# data[].attributes.headline
HBR: The Benefits of Laughing in the Office

# data[].attributes.subject
HBR: The Benefits of Laughing in the Office

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Don't be afraid to laugh out loud in the office. A series of studies shows the positive impact humor can have in the workplace. For one, it can reduce stress. "When you start to laugh, it doesn't just lighten your load mentally, it actually induces physical changes in your body," the Mayo Clinic explains. It enhances your intake of "oxygen-rich air," increasing your brain's release of endorphins. Laughter has also been shown to boost productivity. A group of researchers found that after watching a comedy clip, employees were 10% more productive than their counterparts. And another group of researchers found that cracking jokes at work can even make people seem more competent. So, within the bounds of decency, laughter on the whole is a good thing, and the benefits far outweigh the risks.

While on an investor tour in Europe, I ended a busy day by joining my boss at a nice restaurant. After he said something funny, I responded in my typical style - throwing back my head and letting out hearty, unabashed laughter. People were taken aback. They turned to stare at me.

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

How to build resilience at work.

Learn More & See All Courses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Don't be afraid to laugh out loud in the office. A series of studies shows the positive impact humor can have in the workplace. For one, it can reduce stress. "When you start to laugh, it doesn't just lighten your load mentally, it actually induces physical changes in your body," the Mayo Clinic explains.

# data[].attributes.headline
HBR: What Really Influence Employee Motivation

# data[].attributes.subject
HBR: What Really Influence Employee Motivation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Really Influences Employee Motivation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
You are contagious | Vanessa Van Edwards | TEDxLondon

# data[].attributes.headline
Theory X & Y - Understanding People's Motivation

# data[].attributes.subject
Theory X & Y - Understanding People's Motivation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The approach that you take will have a significant impact on your ability to motivate your team members. So, it's important to understand how your perceptions of what motivates them can shape your management style.

We'll now take a more in-depth look at the two different theories, and discover how and when they can be useful in the workplace.

Theory X

Theory X managers tend to take a pessimistic view of their people, and assume that they are naturally unmotivated and dislike work.

Work in organizations that are managed like this can be repetitive, and people are often motivated with a "carrot and stick" approach. Performance appraisals and remuneration are usually based on tangible results, such as sales figures or product output, and are used to control and "keep tabs" on staff.

This style of management assumes that workers:

Dislike their work.

Avoid responsibility and need constant direction.

Have to be controlled, forced and threatened to deliver work.

Need to be supervised at every step.

Have no incentive to work or ambition, and therefore need to be enticed by rewards to achieve goals.

According to McGregor, organizations with a Theory X approach tend to have several tiers of managers and supervisors to oversee and direct workers. Authority is rarely delegated, and control remains firmly centralized.

Although Theory X management has largely fallen out of fashion in recent times, big organizations may find that adopting it is unavoidable due to the sheer number of people that they employ and the tight deadlines that they have to meet.

Theory Y

Theory Y managers have an optimistic opinion of their people, and they use a decentralized, participative management style. This encourages a more collaborative, trust-based relationship between managers and their team members.

People have greater responsibility, and managers encourage them to develop their skills and suggest improvements. Appraisals are regular but, unlike in Theory X organizations, they are used to encourage open communication rather than to control staff.

Theory Y organizations also give employees frequent opportunities for promotion.

This style of management assumes that workers are:

Happy to work on their own initiative.

More involved in decision making.

Self-motivated to complete their tasks.

Enjoy taking ownership of their work.

Seek and accept responsibility, and need little direction.

View work as fulfillling and challenging.

Solve problems creatively and imaginatively.

Theory Y has become more popular among organizations. This reflects workers' increasing desire for more meaningful careers that provide them with more than just money.

It's also viewed by McGregor as superior to Theory X, which, he says, reduces workers to "cogs in a machine," and likely demotivates people in the long term.

When to Use Theory X and Theory Y

Most managers will likely use a mixture of Theory X and Theory Y. You may, however, find that you naturally favor one over the other. You might, for instance, have a tendency to micromanage or, conversely, you may prefer to take a more hands-off approach.

Although both styles of management can motivate people, the success of each will largely depend on your team's needs and wants and your organizational objectives.

You may use a Theory X style of management for new starters who will likely need a lot of guidance, or in a situation that requires you to take control such as a crisis.

