The Way You Relate to Your Partner Can Affect Your Long-Term Mental and Physical Health, Study Shows

ScienceDaily — The potentially lasting implications of day-to-day couple conflict on physical and mental well-being are revealed in a study published in the journal Personal Relationships.

Until now research has concentrated on the immediate effects of romantic conflict, typically in controlled laboratory settings. In one of the first studies to look at the longer term, Professor Angela Hicks investigated the physiological and emotional changes taking place in couples the day after conflict occurred, specifically taking into account the differing styles of emotional attachment between participating partners.

"We are interested in understanding links between romantic relationships and long term emotional and physical well-being," said Professor Hicks. "Our findings provide a powerful demonstration of how daily interpersonal dealings affect mood and physiology across time."

Hicks' study involved a sample of 39 participants in established co-habiting relationships, who were tested for the association between conflict (assessed with end-of-day diaries) and sleep disturbance, next-morning reports of negative affect on mood, and cortisol awakening response. Prior to testing, the emotional attachment styles of all participants were measured according to how anxious they were in their relationship, and to what degree they avoided emotional attachment.

The study found that all participants across the sample as a whole experienced sleep disruption after conflict, bearing out the adage "don't go to bed angry." There was however the greatest degree of sleep disruption amongst individuals who were highly anxious in their relationship. The lowest degree of sleep disruption was found amongst individuals who strongly avoided emotional attachment.

Conflict was also found to have repercussions for next-day mood. However, some participants found their mood negatively affected more than others. Individuals more at ease with emotional attachment found their mood was affected more than did individuals less comfortable being intimate with others.

The researchers found no general association between conflict and the next morning cortisol awakening response (a physiological, stress-related preparation for the day ahead). Their findings showed a particular association only, amongst women who were highly anxious in their relationships, whose cortisol response was significantly dampened on days after conflict.

The results of this study have significant implications for the greater understanding of how routine relationship experiences influence emotional and physical health over time. "We already know from prior research that people in stable, happy marriages experience better overall health than do those in more conflicted relationships," said Professor Hicks. "We can now further conclude from our current research that individuals who are in insecure relationships are more vulnerable to longer-term health risks from conflict than are others."

Story Source: The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by Wiley-Blackwell, via AlphaGalileo.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110617080833.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29

 

Do You Have To Act Like A Man To Succeed In Business?

ScienceDaily (June 17, 2011) — While more and more women are assuming roles as managers a new study reveals that rather than using what should come more easily to them like empathy and compassion, these women are increasingly turning to the stereotypically more 'male' traits, such as aggression, to get results.

The study by Professor Paula Nicolson, from the Department of Health and Social Sciences at Royal Holloway, University of London, says that instead of fighting their 'natural instincts' women should embrace them because displaying emotional intelligence is the key to being a better leader.

Professor Nicolson's study of leadership predominately concentrated on managing in the NHS, although the academic says the results can be applied to any leaders whether in politics, CEOs of international banks or even football managers.

Professor Nicolson said: "It's almost like women feel that they must 'act like a man' and overly develop traits often more associated with power-hungry city traders.

This notion drives women away from a healthy assertiveness into emulating more aggressive male models."

She added: "One woman I interviewed, while declaring that women and men were equal in senior posts and gender was no barrier, appeared to believe that leadership meant being like a man. This is understandable up to a point because previously leaders have been male, but women's leadership style, potentially more emotionally able, ought to come into its own when dealing with people and displaying skills in communication, judgment, sensitivity, psychological insight -- all traits needed to be a good leader."

Professor Nicolson says the study found that many managers were able to distribute leadership functions by delegating specific tasks and others were able to persuade staff of the best way to do things. However they were given vivid examples where the leaders failed often because of their inability to recognise that by ignoring the experience and knowledge of the more junior staff or colleagues, their efforts were undermined.

Story Source: The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by University of Royal Holloway London, via AlphaGalileo.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110617081154.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29

 

Why Remarkable Leaders Are Vulnerable

What?

Leaders should be vulnerable?

