crisis of self-doubt was simply an observation of an external truth-the concrete impact of connections and privilege. Eventually, Landry looked up Clance and Imes's 1978 paper; she didn't identify with the people described in it. "They interviewed a set of primarily white women lacking confidence, despite being surrounded by an educational system and workforce that seemed to recognize their excellence," she told me. "As a Black woman, I was unable to find myself in that paper."

Since then, Landry has had countless conversations with students who feel they are struggling with impostor syndrome, and she usually senses a palpable relief when she suggests that they are feeling like this not because there is something wrong with them but because they are "enveloped in a system that fails to support them." Ironically, her students' relief at being liberated from the label of impostor syndrome reminds me of the relief that Clance and Imes witnessed when they first offered the concept to their clients. In both cases, women were being told, "You are not an impostor. You are enough." In one case, an experience was diagnosed; in the other, the diagnosis was removed.

In 2020, almost fifty years after Clance and Imes collaborated on their article, another pair of women collaborated on an article about impostor syndrome-this one pushing back fiercely against the idea. In "Stop Telling Women They Have Imposter Syndrome," published in the Harvard Business Review, in February, 2021, Ruchika Tulshyan and Jodi-Ann Burey argue that the label implies that women are suffering from a crisis of self-confidence and fails to recognize the real obstacles facing professional women, especially women of color-essentially, that it reframes systemic inequality as an individual pathology. As they put it, "Imposter syndrome directs our view toward fixing women at work instead of fixing the places where women work."

Tulshyan started hearing the term a decade ago, when she left a job in journalism to work in the Seattle tech industry. She was attending women's leadership conferences where it seemed that everyone was talking about impostor syndrome and "the confidence gap," but no one was talking about gender bias and systemic racism. She got tired of hearing women, especially white women-her own heritage is Indian Singaporean-comparing notes on who had the most severe impostor syndrome. It seemed like another version of women sharing worries about their weight, a kind of communal self-deprecation that reiterated oppressive metrics rather than disrupting them.

During the early pandemic, she met up with Burey-another woman of color working in Seattle tech-for an outdoor lunch, and they compared notes on their shared frustration with the idea of impostor syndrome. There was a tremendous feeling of relief and resonance. As Tulshyan put it, "It was like everybody is telling you the sky is green, and suddenly you tell your friend, I think the sky is blue, and she sees it this way as well."

Burey, who was born in Jamaica, didn't feel like an impostor; she felt enraged by the systems that had been built to disenfranchise her. She also didn't experience any yearning to belong, to inhabit certain spaces of power. "White women want to access power, they want to sit at the table," she told me. "Black women say, This table is rotten, this table is hurting everyone." She resisted knee-jerk empowerment rhetoric that seemed to encourage a damaging bravado: "I didn't want to beef up myself to inflict more harm."

At their lunch, Tulshyan mentioned that she was writing a piece about impostor syndrome, and Burey immediately asked her, "Did you read the original article?" Like Adaira Landry, Burey had felt impelled to look it up and had been struck by its limitations. It wasn't a clinical study but a set of anecdotal observations, she told Tulshyan, largely gleaned from "high-achieving" white women who had received much affirmation from the world. "I must have spoken for twenty minutes uninterrupted," Burey recalled. After that, Tulshyan said, "It's done. We're collaborating."

Like Clance and Imes, Tulshyan and Burey recognized in each other versions of the feelings that they themselves had been harboring-only these were feelings about the world, rather than about their psyches. They were sick of people talking about women having impostor syndrome rather than talking about biases in hiring, promotion, leadership, and compensation. They came to believe that a concept designed to liberate women from their shame-to help them confront the delusion of their own insufficiency-had become yet another way to keep them disempowered.

When I asked Clance and Imes about Tulshyan and Burey's critiques, they agreed with many of them, conceding that their original sample and parameters were limited. Although their model had actually acknowledged (rather than obscured) the role that external factors played in creating impostor feelings, it focussed on things such as family dynamics and gender socialization rather than on systemic racism and other legacies of inequality. But they also pointed out that the popularization of their idea as a "syndrome" had distorted it. Every time Imes hears the phrase "impostor syndrome," she told me, it lodges in her gut. It's technically incorrect, and conceptually misleading. As Clance explained, the phenomenon is "an experience rather than a pathology," and their aim was always to normalize this experience rather than to pathologize it. Their concept was never meant to be a solution for inequality and prejudice in the workplace-a task for which it would necessarily prove insufficient. Indeed, Clance's own therapeutic practice was anything but oblivious of the external structural forces highlighted by Tulshyan and Burey. When mothers came to Clance describing their impostor feelings around parenting, her advice was not "Work on your feelings." It was "Get more child care."

Tulshyan and Burey never anticipated how much attention their article would receive. It has been translated and published all over the world, and is one of the most widely shared articles in the history of the Harvard Business Review. They heard from people who had been given negative performance evaluations that featured euphemisms for impostor syndrome ("lacks confidence" or "lacks executive presence") and even refused promotions on these grounds. The diagnosis has become a cultural force fortifying the very phenomenon it was supposed to cure.

As the backlash against the concept of impostor syndrome spreads, other critiques have emerged. If everyone has it, does it exist at all? Or are we simply experiencing a kind of humility inflation? Perhaps the widespread practice of confessing self-doubt has begun to encourage-to demand, even-repeated confessions of the very experience that the original concept was trying to dissolve. The writer and comedian Viv Groskop believes that impostor syndrome has become a blanket term obscuring countless other problems, everything from long Covid to the patriarchy. She told me a story about standing in front of five hundred women and telling them, "Raise your hand if you have experienced impostor syndrome." Almost every woman raised her hand. When Groskop asked, "Who here has never experienced impostor syndrome?," only one (brave) woman did. But, at the end of the talk, this outlier came up to apologize-worried that it was somehow arrogant not to have impostor syndrome.

Hearing this story, I began to wonder if I'd confessed my own feelings of impostor syndrome to Dr. Imes as a kind of admission fee, to claim my seat-like putting my ante into the pot at a poker game. Who had made it possible for me to play this game? When I asked my mother, who is seventy-eight, if the concept resonated, she said it didn't; she'd struggled more with proving herself than with feeling like a fraud. She told me she suspected that most women in her generation (and even more in her mother's) were likelier to feel the opposite-"that we were being underestimated."

For many younger women, there's a horoscope effect at play: certain aspects of the experience, if defined capaciously enough, are so common as to be essentially universal. The Australian scholar and critic Rebecca Harkins-Cross-who often felt like an impostor during her university days, struggling with insecurities she now connects to her working-class background-has become suspicious of the ways impostor syndrome serves a capitalist culture of striving. She told me, "Capitalism needs us all to feel like impostors, because feeling like an impostor ensures we'll strive for endless progress: work harder, make more money, try to be better than our former selves and the people around us."

On the flip side, this relentless pressure deepens the exhilarating allure of people-specifically, women-who truly are impostors but refuse to see themselves as such. Think of the mass fascination with the antiheroine Anna Delvey (a.k.a. Anna Sorokin), who masqueraded as an heiress in order to infiltrate a wealthy world of New York socialites, and the hypnotic train wreck of Elizabeth Holmes, who built a nine-billion-dollar company based on fraudulent claims about her ability to diagnose a variety of diseases from a single drop of blood. Why do these women enthrall us? In the television adaptations that turned their lives into soap operas-"Inventing Anna" and "The Dropout"-their hubris offers a thrilling counterpoint to beleaguered self-doubt: Anna's extravagant cash tips and gossamer caftans, her willingness to overstay her welcome on a yacht in Ibiza, her utter conviction-even once she was in jail-that it was the world that had been wrong, rather than her.

These stories gleaned much of their narrative momentum from the constant threat of revelation: when would these impostors be discovered? Paying for things on credit without being able to afford them literalizes a crucial facet of impostor syndrome: the anxiety that you are getting what you have not paid for and do not deserve; that you will eventually be found out, and your bill will come due. (Capitalism always wants you to believe you have a bill to pay.) Part of the lure of these stories is the looming satisfaction of seeing the impostors revealed and exposed. For some of us, it's akin to the pleasure of pushing on a bruise, watching the community punish the impostor we believe exists inside ourselves.

Ruchika Tulshyan told me, "If it was up to me, we would do away with the idea of impostor syndrome entirely." Jodi-Ann Burey allows that the concept has been useful in corporate contexts, offering a shared language for talking about self-doubt and a "soft entry" into conversations about toxic workplaces, but she, too, feels it is time to bid it farewell. She wants to say, "Thank you for your fifty years of service," and to start looking directly at systems of bias, rather than falsely pathologizing individuals.

Is there some version of impostor syndrome that can be salvaged? Pulling back from the corporate world to look at the concept more broadly, it seems clear that the #girlboss branding of impostor syndrome has done a disservice to the concept as well as to the workplaces it has failed to improve. The tale of these two pairs of women-Clance and Imes formulating their idea in the seventies, and Tulshyan and Burey pushing back in 2020-belongs to the larger intellectual story of second-wave feminism receiving necessary correctives from the third wave. Much of this corrective work results from women of color asking white feminism to acknowledge a complicated matrix of external forces-including structural racism and income inequality-at play in every internal experience. Identifying impostor feelings does not necessitate denying the forces that produced them. It can, in fact, demand the opposite: understanding that the damage from these external forces often becomes part of the internal weave of the self. Although many of the most fervent critics of impostor syndrome are women of color, it's also the case that many people of color do identify with the experience. In fact, research studies have repeatedly shown that impostor syndrome disproportionately affects them. This finding contradicts what I was told years ago-that impostor syndrome is a "white lady" problem-and suggests instead that the people most vulnerable to the syndrome are not the ones it first described.

If we reclaim the impostor phenomenon from the false category of "syndrome," then we can allow it to do the work it does best, which is to depict a particular texture of interior experience: the fear of being exposed as inadequate. As a concept, it is most useful in its particular nuances-not as a vague synonym for insecurity or self-doubt but as a way to describe the more specific delusion of being a fraud who has successfully deceived some external audience. Understood like this, it becomes an experience not diluted but defined by its ubiquity. It names the gap that persists between the internal experiences of selfhood-multiple, contradictory, incoherent, striated with shame and desire-and the imperative to present a more coherent, composed, continuous self to the world.

The psychoanalyst Nuar Alsadir, in her book " Animal Joy," explains impostor syndrome by drawing on D. W. Winnicott's concepts of "false self" and "true self." She sees the anxiety as stemming from "a False Self that is so fortified by layers of compliant behavior that it loses contact with the raw impulses and expressions that characterize the True Self." Attempts to prevent the discovery of one's "true self" end up compounding the belief that this self, were it ever discovered, would be rejected and dismissed.

Impostor feelings often arise most acutely from threshold-crossing-from one social class to another, one culture to another, one vocation to another-something akin to what Pierre Bourdieu called the "split habitus," the self dwelling in two worlds at once. The college library and the sawmill. The fancy parties and the pig farm. When I spoke to Stephanie Land, the best-selling author of "Maid," her memoir about cleaning houses to support herself as a single mother, she described her own impostor feelings as an experience of class whiplash: occupying spaces of privilege after she'd grown famous for writing about economic hardship. When she flew first class with her teen-age daughter to see a Lizzo concert, and a stranger thanked her for her writing, Land felt that she'd been caught somewhere she didn't belong-as if flying first class made her current self a fraud, or else her past self a fraud; or somehow both versions of her were fraudulent at once.

Land's sense of impostordom also stems from the fact that her personal story is frequently interpreted as a consoling fable of class mobility. "I'm very conscious that my story is the palatable kind of poor-person story," she has written. "I am Little Orphan Annie skipping around in new shoes." When people love her story, she told me, they are loving a version of the American Dream that she thinks of as the American Myth. When her life is distorted and misunderstood in this way, it becomes a kind of impostor plot-and it makes her feel like an impostor as well.

Land's observations helped me realize that the impostor phenomenon, as a concept, effectively functions as an emotional filing cabinet organizing a variety of fraught feelings that we can experience as we try to reconcile three aspects of our personhood: how we experience ourselves, how we present ourselves to the world, and how the world reflects that self back to us. The phenomenon names an unspoken, ongoing crisis arising from the gaps between these various versions of the self, and designates not a syndrome but an inescapable part of being alive. ♦

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Everyone Feels Like They're Faking It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The concept of Impostor Syndrome has become ubiquitous. Critics, and even the idea's originators, question its value. Long before Pauline Clance developed the idea of the impostor phenomenon-now, to her frustration, more commonly referred to as impostor syndrome-she was known by the nickname Tiny.