But you wouldn't use it when managing a team of experts, who are used to working under their own initiative, and need little direction. If you did, it would likely have a demotivating effect and may even damage your relationship.

Circumstance can also affect your management style. Theory X, for instance, is generally more prevalent in larger organizations, or in teams where work can be repetitive and target-driven.

In these cases, people are unlikely to find reward or fulfilllment in their work, so a "carrot and stick" approach will tend to be more successful in motivating them than a Theory Y approach.

In contrast, Theory Y tends to be favored by organizations that have a flatter structure, and where people at the lower levels are involved in decision making and have some responsibility.

The Disadvantages of Theory X and Theory Y

However, both theories have their challenges. The restrictive nature of Theory X, for instance, could cause people to become demotivated and non-cooperative if your approach is too strict. This may lead to high staff turnover and could damage your reputation in the long term.

Conversely, if you adopt a Theory Y approach that gives people too much freedom, it may allow them to stray from their key objectives or lose focus. Less motivated individuals may also take advantage of this more relaxd working environment by shirking their work.

If this happens, you may need to take back some control to ensure that everyone meets their team and organizational goals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Theory X and Theory Y - Understanding People's Motivations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What do you think motivates your team? Money or the challenge? Theory X and Theory Y explains how your perceptions can affect your management style.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some of my favorite Class Guides from various (& fabulous) MasterClass instructors

# data[].attributes.headline
HBR: The Secret to Leading Highly Collaborative Teams

# data[].attributes.subject
HBR: The Secret to Leading Highly Collaborative Teams

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Secret to Leading Highly Collaborative Teams

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to this episode from HBR On Leadership on Spotify. If you're leading a team, you know how hard it is to facilitate collaboration - especially when they don't know each other well or may never meet in person. When people struggle to work together, it can harm productivity, morale, and talent retention.

# data[].attributes.headline
HBR: How Gamification Can Boost Employee Engagement

# data[].attributes.subject
HBR: How Gamification Can Boost Employee Engagement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Gamification Can Boost Employee Engagement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Employee disengagement is a persistent problem, and attempts to inject excitement often fall flat. However, gamification - using elements of games to motivate - has serious potential when thoughtfully executed. This article explores the psychology behind gamification, successful examples, and how to leverage probabilistic rewards (like lotteries tied to performance) to increase employee motivation.

# data[].attributes.headline
HBR: The Key to Preserving a Long-Term Competitive Advantage

# data[].attributes.subject
HBR: The Key to Preserving a Long-Term Competitive Advantage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HANNAH BATES: Welcome to HBR On Strategy, case studies and conversations with the world's top business and management experts, hand-selected to help you unlock new ways of doing business.

For more than a century, the pharmaceutical company Roche has been headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. It's just one of more than A dozen pharma companies who have long been based in the historic city, which sits at the crossroads of Switzerland, Germany, and France. Innovation expert Howard Yu says that this industrial cluster is a unique example of enduring competitive advantage.

Yu is the Lego Professor of Management and Innovation at IMD Business School in Switzerland. He explains that the story of these enduring companies offers a counter-narrative to the pessimistic view that you can't stay ahead of the competition for long. In this episode, you'll learn how these historic companies began not as pharmaceutical companies, but as makers of chemical dyes. Their transition from organic chemistry to microbiology was an enormous change that ensured the longevity of their businesses.

You'll also learn how to rethink and repackage your company's existing knowledge in order to pioneer new products and services - and you'll learn why persistence and experimentation over the long term are pre-requisites for innovation.

This episode originally aired on HBR IdeaCast in July 2018. Here it is.

CURT NICKISCH: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I'm Curt Nickisch. Float down the Rhine River through the City of Basel in Switzerland and the murky water will carry you past the red sandstone cathedral up on the hill, along old stone embankments and under a medieval bridge. You'll also pass the gleaming Roche Tower jetting diagonally into the sky like an optimistic sales forecast. And outside the old city, you'll drift past the shiny new sculptured glass offices of Novartis. These global pharmaceutical companies here have rich corporate campuses.

HOWARD YU: At Novartis for example, the campus looks almost like a modern museum in many ways. There are stone gardens. There are major art installations all across the campus and the buildings were designed by a famous architect.

CURT NICKISCH: Speaking there is Howard Yu. He's a management and innovation professor at IMD Business School in Switzerland. And what really impresses him is that these enterprises have been on the shore of the Rhine River for the better part of two centuries. After all, Yu grew up in Hong Kong where he saw industries rise and fall in short order. He says this enduring industrial cluster in Basel is unique.