This seems to make no sense in a world where we criticize leaders if they cry (Speaker of the House John Boehner and Super Bowl Winning Coach Dick Vermeil come to mind), and we tell ourselves and each other "never let them see you sweat."  After all, the first definition of vulnerable on Dictionary.com is: "capable of or susceptible to being wounded or hurt, as by a weapon: a vulnerable part of the body."

Should leaders be susceptible to being hurt or wounded?  If not by a weapon, by others, political forces, challenges and problems?

Before answering the question, let's balance our view of the word. Synonyms for vulnerable include: susceptible, exposed and naked; but also include: accessible, sensitive and tender.

Perhaps you don't think you want to be led by someone (or want to be a leader) who is exposed, but what about accessible?  Perhaps not susceptible, but what about sensitive?

Here is the bottom line:

A leader who doesn't show vulnerabilities isn't a leader, but a poser.

And when you think about it, unless you want to be led by a robot, you know I am right.

Three Important Examples

Here are three quick and important examples of vulnerabilities leaders need to show:

Caring for Others. The powerful line that is repeated often applies here. People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care . . . about them.  When something happens to your team members that shakes you, let people know you care. When people are hurting, acknowledge it. Being stoic in these situations doesn't show strength, it shows indifference and a lack of compassion.

Mistakes. If you have made a mistake, let your team know! If you believe people learn from their mistakes, then you want others to share theirs so learning can occur.  And the best way to make others comfortable in sharing about theirs . . . is to share yours.

The Path to Improvement.  Do you have an improvement goal? Why not tell your team what you are working on, ask them to give you feedback on your progress and ask them to hold you accountable for your improvement?  Being a leader isn't about having all the answers, but it is about learning the answers.  Being a leader isn't about being able to do everything, but to facilitate everything getting done.  If you want to be a learner, and encourage others to do the same, be vulnerable in showing what you don't know or don't do well, and ask for help.

A Final Comment

Near the beginning of this article, I listed a number of synonyms for the word vulnerable; some of the words have a more positive perspective than others. One of the reasons being a leader is so complex is that advice given and taken is rarely black and white.

While we don't want our leaders to be completely logical and linear, we don't want them to be overly emotional either.

We want balance.

While we'd love our leaders to admit their mistakes, we hope they are right far more often than they are wrong.

We want balance.

In the end, what we want is for leaders to be genuine, authentic and real.

To be a remarkable leader requires that you be genuine, authentic and real – which means you must be willing to be vulnerable.

The examples above are a start.  Make time to think about your vulnerabilities and how showing them can help you lead even more effectively.

Thanks to Kevin Eikenberry / Blog Kevin Eikenberry
http://blog.kevineikenberry.com/leadership/why-remarkable-learners-are-vulnerable/

 

Early Experience Found Critical For Language Development

ScienceDaily — We know that poor social and physical environments can harm young children's cognitive and behavioral development, and that development often improves in better environments. Now a new study of children living in institutions has found that intervening early can help young children develop language, with those placed in better care by 15 months showing language skills similar to children raised by their biological parents.

The study, in the journal Child Development, was conducted by researchers at the University of Minnesota, Ohio University, The Ohio State University, the University of Virginia, Harvard Medical School and Children's Hospital Boston, the University of Maryland, and Tulane University.

Researchers studied more than 100 children who were part of the Bucharest Early Intervention Project, a longitudinal study of institutional and foster care in Romania. Historically, institutions there have provided very limited opportunities for language and social interaction among children. In this study, about half of the children were placed in foster homes at about 22 months, while the other half continued living in institutions. About 60 typically developing children who lived with their biological families in the same communities served as a comparison group.

"Because institutional care was the norm for these children, it was possible to create a natural experiment, comparing those in institutional care with those placed in foster care," according to lead author Jennifer Windsor, professor of speech-language-hearing sciences at the University of Minnesota.

The study found that children who were placed in foster care before they turned 2 had substantially greater language skills at age 3-1/2 than children who stayed in institutional care, with those placed by 15 months showing language skills similar to the comparison group. In contrast, children placed in foster care after they turned 2 had the same severe language delays as those who stayed in institutional care.

"This shows that not only is the change to high-quality foster care beneficial for these children, but the timing of the change appears to be important," according to Windsor.