# data[].attributes.body
Sign up here for this 30-minute event!

# data[].attributes.headline
HBR: Making Learning a Part of Everyday Work

# data[].attributes.subject
HBR: Making Learning a Part of Everyday Work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The urgency of work invariably trumps the luxury of learning. But, what if we could make learning more a part of our day-to-day jobs? How can we use the flow of work to drive learning? First, be open to learning opportunities as you go about your day. Don’t just sit in on that negotiation with a pro…

# data[].attributes.headline
INC VIDEO: Dr. Tara Swart Explains, Neuroscience Can Optimize Your Brain for Remote Work

# data[].attributes.subject
INC VIDEO: Dr. Tara Swart Explains, Neuroscience Can Optimize Your Brain for Remote Work

# data[].attributes.headline
INC: New Cognitive Research Shows Gaining Knowledge and Achieving Mastery Comes Down to the Rule of 7

# data[].attributes.subject
INC: New Cognitive Research Shows Gaining Knowledge and Achieving Mastery Comes Down to the Rule of 7

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Here's why you should make a habit of having more fun

# data[].attributes.headline
NPR: Here’s Why You Should Make a Habit of Having More Fun

# data[].attributes.subject
NPR: Here’s Why You Should Make a Habit of Having More Fun

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When was the last time you flew too high on a swing and lost your stomach, or busted out laughing so hard that you started crying?

If it's been awhile since you've had this kind of fun, you're not alone.

A lot of us are still recovering from antisocial habits formed in the pandemic. And these days, events outside of our control are taking a serious toll on our health. Last fall, 76% of adults surveyed by the American Psychological Association said stress from politics, race relations, violence and inflation has affected their health. They report experiencing headaches, fatigue, depression, nervousness and exhaustion.

But the antidote may be hiding in plain sight. Two recent books argue that making room for more fun in your life could counteract both the stress and the tendency to escape it by zoning out online.

In The Fun Habit: How The Disciplined Pursuit of Joy And Wonder Can Change Your Life, published in January, psychologist Mike Rucker makes the case that pursuit of fun experiences may be even more valuable than seeking the sometimes abstract goal of happiness.

"Happiness is a state of mind," Rucker writes. "But fun is something you can do. It doesn't require education, money or power. All it requires is intentionality. If happiness is a mirage, fun is your backyard oasis."

And science journalist Catherine Price, author of The Power of Fun, published in 2021, has a similar view. (She took a break from her latest interest, online blues piano lessons, to take my call.)

"We really trivialize fun and we are so casual and sloppy about how we use the word," Price says, but it is "essential for our happiness and health."

And fun can be so many things. Last year, when NPR asked readers to share what they're really into, more than 1,500 of you responded with a deliciously wide range of pursuits, from hula hooping to home brewing beer to raising reptiles. And more than 800 said you do these activities just because they're fun.

Here's advice from Price and Rucker - and inspiration from NPR readers - for ways to build more fun into your life.

1. Stop worrying about how happy you are

As a founding member of the International Positive Psychology Association, Rucker has put many teachings of happiness science into his life, like keeping a gratitude journal. But after his brother died unexpectedly in 2016, Rucker felt burned out and lonely. He began to feel that the more he pursued happiness, the more elusive it became.

"Happiness is really an evaluation," he says. You are constantly asking yourself what is going right and what is going wrong. It can become a trap, he warns.

People who highly value happiness may end up feeling "disappointed about how they feel, paradoxically decreasing their happiness the more they want it," wrote the authors of a 2011 study in the journal Emotion.

In contrast, fun is relatively easy to achieve yet many adults are conditioned to believe that it isn't important, and experience very little of it. For Rucker, seeking lighter moments helped him through his loss.

"Even if you're not happy, you can have fun, even if that's just having coffee with a friend," he says. "For me, it was certainly going to comedy clubs [after my brother died]. I wasn't happy, but I was really enjoying the jokes."

Science has just begun to study the importance of fun and play, so there's not a strict definition. But Rucker writes that fun generally involves doing something active and intentional (as opposed to mindlessly watching TV), often includes other people, is something you choose for yourself, and can give a thrill that transcends the ordinary.

NPR audience member Lynn Braz found that when she started taking flying trapeze classes at age 42: "Now, at age 61, I am flying every weekend throughout the warmer months. Flying trapeze is the hardest, scariest, most exciting and most fun thing I've ever done."

Price, who also is the founder of ScreenLifeBalance.com, defines fun as a state in which we experience playfulness, connection to others, and flow - that feeling where you lose track of time because you're "in the zone" and not worried about how you look or how well you perform.

2. Find your 'fun magnets'

If you're not sure where to start, Price recommends you ask yourself: What are my "fun magnets?"

"Put your phone away for a while and come up with three to four memories when you had real fun," she advises.

Look for common threads, like which people are involved, what kinds of activities you enjoy, where do they take place. Are there activities that would be fun that you'd like to try? Are there activities you can get rid of that are not fun?

Fun can be many different things, Rucker says. It's really whatever tickles your sense of delight.

NPR's audience shared hundreds of ideas about what turns them on.

Tara Fisher described her love of building and fighting with robots. "It's a great way to learn lots of STEM skills and meet fun, intelligent people," she wrote. "Plus, it's fun to smash each other's 'toys.'"

Nicole Diekow told NPR, that for her, it's thrift shopping. She's been doing it since the 1980s when she and her mom were on a tight budget. "This sparked a fascination that has stuck around my whole life ... You never know what treasures you might find or what friends you may meet."

3. Put fun on the calendar

Once you identify what fun is to you, you can start to schedule more of it. "It's like going on a diet by figuring out what kinds of foods you love, and then eating more," says Price.

I know - groan. Scheduling fun? Isn't it supposed to be spontaneous? And aren't we overscheduled already?

But fun comes more easily when you're young, says Price. When you're older, you don't find yourself in the kind of unstructured environments conducive to fun, like a playground full of kids you don't know.

Sometimes people you could have fun with are waiting for an invitation. "It's like romance," she says of scheduling fun. "You need to light some candles, set the scene."

But it's well worth it. People who take a vacation return to their work less stressed and possibly more creative, and the benefits could extend to smaller adventures.

When you put something fun like a hike on the calendar, you open up to moments of " awe and wonder," like the surprise appearance of a deer on the path, for example, Rucker says. These moments can improve mood and lower stress levels, which can reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes.

Scheduling fun doesn't have to be arduous or expensive. When Price was working on her book during the height of the pandemic, she recruited a virtual group of people - a Fun Squad - to bounce ideas around with.

One Fun Squad friend said that a Taco Tuesday night she held with her friends was the highlight of her week, Price says. For herself, she regularly jams with a group of musicians.

NPR reader Nancy Lomini-Perretta decided to try a beginning mahjongg class for seniors at her local college in 2019. Now she plays every Monday with a group of women she met in that class. They call themselves "The Fabulous Five" or "The Mahvelous Mahjongg Madams."

"Taking this class ... brought five women together who happen to have the same sense of humor and just plain enjoy each other's company," she says.

4. Unplug (no, but seriously!)

Pay attention to how much of your leisure time is spent scrolling on a phone or passively watching TV, Rucker advises. That's "yielding to the nothing," he says, and is a deceptively easy escape from feelings of boredom or discomfort.

Most of us have control over at least two hours of our day for leisure activities, and some of us have up to five hours. But the average American uses up more than two hours on social media per day. Consider using your time instead to do "just one thing that used to bring you joy," suggests Rucker.

Technology can be the enemy of fun. If you're always connected to your phone, checking that one last email or text, you're not present. Rucker says. "We need to "stop being 'on' all the time."

When Rucker realized he was checking his phone often while watching his daughter take gymnastics class, he decided instead that they should take a dance class together. "Now we have amazing memories," he says.

Real fun usually involves sensory experiences and, often, interactions with other people.

NPR listener Rachel Maryam Smith fell in love with making giant soap bubbles when she was in college. She soon started making them in public, eventually hosting events with up to 300 people. She loves that bubbles put a smile on everyone's face.

"Big bubble making [is] more than the jaw-dropping aesthetics, but a reminder that life is brief and beautiful," she wrote.

Action seeker and NPR fan says Mike Ferris practicing handstands "feels like flight at 33 years old." He encourages others to try it too: "Who hasn't tried a handstand once in their life, at least as children? It's simply fun to do a move that our bodies aren't designed to do to survive."

5. Share the fun and amplify it

Another tip Price swears by for more fun is sharing what brings you delight with someone else. Price now has running text chains with several friends who send her photos of upbeat moments throughout their day. Just for fun, she recently sent some friends $10 disco balls she discovered on Amazon so they could delight in their own dance parties.

She borrowed the idea from poet Ross Gay, who wrote an entire book of essays on delights, including odes to handmade infinity scarves, loitering and weeds.

NPR listener Kami Koontz shares her source of fun whenever she can. She bought a ukulele in early 2014 on a whim and taught herself to play it.

"I have since started a local uke group, a local uke band, and have raised money to donate Ukes to schools and libraries," she writes. "Doing all of these things has brought a variety of charming people into my life, a little music family of sorts."

Like any new habit, fun takes practice, as well as trial and error. Experts say start small and build.

"It's harder to get to spontaneity if you have to schedule it on your calendar, but once you do, you're creating more opportunity for spontaneity to happen," Rucker says.
Carmel Wroth contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's why you should make a habit of having more fun

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Happiness can sometimes feel just out of reach. But having more fun? You've got this - and those giggles and playful moments can make a big difference to your health and well-being.

# data[].attributes.headline
TedX: Tasha Eurich - Increase Your Self-Awareness with One Simple Fix

# data[].attributes.subject
TedX: Tasha Eurich - Increase Your Self-Awareness with One Simple Fix

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Increase your self-awareness with one simple fix

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We’d all like to believe we’re self-aware, but in reality, the facts point to a more sobering truth. Organizational psychologist Tasha Eurich has spent the last 4 years researching what it truly means to be self-aware, and in the process, has made a surprising discovery about human perception. In this illuminating talk, Eurich dissects common misbeliefs about introspective thinking and provides a simple way we can get to know ourselves just a little bit better.

# data[].attributes.headline
FastCompany: 3 Solid Strategies to Fix Terrible Meetings in a Hybrid Workplace

# data[].attributes.subject
FastCompany: 3 Solid Strategies to Fix Terrible Meetings in a Hybrid Workplace

# data[].attributes.headline
Textio: Equitable Performance Feedback Certification Course (FREE)

# data[].attributes.subject
Textio: Equitable Performance Feedback Certification Course (FREE)

# data[].attributes.body
Free Certification Course (takes about 45-to 50-minutes! Well worth the time!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Understand why giving high-quality feedback at work matters and how to do it well.

# data[].attributes.headline
INC: 9 Pieces of Corporate Jargon to Avoid with Gen Z

# data[].attributes.subject
INC: 9 Pieces of Corporate Jargon to Avoid with Gen Z

# data[].attributes.body
This isn't a Gen Z issue - this is a "speak like a human being" issue for more people who are people first.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Why Monday is the Best Day for Setting New Goals

# data[].attributes.headline
Psychological Science: Why Monday is the Best Day for Settling New Goals

# data[].attributes.subject
Psychological Science: Why Monday is the Best Day for Settling New Goals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Association for Psychological Science - APS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Maybe you've been talking about taking that professional development class for months now, or you've really been meaning to update your retirement savings plan. It would really help you manage your stress if only you could get yourself to go to the gym. Setting goals is easy, but actually accomplishing them tends to be a lot harder.

Research in Psychological Science suggests that we may be more likely to actually follow through with our professional goals if we start on a Monday rather than a Thursday.

Across five studies, psychological scientists Hengchen Dai (Washington University in St. Louis), Katherine Milkman (University of Pennsylvania), and Jason Riis (University of Pennsylvania) found that people are more motivated to pursue their goals on certain dates.

People tend to attribute negative traits and failures to their past selves while maintaining a positive image of their current selves. Dates that stand out as being more meaningful-such as the start of a new week or financial quarter, a birthday, or a holiday- signal the start of a new, distinct time period. These "temporal landmarks" make it easier for people to mentally separate from their past imperfections and failures.

Essentially, people are more empowered and motivated to pursue their goals when they feel like their past failures are behind them and their future success is ahead of them - a phenomenon the researchers dub "the fresh start effect."

In one study, 165 participants completed a short online survey. First, they were instructed to describe a personal goal that they were planning on pursuing in the near future. Next, they received an offer of receiving a customized email to help remind them of their goal and how to accomplish it.

Participants could choose which date they wanted to receive their helpful reminder, ranging from March 18 (Tuesday) to March 24 (Monday).

At this stage, participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: the fresh start condition or a control condition. In the fresh start condition, March 20 th was identified as the first day of spring. In the control condition, March 20 th was simply described as an ordinary day: "March 20, 2014 (Thursday; The Third Thursday in March 2014)."

Framing March 20 th as a temporal landmark, as opposed to a regular Thursday, had a surprisingly large impact. Participants in the fresh start condition chose March 20 th as their helpful reminder date at 3.5 times the rate as those in the control condition (26% vs. 7% respectively).

A survey of a separate group of 141 participants confirmed that most people really do think of the first day of spring as more of a new beginning compared to the third Thursday in March.

And data reported by Dai, Milkman, and Riis in the journal Management Science suggest that the fresh start effect may have a serious impact on people's real world behavior.

The researchers analyzed Google searches for the word "diet." Not only were people looking up dieting advice close to the New Year, but searches also peaked at the beginning of the week, the beginning of the month, and the day after a national holiday.