HOWARD YU: And it's just interesting element around how a city, a cluster industry can enjoy so much bountiful prosperity that really tricked me to go explore this particular city.

CURT NICKISCH: How these companies have stayed on top for so long is the subject of his new book. It's called Leap: How Businesses Thrive in a World Where Everything Can Be Copied. I spoke to Yu recently on a day when my seasonal allergies were pretty bad, maybe something that those drug companies in Basel could help with. Howard, thanks so much for talking with the HBR IdeaCast.

HOWARD YU: My pleasure.

CURT NICKISCH: You have this title, Leap for your book, but when you talk about the pharmaceutical companies in Basel, there're companies that have been in one place for a long time. They look like they've just stayed the same and endured. So, how do you explain that these pharmaceutical companies in Basel have lept ahead?

HOWARD YU: Yeah. The pharmaceutical cluster in Basel, Switzerland is sort of an anomaly because, in the field of competitive strategy, I think we are so well trained and thinking is so entrenched that you want to build up a defense for competitive possession. That you want to build a structural barrier to protect your businesses against competition over a long period of time. That seems to be the dominant thinking among executives and manager. That is a mirage. Because no value proposition can stay unique forever. Any blue ocean may turn red over time. If we were to look at different industries for a moment from automotive to textile, for example, to heavy machinery, personal computers, all the way to the mobile phone, inevitably what we see is expertise and capital and know how to migrate from one country to another. This anomaly in Basel kind of jumped out at me. And they've been settling in the same location for almost close to 200 years.

CURT NICKISCH: So, what is the conventional thinking, at least in Switzerland or elsewhere about how these drug companies have endured there?

HOWARD YU: Yeah. The usual response I get is, an executive would say, well, drug discovery is very high-tech. Or, drugs are subject to FDA approval, which is hard to get and as patent right. And yet, personal computers once upon a time, also have a lot of IP. Automotive has a lot of IP. And even the textile industry, 200 hundred years ago is the high-tech of the day. And yet they couldn't stay away unscathed by global competition. What's really interesting about Basel is how do these drug companies continue to reinvent itself? So, I decided to spend some time to just to understand from a historical development, a historical perspective what have these pharmaceutical companies have been doing throughout its long history of time, 200 years or so, to stay competitive, to fend off other low-cost competition differently than other industry we've seen.

CURT NICKISCH: What did you find?

HOWARD YU: Yeah, so it turns out at first they were actually old chemical dye maker for the textile industry. Now, some of these chemists, somehow they discovered there are medicinal benefits of the chemical dye. So, the first blockbuster in the world in the 19th Century is actually is antipyretic. It's a fever-reducing drug. So, in many ways, organic chemistry is the hotbed for innovation. Now, we all remember back in high school, Alexander Fleming who discovered antibiotics, penicillin. So, after the Second World War, all the pharmaceutical companies essentially begins to study intensively around microbiology. They sent in a few workers to go down mineshafts. They sent a balloon to collect air samples. They called employees to ask them to look at the back of the fridge to look at an interesting mold.

CURT NICKISCH: Really?

HOWARD YU: Yes, in search of the next pay dirt. So, essentially the innovation discipline gradually moved away from organic chemistry to microbiology. Now of course, now these states, if we ask anybody what is the hotbed for innovation for medicine, its genomics. So, if you're looking at pharmaceutical co-industry, what's really interesting is for these pioneers to discover new drugs, essentially they need to leap from one knowledge discipline to the next, starting from organic chemistry to microbiology's and then today, it's genomics. And I believe it is because the recurring, or the continuous leap from one discipline to another that allows the pioneering company, such as the one in Basel that is able to stay on top of the competition. And it's essentially leaping to a new discipline that opens up new paths for growth, so that the latecomer, the copycats always have a hard time in catching them up.

CURT NICKISCH: Got it. They essentially have to be pioneers and then become pioneers again and then become pioneers again.

HOWARD YU: That's right.

CURT NICKISCH: You said this is different from other industries.

HOWARD YU: Yep. That is a sort of stark contrast and that really draw my interest to understand what causes some company to stay pioneering and prosper long period of time, versus others kind of being swept away.