The findings highlight the importance of intervening early to help young children develop language. They also provide insights for parents who adopt internationally. "Many infants and toddlers who are adopted from other countries and come to the United States develop language quickly," Windsor notes. "However, older children who have been living in poor care environments may be at high risk for language delays."

Story Source: The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by Society for Research in Child Development, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110617081541.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29

 

Addressing Perceptions Of Workplace Inequities

When workers believe they are treated unfairly, employee engagement, performance and retention suffer. Being transparent about decision-making relative to promotions, pay and policies is important. Also crucial are personal integrity, leadership visibility and communication efforts.

In one way, employees are predictable: They compare what they get and how they are treated with what others get and how they are treated.

"We're emotionally wired to care about fairness," says Ben Dattner, principal of Dattner Consulting in New York and the author of The Blame Game.

Fairness is a difficult term to define, however, says Eden King, an assistant professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., where she studies discrimination and equity in the workplace.

"It depends on who you ask; everybody has their own perception [of fairness]," she says, noting that most people don't question fairness when it works to their advantage.

"We don't have as much of a problem about being overpaid as being underpaid," she points out.

In the workplace, fairness issues generally revolve around individual outcomes such as pay or benefits. But the issue may also arise at the group or organizational level -- when new policies are initiated, for example.

Perceived Inequities

Dattner says employees will naturally make comparisons between their pay, benefits and treatment to others -- both within and outside the organization. If an employee feels that they are contributing more than their colleagues, but perceive that their colleagues are receiving greater rewards, there will be a perception of unfairness or inequity.

"Research shows, interestingly," he says, "... that employees may be satisfied with less money if they feel that the decision-making was fair" and not based on favoritism, politics or bias.

Perceptions of inequity have a clear impact on retention, engagement and performance, says Tom McMullen, Chicago-based Hay Group's U.S. reward service leader.

A recent study using Hay Group's employee-opinion research database, he says, finds the top factors that drive employees out of organizations include a strong element of perceived unfair treatment, relative to other employees. Those issues are career-development opportunities, compensation, work climate, manager/supervisory conflict, lack of challenging work, direction of the organization and lack of recognition.

The study further indicates that perceptions of fairness have eroded over time.

"While we've made some in-roads over the last couple of years, it's still lower than historical levels over the last 10 years," says McMullen.

This is clearly a concern for organizations as the impact of perceived unfair treatment is corrosive, he says, and may create a climate of distrust and hostility, erode performance and commitment to the organization, increase unionizing activity, and increase voluntary turnover and absenteeism.

Clearly, none of these are outcomes HR leaders or other organizational leaders wish to see in their organizations.

Monitoring the Pulse of Perceptions

In open-ended responses to Hay Group's question of "What has eroded perceptions of fairness?", about one-third (34 percent) of employees blamed the poor economy, which has resulted in pay cuts and pay freezes, while 19 percent cited inconsistent application of policies, favoritism and exceptions.

"You could argue that the economy is outside of our control, which might be relatively good news," says McMullen. But, the other perceptions are certainly within the power of HR to impact, he says.

Max Caldwell, managing principal of New York-based Towers Watson's global workforce effectiveness practice, says "perceptions of fairness, particularly related to pay and pay-for-performance, tend to be viewed pretty poorly" in his organization's global employee surveys as well.

"People generally think that they deserve more and are worth more, and I think there is general suspicion about the degree to which organizations really differentiate on the basis of salary increases, merit increases and bonuses," he says.

It's important, therefore, for organizations to monitor the perceptions among their own employees, he says.

Dattner suggests using these questions to gauge employee views:

* Does this organization strive to be as fair as possible?

* Do people get promoted based on merit and performance?

* Is credit and blame assigned fairly in this organization?

* Do I feel fairly compensated for the work that I do?

* Would I describe this organization as generally more fair than other places I have worked?

* Is compensation determined in a subjective and unfair manner?

* When unfair situations emerge, does the organization work to remedy them promptly?

* Does the organization recognize and reward people who expend extra effort?

"A lot of organizations," says McMullen, "don't do an adequate job of really understanding what their employees really value."

Survey results as well as feedback gleaned through direct interactions with employees can help point to areas for improvement that may involve policy changes, experts say. Often, however, an area that needs improvement relates to communication. (See Hay Group's recommendations for combating perceptions of reward equity among employees here.)