The researchers looked at student gym-going behavior at a university fitness center. Data collected from the gym's automatic card readers revealed that gym visits increased dramatically around temporal landmarks. Students were much more likely to exercise at the beginning of a new week, at the beginning of the semester, or right after a birthday.

Organizations trying to jump start employee motivation for long-term goals may want to consider timing. Simply waiting until after a holiday or the first of the month has the potential to improve people's motivation to pursue professional development, new projects, or even investing in their retirement savings.

"The abundance of fresh start opportunities throughout the year offers repeated chances for people to attempt positive self-change, so even if they initially fail, they may subsequently succeed," the authors conclude.
References
Dai, H., Milkman, K. L., & Riis, J. (2015). Put Your Imperfections Behind You Temporal Landmarks Spur Goal Initiation When They Signal New Beginnings. Psychological Science. doi: 10.1177/0956797615605818

Dai, H., Milkman, K. L., & Riis, J. (2014). The fresh start effect: Temporal landmarks motivate aspirational behavior. Management Science, 60(10), 2563-2582. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1901

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Monday is the Best Day for Setting New Goals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Maybe you've been talking about taking that professional development class for months now, or you've really been meaning to update your retirement savings plan. It would really help you manage your stress if only you could get yourself to go to the gym. Setting goals is easy, but actually accomplishing them tends to be a lot harder.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Turn data collection into an experience with Typeform. Create beautiful online forms, surveys, quizzes, and so much more. Try it for FREE.

# data[].attributes.headline
The NewYorker: Corporate Alternatives to the Compliment Sandwich

# data[].attributes.subject
The NewYorker: Corporate Alternatives to the Compliment Sandwich

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A recent survey of our employees indicated that people are sick of the "compliment sandwich"-negative feedback sandwiched between compliments. The executive team is pleased to offer some alternatives that we hope will be effective for managers serving up constructive criticism in the workplace.
This cheesy open-faced option has no meat. Perfect for employees who enjoy being regaled with hours of stories from your past, like how you "worked your way through college" (when it was $2,350 a year) and the time you met Lee Iacocca. This crusty sandwich is one-sided, with hints of nuttiness. Pairs well with a cup of day-old coffee from the break room.

These meatballs fra diavolo are extremely tough. Treat your employees like part of the "family," with an emphasis on loyalty. Deliver the message that long hours are the norm in this culture, in which the Boss gives you orders that you can't refuse. Workers are expected to sign N.D.A. agreements in blood. Those who are disloyal are sent to Vinny in H.R. and never seen again.

Hate giving negative feedback? The Honey Bomb delivers heaps of praise and positive reinforcement to motivate your busy bees to take on even more work. Employees may feel an unexpected sting when they get fired without warning. If they ask why, just release real honeybees and run away. A liability waiver is recommended, as side effects may include employees with swelled heads.

Feedback is vague, and job requirements and advancement opportunities constantly shift, in this spiralling cruller. Best given to employees who want to feel as if they're climbing the stairs to a higher level that is, in fact, impossible to reach. The sweet illusion of promotion will have them circling back, unsatisfied, still hungry for another serving.

This performative multicultural sandwich disintegrates upon the first bite. Instead of encountering specific actionable feedback, diverse members of your staff will appreciate having their photos featured prominently in Corporate's annual report. Praise their great attitude when you ask them to do something way outside of their expertise (or job description), like leading a diversity-training seminar. This sandwich will no doubt fill up your team with synergy and mutual respect.

These transparent jello pies are perfect for employees who need everything spelled out for them. Staff activities are tracked and ranked for healthy competition. Workers love feedback based on quantitative metrics. Managers use a fair-pay formula:

These raw-meat skewers are served on swords, on top of a chopping block. A hearty appetizer for employees who welcome direct, pointed feedback. Best delivered with no dressing or emotional intelligence. Strong criticism may be painful and take days to digest, but your employees will come out stronger on the other side.*

Consuming raw meats may increase the risk of self-doubt, performance anxiety, and sudden letters of resignation. ♦

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Corporate Alternatives to the Compliment Sandwich

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent survey of our employees indicated that people are sick of the "compliment sandwich"-negative feedback sandwiched between compliments. The executive team is pleased to offer some alternatives that we hope will be effective for managers serving up constructive criticism in the workplace. This cheesy open-faced option has no meat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Uncover Hidden Creative Thinking on Your Team

# data[].attributes.headline
Hermann: Uncover Hidden Creative Thinking on Your Team

# data[].attributes.subject
Hermann: Uncover Hidden Creative Thinking on Your Team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the team needs some creative ideas or innovative solutions, who's the go-to?

Maybe it's you. Or maybe it's definitely not you.

When you think about the "creatives" that you know, your mind probably instantly goes to certain people. We all have some preconceived notions about what it takes to be creative and innovative, as well as who should be involved in the process. We pretty much know who's got it and who doesn't.

Sometimes these "things we know" don't really tell the full story.

Debunking Old Creative Thinking Myths

You've probably heard, in some form or fashion, that creativity is the domain of "right brain" thinkers. But this is misleading, for a number of reasons. For starters, while the brain is in fact the source of creativity, the simple dichotomy of left-brain/right-brain thinking not only overlooks brain systems like the limbic system, it doesn't accurately describe the way the brain actually works. It implies separateness, when the brain is, by design, whole.

And because the brain is the source of creativity, it means that everyone has access to the mental modes responsible for creative thought processes. While we're learning more every day about how ideas occur in the brain, what we do know is that they arise in specialized parts of the brain that, through massive interconnections, can come in contact with other ideas and together form the basis of synergy. The brain relies on those interconnections between the specialized areas to function. In plain terms: You're not left-brained or right-brained; you're whole.

This helps explain why creativity isn't some magical power that's only available to certain people. Even so, some of us are naturally drawn to creative work and have a strong preference for imaginative, conceptual thinking. And of course, there are traditionally creative roles and functions that are responsible for things like R&D or design, as well as consultants whose job it is to come in and innovate your product line or reimagine your offerings. But that doesn't mean they're your only sources of creative thinking, innovation and truly great ideas. In some cases, they might not even be your best sources.

Finding the Creativity in Your Team

When you're looking for new ideas or innovative solutions to problems, the best person for the job isn't necessarily the one with all the "creative" credentials. Many times, it's the person who's closest to the problem and is dealing with it every day. They know it inside and out, and they've seen what's worked and what's flopped. They can provide a whole lot of valuable information and insight (if only someone would ask them, they're probably thinking).

On the other hand, when you're really stuck, sometimes it's the outsiders who know best. Those who haven't been indoctrinated into the "way things are done" in this department or that product line can bring in a fresh viewpoint that the people who are in the weeds of it every day might never see.

And what about those who aren't on your go-to list of "creatives"? What might you be missing without their contributions? A lot, especially if they can offer deep insights you wouldn't otherwise have or a different perspective on the same old problem.

Ideas Aren't Everything

Creativity isn't just about the cool idea. Yes, that's a big part of it, but if the process stops there, then what? That flash of insight evaporates. The idea is probably forgotten or put away. The world goes on, unchanged. It's all a big so what? What's more, having ideas that never go anywhere can end up being counterproductive because people are left feeling unsatisfied or discouraged by the whole experience.

So really, creativity isn't just about generating an idea but manifesting it-making something happen as a result of it. And if you define creativity in these terms, it changes the game. Now you're talking about a much bigger story with a much broader cast of characters who need to be involved.

While ideas can arrive in a single flash, application involves a process that consists of several distinct phases. It's not just about dreaming up a concept; it's also about gathering the facts, developing a plan of action, presenting it in a way that resonates and evaluating whether it did what it was supposed to do. You might not need to tap into your whole brain to come up with the idea, but you need all modes of thinking to successfully implement it. Don't feel comfortable handling all of those phases? No problem: That's where the rest of your dream team comes into the scene.

We're talking about creativity here, so as you're looking at who should be on the team, think beyond the ordinary. Consider all of those who can contribute in different ways, either through their divergent insights, perspectives and ideas or from the brainpower they bring to the process to make sure those ideas come to life.

Who's missing from your go-to list?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Uncover Hidden Creative Thinking on Your Team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the team needs some creative ideas or innovative solutions, who's the go-to? Maybe it's you. Or maybe it's definitely not you. When you think about the "creatives" that you know, your mind probably instantly goes to certain people.

# data[].attributes.headline
HBR: 7 Ways a Manager Can Help Their Team Focus

# data[].attributes.subject
HBR: 7 Ways a Manager Can Help Their Team Focus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's no surprise that people struggle to focus. We're bombarded with distractions, burdened by unrealistic expectations, and drowning under too many incoming requests. Our team at Crucial Learning polled 1,600 employees and managers to better understand the severity of our collective failure to focus. The data painted an even bleaker picture of our tenuous attention spans.

One of our findings should be particularly alarming for people leaders: 60.6% of employees admit that they rarely to never do even an hour or two of deep, focused work each day without distraction. Where is all their time - and your money - going?

We found that two out of three respondents said they struggle to fully focus on a single task or person. And when they get a rare moment of concentration, one in three said they can only focus on a task for 10 minutes or less before getting distracted. And the effects of unfocused behavior are severe and far reaching. Specifically, respondents listed the greatest costs of their inability to focus as overwhelm, lack of energy, stress, decreased efficiency, less fulfillment, and disappointment.

Let's just play this out in the life of Damian, a high-performing product manager. The first thing Damian did when he woke up this morning was grab his phone and check his email. While lying in bed, he could do nothing about the requests contained in those emails, so instead, he started his day feeling overwhelmed. Luckily, his calendar was clear, and he'd have time to put the finishing touches on his project proposal that was due to Lisa.

As soon as he arrived at the office, Rajiv cornered him to ask for his quick input on the Q3 projections. It would only take a minute, so Damian agreed. Forty-five minutes later, Damian sent off his opinions to Rajiv. Next, he jumped into that long list of emails he had peeked at earlier that morning. He got a few quick dopamine hits by responding to several. But the next email was a big request and one he couldn't reasonably get done that morning. So he decided to save it for later, but the task loomed.

Finally, at 11:15 a.m., he opened his project proposal, but 15 minutes later, Rita stopped by to chat, and before he knew it, it was lunch time.

After lunch, Damian tried to get to that project proposal again, only to be called into a quick working session with his manager to address a client concern. It was 3 p.m. before he got back to his proposal, and by then, he was feeling drained and tired, so he opened his email for some quick wins. After processing the afternoon email backlog, including that large request from the morning, it was time to head to his son's soccer game. Damian sighed. He'd been busy all day, and yet it felt like very little actually got accomplished, including the one thing that had to get done - his project proposal.

Sitting at the game, all Damian could do was think about his incomplete proposal, unanswered emails, and looming commitments. While there were no dings or notifications, he was still fully distracted when he should have been present with his family.

This day wasn't an exception - it was the norm. No wonder our people are feeling more burned out and disengaged than ever. Distractions - some of which may be important but are distracting nonetheless - are getting the best of them. At the end of the day, our people have been busy, but have they been productive?

As people leaders, what can you do to encourage your team to limit distractions and find focus? How can you create an environment where your people can say no to low-priority work, block out the latest and loudest requests, and commit their time and energy to the most important projects and people?

For the last several decades, we've studied and coached leaders in the skills to stay productive in a hyper-stimulated world. This work has been shared in our book and course, Getting Things Done. But let us lay out more clearly what you can do to enable your teams to stay appropriately engaged. Here are seven ideas for helping your people focus:

Inventory tasks and projects.

This is a discipline where common sense is not common practice. If your people don't have a complete list of their commitments and projects, they can't realistically prioritize. As a leader, hold people accountable for keeping current to-do lists and give them time each week to do a full weekly review of these commitments so they can stay in control.

Clarify and curate communication channels.

Most of our distraction is the result of a plethora of internal communication channels people must navigate in a typical workplace setting - and that's not to mention actually processing the content in each channel. Clarify what each channel should be used for and the expectations around response times.

Normalize saying no.

Leaders need to create psychological safety around airing overwhelm and burnout. One brilliant example comes from Rich Sheridan, CEO of Menlo Innovations, a custom software development company. Rich understands the value of employees communicating their bandwidth. He not only encourages employees to speak up, he also normalizes and rewards the behavior.

When an employee says they don't have bandwidth or are burned out, Rich teaches his project managers to smile and say, "Thank you for sharing that bad news with me." Why? Here's what Rich told us: "Most leaders want to quash bad news. But bad news doesn't just go away. Instead, it permeates the culture, creates quality and morale issues, and leads to endless hours of overtime." Normalize saying no by making it safe for employees to communicate their overwhelm. Reward the behavior by being deliberate in your reactions.

Make meetings meaningful.

Most people's workdays are monopolized by meetings. Help employees stay focused by allowing them to decline meaningless meetings. To improve meeting efficacy, one manager we coached set a bold precedent. He said, "If someone invites you to a meeting without a clear agenda and reasons why you're vital to the success of the meeting, you have my permission to decline it." This manager put the onus back on the meeting creator (which was often himself) to show greater respect for others' time. It also put employees in control of their days so they could focus on high-priority work.

Enable purposeful productivity.