CURT NICKISCH: Yeah. You also went to Harvard Business School where your dissertation advisor was Clayton Christensen and so, you studied disruptive innovation as well. The name of your book is Leap: How to Thrive in a World Where Everything Can Be Copied. But I think a lot of people think of disruption or companies going out of business, not having their stuff copied, but having other people basically, rather than copy them it's more like they pull the rug out from under them. Is this a world where everything can be copied or something a little different?

HOWARD YU: That's a great question. What we see in my research is disruption oftentimes is a real threat, but that's not the only threat. In fact, even when an industry seemingly stays constant, nothing changes, the pioneering company, if it doesn't leap to a new knowledge discipline, sooner or later its financial resources or its market positioning will get threatened. The latecomer will catch up. Let me give you an analogy here. Competition, industry competition is always like mountaineering. Meaning, every company tries to reach the mountain peak. Now, if the knowledge discipline stays stagnate from automotive to textile, to piano making, sooner or later the latecomer will reach the same height. However, if the knowledge discipline evolves from organic chemistry to biology's to genomics such as the one we explore in pharmaceuticals, then the mountains almost feeling like there's a constant mudslide that pushes everyone downwards. In those situation,s it turns out it's the most experienced one, the most early one that has mastered the old knowledge that withstands a better chance to stay on top of this game. And which is why if you're looking at industry such as solar panel manufacturing, mobile phone making, and wind turbine, and heavy machinery, the latecomer i.e., the Asian competitor, they all have pretty much a meaningful or even formidable position in the global market versus drug discovery. The Western company paradoxically still leads the pack in leading drug discovery itself. And I think it's because this leap of knowledge discipline that pushed out the latecomers so much that they had a hard time in catching up.

CURT NICKISCH: For now.

HOWARD YU: For now.

CURT NICKISCH: Yeah. That's so interesting. I like how you reference the mastery of the old because it sounds like it's not just about focusing on the new or leaping to someplace new. Can you help explain why that mastery is so important?

HOWARD YU: If we go back to the study of microbes or microbiology, in fact at that time the scientists and the engineers, they were pouring different dyes and acid onto bacteria, to understand the mechanism and the reaction. In fact, the discovery of chromosome is because some of these chemists actually pouring dye, to dye the nuclear of the cell, then they see the structure of a chromosome. As cell divided, was the roll. So, it's this idea that what you know in the past is the pre-knowledge for you to understand the future. And I think there is a lot of fear about disjoint or discontinuous disruption that causes people to completely disregard about the past. Now, sometimes this continuous change does hit an industry in a very big way. But complete disregarding the past, and forget about everything that you have as a unique asset and never reimagine how to repackage this unique asset for future use, that's a big pity.

CURT NICKISCH: So, what's an example of a company outside of Switzerland that you think has done this well, sort of in modern times where they've been able to use their pre-knowledge of where they've been to make leaps into new places and stay experts and stay ahead of the followers?

HOWARD YU: I deliberately tried to find international examples, seemingly impossible examples during my research and one company that I came across is from Japan. Its name is Recruit Holdings and it used to be a classified post publisher. So, they make a print magazine, like the Yellow Pages. And I thought this company should have died a long time ago because of their obsolete business model. Interestingly enough, Recruit Holdings was able to reinvent itself, leaping into new knowledge discipline and today is an international service provider for small, medium-size companies across Japan that today if you're looking at a PE ratio, price per earnings ratio, or revenue or sales per spot price, they were at the same range as Google and Facebook.

CURT NICKISCH: How specifically did they do that?

HOWARD YU: Yeah, so when Recruit begins to notice the emergence of the internet, one thing that they've done is to do small-scale experiments. They moved one of the magazines online and provide all those contents for free. Now, they don't turn profitable overnight. In fact, they suffered some corporate loss over the course of three years and it's only the fourth year then they see their online magazine to begin to rake in revenue.

CURT NICKISCH: Right. This sounds, I mean this sounds like a classic job of managing disruption of your industry.