The Absence of Information

Increasing communication works particularly well to combat perceptions of unfair treatment, according to 62 percent of respondents in Hay Group's survey.

"Often," Caldwell says, "perceptions of fairness may be just that -- just misperception. People may not fully understand the value of what they have or they may have mistaken notions about how the organization is really executing on things, like the way performance ratings are assigned or how bonus payouts are allocated or how candidates for promotion are evaluated."

In the absence of information, employees will form their own opinions, experts say.

Being as transparent as possible about the way decisions are made is important for HR, says George Mason University's King. That presupposes, of course, that the decision-making process is fair and based on clear and objective standards, she says.

HR leaders also must be proactive in situations that may result in negative perceptions, King says, noting that talking to employees about an issue "respectfully can reduce the negative consequences of that action. It doesn't cure everything, but it can help buffer some of the negative consequences."

It's a cycle of workplace life: Transparency in decisions and leadership results in trust; trust is an important foundation for nurturing a climate of perceived equity; and trusting employees are high-performing employees.

Caldwell notes that "one message that comes back [in survey results] over and over again in these high-performing companies and that drives many other things -- perceptions of fairness, trust, engagement -- is leadership. It's really striking. We keep seeing this again and again."

Interestingly, it's the "softer dimensions" of leadership that seem to matter most -- personal integrity, leadership visibility and communication, he says.

"When you have that cadre of leaders [who] are perceived as people of integrity who believe what they say, and they do what they say," Caldwell says, "they're creating an environment of high performance where you tend to see people feeling better about their rewards, their work experience and their own prospects with the company."

Thanks to Lin Grensing-Pophal / LRP Publications / HRE Online
http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/printstory.jsp?storyId=533339271

 

Poor 'Gut Sense' Of Numbers Contributes To Persistent Math Difficulties

ScienceDaily (June 17, 2011) — A new study published June 17 in the journal Child Development finds that having a poor "gut sense" of numbers can lead to a mathematical learning disability and difficulty in achieving basic math proficiency. This inaccurate number sense is just one cause of math learning disabilities, according to the research led by Dr. Michele Mazzocco of the Kennedy Krieger Institute.

Approximately 6 to 14 percent of school-age children have persistent difficulty with mathematics, despite adequate learning opportunities and age-appropriate achievement in other school subjects. These learning difficulties can have lifelong consequences when it comes to job success and financial decision-making. Heightened interest in the nature and origins of these learning difficulties has led to studies to define mathematical learning disability (MLD), identify its underlying core deficits, and differentiate children with MLD from their mathematically successful counterparts.

The new Kennedy Krieger study showed that children with a confirmed math learning disability have a markedly inaccurate number sense compared to their peers. But Dr. Mazzocco said students without a MLD who were below average in achievement performed on the number sense tasks as well as those considered average. For them, number sense doesn't seem to be the trouble.

"Some children have a remarkably imprecise intuitive sense of numbers, and we believe these children have math learning disability, at least in part, due to deficits in this intuitive type of number sense," said Dr. Mazzocco, Director of the Math Skills Development Project at Kennedy Krieger. "But other students who underperform in math do so despite having an intact number sense. This demonstrates the complexity of determining precisely what influences or interferes with a child's mathematical learning. Difficulty learning math may result from a weak number sense but it may also result from a wide range of other factors such as spatial reasoning or working memory. While we should not assume that all children who struggle with mathematics have a poor number sense, we should consider the possibility."

To gauge their sense of numbers, Dr. Mazzocco and colleagues tested 71 children who were previously enrolled in a 10-year longitudinal study of math achievement. The students, all in the ninth grade, completed two basic number sense tasks. In the number naming task, they were shown arrays of dots and asked to judge how many dots were present, without allowing enough time to actually count them. In the number discrimination task, the children were shown arrays of blue dots and yellow dots and asked to determine whether the blue or yellow array had more dots, again, without time to count them.

The researchers then compared the performance of four groups of students, who over the 10-year study, consistently showed having either a MLD, below average, average or above average math achievement.