During your weekly 1:1, don't ask your people if they're "keeping busy." Rather, ask them if they have the time and space to do the work they need or want to be doing. If the answer is no, support them in addressing that gap. Perhaps they need help prioritizing their to-do lists or are being pulled into fringe projects and tasks and need your help getting removed from those requests. Maybe they need support to block out their calendar for focused work time or need to adjust their hours to work more seamlessly with their ability to focus. Find the gaps and close them.

Formalize focus.

Perhaps the easiest way to encourage focused work is to put it on the calendar. Create a team norm of protected work time. For example, tell the team to block out Tuesday and Thursday afternoons for focused work. During these hours, no one is allowed to schedule meetings, and others across the organization will see the employees are unavailable as well. But a word of warning: If you're simply going to schedule over this blocked time, don't block it in the first place. That will only lead to a mistrust of your calendar.

Respect boundaries.

When people say they're in focused work mode as indicated by their status on team chat tools or their calendar, honor it. As their leader, you may feel these rules apply to everyone but you - but as soon as you interrupt this time, it sets the norm for everyone else to do the same. It sends the message that protected time is a myth and anyone is allowed to encroach on it.

. . .

These practices will help you build a culture where your people can focus on the work that really matters. It's vital that leaders understand these principles because they're what will keep your team efficiently engaged in a world designed to keep them distracted. Support their ability to focus, and everyone wins.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Ways Managers Can Help Their Team Focus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We know that in our hyper-stimulated world, people struggle to focus. The authors' recent survey of 1,600 employees and managers revealed findings that should be particularly alarming for people leaders: 60.6% of employees admit that they rarely to never do even an hour or two of deep, focused work each day without distraction.

# data[].attributes.headline
Indeed: 14 Strategies To Improve Employee Performance

# data[].attributes.subject
Indeed: 14 Strategies To Improve Employee Performance

# data[].attributes.headline
FastCompany: High Performers Need These 5 Things, According to Science

# data[].attributes.subject
FastCompany: High Performers Need These 5 Things, According to Science

# data[].attributes.headline
INC: Psychology Says You Can Actually Sell Anything, So Long as You Use These 4 'Hidden' Switches

# data[].attributes.subject
INC: Psychology Says You Can Actually Sell Anything, So Long as You Use These 4 'Hidden' Switches

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
How to Stop Delegating and Start Teaching

# data[].attributes.headline
HBR: How to Stop Delegating & Start Teaching

# data[].attributes.subject
HBR: How to Stop Delegating & Start Teaching

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a college professor, I regularly train PhD students. In psychology and most fields of science, students are assigned to a project early on in their studies and learn key skills through an apprenticeship model. Many go on to projects related to more specific research goals, and are eventually taught to design their own studies - a slow and painstaking process. Each step, from idea development and design to data analysis and reporting, requires a lot of supervision. It would generally be faster for lab directors to hire employees to carry out these studies instead, or to do all the heavy lifting themselves.

But, then, who would train the next generation of scientists?

Managers who have difficulty delegating tasks can learn from this process - particularly if your workload has become overwhelming, or you need someone to pick up the slack when you are out of town. The hardest part about delegating a task to someone else is trusting that they will do it well. And many managers are reluctant to turn over their responsibilities to someone who may not meet that expectation.

But there is a problem with this mindset. Managers need to stop thinking of passing off responsibilities as delegating - period. If you do, then you will only assign your employees high-level tasks when you don't have time to do them. Until then, you will continue doing everything yourself. This is not an uncommon behavior. After all, you are probably better at doing your job than your direct reports, who have less experience in your role.

The problem with this style of delegation is that it sets your employees up for failure. A coach wouldn't let an athlete go into a big game without practicing extensively beforehand. Managers should share this same mentality. When you assign someone a task for the first time - with no prior training - simply because you are unavailable to do it, their chances of succeeding are slim. You also run the risk of damaging team morale. Employees might get the impression that they are not capable of doing complex work if they are too overwhelmed by the task.

As a manager, a central part of your job is to train and develop people. This includes people who want to move into leadership roles, similar to yours, one day. When you take on the mindset of a trainer - instead of a manager delegating work - you will naturally look for ways to give a little more responsibility to the people who work for you. And those people who put in effort, and show an aptitude for the work, should be given more opportunities to try new, challenging tasks.

You and Your Team Series

Learning

To start, try to gauge who on your team genuinely wants to move up in the organization, and identify their main areas of interest. Create a development plan for them and write down the skills they will need in order to reach their goals. Then, focus on giving them assignments that require those skills, as well as any tasks you think they are curious to explore. Often, people need a nudge to focus on their weaknesses - particularly ones that they are convinced fall out of their wheelhouse.

Structure the experience so that your employees are able to work their way up to a challenging task. Give them a series of practice sessions. The first time you introduce a task to someone, you might want them to experience it as a ride-along. Just let them shadow you while you explain some of the key points. Then, give them a piece to do on their own with your supervision. Only let them carry the full load when you sense that they are ready.

For example, you might want to teach someone how to run a weekly progress meeting while you are out. Start by training them when you are in the office. Have them watch you formulate the agenda and think through the issues that will be discussed. Then, the next time, let them create an agenda of their own, but critique it. Give them a chance to run part of the meeting with your supervision. That way, they are ready to run a full meeting on their own when the time comes. By doing this, you are both helping your team reach their career goals, and training them to take on some of your own responsibilities.

Taking on some of your direct reports as apprentices is an effort. It will take extra time out of your already busy week. You will have to check their work carefully at first to make sure that it is up to your standards. You will have to teach them not only how to do the tasks, but also, why the tasks are done that way. You will have to call on them to help fix any problems that arise from the work they've done, because practice is how they will learn. And your own productivity may slow down as a result of the time you spend mentoring others.

When you make this kind of training a regular part of your job, though, delegating tasks becomes easy. You will have created a team of trusted associates who can step in and help when you are overwhelmed or out of the office. And, as an added bonus, you have also groomed your successors. After all, as the old saying goes, if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Stop Delegating and Start Teaching

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a manager, a central part of your job is to develop people. But when you delegate a task to someone - with no prior training - simply because you are unavailable to do it, their chances of succeeding are slim.

# data[].attributes.headline
HBR: Why Leaders Should Be Open About Their Flaws

# data[].attributes.subject
HBR: Why Leaders Should Be Open About Their Flaws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the late 1980s, Canon ran a commercial with professional tennis player Andre Agassi that launched an infamous slogan: Image Is Everything. For many years leaders of all respects have embraced that sentiment, doing everything they could to come across as powerful, strong, and flawless. Yet, recent research has found that effective leadership isn't about always being perfect, but about being genuine. When followers believe their leaders are acting as their authentic selves, they experience greater well-being, trust the organization more, perform better, work harder, and make more ethical decisions.

However, breaking out of the "Image Is Everything" mindset is difficult, and leaders often struggle to come across as authentic. Our research finds that one reason leaders struggle is because they frequently choose to present their strengths and intentionally avoid disclosing their weaknesses. We saw this play out in a pilot study when we asked leaders in various organizations to write how they would introduce themselves to prospective workers. Most leaders only revealed their strengths. Rarely did anyone mention their weaknesses, mostly likely worried that sharing weakness would damage their image.

In contrast, our research shows that leaders' self-disclosure of weaknesses can foster perceptions of authenticity, meaning that many leaders miss an opportunity to develop rapport with their workers when they choose to exclusively talk about their strengths. We found that disclosing weaknesses increased perceived authenticity for both male and female leaders, garnering benefits regardless of gender. In addition, the higher the status of the discloser, the stronger the positive outcomes were. It matters not only that you share your true self, but that you do so when you have a lot at stake.

As an initial test of this idea, we conducted a series of vignette studies in which we experimentally varied whether the leader did or didn't disclose a weakness, such as being bad at public speaking or struggling to keep up with current technologies. Consistently, our results showed that when leaders disclosed their weaknesses, they were perceived as more authentic but no less competent or warm. Sharing flaws, therefore, resulted in benefits with no apparent drawbacks. Importantly though, we are not saying that leaders should always share their deepest and darkest secrets. We found that these benefits of self-disclosure of weaknesses were restricted to relatable human foibles - they did not hold for disclosure of serious flaws, such as having a panic attack in a speech. And they probably don't hold for transgressions, such as being rude to an employee or behaving unethically.

To see how sharing weaknesses works for leaders in a more realistic setting, we asked a Google executive to give a speech and disclose a weakness to prospective employees. We recorded his speech and then edited the video to generate two clips: in the experimental condition we included the self-disclosed weakness, and in the control condition we omitted it. We then randomly assigned working professionals to watch one of the two clips and evaluate the authenticity of the executive. When the executive disclosed a weakness, the workers believed he was more authentic, even after controlling for perceived competence and warmth.

We then in a subsequent study asked how people think about the discloser's motives in giving the speech, people who saw the speech that didn't include a personal weakness thought the leader was motivated by strategic self-presentation - he wanted to come out of the speech looking great. Those who came across the speech that did reveal a personal weakness, however, inferred that the executive didn't filter out information, was not acting strategically, and therefore was authentic.

Importantly, simply exposing a weakness isn't enough to make a leader seem authentic: they must disclose that weakness voluntarily. When making inferences about a person, observers take intentions into account. So, if a leader shares a weakness because they're required to or got "caught," the intention is muddied.

From prior work, we know that people frequently guess at what motivates others' behavior and make judgments based on those guesses. And in subsequent studies, we learned that prospective employees were more interested in continuing to work with their manager and transferred more money to the manager in a trust game when that manager disclosed a weakness, telling us that authenticity earns cooperation.

Moving forward, we hope leaders come to appreciate that it can sometimes be beneficial to shift their mindset from "Image Is Everything" to "Authenticity Is King." Trying to keep a perfect, strong image can lead others to believe you're only showing a narrow "sample" of your true self. Opening yourself to the vulnerability of sharing human, relatable flaws instead leads people to see you as an honest and trustworthy leader.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research: Why Leaders Should Be Open About Their Flaws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leaders often struggle to come across as authentic. New research finds that one reason is they frequently choose to present their strengths and intentionally avoid disclosing their weaknesses. A team of researchers asked leaders in various organizations to write how they would introduce themselves to prospective workers. Most leaders only revealed their strengths.

# data[].attributes.headline
TEDTalk: The Habit That Could Improve Your Career

# data[].attributes.subject
TEDTalk: The Habit That Could Improve Your Career

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Get a daily email featuring the latest talk, plus a quick mix of trending content.

By subscribing, you understand and agree that we will store, process and manage your personal information according to our Privacy Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Paul Catchlove: The habit that could improve your career

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Paul Catchlove believes strongly in the power of reflection. Through every career he's held -- from priest to opera singer to senior management consultant -- he's benefitted from a habit of considering and analyzing his goals, needs and performance. Learn more about how a regular practice of reflection can improve your decision-making, career and relationships.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Creativity training: How to develop creative skills in employees

# data[].attributes.headline
BigThink: Creativity Training - How to Develop Creative Skills in Employees 

# data[].attributes.subject
BigThink: Creativity Training - How to Develop Creative Skills in Employees 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For organizations looking to maintain a competitive edge as the pace of change accelerates, the benefits of creativity training should not be overlooked. As automation continues to take over mindless, repetitive tasks, workers are left with new and more complex problems. Creativity training can develop the skills needed to solve these challenges, such as collaboration and divergent thinking.

What does creativity training look like?

Many companies now include creativity as a core competency for employees across functions. In fact, the World Economic Forum reported that creativity was one of the most in-demand skills last year.

So, how can organizations unlock their most creative workforce? The five lessons below, from experts in creativity across fields, are an excellent jumping-off point for learning and development leaders.

The 5 methods of creativity

Innovation expert and author of The Creative Mindset, Jeff DeGraff explains that there are five types of creativity, rooted in cognitive psychology. Organizations can use these strategies to boost their creative potential:

Mimetic creativity is the act of searching for ideas to reapply or imitate from one industry to another. (More on this method in the video below).

Biosociative creativity is the act of connecting concepts to produce a hybrid idea, and DeGraff challenges creators to connect things that do not normally go together.

Analogical creativity is the use of analogies to solve a challenge or, "disrupt habit-bound thinking to make way for new ideas."

Narratological creativity is the act of storytelling. Using an iterative process, such as storyboarding, can improve this type of creativity.

Intuitive creativity is when a person empties their mind of distractions and allows it to freely wander, such as during meditation.

Creativity training programs that explore each of these techniques can be just what a product or marketing team needs to get the creative juices flowing.

Use improv's "yes, and" tool

Bob Kulhan - an actor, writer, and comedian who studied under Tina Fey - says improvisation allows creativity to thrive, because it forces people to think on their feet and simply adapt to new ideas. According to Kulhan, those trying to be more creative should say "Yes" in acceptance of any idea that's brought to them at face value, and "and..." which allows them to build upon others' ideas. Doing so fosters an open environment which allows for more divergent thinking.

The "yes, and" tool fosters an open environment which allows for divergent thinking.

One way to incorporate these concepts into a creativity training program is to hold brainstorming sessions where the word "no" is not allowed. Organizations looking to take it a step further can hire an improv expert like Kulhan to conduct an in-person training for employees.