HOWARD YU: Absolutely right. Because in many ways they don't know what they don't know and you have to go into the field and do it by yourself, rather than outsource to a management consultant, in order to gain that early experience. Because this is, we're talking about the early 2000s. No one had worked out the internet rules. It was at the time that even academic research about platform strategies, still very little. But what they have learned over time, a lot of the customers are putting ads on their magazine, a small time proprietor, mom and pop store, beauty salon, small-time restaurants. They don't just want sales, but in fact, there are a host of administrative tasks that were distracting. For example, if you are a beauty salon, the last thing you want is to have double book your customers who are trying to get a haircut at the same slot. But yet, at the same time all the small time proprietors, they continue to do a lot of these booking systems on paper. Very labor intensive, using, taking up a lot of time that distracts them from serving the customer better. And so, Recruit Holdings begins to experiment beyond just selling advertising space online. They provide an internet-based solution such as a booking system for customers, such as table reservations at restaurants. The interesting thing for Recruit is they never just stopped from one single service, but the moved into a vertical stack. Meaning every time they encountered and discovered ping pong of their customer, they think about a new solution and provide that solution to wrap it around job to be done so well that their customer finds it very hard to resist. Now, eventually, they begin to change their business model from simply selling advertisement space online, too much more akin to a subscription base for services and so on. And so today, what they have been doing is to really thinking about how can we harness our database through artificial intelligence? So, again a new knowledge frontier.

CURT NICKISCH: So, that's a pretty remarkable digital transformation. To go from being a classified company on printed pages to a company that's working in new forms of artificial intelligence to stay ahead as a tech company. How did they do that? How did they know to make the transformation as they did and not go the route that most companies did?

HOWARD YU: Yeah, that's a very important question because in many ways when companies leap the investment it represents or the payoff of these investment represents is very, very hard to translate into a financial or conventional financial analysis. And I think this is actually the root cause of why we see so few companies are successfully able to leap into the new knowledge frontier. If I take a broad view of Recruit Holdings as I go through the whole corporate archives, two things jumped out. One is the company has a buyer's for experimentation. And in many ways that is the only way to reduce the dark space of ignorance because we can debate all day long whether this is our strategic intent, whether this should be going forward or not, but unless the company really tries things out on the ground, they don't know what they're doing, they know. And so, one is the idea of empowering middle manager to experiment with different initiatives around a new knowledge discipline, that's absolutely paramount. However, that's not sufficient because time and time again, I have observed companies who are quite happy to do small-scale experimentation, but no one finally makes the call of pulling the trigger and move from an emerging strategy into a deliberate strategy. This is really important because from R&D to product development, into scale and commercialization, it requires major double down of the investment amount. Yet again, what we see from Recruit to other companies who are able to leap forward is that at some point the senior management team will essentially review all the early evidence and at some point, they will pull the trigger despite the short-term payoff doesn't look very favorable.

CURT NICKISCH: How rare is this organizational skill and insight and commitment?

HOWARD YU: You know, I thought it was pretty rare at first, but it's actually more common as my research continued to unfold. I saw that type of CEO behavior also from companies such as Proctor & Gamble, Apple is another example, Amazon is another example, even NGOs, and others. The CEO, once he understands the new knowledge discipline, actually could reconfigure how the company brings drugs to the market, he essentially tells his direct reports, quote, money doesn't matter. Let's go ahead. Now it does require the senior leader to say something like of that kind of nature. Money doesn't matter. Full steam ahead. And so it's this idea of a combination of experimentation of the middle manager who is close to the market, close to the ground and gets the learning. But at the same time, at some point, you do require a senior executive to move from an experimentation mode into a deliberate mod and to make that resource allocation accordingly. That would result in a leap of an organization. I admit it's rare, but rare not in the sense that it's not a learnable skill. But it requires executives and senior managers to really change the way they spend their time and delegate as much as possible of their main business to people who can pick up that responsibility, but also use more time in understanding the new business, the new knowledge discipline which requires personal learning. And I think it's this disjoint between the two, as a result, we see less occurrence than we hoped to have observed.

CURT NICKISCH: How do you know if you work at one of these companies?

HOWARD YU: One key element that could be quite obvious would be whenever the company suffers some short-term ups and downs in terms of earnings or revenue, would they immediately cut off all the initiative regardless of early traction or not? That start, stop, start, stop usually is a very, very dangerous sign that a company doesn't take the initiatives or the importance of leaping forward seriously enough. On the contrary, there are times that when companies suffer a short-term hit of the mainstream business, they continue to persist certain element of the experimentation inside a firm and that's usually a good sign. This ability to acknowledge when things don't work out, it's OK to exit. When things are still persistent we will continue to reinvest. And when the signal is right, then there would be a pull of the trigger and move the organization along through a deliberate strategy. That is the usual signal whether these companies take it seriously or not. And that's usually quite obvious once we zoom into that level.