Students with MLD performed significantly worse than their peers on both of the number tasks. The study findings suggest that an innate ability to approximate numbers, an intact ability present in human infants and many other species, contributes to more sophisticated math abilities later in life, while a less accurate ability underlies MLD. Additionally, the findings reveal that a poor number sense is not the only potential source of math difficulties, reinforcing that a 'one size fits all' educational approach may not be the best for helping children who struggle with math.

"A key message for parents and teachers is that children vary in the precision of their intuitive sense of numbers. We might take for granted that every child perceives numbers with roughly comparable precision, but this assumption would be false. Some students may need more practice, or different kinds of practice, to develop this number sense," Dr. Mazzocco said. "At the same time, if a child is struggling with mathematics at school, we should not assume that the child's difficulty is tied to a poor number sense; this is just one possibility."

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Co-investigators on the study were Lisa Feigenson and Justin Halberda of Johns Hopkins University.

Story Source: The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by Kennedy Krieger Institute.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110617081552.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29

 

Best Way To Manage Multiple Generations: Start A Democracy

It's not unusual for entry-level I Love Rewards Inc. employees to be teamed up with older, more seasoned executives. And when this demographic mix occurs, says the Toronto company's chief executive officer, Razor Suleman, the one consistent rule is this: democracy rules.

"The junior employees don't just get things pushed down on them," says Mr. Suleman, whose company provides employee recognition programs for businesses. "Instead, they have open dialogues with the senior executives, who ask them what they think and don't tell them, 'This is what you should do.'"

With a company that's home to three generations of workers – baby boomers, Generation X and Generation Y, also known as millennials – Mr. Suleman figures the best way to bridge the demographic divide at I Love Rewards is by adopting a culture in which everyone has a say and even the most junior employees get a chance to work closely with high-ranking managers.

So while Gen Y-ers typically occupy the most junior roles at I Love Rewards, they're often involved in important projects. To ensure these young employees don't get steamrolled by older, more established workers, I Love Rewards puts great emphasis on its identity as a democratic company, with signs in its office reinforcing this message. Mr. Suleman says the company is also careful to hire people comfortable in flat organizations.

"Unlike baby boomers, who, in general, believe in hierarchical, command-and-control workplace management, millennials tend to view everyone in the office as equal," says Mr. Suleman, who is 37. "Companies that want to engage this group need to adjust their management style."

I Love Rewards isn't the only company tweaking its management approach to suit a multi-generational work force. Today, in what human resources experts say is a historical first, as many as four generations of Canadians – including so called "veterans" older than 65 – work side by side in companies across the country.

This demographic mix makes for richly diverse workplaces, experts say, with each generation bringing a distinguishing set of strengths. But it also creates challenges for employers who must strike a happy balance between workers who are often separated by differences in values, communication styles and attitudes.

"Having such a diverse work force is great, because it offers employees opportunities to learn from people with different experiences and skills. For example, we've seen baby boomers learning social networking from the millennials," says Cissy Pau, a principal consultant at Clear HR Consulting Inc. in Vancouver.

Employers who get it right are rewarded with a productive work force, experts say. But what happens to those who get it wrong?

"You essentially become an ineffective organization," says Robert Wendover, director of the Center for Generational Studies in Littleton, Colo. "This is an issue employers can't afford to ignore."

So what's the best way for employers to meet the challenges?

The first step is understanding what motivates each group, says Emree Siaroff, managing director of human capital at BDO Canada LLP, a national accounting and advisory firm based in Toronto. BDO does this in part through regular employee surveys.

The surveys have confirmed that boomers are more interested in retirement savings, says Mr. Siaroff. "But we've also learned that the top motivational drivers for our employees are consistently similar across the generations: They all want to work for a company that effectively manages their performance, recognizes their needs, thanks them for their accomplishments and provides them with advancement opportunities."

Every generation has its own preferred medium for communication. To make sure the company gets its messages across to all employees, BDO communicates through multiple channels, including e-mail, intranet, Facebook and blogging. For important announcements, senior managers make a point of travelling to BDO's offices across Canada. "For a recent announcement, we posted hard copy flyers too, because some people like to see things in print," says Mr. Siaroff.