Lead creative collaboration

Tony Award-winning director Diane Paulus is an expert in drawing creativity out of the actors she works with. She emphasizes the importance of fostering an environment that tolerates enough instability and "play" to produce the unexpected. In order to achieve this, leaders must be willing to do three things:

1. Set the tone. The leader must genuinely care to hear what others have to say, while advocating for the big picture or goal. When motivation is low, a leader should reinforce the team's "why." Watch the video below to learn more.

2. Open the floor for discussion. Leaders need to intentionally solicit critical analysis from the team - what do they like or dislike about the project? This ensures that team members are fully present and invested in the project.

3. Create the conditions for team transformation. In this final step, the leader helps team members build their tolerance for instability by asking questions like, "what can we do differently?" and "what would be possible, yet unexpected?"

To avoid settling for uninspired performance, leaders should learn the nuances of these three actions, all of which can be further explored in creativity training.

Relax cognitive filters

Theoretical physicist Leonard Mlodinow says a person's cognitive filters are "the security guards of the mind" - they lock away strange ideas in the subconscious and only let the more conventional ones pass. While sometimes necessary, these "security guards" can disconnect a person from the unusual ideas needed to solve their most taxing problems.

Mlodinow suggests that to combat these filters, a person should:

Give their minds time for open-ended play and exploring new ideas

Keep an open mind by avoiding anything that might lead them into a "rule following" state

Move past the fear of failure by accepting it and not worrying about looking stupid

By developing open mindedness throughout the workforce, creativity training has the potential to not only unlock revolutionary ideas, but new revenue streams as well.

Think like Sherlock Holmes

Maria Konnikova, the bestselling author of Mastermind, believes the imagination is an often ignored component of problem solving. She encourages people to set aside time for engaging their imagination and seeing the bigger picture - much like Sherlock Holmes famously does while puffing on his pipe.

Surprisingly, this can be accomplished by taking a break from the task at hand. Even when we're not consciously working on problems, our subconscious is. Stepping away creates space for "eureka" moments to occur. Even taking a nap can be impactful as it allows the brain to make connections and imagine solutions it wouldn't have otherwise.

Stepping away creates space for "eureka" moments to occur.

To help employees take advantage of this creativity booster, organizations should consider offering flexible work schedules so that workers have all the time they need to take breaks and come back with a fresh perspective.

Final note

For organizations looking to develop their own creativity training programs, there's good news: research shows that anyone can be trained to be creative. In fact, developing creative skills within existing teams can lead to even greater diversity of thought. (As compared to strictly hiring people perceived as "creative," which can lead to groupthink).

By starting from within, L&D leaders can nurture the kind of thinking that enhances creativity and learners can go on to become change agents in the organization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Creativity training: How to develop creative skills in employees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For organizations looking to maintain a competitive edge as the pace of change accelerates, the benefits of creativity training should not be overlooked. As automation continues to take over mindless, repetitive tasks, workers are left with new and more complex problems. Creativity training can develop the skills needed to solve these challenges, such as collaboration and divergent thinking.

# data[].attributes.headline
Inc: The #1 Growth Killer Is Leadership Debt

# data[].attributes.subject
Inc: The #1 Growth Killer Is Leadership Debt

# data[].attributes.headline
MITSloan: Workplace Toxicity is Not Just a Mental Health Issue

# data[].attributes.subject
MITSloan: Workplace Toxicity is Not Just a Mental Health Issue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Workplace Toxicity Is Not Just a Mental Health Issue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Workplace toxicity leads to a host of negative mental and physical health outcomes, particularly for women of color.

# data[].attributes.headline
HBR: Why Success Doesn't Lead to Satisfaction

# data[].attributes.subject
HBR: Why Success Doesn't Lead to Satisfaction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many successful professionals struggle to enjoy their accomplishments. Our brains' reward system, especially the neurotransmitter dopamine, drives us to achieve goals and rewards us with a great sense of pleasure when we do. But that pleasure is short lived, as our brains are hardwired to also seek balance from extreme emotional states. That leaves us with an empty longing to repeat whatever experience brought us that pleasure in the first place. This ostensibly addictive cycle throws our "enoughness" barometers completely out of whack, preventing us from being able to objectively gauge if what we've achieved is, in fact, satisfying. That's why, although most of us intuitively know that happiness isn't realized from the pursuit of money, status, or fame, we can't stop ourselves from trying. If you really want lasting satisfaction in life, you'll need to relearn your approach to finding it. The author presents several strategies.

As 2022 came to a close, I was enjoying a year-end reflection session with an executive client, whom we'll call Logan. As we looked back over his accomplishments for the year, he said something that utterly astonished me: "You know, I was almost happy." Probing into what he could have possibly meant, he reflected that despite having met or exceeded nearly all his goals, he was obsessed with the one goal he fell short on (which, frankly, was inconsequential to his year's runaway success). I thought we'd met to revel in the many fruits of his hard work. Instead, his ability to feel well-earned joy was hijacked by only partially achieving one of his goals.

Accelerate your career with Harvard ManageMentor®. HBR Learning's online leadership training helps you hone your skills with courses like Goal Setting. Earn badges to share on LinkedIn and your resume. Access more than 40 courses trusted by Fortune 500 companies.

Create-and live up to-better and smarter aspirations.

Learn More & See All Courses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Success Doesn't Lead to Satisfaction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many successful professionals struggle to enjoy their accomplishments. Our brains' reward system, especially the neurotransmitter dopamine, drives us to achieve goals and rewards us with a great sense of pleasure when we do. But that pleasure is short lived, as our brains are hardwired to also seek balance from extreme emotional states.

# data[].attributes.headline
LifeLab Learning Webinar: Rapid Trust Skills 

# data[].attributes.subject
LifeLab Learning Webinar: Rapid Trust Skills 

# data[].attributes.body
3 Sessions to Choose From!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
LifeLabs Learning locations: Atlanta, Boston

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A monthly gathering for individuals in People Ops/HR roles who are passionate about employee engagement and company culture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
U.S. Employee Engagement Needs a Rebound in 2023

# data[].attributes.headline
Gallup: U.S. Employee Engagement Needs a Rebound in 2023

# data[].attributes.subject
Gallup: U.S. Employee Engagement Needs a Rebound in 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Story Highlights

Young workers, women and remote-ready on-site workers dropped in engagement

Fully remote employees increased in "quiet quitting"

Clarity of expectations fell across demographic categories and job types

After trending up in recent years, employee engagement in the U.S. saw its first annual decline in a decade -- dropping from 36% engaged employees in 2020 to 34% in 2021.

This pattern continued into 2022, as 32% of full- and part-time employees working for organizations are now engaged, while 18% are actively disengaged. Active disengagement increased by two percentage points from 2021 and four points from 2020.

The ratio of engaged to actively disengaged workers in the U.S. is 1.8-to-1, down from 2.1-to-1 in 2021 and 2.6-to-1 in 2020. This is the lowest ratio of engaged to actively disengaged employees in the U.S. since 2013, almost a decade earlier. The record high is a ratio of 2.7-to-1 recorded in 2019.

Gallup measures employee engagement by asking random samples of the working population about specific workplace elements that link to many organizational outcomes, including profitability, productivity, customer service, retention, safety and overall wellbeing. Gallup conducted quarterly surveys of the working population during 2022 -- random samples of approximately 15,000 U.S. full- and part-time employees each quarter. The results presented here are an average across those four quarters.

The survey measures several workplace elements, including employees' level of agreement about clarity of expectations, opportunities for development and their opinions counting at work. In short, engaged employees are involved in and enthusiastic about their work and workplace. Actively disengaged employees are disgruntled and disloyal because most of their workplace needs are unmet.

Data for Further Consideration

The decline began in late 2021: The 32% of engaged employees in 2022 is equivalent to the percentage in the second half of 2021. The engagement elements that declined the most from the pre-pandemic record-high engagement ratio in 2019 to 2022 were:

clarity of expectations

connection to the mission or purpose of the company

opportunities to learn and grow

opportunities to do what employees do best

feeling cared about at work

Gallup also found a six-point decline in the percentage of employees who are extremely satisfied with their organization as a place to work. These are all indications that employees are feeling more disconnected from their employers. Clarity of expectations was lower across many demographic groups including age, gender, managerial status, remote working status, and job types. Other engagement elements were affected differently across demographic groups.

Age: Younger workers' engagement was impacted more than older workers. Engagement for those under age 35 (young millennials and Gen Zers) decreased by four points and active disengagement in this same group increased by four points compared with before the pandemic. Engagement among older workers (those 35 years and older) decreased by two points and the percentage actively disengaged in this group increased by one point. In comparison to older workers, younger workers experienced more decline in:

feeling cared about

having someone who encourages their development

opportunities to learn and grow

their opinions counting

having a best friend at work

Gender: Women experienced more of a decline in engagement than men. Engagement among women declined by four points and active disengagement increased by three points. Engagement among men declined by only one point and active disengagement increased by the same amount. In comparison to men, women saw larger declines in:

feeling cared about at work

having someone who encourages their development

having progress discussions

Job Type: When looking at engagement by level in the organization, engagement declined the most among individual contributors and project managers -- the same group that saw the largest increase in the percentage who are actively disengaged. Engagement among project managers declined by six points and active disengagement increased by four points. This group also saw a decline in all 12 of Gallup's engagement elements and overall satisfaction with their employer compared with scores from before the pandemic.

Among job types, engagement declined the most among healthcare workers (seven points) from 2019 to 2022. White-collar workers saw a four-point decline in the percentage engaged. For both healthcare and white-collar workers, nearly all of the shift from engaged employees was into the "quiet quitter" (aka not engaged) category as opposed to actively disengaged.

Remote and On-Site Jobs: For those in hybrid and fully on-site work locations, employee engagement declined from 2019 to 2022. Regardless of work location (including fully remote employees), organizational satisfaction, clarity of expectations, opportunities to do what you do best, and feeling connected to the organization's mission or purpose declined substantially.

The largest decline in employee engagement was among those in remote-ready jobs who are currently working fully on-site -- this group saw a decline of five points in engagement and an increase of seven points in active disengagement. It's worth noting that exclusively remote employees saw an increase of four points in "quiet quitting" (aka not engaged in their work and workplace).

How Organizations Can Rebound in 2023

The good news is this: While only 32% of U.S. employees overall were engaged in 2022, there are organizations that have more than doubled this percentage. Gallup's 2022 Exceptional Workplace Award winners averaged 70% employee engagement even during highly disruptive times.

They maintained this level of engagement by using their organizational culture and values to guide business decisions, embracing flexible and hybrid work while maintaining strong connections between managers and employees -- keeping performance, collaboration, employee wellbeing, and the customer at the center of how work gets done. And most importantly, they equipped their managers with the skills and tools to have ongoing meaningful conversations with employees.

The good news is this: While only 32% of U.S. employees overall were engaged in 2022, there are organizations that have more than doubled this percentage.

Focus on clarifying expectations: The most concerning decline has been in the lack of clear expectations for employees across all demographic groups when comparing engagement pre-pandemic with the latest findings. This element is the most foundational of all engagement elements. A lack of role clarity makes all other engagement elements less impactful -- employees cannot perform at a high level when they are confused as to what they are supposed to do.

Confused employees are more likely to look for other work and eventually leave the organization. What could be causing this consistent lack of clarity?

Leadership not clearly communicating the organization's intended cultural values and strategy in the new world of work.

Young workers who are in remote or hybrid settings are the most vulnerable -- the increased frequency of physical separation may contribute to this.

Managers not being in touch with the ongoing work-life challenges.

Next Steps:

1. Conduct a "Gallup culture audit." This is a highly qualitative, thorough review of your current and desired culture. This activity involves an evaluation of your strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. The audit can be done quickly and provides a road map to your highest productivity ever.

2. Embrace hybrid work for remote-ready employees. Do this or you will have an uphill battle in attracting and retaining star employees. Gallup has found the right mix of in-person time can result in the highest levels of employee engagement.

3. Establish on-site days as Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday. These days match with most employee preferences, but don't make it a policy. Announce it as your new way of working. It is a promise employees make to each other, not a promise they make to management. Employees need to know which days people are in the office together for the highest collaboration and innovation. Customers and suppliers need to know when people are in the office, too.

4. The manager must now hold one meaningful conversation per week with each employee -- 15 to 30 minutes, about goals, customers, wellbeing and recognition. This is the activity that prevents employees from feeling disconnected from the organization. We find this single habit develops high-performance relationships more than any other single leadership activity. Gallup analytics have found managers can be quickly upskilled to have these ongoing strengths-based conversations that bring clarity and purpose to work -- which is now deteriorating in U.S. organizations.

Gallup data suggest organizations are now beginning to settle into their new normal of hybrid work arrangements. Only 21% of those in remote-ready jobs are working fully on-site. Fifty-three percent of employees have some form of a hybrid work arrangement, and 26% are fully remote. The fact that these tendencies are stabilizing means ways of working in the future are more predictable. But these changes raise the bar on the need for high coordination.

The role of the manager has never been more important.