CURT NICKISCH: Yeah. Well, the same way an animal leaps you can sort of see if an organization's really sort of coiling up for the jump.

HOWARD YU: That's right.

CURT NICKISCH: Howard, what's your hope for writing this book that illuminating these companies and clusters that have sort of defied the usual track record?

HOWARD YU: When I talk to managers and executives around the topic of innovation, oftentimes there is almost this inevitable pessimism going on. It's almost this declaration that if you're not Google, if you're not Facebook, if you're not like an internet company, our future will be inevitably threatened. And as an industry incumbent, we are trapped in this inevitable downward spiral. And the reason that I write this book is to provide a counter-narrative with evidence. In fact, if you are able to repackage what you know, in fact, the art of success is even higher. So, I think it's this type of example and knowhow and framework that we need so that manager would no longer condemn their own industry collapse into something of an external factor, but in fact, we can shape the environment and shape the future of one's company.

CURT NICKISCH: Howard, this has been great. I want to thank you for showing a better way up and over, I guess. A good way to leap and move ahead.

HOWARD YU: Thank you so much, Curt. It's been wonderful talking to you.

HANNAH BATES: That was Howard Yu, Lego Professor of Management and Innovation at IMD Business School in Switzerland - in conversation with Curt Nickisch on the HBR IdeaCast. Yu is the author of the book Leap: How to Thrive in a World Where Everything Can Be Copied.

We'll be back next Wednesday with another hand-picked conversation about business strategy from the Harvard Business Review. If you found this episode helpful, share it with your friends and colleagues, and follow our show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. While you're there, be sure to leave us a review.

We're a production of the Harvard Business Review. If you want more podcasts, articles, case studies, books, and videos like this, find it all at HBR dot org.

This episode was produced by Curt Nickisch, Anne Saini, and me, Hannah Bates. Ian Fox is our editor. Special thanks to Rob Eckhardt, Adam Buchholz, Maureen Hoch, Adi Ignatius, Karen Player, Ramsey Khabbaz, Nicole Smith, Anne Bartholomew, and you - our listener.

See you next week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Key to Preserving a Long-Term Competitive Advantage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how to repackage your company's existing knowledge to pioneer new products and services.

# data[].attributes.headline
NYTime: When You're Open to Growth, You Tend to Grow

# data[].attributes.subject
NYTime: When You're Open to Growth, You Tend to Grow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If You’re Open to Growth, You Tend to Grow (Published 2008)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Adopting either a fixed or growth attitude toward talent can profoundly affect all aspects of a person’s life, a researcher found.

# data[].attributes.headline
HBR: The Best Leaders Have Contagious Positive Energy

# data[].attributes.subject
HBR: The Best Leaders Have Contagious Positive Energy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Best Leaders Have a Contagious Positive Energy

# data[].attributes.headline
Forbes: The Hidden Pitfalls of Servant Leadership

# data[].attributes.subject
Forbes: The Hidden Pitfalls of Servant Leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Hidden Pitfalls Of Servant Leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To build the teams that can solve big, thorny problems, leaders will have to empower their people to learn, grow and innovate.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Science of People: Dealing with Difficult People

# data[].attributes.subject
The Science of People: Dealing with Difficult People

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Transform the difficult relationships in your life to be more productive.

Master your People Skills

Create a Memorable Presence

Communicate with Confidence

Achieve Your Goals

Have a question about the presentation or People School? Email Science of People support.

Next Steps

You have made an incredible decision - it's an honor to have you.

Say Hi!

Your first email should already be in your inbox! Sometimes email finds its way to Spam or Promotions folders. Make sure to find the one we just sent to you (it's from support@scienceofpeople.com). Hit reply with a quick "Hi" to let us know you got the message.

Start Learning

You can read a curated selection of our best, most impactful content right now on our blog.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How to deal with difficult people at work Transform the difficult relationships in your life to be more

# data[].attributes.headline
WaPo: Gen Z Workers Can Take Criticism. You’re Just Phrasing it Wrong.

# data[].attributes.subject
WaPo: Gen Z Workers Can Take Criticism. You’re Just Phrasing it Wrong.

# data[].attributes.headline
FastCompany: The Real Reason Why So Many Managers Don't Know How to Manage

# data[].attributes.subject
FastCompany: The Real Reason Why So Many Managers Don't Know How to Manage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of the most universal problems with work is bad bosses. Part of the reason so many people end up with a terrible manager is that as a society, we associate personality characteristics like charisma to mean someone has strong leadership skills. Instead, it's often a sign of narcissism.