BDO works with an HR consulting firm to conduct its employee surveys. Companies with smaller budgets could take a do-it-yourself approach and ask new employees about what motivates them, how they like to communicate and what rewards they find meaningful, Ms. Pau at Clear HR suggests.

Older workers can sometimes feel neglected, even threatened, when employers bring fresh talent into the office. One way to keep the peace and forge bonds between old and new is by asking older workers to be mentors, says Ms. Pau.

"This confirms their expertise and helps them connect with new people coming in," she says. But, she cautions, "Be careful not to come across as asking them to pass on their expertise so someone younger can take over their job."

While I Love Rewards doesn't have a formal mentoring program, it is quick to make connections between young and older workers; as soon as new hires sign their job offers, they're assigned a "buddy" to show them the ropes in their first two weeks. While some buddies are in the same age group as the new employee, in most cases they are older, says Mr. Suleman.

At KPMG LLP, the Canadian arm of the global professional services firm, partners are encouraged to mentor younger employees. This helps the firm retain talent and increases job satisfaction among its most senior ranks, says Mario Paron, KPMG's chief human resources officer in Canada.

"Our younger people see that we have an interest in their career development and growth, because someone who is senior in our organization is taking the time to mentor them," says Mr. Paron, who is based in Toronto. "At the same time, our partners feel they're doing something worthwhile and of great value to the organization."

To create even more affinity between generations, KPMG invites employees to job fairs and networking events at universities and colleges, where they can share their experiences with students, some of whom will go on to work for KPMG.

"It's a good way for our employees to make connections with the next generation of workers," says Mr. Paron.

Mind the gaps

How to cope with age differences between workers:

Dispose of top-down rule: Bring multiple generations closer together by moving away from a hierarchical structure.

Know what your employees want: Surveys can help you understand what motivates each group and which rewards are most meaningful to them.

Adopt multi-channel communications: In addition to face-to-face and phone meetings, use e-mail, intranet, blogs and social media to get your message across.

Engage through mentoring: Make both young and older workers feel valued by asking senior employees to mentor newcomers.

Get older workers involved in recruiting: Bring them to job fairs, where they can share their stories and meet prospective employees.

Reputation by generation

While no two employees are alike, studies point to key characteristics that define each generation of workers.

Veterans: Workers who preceded the baby boomers tend to be authoritarian and loyal, and they value wisdom gained from experience over technological expertise.

Boomers: Known for their workaholic habits and need for status symbols, they've sacrificed a lot for their careers. They often expect their junior staff to do the same.

Generation X: They are generally comfortable working within the systems established by their employers and, like the boomers before them, are more willing to let work cut into their personal lives. They have no problem using technology, having entered the work force just as computers were becoming mainstream.

Millennials: Tech-savvy, entrepreneurial and independent, they tend to value work-life balance and meaningful work more than a large paycheque. They are less likely to be attached to an employer than other generations and tend to stay only a few years before moving on.

Thanks to Marjo Johne / The Globe And Mail Inc.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/managing/on-the-job/best-way-to-manage-multiple-generations-start-a-democracy/article2062307/print/

 

A Better Way To Remember

ScienceDaily — Scientists and educators alike have long known that cramming is not an effective way to remember things. With their latest findings, researchers at the RIKEN Brain Science Institute in Japan, studying eye movement response in trained mice, have elucidated the neurological mechanism explaining why this is so.

Published in the Journal of Neuroscience, their results suggest that protein synthesis in the cerebellum plays a key role in memory consolidation, shedding light on the fundamental neurological processes governing how we remember.

The "spacing effect," first discovered over a century ago, describes the observation that humans and animals are able to remember things more effectively if learning is distributed over a long period of time rather than performed all at once. The effect is believed to be closely connected to the process of memory consolidation, whereby short-term memories are stabilized into long-term ones, yet the underlying neural mechanism involved has long remained unclear.

To clarify this mechanism, the researchers developed a technique based around the phenomenon of horizontal optokinetic response (HOKR), a compensatory eye movement which can be used to quantify the effects of motor learning. Studying HOKR in mice, they found that the long-term effects of learning are strongly dependent on whether training is performed all at once ("massed training"), or in spaced intervals ("spaced training"): whereas gains incurred in massed training disappeared within 24 hours, those gained in spaced training were sustained longer.