Buck this year's trend by learning more about engagement:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Employee Engagement Needs a Rebound in 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Story Highlights Young workers, women and remote-ready on-site workers dropped in engagement Fully remote employees increased in "quiet quitting" Clarity of expectations fell across demographic categories and job types After trending up in recent years, employee engagement in the U.S. saw its first annual decline in a decade -- dropping from 36% engaged employees in 2020 to 34% in 2021.

# data[].attributes.body
90 minutes of music for focus & deep work sprints. Enjoy!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How our brains help to create what we hear.

MGEN's Chairman of the Board Kevin Sharer recalled his moment of epiphany. "The best advice I ever heard about listening - advice that significantly changed my own approach - came from [then IBM CEO] Sam Palmisano, when he was talking to our leadership team. Someone asked him why his experience working in Japan was so important to his leadership development, and he said, 'Because I learned to listen by having only one objective: comprehension. I was only trying to understand what the person was trying to convey to me. I wasn't listening to critique. I wasn't listening to object. I wasn't listening to convince. I was listening solely for comprehension.' "

As organizations have become flatter, more virtual and increasingly far-flung, it has become axiomatic that effective leadership is predicated on effective communication and, in particular, on finely honed listening skills. Yet, according to Ram Charan, a noted business adviser who has worked with top executives at some of the world's most successful companies, "Corporate leaders' 360-degree feedback indicates that one out of four of them has a listening deficit - the effects of which can paralyze cross-unit collaboration, sink careers and, if it's the CEO with the deficit, derail the company."

Charan was referring specifically to a deficit in the kind of listening Palmisano described - a complex skill known as active or empathetic listening in which the listener suspends his own frame of reference and fully attends to the speaker's. The listener avoids engaging in immediate judgment, prejudice, assumptions, rebuttal or criticism. He is open not only to the spoken word, but also to body language and emotional subtext. He does not try to evaluate or solve problems in the moment, but simply restates to the speaker what he believes he is hearing so as to confirm the mutual understanding of both parties.

That kind of listening is difficult to master, in part because it is at odds with today's frenetically multitasking, information-overloaded, distraction-driven world, but perhaps more importantly because it runs counter to the way our brains have evolved to function. Our listening brain is wired to do exactly what active listening discourages: evaluate input, predict outcomes, make judgments and perform triage, all on a moment-to-moment basis. That mode of functioning, according to recent thinking in cognitive neuroscience, evolved as the brain's strategy to use its finite neural capacity efficiently.

"Rather than waiting to be activated by sensations, [the human brain] is constantly generating predictions that help interpret the sensory environment in the most efficient manner," wrote Harvard Medical School neuroscientist Kestutis Kveraga et al. in a 2007 paper, "Top-down Predictions in the Cognitive Brain." "There are many statistical regularities in our environment and the brain uses them to short-cut processing in similar future situations. The primary principle is that the brain extracts coarse, gist information rapidly, and uses it to generate predictions that help interpret that input. [It] continuously employs memory of past experiences to interpret sensory information and predict the immediately relevant future."

That means that listening is largely a top-down, strategic, cognitive process. Techniques like positron emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging reveal what happens when we listen. As we take in the stimuli of the speaker's words, the prefrontal cortex, which enables organizing and prioritizing, lights up with activity as we continually vet the incoming information against what we know, our past experiences and our theoretical construct of the future.

In one of a series of papers on the subject, Karl Friston, professor at the Institute of Neurology, University College London, wrote: "The brain models the world as a dynamic system. Perception is the optimization or inversion of that model. Cortical responses can be seen as the brain's attempt to minimize the free energy induced by a stimulus and thereby encode the most likely cause of that stimulus. This is clear evidence that the brain is sensitive to the probabilistic context in which events are encountered."

According to Andy Clark, professor at the School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences at Edinburgh University, this is a great advantage: "The capacity to use what you know to outweigh some of what the incoming signal seems to be saying can be hugely beneficial when the sensory data is noisy, ambiguous or incomplete - situations that are, in fact, pretty much the norm in daily life. This underlines the surprising extent to which the structure of our expectations, both conscious and non-conscious, may quite literally be determining much of what we see, hear and feel."

That further suggests, said Clark, that perception is inextricably tied to understanding and imagination. If conscious perception is a predictive, top-down process in which the brain continuously compares incoming information to what it already knows about the world, then that reservoir of knowledge is what we call understanding and that top-down process, when operating in a free-floating way without external stimuli, is what we call imagination. In fact, researchers from Washington University in St. Louis have found through advanced brain imaging techniques that the mental processes of remembering the past and envisioning the future are strikingly similar.

"In other words," said Clark, "the human brain is deploying a fundamental, thrifty, prediction-based strategy that husbands neural resources and, as a direct result, delivers perceiving, understanding and imagining in a single package."

Viewed from that perspective, then, the challenge of active, empathetic listening requires no less than a willful override of the brain's preferred mode of operation. It requires that listeners quell the brain's biological need for efficiency, prediction and planning and employ a purely bottom-up process to become truly open to the input of others. As Ram Charan concluded, "Truly empathetic listening requires courage - the willingness to let go of the old habits and embrace new ones. But once acquired, these listening habits are the very skills that turn would-be leaders into true ones."

If we each are indeed creating our own individual perceptions, perhaps empathetic listening is what enables those perceptions to dovetail into collective understanding. In his 1949 classic, "Language in Thought and Action," S.I. Hayakawa expressed it this way: "A human being is never dependent on his own experience alone for his information. Even in a primitive culture he can make use of the experience of his neighbors, friends, and relatives, which they communicate to him by means of language. Therefore, instead of remaining helpless because of the limitations of his own experience and knowledge, instead of having to discover what others have already discovered, instead of exploring the false trails they explored and repeating their errors, he can go on from where they left off. Language, that is to say, makes progress possible."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How our brains help to create what we hear. MGEN's Chairman of the Board Kevin Sharer recalled his moment of epiphany. "The best advice I ever heard about listening - advice that significantly changed my own approach - came from [then IBM CEO] Sam Palmisano, when he was talking to our leadership team.

# data[].attributes.headline
FastCompany: Our Brains Aren’t Meant to Operate at Optimal Level. Here’s How to Offload Your Thoughts

# data[].attributes.subject
FastCompany: Our Brains Aren’t Meant to Operate at Optimal Level. Here’s How to Offload Your Thoughts

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Most Americans just aren’t into their jobs, new Gallup data shows

# data[].attributes.headline
NBC: Most Americans Just Aren’t Into Their Jobs, New Gallup Data Shows

# data[].attributes.subject
NBC: Most Americans Just Aren’t Into Their Jobs, New Gallup Data Shows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As Americans enter the third year of the pandemic, most workers just aren't into their jobs, with nearly three-fourths saying they're either not engaged or are actively disengaged at work, according to new Gallup data released Wednesday.

The findings, which classify 50% of respondents as not engaged and another 18% as actively disengaged, come as employees increasingly feel their workplaces are abandoning the flexibility and empathy that characterized many pandemic-era workplaces.

"When the pandemic first hit, engagement peaked, people feeling their organization cares about their well-being peaked, so there was a really nice response from organizations early on - and since then, its dropped off significantly," said Jim Harter, chief scientist for workplace management practice at Gallup and the author of the new report.

Only 32% of American workers said they were engaged at work last year, down from an all-time high of 36% in 2020 and 34% in 2021, the data shows. (Gallup has been formally tracking employee engagement since 2000, Harter said.)

And as engagement decreased, the percentage of workers who are actively disengaged increased - from 14% in 2020, to 16% in 2021 and to 18% last year.

Workers who are actively disengaged "are disgruntled and disloyal because most of their workplace needs are unmet," according to Gallup.

The rate of people who classify themselves as not engaged - more recently known as "quiet quitters" - has stayed stable, at 50%, since 2020, down from 52% in 2019. These workers "are getting some of their workplace needs met, but not very many, and they're more likely to show up to work to do the minimum required and not much else," Harter said.

The research firm measures engagement by asking questions about productivity, well-being, workplace environment and values and opportunities for growth, among others. The new report is based on the average results of random quarterly surveys completed last year by about 15,000 adults employed full-time and part-time.

The categories in which workers saw the largest decreases in engagement last year compared to 2019 were in connection to the mission or purpose of the company, opportunities to learn and grow, clarity of expectations and feeling cared about at work.

Health care workers were the hardest hit among the four types of job included in the survey - which also included production/front-line workers, white collar workers, and administrative/clerical workers - facing a 7% decrease in engagement and a 6% increase in "quiet quitting" last year compared to 2019.

Women saw a 4% drop in engagement last year compared to 2019 and a 3% increase in active disengagement over the same period, compared to only 1% differences in both categories for men.

Younger workers also saw particular drop-offs in engagement compared to older workers, with 4% negative changes in both engagement and active disengagement last year compared to 2019, while workers over 35 only saw 1% to 2% differences in those categories between those two years.

Both women and younger workers value freedom and autonomy in the workplace, Harter said. In the case with women, it's because they're often saddled with more caretaking responsibilities than men. With younger workers, it's because they see "more of a separation between worker and workplace."

Research also shows that both groups benefit from mentorship: women due to the pay gap and other biases in the workplace, and younger people because they're just starting out in their careers. But both women and young workers reported steeper declines in feeling cared about at work and having someone who encourages their development compared to their male and older counterparts, respectively.

To combat this disengagement among workers, Harter said, the "leadership needs to define what kind of culture they want going forward and how where people work fits into that culture."

That culture should include regular weekly check-ins between managers and employees to discuss goals, successes, priorities and teamwork, he said: "Organizations need to think of managers more like coaches right now than delegators."

The data suggests that culture should also include some element of a flexible workplace. Workers who were forced to work in-person but could work remotely saw the biggest decreases in engagement, with a 7% increase in active disengagement last year compared to 2019 and a 5% decrease in engagement.

Workers who were fully remote, on the other hand, saw a small increase in engagement and a decrease in disengagement, but a 4% increase in "quiet quitting," with 50% characterizing themselves as not engaged compared to 46% in 2019. Hybrid workers saw 2% increases in both active disengagement and "quiet quitting," and a 4% drop in engagement.

Hybrid workplaces can be especially important for young workers, who need mentorship,Harter said, and it can add "a nice blend of autonomy and in-person time if it's coordinated the right way."

"There are things that happen informally [in the office] that just can't happen in these boxes on video," he added.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Most Americans just aren't into their jobs, new Gallup data shows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As Americans enter the third year of the pandemic, most workers just aren't into their jobs, with nearly three-fourths saying they're either not engaged or are actively disengaged at work, according to new Gallup data released Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fearless Culture: The Power of Clarifying Questions

# data[].attributes.subject
Fearless Culture: The Power of Clarifying Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An introduction to clarifying questions - and why your colleagues should use them more often

The quality of your team's conversations is directly correlated to the questions people ask. It has never been more important to facilitate fruitful discussions. Unfortunately, proper questioning has become a lost art. The rush to act now - to keep up to speed with the fast-moving world - leads us to poor decision-making.

Great leaders avoid jumping to conclusions or assumptions; they rely on powerful questions to understand the facts before passing judgment. Clarifying questions help leaders understand what others are saying - they can better understand a problem, identify new solutions, and evaluate alternatives.

In today's world, organizations need to think more than ever. Regardless of whether you are a leader or team member, active listening can improve communication and, above all, collaboration.

Here's how to improve your team's conversations by asking better clarifying questions.

What Are Clarifying Questions? (And Why They Improve Active Listening)

Most people think being a good listener comes down to paying attention, not interrupting the speaker, and being able to repeat back what they said. However, we've got it all wrong, according to research.

Good listening is not about being a passive observer engaging in fruitful conversations. Questions turn the "speaker versus hearer" division into a dialogue, making everyone feel heard and thrilled.

Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman reflect on their research findings: "While many of us have thought of being a good listener being like a sponge that accurately absorbs what the other person is saying, instead, what these findings show is that good listeners are like trampolines. They are someone you can bounce ideas off of - and rather than absorbing your ideas and energy, they amplify, energize, and clarify your thinking."

Questions make your colleagues feel supported and help them refine their ideas or opinions. Good listening is a cooperative conversation.

Asking questions means you want to learn. They improve dialogue and minimize any misunderstanding, confusion, or ambiguity. Clarifying questions help us become better listeners by encouraging us to seek more information, rather than assuming we understand.

For example, instead of reacting to a team member's idea with, "That's a terrible idea," you could ask, "Can you tell me what inspired you to come up with this idea?" or "How do you think it will help solve our customers' problems?"

Clarifying questions also provide feedback to the speaker, indicating which parts of their message were unclear. If you're confused, asking for more details will provide clues about what's missing. For example, ask, "Can you explain more about what it would take to implement this new process you just described?"

There are two types of clarifying questions:

‍Open questions: They ask the speaker to elaborate on a certain part of their message. Most of them have the form of when, why, where, or how types of questions and encourage the speaker to openly expand their thoughts and ideas.‍

Validation questions: They simply reiterate a part of the message and invite the speaker to confirm or not what or whether the listener understood.

Effective team conversations require building off each other's solutions. Uncover the value of an idea before discarding it simply because you didn't understand or like it at first glance.