But personality isn't the only reason why so many people dislike their bosses. Often people find themselves in management roles because they were good at their job, but then receive little or no guidance on how to manage others. Their managers also often never received management training and in many cases are making it up as they go.

If you're lucky, you end up with an emotionally intelligent manager who takes it upon themselves to figure out how to work effectively with the people they manage. More often, though, people end up stuck in the middle doing what they think is right with no guidance or becoming frustrated by a boss who doesn't know what they are doing. And, often, they end of quitting. In fact, around 50% of people say they've quit a job because of a bad boss.

But what if we treated management like the important job it is and invested in making sure people have the tools they need to succeed when they get promoted?

On the most recent episode of The New Way We Work, I spoke to Lia Bosch, the founder of the consulting firm Thrive People Strategies, about why so many managers are unable to effectively lead, and the best way to learn to be a better manager.

What's so hard about being a manager?

The biggest hurdle for new managers is that often they are promoted for the wrong reason. New managers will often be promoted because they've done good work as an individual contributor and there's an open position, or they've been very productive or the company wants to keep them.

But Bosch says, the company often doesn't give the new managers enough preparation for how managing people is different from doing an individual contributor role. "There are expectations that are set for the individual that even the individual is just trying to figure out how it all works," Bosch says.

What makes a good manager

A good manager, Bosch says, spends 75% of their time on the job of managing. That involves building relationships and trust, managing work, overseeing career development, and dealing with problems. Only 25% of their time is spent on the technical part of their job, or whatever tasks they likely spent most of their time on as an individual contributor. Most companies don't give managers the time to do this, and most managers don't approach their jobs this way, which means often managers just aren't very good at their jobs.

One of the biggest mistakes managers make (and the thing employees hate the most) is micromanaging. Bosch says inexperienced managers often resort to micromanaging because they feel like they're losing control of the work and don't trust their employees to do it how they would. But, she says, great managers explain the why and let their employees figure out the how. They communicate expectations clearly and then get out of the way and focus on the outcome, not the process.

How to help managers improve

If the biggest issue for new mangers is that they are thrown into the job with no training, the obvious answer might be a training course. But, as Bosch points out, one-off trainings led by HR are set up to check a box and aren't effective. "The organization needs to make management development and employee development a strategic priority because the future depends on the skills and the knowledge that these individuals need to have," she says. So she advises that companies look at options for longer term management programs and consider mentorships with experienced managers.

For more on how to help managers be more effective-including how AI is changing the job and how employees can most effectively give their managers feedback-listen to the full episode.

Recognize your company's culture of innovation by applying to this year's Best Workplaces for Innovators Awards before the extended deadline, April 12.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The real reason why so many managers don't know how to manage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New bosses are often promoted for the wrong reason and are unprepared for the role. On the latest episode of 'The New Way We Work,' we explore what it would look like to treat management like the important job it is.

# data[].attributes.headline
The New Way We Work Podcast: Your Manager is Bad at Their Job

# data[].attributes.subject
The New Way We Work Podcast: Your Manager is Bad at Their Job

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Your manager is bad at their job by The New Way We Work

# data[].attributes.headline
HBR: Good Leadership Is About Asking Good Questions

# data[].attributes.subject
HBR: Good Leadership Is About Asking Good Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Leaders today need to revisit an overlooked skill: asking questions. In my 40 years as an executive and advisor in Silicon Valley, I've often seen leaders assume that people look to them for answers - bold assertions that build people's confidence in their competence. But in reality, that kind of approach erodes trust, especially at a time when so much is manifestly uncertain. You think you have the answers to all important questions? That suggests that you are either clueless - you have no idea how rapidly the world is changing - or that you are lying. In either case, you won't find that trust that you've been looking for.

Instead, leaders should ask powerful and inspiring questions, convey that they don't have the answers, and solicit others' help to find them. The leaders I talk to tend to be nervous about this approach: Won't it look like they don't know what they're doing? On the contrary, however, research has shown that expressing vulnerability and asking for help is a strong signal to others that you are trusting, and you're more likely to be trusted in return. In fact, if you can learn to ask questions well, it can help you connect with others. Thinking together can put you on the path to solving intractable problems and sparking innovative thinking.

This article is one in a series related to the 12th Global Peter Drucker Forum, with the theme "Leadership Everywhere." See the program here.

Ask Big Questions

To be clear: I'm not saying you should ask pointed questions that put others on the spot, like "How can you deliver 10% higher productivity?" or "Are you missing anything here?" The kind of questions leaders need to ask are those that invite people to come together to explore major new opportunities that your organization hasn't identified yet. Here are some examples:

What is a game-changing opportunity that could create much more value than we have delivered in the past?

What are emerging unmet needs of our customers that could provide the foundation for an entirely new business?

How could we leverage the resources of third parties to address a broader range of the needs of our customers?

How can we move from standardized, mass-market products and services to personalizing our products and services to the specific needs of each customer?

How can we develop supply networks that would be more flexible in responding to unanticipated disruptions in production or logistics?

How could we harness sensor technology to create more visibility into how our customers are using our products and use this information to deliver more value and deepen trust with our customers?

Focusing your questions on these kinds of new and big opportunities rather than on the existing activities of the organization can also help you to sidestep your fear that questioning will be seen as a sign of weakness, since there's no way you could be expected to know the answers.

These broader questions also communicate that you have a sense of ambition, that you want to take the organization way beyond where it is today. And you can bolster your credibility by providing evidence of those long-term trends that underlie your question - for example, emerging technologies that are likely to offer new opportunities, or demographic shifts that will create some significant unmet needs among your customers.

Involve Others

These questions also invite collaboration. To make the most of them, don't ask them in closed leadership meetings. Instead, broadcast them throughout your organization and even beyond it. It's not just you posing a question to your people, it's your brand reaching out to learn from its consumers. Reaching out beyond the institution to connect with expertise and perspectives from a broader set of more diverse sources will help your company learn faster.

For example, take Domino's Pizza. About 10 years ago, Domino's was hearing from customers that they did not like the company's pizza. Many organizations might have tried to hide this information or work behind the scenes to correct the problem. Domino's Pizza did something different. They made public the feedback they were receiving and asked for suggestions on how they could improve the quality of their pies. This open question generated an avalanche of suggestions that proved very helpful in improving the pizzas.

But beyond an open innovation success, the impact was even more fundamental: by expressing vulnerability, I believe that the company built trust with customers. Here was a company that was willing to acknowledge they had a problem and to ask for help in addressing the problem. If more organizations were willing to ask for help from their customers and other stakeholders when experiencing a problem, they would likely have much greater success in re-building trust.

Change Your Culture

Anxiety can run high in volatile times, and by asking these kinds of questions you can help people overcome some of their fears. It's well established in the psychology field that coming together with others can reduce anxiety - that's the idea behind group therapy. And achieving real impact can also help overcome feelings of being overwhelmed. Thus by helping people to focus on short-term actions they can take together, your questions can provide a focusing and calming effect during a crisis.

By asking questions as a leader, you also communicate that questioning is important. You'll inspire people to identify new opportunities and to ask for help when they need it. These behaviors lead to a culture of learning, which is critical, since the institutions that will thrive in the future are those that encourage everyone to learn faster and more rapidly expand the value that they deliver to their stakeholders.

This will be especially true if you encourage exploration that can generate new insights into potential answers to your questions, rather than simply expecting complete answers and nothing less. This will encourage people to make small moves initially that can quickly help to increase excitement about the question since participants can quickly begin to see progress. As early answers to your question begin to emerge (as a result of experiments or research, for example), share them, even if they are not groundbreaking. They'll contribute to your culture of learning and show your stakeholders that your questioning is generating new insights, increasing their confidence in your methods.

Leaders who ask powerful questions have the greatest success in both seizing new opportunities and addressing unexpected challenges - and they build cultures that will carry these benefits into the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Good Leadership Is About Asking Good Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Especially when they find themselves in the midst of crisis and uncertainty, leaders should ask powerful and inspiring questions. Asking questions well can put you on the path to solving intractable problems and will also help you connect with others and, counterintuitively, to earn their trust.

# data[].attributes.headline
WSJ: The New Most Dreaded Word at Work: 'Hey'

# data[].attributes.subject
WSJ: The New Most Dreaded Word at Work: 'Hey'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The New Most Dreaded Word at Work: ‘Hey’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instant messages with nothing more than a quick greeting—known as “hey hanging”—spark office anxiety. “Am I fired? Am I in trouble?”