There are four types of questions (I cover this in the bonus section at the end of this article). However, for now, I want to focus on two: Clarifying and Probing.

Probing questions can come across as confrontational or critical, discouraging open dialogue. Clarifying questions provide a pause, delaying the urge to jump to reactions, while probing questions offer judgment. We want to encourage the first and avoid the latter.

Unfortunately, people usually use probing questions when presented with a new concept or opinion - very few teams leverage the power of clarifying questions.

Here's a comparison of both types of questions with some examples.

Great questions aim not to judge what's been said but to keep the conversation going. Often, at work, we minimize, underestimate, and even attack other people's ideas because we got them all wrong.

We end up judging our interpretation of the idea - not what the other person actually said.

Clarifying questions help team members truly listen to each other. Some of their benefits are:

1. They help you clarify instructions from your manager or colleague

2. They allow you to fill in the gaps so you can understand the whole picture

3. They encourage speakers to be clearer and more specific

4. They promote a fluid dialogue between speakers and listeners

5. They train you to practice active listening

So, why are clarifying questions so important?

The Benefits of Asking Clarifying Questions

Companies have realized that leaders who ask good questions are more valuable than those who want to have all the answers. As I explained in a previous post, facilitating courageous and productive conversations is a valuable leadership skill.

Research shows that the demand for executives who listen empathetically, welcome input, and rally people around a shared future is increasing.

A team of Harvard Business School Professors, who analyzed thousands of executive job search descriptions created over 17 years, found that the demand for social skills is increasing in every category of the economy.

Headhunters and corporate recruiters want executives who can:

Actively listen to others

Empathize genuinely with others' experiences

Persuade people to work toward a common goal

Communicate clearly

Misunderstandings can happen more often in a hybrid workplace as I explain in my book Remote, Not Distant. If we're not careful, issues can get blown out of proportion because we assume rather than try to understand what the other person meant.

Asking clarifying questions before assessing an idea or opinion has many benefits. Let's review the most important advantages.

To pause instead of jumping to conclusions

Asking clarifying questions is a choice to go beyond the superficial. Getting more information, details, or context prevents your team from making poor decisions. It encourages us to assume positive intent - rather than judging, we want to learn more.

This is crucial to turn feedback into a gift. Feedback givers should ask questions to help the receiver reflect on the feedback received; receivers must use clarifying questions to ensure they got the right message instead of jumping to conclusions.

To better understand a position or idea

Clarifying questions are also a good way to properly understand the nuances of someone's opinion. By asking open clarifying questions, the listener pushes the speaker to explain their thoughts or elaborate on their ideas - usually ending in an improved version of the original concept.

To explore ideas outside of our comfort zone

How many times have you felt uncomfortable when someone is sharing a novel idea? It's easier to criticize the idea than to realize that it's our mental frame that needs to be revisited. Asking clarifying questions facilitates our journey - to move from resistance to acceptance.

Often, a set of questions can help you tackle a large problem in small chunks. Follow-up questions make it easier to understand a complex problem or solution. Great ideas are the result of smart questions, while fixed statements often justify our resistance to change. Use clarifying questions to stretch beyond your comfort zone.

To help colleagues think through their ideas

Great questions can help challenge not only your assumptions but also those of the idea owner. It's natural to fall in love with one's thoughts and fail to see what's missing. Great clarifying questions help people reflect not only on the solution but also on how and why it was created.

Asking questions can help teammates consider other angles, uncover the purpose behind a solution, and dive deeper into implementation details.

To elevate the quality of the conversation

Good leaders think like good detectives: they use questions to get to the truth, often tapping into distinct sources. Asking clarifying questions not only helps the originator to think through their ideas but also promotes collaboration - team members feel compelled to elevate the original idea.

Gathering information from diverse sources is vital to make effective decisions - and to drive innovation. Clarifying questions help receivers better understand someone else's thoughts or opinions by encouraging active listening. Asking clarifying questions elevates the quality of the conversation, welcoming the team to think like detectives.

Above all, clarifying questions lead to smarter solutions. Replace judgment with questions that aim to build rather than obstruct.

Clarifying Questions Help Teams Make Better Decisions

Communication is one of the most important leadership skills - it's critical for successful team collaboration. However, listening is hard work. We all fail to master this precious skill.

A study of over 8,000 people found that virtually all respondents believed that they communicate as effectively or more effectively than their co-workers. How can it be possible that everyone is above average? It's simple: we all overrate our ability to be good listeners. On average, we all listen at only about 25% efficiency.

Identifying gaps in your understanding is the first step toward having better conversations - and decisions.

I was first introduced to the power of clarifying questions when I learned how to facilitate the Integrative-Decision Making method - also known as consent (don't confuse it with consensus - check the differences here).

The more I facilitate the Integrative-Decision Making (IDM) method with consulting clients or workshop participants, the more I'm convinced that asking clarifying questions is a vital instrument of conversational acumen.

Team members rarely ask others to expand on an opinion or further describe an idea. They usually jump to judgment. Then, when they do ask questions, their intent is not to seek understanding but to express an opinion or judgment.

The IDM process includes a step to prevent this from happening. Each participant canof pose one or more clarifying questions after hearing a proposal from a colleague. This practice encourages people to listen and, most importantly, to fully understand an idea before criticizing it.

During this step, only clarifying questions are welcome - opinions or reactions disguised as questions should not be allowed.

Let me share a real-life example from one of our decision-making workshops. The team leader shared a proposal and I used the IDM to facilitate a productive conversation between all members.

Proposal: "I want to shift our team's schedule to adopt a four-day workweek, working 9 hours per day instead of 8, as we currently do."

Clarifying questions

Here are some of the questions that the team shared with the leader. He answered them all one-at-a-time often prompting follow-up questions to seek further clarification. Notice how people look for understanding or additional details - there weren't just repeating what the leader said.

When are we starting with the new workweek and how will we manage the transition to the new model?

Why a four-day week?

Can team members choose the days they work or must everyone follow the same schedule?

How will we manage clients' expectations (that we'll deliver support five days a week)?

Is this an experiment or are we going all in into a four-day workweek?

Will the team workload be adjusted to the new schedule?

Avoid opinions disguised as questions

Following are some questions that were rejected because they were opinions, not real questions - the intent wasn't to learn more about the proposal but rather to question its validity.

Don't you think that reducing the workweek will harm productivity? (I'm worried about the current workload and this will make things worse).

How are we going to track that people are working 9 hours a day instead of 8? (I don't trust people are going to work without control mechanisms).

Shouldn't we involve the whole team and do more research before moving forward? (I'd rather delay this proposal)

What happens if it doesn't work? Are we going to stick to the new model or go back to a five-day workweek? (I don't think this proposal will work in the long run).

The facilitator must push back when people are expressing their opinions, encouraging them to use clarifying questions instead.

If you're curious about how the whole consent method works, check this post.

The Quality of Questions Improves Team Conversations

Great leaders lead with questions, not perfect answers. They tap into collective wisdom, leveraging people's unique views, backgrounds, and expertise.

Clarifying questions are a powerful tool for team collaboration, as they encourage active listening and understanding rather than jumping to conclusions or reacting. They also tackle both ends of the (miss)communication spectrum: lack of clarity from the speaker or lack of understanding from the receiver.

To use clarifying questions effectively in team collaboration, everyone should be aware of the different types of questions - prioritize using clarifying ones over probing questions. Make a conscious effort to ask clarifying questions during team meetings and discussions and encourage others to do the same.

Clarifying questions support learning, decision-making, and conflict resolution. They invite in new information, provide transparency, and get everyone on the same page. They can help your team reframe problems, generate new solutions, and evolve existing ones.

Most importantly, clarifying questions help build trust by replacing judgment with curiosity.

Effective team conversations are vital to uncover possibilities, build on each other's ideas, and accelerate innovation. Often, misunderstanding and judgment get in the way, blocking dialogue and exploration. Asking clarifying questions is a simple way to have healthier debates and elevate the quality of your team conversations.

Reach out if you need help coaching your team to ask better questions and have better conversations - or enjoy this article's bonus below.

[Bonus] The Four Types of Questions

Different types of questions generate different types of answers - and responses. Great leaders understand the four different types of questions and which to use when.

Clarifying questions aim to better understand what the speaker is saying - and their intent - before we jump to conclusions. Examples: "Can you tell me more?"

"How will it work?" "What do you mean by?" "Can you give me an example?"

Probing questions challenge the speaker's views or ideas - often to criticize or highlight flaws. While effective in certain contexts, they usually shut people down. Examples: "Do you think this is going to work? Why?" "How do you know your assumption is true? What if the opposite is true?" "Why haven't you considered X, Y, and Z instead?" "Can I play the devil's advocate?"

Avoid asking probing questions before the team has completed the clarifying questions phase. Ideally, ask exploratory questions - even generative ones - before getting into probing ones.

Exploratory questions help consider different scenarios and possibilities. They are a recommended next step once you completed the clarifying question round. Examples: "What are the long-term effects?" "Will this work in all scenarios?" "Are we addressing the right problem?"

Generative questions identify new solutions or improve upon existing ones. Jumping into generative questions too early in the conversation could create friction as the proposer could feel their idea is not worthy. I often recommend generative questions when a team member is stuck and needs input or after completing the clarification questions or exploratory questions rounds.

Examples: "What other possible solutions can we consider?" "What better ways can we develop to solve this problem?" "Instead of solving for this specific problem, what systemic issues should we solve for?"

Clarifying and probing questions help us zoom in on a proposal or idea - the former to better understand, the latter to evaluate.

Exploratory and generative questions help us zoom out and see the bigger picture - the former to consider different scenarios, the latter to discover and explore new solutions.
Article by Gustavo Razzetti, CEO of Fearless Culture
Gustavo facilitates courageous conversations that drive culture transformation. He is a sought-after speaker, culture consultant, and best-selling author of the book Remote, Not Distant.

Razzetti is also the creator of the Culture Design Canvas - a visual and practical method for intentionally designing workplace culture. His insights were featured in Psychology Today, The New York Times, Forbes, and BBC.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Power of Clarifying Questions - And How to Improve Team Conversations | By Gustavo Razzetti

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The quality of your team's conversations is directly correlated to the questions people ask. It has never been more important to facilitate fruitful discussions. Unfortunately, proper questioning has become a lost art. The rush to act now - to keep up to speed with the fast-moving world - leads us to poor decision-making.

# data[].attributes.headline
PsychologyToday: Why It's So Hard to Ever Feel Satisfied

# data[].attributes.subject
PsychologyToday: Why It's So Hard to Ever Feel Satisfied

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why are we perpetually restless and unsatisfied? We live in the safest, healthiest, most well-educated, most democratic time in history -and yet, some part of the human psyche causes us to look for an escape from things stirring inside us constantly.

As the eighteenth-century poet Samuel Johnson said, "My life is one long escape from myself." Me too, brother. Me too.

The truth is, we're not wired to feel content or satisfied. Ever.

There's a simple reason for that: as expressed by researchers for the Review of General Psychology, "If satisfaction and pleasure were permanent, there might be little incentive to continue seeking further benefits or advances."

In other words, feeling contented wasn't good for the species.

Our ancestors worked harder and strove further because they evolved to be perpetually perturbed, and so we remain today.

The Four Components of Dissatisfaction

Four psychological factors make satisfaction temporary.

The first is boredom. The lengths people will go to avoid boredom are shocking. Literally.

A 2014 study published in Science observed participants who were asked to sit in a room and think for fifteen minutes. The room was empty except for a device that allowed participants to mildly but painfully electrocute themselves.

"Why would anyone want to do that?" you might ask.

When asked beforehand, every participant in the study said they would pay money to avoid being shocked. However, when left alone in the room with the machine and nothing else to do, 67 percent of men and 25 percent of women shocked themselves. Many did so multiple times.

The study demonstrated that people dislike being alone with their thoughts so much that they'll prefer to do anything else, even if that activity is negative.

It's no surprise, therefore, that most of the top twenty-five websites in America sell escape from our daily drudgery, whether through shopping, celebrity gossip, or bite-sized doses of social interaction.

The second psychological factor driving us is negativity bias.

It's been defined as "a phenomenon in which negative events are more salient and demand attention more powerfully than neutral or positive events."

As the author of one study concluded, "It appears to be a basic, pervasive fact of psychology that bad is stronger than good."

Such pessimism begins very early in life. Babies begin to show signs of negativity bias starting at just seven months of age, suggesting this tendency is inborn.

Researchers also believe that we tend to have an easier time recalling bad memories than good ones. Studies have found people are more likely to recall unhappy moments in their childhood, even if they would describe their upbringing as generally happy.

Negativity bias almost certainly gave us an evolutionary edge. Good things are nice, but bad things can kill you. That's why we pay attention to the bad stuff first and remember it better. Useful for the species-but what a bummer!

The third factor is rumination, our tendency to keep thinking about bad experiences.

If you've ever chewed on something that you did or that someone did to you, over and over again, then you've experienced rumination.

This "passive comparison of one's current situation with some unachieved standard" can manifest in self-critical thoughts such as, "Why can't I handle things better?"

As one study notes, "By reflecting on what went wrong and how to rectify it, people may be able to discover sources of error or alternative strategies, ultimately leading to not repeating mistakes and possibly doing better in the future." That's another potentially useful process-but boy, can it make us miserable.

A fourth factor may be the cruelest of all. It's hedonic adaptation, the tendency to quickly return to a baseline level of satisfaction no matter what happens to us in life.

Hedonic adaptation is Mother Nature's bait-and-switch. All sorts of life events we think would make us happier actually don't-or at least, not for long.

As David Myers writes in The Pursuit of Happiness, "Every desirable experience-passionate love, a spiritual high, the pleasure of a new possession, the exhilaration of success-is transitory."

Of course, as with boredom, negativity bias, and rumination, there are evolutionary benefits to hedonic adaptation.

As the author of one study explains, as "new goals continually capture one's attention, one constantly strives to be happy without realizing that in the long run, such efforts are futile."

Taken together, these four components add up to a lot of dissatisfaction in life, even if your circumstances are truly great.

Humans may be wired to pursue happiness, but we're not too well equipped to experience it.

Can we cue the sad trombone music now? Is futility our fate? No.

Dissatisfaction Is Not Defeat

If you find yourself feeling unhappy with life, that doesn't mean you've been defeated.

The takeaway here is that if you're unhappy, you're normal.

Dissatisfaction is responsible for our species' advancements, and if you never felt it, you'd be at a serious disadvantage. Discontent is not a reason to give up on success. Rather, it's a reason to introduce the opportunity for frequent and meaningful victories into your life.

It's important to understand that struggle and hard times are just part of being human.

High achievers push themselves through the discomfort and discontent rather than trying to escape it with distraction.

Every day is a chance to live according to your values, which I define as attributes of the person you want to be. Living out your values means spending your time purposefully on the things that you decide are important.

You can do this-very concretely-if you build your values into your calendar. That means scheduling time for what matters most.

At the end of the day, you can look at what you intended to do, compare it to what you ended up doing, and celebrate your victory when you stayed on track.

When you live up to your values, instead of distracting yourself from feeling discomfort and discontent, you become indistractable.
A version of this post appears on NirAndFar.com Facebook/LinkedIn image: Bricolage/Shutterstock

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why are we perpetually restless and unsatisfied? We live in the safest, healthiest, most well-educated, most democratic time in history -and yet, some part of the human psyche causes us to look for an escape from things stirring inside us constantly. As the eighteenth-century poet Samuel Johnson said, "My life is one long escape from myself."

# data[].attributes.headline
Learnerbly: How Managers Can Embed Development Conversations Into 1:1s

# data[].attributes.subject
Learnerbly: How Managers Can Embed Development Conversations Into 1:1s

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One-to-ones are a great time to gauge where your people are in their upskilling journeys. They're important conversations to have as a manager because they show your support for your team and allow you to align business goals with personal ones.

But many managers don't know how to bring development into the conversation in an effective and impactful way.

If you're in the same boat, don't worry. By the end of this guide, you will:

✅ Be able to establish a better process for discussing development with your team

💪 Feel more empowered to have these conversations in a natural and effective way

🧠 Know the ins and outs of how these conversations can positively impact the business

Why Do So Many Managers Find It Difficult To Discuss Development?

If you find it difficult to communicate with your people then know that you're not alone.

In one survey, 69% of managers report feeling uncomfortable communicating with their employees and 37% find it challenging to give their people direct feedback.

Asking the right questions about career progression and creating personal development plans for each individual is challenging-especially if you have limited experience doing it.

To get the most out of development conversations, you also need to ensure that your people feel comfortable discussing their careers and the skills that they want to improve with you.If you find that your people struggle to openly discuss their development, it could be for a variety of different reasons.

It may be that your team members come from backgrounds where sharing this type of information wasn't encouraged or safe to do.

Or, it could be that the individual doesn't feel comfortable being vulnerable for their own personal reasons.

This is why it's important to evaluate whether it's your company culture that's to blame or the impact past cultures have had on your people. You may have to work on undoing damage and building psychological safety in your team.

If you don't, you'll struggle to feel comfortable having honest development conversations.

Before You Begin: Establish Psychological Safety

Before you can have genuine development conversations with your people, you need to establish psychological safety.

This is when people don't worry about criticism or judgement for making and admitting to their mistakes.

When psychological safety is embedded within your company's culture, your people will:

🧠 Feel comfortable sharing their goals with you during one-to-one meetings

🧠 Know that they are supported as they embark on their learning journey

🧠 Own their mistakes and feel empowered to learn from them

Remember, Development Conversations Aren't Performance Reviews

It's easy to get confused between a development conversation and a performance review.

A performance review focuses on evaluating a person's workplace performance and how it affects the rest of the company. The employee's self-evaluation is usually combined with wider feedback from their peers, as well as the manager's evaluation of their performance.

But the goal of a development conversation is to find practical ways to help an employee build on their existing skills and support them in achieving their goals.

If a direct report wants to develop new skills that help them progress in their roles, they can refer to their performance reviews or career development plans to guide them.

Another important difference is that personal development allows people to progress beyond workplace-related skills at their own pace. This could mean learning a new skill that's not directly tied to their role at your company.

Tips for Embedding Development Conversations in One-To-Ones

Now that you know a bit more about how development conversations are used, we can get to the best part-looking at ways you can build them into one-to-ones.

1. Start By Identifying Career and Development Goals

As a manager, one of your roles is to support, empower and develop your people.

However, you can't do that or help them find the right learning and development ( L&D) resources if you don't know what their personal or professional goals are.

It's important to remember that the best goals and development plans match the employee's needs with that of the company.

Once you understand what someone wants to achieve, you can create opportunities for them to get there, as well as brainstorm ways that the company can support them.

The key to identifying a person's development goals during a one-to-one conversation is to ask the right questions.

At Learnerbly, we like to use the "GROW" model to guide our goal-setting conversations.

‍

Some of the questions we may ask within this model include:

What would you like to accomplish?

What could you be doing to reach your goals?

Where are you now in relation to the goals you want to achieve?

What do you think you need to do to achieve your ideal outcome?

Do you feel like you're making progress toward your long-term goals here? Why or why not?

What resources can help you reach your ideal outcome or goals?

By answering these questions, you'll gain more clarity about what your direct report's goals are so that you can create personal development plans (PDPs).

This will help set the course for your people's growth and give them a better idea of what their development journey looks like.

2. Discuss Learning Focuses and Resources

Once you know what your direct report's goals are, you can steer the conversation towards discussing L&D resources that will help achieve them.

While some people will know exactly what they want to learn and know how to pursue it independently, others might be unsure and benefit from guidance.

This is where you come in.

Set aside time during the one-to-one to help your people find and choose upskilling opportunities that are aligned with their professional development plan and goals.

3. Set Regular Progress Check-Ins

One of the best ways for both you and your people to get the most out of development one-to-ones is to have them on a regular basis.

This is a great way to see what progress your direct reports are making towards their career or learning goals and if the resources they've chosen are proving to be valuable.

During these conversations, you can hold your team accountable with their L&D or help them find other resources and opportunities that will be more suited to their goals.

Some people benefit more from mentors or networking as a form of growing in their role or by taking on a project where they can apply their learnings on-the-job.

There is no one size fits all approach to how often you should be having development conversations during your one-to-ones.

Some managers even schedule a monthly meeting dedicated entirely to development in addition to setting aside a few minutes of every one-to-one for career development conversations. If you have four one-to-ones a month, you could make the fourth one about career development without adding another meeting into your schedule.
Remember:
⏰ The regularity of these discussions will depend on the size of your team and what works best for each individual.

⏰ Make sure that you schedule the development one-to-one as a regular calendar event for both you and your team members.

If your company allows you to set personal learning budgets (PLBs) for your team, a regular check-in is also a good time to see if they are making the best out of it.

You can use the one-to-one meeting to inspire your people to use their budgets more if need be and find out if it adequately supports their development.

If it doesn't, you can bring it up with your People team or Leadership team.

4. Use One-To-Ones to Carefully Consider Learning Requests

Many companies allow their teams to make learning requests that get sent to their managers for approval.

As we've seen in this article, having regular developmental conversations with your people gives you a better understanding of what skills they want to develop.

By combining that with wider company goals and PLBs, you can make informed decisions about which requests can be approved right away and what might need a quick catch up.

This is a great way to help your people ensure that they are engaging with resources that support their goals and where they may need a little help staying on track with their PDPs.

If your company uses learning requests, make sure that you carefully consider each one by asking yourself the following questions:

🤔 Will the learning resource help them achieve their goals?

🤔 Is it the best resource type for their goals?

🤔 Do multiple people have similar goals and does this create an opportunity for shared learning?

5. Use Development Conversations to Lead by Example

There's little use in talking about development in one-to-ones without you championing the organisation's learning culture.

At Learnerbly, we've seen first-hand that the more engaged managers are with L&D-the more likely their teams are to follow suit.

There are a few different ways that managers can lead by example:

✔️ Share your 360 feedback with your team and highlight the areas that you've chosen to develop during one-to-ones.

✔️ Suggest L&D resources that have helped you improve your skills during development conversations.

✔️Open up about a time you applied something you learned at work and how it went

These are great ways to show your people that you take ownership of your development and speak about it openly with others.

Hopefully, your attitude will trickle down to the rest of the team.

What Are the Benefits of Having Development Conversations?

Sometimes knowing how to have the conversation isn't enough to make sure you actually have it. So we want to make sure you know why it's important to discuss development with your team members.

And quite frankly, there are many benefits companies and their managers can enjoy when they prioritise development conversations and support continuous learning.

It Helps Keep Team Members Engaged

For many people, jobs are no longer just a means to an end. Alongside helping us pay our bills, a great job is one that inspires us to develop ourselves with the future in mind.

No wonder research shows 82% of people would be more engaged if their managers had regular conversations with them.

Having development conversations and encouraging your people to find opportunities to learn shows them you're invested in their growth. And when that happens, they'll feel more valued by you and more committed to the company.

These conversations can also boost individual and team performance, ultimately maximising your teams contribution to the company which is in everyone's best interest.

You'll Develop Better Relationships With Direct Reports

Development conversations, when done right, will help you learn more about your direct reports on a personal level.

Asking team members about their aspirations, interests and what they want to learn is a great way to show them you care about them.

As a manager, your job is to:

⭐ Understand your people's personal and professional goals

⭐ Support direct reports in developing their skills

⭐ Help team members find projects and learning resources that will help them progress in their careers

By discussing and learning about these things, you'll be able to build stronger relationships with your team and help them see you as a coach and mentor-instead of just a manager.

You Can Help Your Team and Company Become Future-Proof

Although your team may have the talent around now to be successful, there's a very good chance you'll need additional skills in the future.

Development conversations are a great time to explore potential needs within the context of your direct report's future career goals.

You can use one-to-ones to encourage your people to take active steps towards developing their skills so that they are equipped for any future job, industry requirements, or even to make their place at the company more secure. This is because ongoing learning helps companies and their people stay up-to-date with industry trends and even push ahead of them.

When your team has the skills in-house that it needs to keep up with the ever-changing world of work, you'll also save your company money on future hiring costs.

It Creates a Win-Win For Companies and Their People

The best managers:

💥 Find ways to get excellent performance from their teams while helping them grow

💥 Use their people's new and existing skills to create greater value for the company

One-to-ones are the ideal time to find out what your people's goals and learning aspirations are so that you can find ways to link this to the organisation's key business goals.

Doing this allows you to create sustainable career paths for your people within the company.

It will also help you ensure that your company is able to stay agile and competitive in an ever-changing working environment.

Development Conversations Help Boost Retention Rates

Many managers worry about investing time and resources into their people, only for them to leave the business in the future.

But, investing in development is one of the best ways to retain existing talent.

One survey found that 75% of people would be more likely to stay with their current employer if they had regular development conversations.

When team members feel like their managers value and support their development, they are far less likely to seek job opportunities elsewhere.

Having development conversations in one-to-ones also helps managers identify if one of their team members is unsatisfied earlier than if they hadn't. This allows you to better support the individual and hold onto your team's talent for longer.

Now It's Your Turn

Although having development conversations may seem overwhelming at first, the right process and questions will help you get the most out of them.

Not only will they encourage your people to think about their career goals, but you'll also be better equipped to help them find L&D resources to make those aspirations a reality.

And development conversations can be made easier still.

Take a look at this guide and discover how Learnerbly can enhance and support your development conversations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Managers Can Embed Development Conversations in One-to-Ones (+ 5 Actionable Tips)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One-to-ones are a great time to gauge where your people are in their upskilling journeys. They're important conversations to have as a manager because they show your support for your team and allow you to align business goals with personal ones. But many managers don't know how to bring development into the conversation in an effective and impactful way.

# data[].attributes.headline
LifeLabs Learning: Watch Feedback Delivered 3 Different Ways

# data[].attributes.subject
LifeLabs Learning: Watch Feedback Delivered 3 Different Ways

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The secret to giving great feedback | The Way We Work, a TED series

# data[].attributes.body
Sometimes, it's just about listening and not fixing. Watch this great 1:41 minute video.