Earlier research suggested that this spacing effect is the product of the transfer of the memory trace from the flocculus, a cerebellar cortex region which connects to motor nuclei involved in eye movement, to another brain region known as the vestibular nuclei (Fig. 3). To verify this idea, the team administered local anesthetic to the flocculus and studied its effect on learning. While learning gains in mice that had undergone one hour of massed training were eliminated, those in mice that had undergone the same amount of training spaced out over a four hour period were unaffected.

Explaining this observation, the researchers found that the spacing effect was impaired when mice were infused with anisomycin and actinomycin D, antibiotics which inhibit protein synthesis. This final discovery suggests that proteins produced during training play a key role in the formation of long-term memories, providing for the first time a neurological explanation for the well-known benefits of spaced learning -- as well as a great excuse to take more breaks.

Story Source: The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by RIKEN.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110617105943.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29

 

Want Better Math Teachers? Then Train Them Better

ScienceDaily — It's time for the United States to consider establishing higher standards for math teachers if the nation is going to break its "vicious cycle" of mediocrity, a Michigan State University education scholar argues in Science magazine.

As American students continue to be outpaced in mathematics by pupils in countries such as Russia and Taiwan, William Schmidt recommends adopting more rigorous, demanding and internationally benchmarked teacher-preparation standards for math teachers.

"Our research shows that current teacher-preparation programs for middle-school math instructors in the United States do not produce teachers with an internationally competitive level of mathematics knowledge," said Schmidt, a University Distinguished Professor and co-director of MSU's Education Policy Center.

Schmidt makes his argument in an "education forum" paper in the June 10 edition of Science. MSU researchers Richard Houang and Leland Cogan co-authored the paper.

Current standards for math teachers are established on a state-by-state level. Schmidt suggests the states could come together to establish more rigorous and uniform standards, similar to the Common Core State Standards Initiative for K-12 students.

That initiative, which establishes more rigorous math and English-Language Arts standards for students, is led by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Thus far, 42 states have adopted the common standards.

But even with higher pupil standards, U.S. students can't get better at math if their instructors aren't fully prepared to teach them, Schmidt noted.

"Weak K-12 math curricula taught by teachers with an inadequate mathematics background produce high school graduates who are similarly weak," Schmidt said. "A long-term and better solution is to break the vicious cycle of mediocrity in which we find ourselves."

Schmidt led the U.S. portion of the Teacher Education Study in Mathematics, or TEDS-M, by far the largest study of its kind, surveying more than 3,300 future teachers in the United States and 23,244 future teachers across 16 countries.

The U.S. study was sponsored by Boeing Co., Carnegie Corp. of New York, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the GE Foundation.

Story Source: The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by Michigan State University.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110609151529.htm

 

5 Tips For Helping Others Take Responsibility

Workplaces everywhere are full of victims: people who hang on to a sense of having been wronged and act out their hurt through their daily actions and negative attitudes. Chances are, you work with some of these people. They are most likely the ones dragging down your team.

Everyone has the choice to remain a victim of broken trust or to take responsibility, see the lessons and opportunities, and create a different path to the future. When people remain a victim, they tend to blame their problems on someone else. In blaming others they abdicate responsibility, become apathetic, and eventually develop a sense of entitlement. In short, they can feel that they are "owed" something, and expect someone else to make them feel better.

While victims of someone else's behavior may not be responsible for what caused the breach of trust or betrayal, they are responsible for how they react to the situation. It is generally easy to identify those who embrace the victim posture by their negative behavior–they are often difficult to work with, manage, and even be around. Which of these columns best describes the behaviors of people you find frustrating?

Victim Posture	Responsible Posture
Feels entitled	Feels personally responsible
Apathetic	Takes initiative
Carries grudges	Constructively works through disagreements
Operates with hidden agendas	Open and transparent
Closed to new ideas	Curious and approachable
Acts out toward others	Treats people with respect
Goes through the motions	Empowers self and others
Engages in work-arounds	Deals with people directly
Does not take any risks	Takes appropriate risks
Gossips about others	Speaks with good purpose
Makes judgments	Seeks to understand

Once you are able to identify a colleague's victim posture, you can focus on helping the individual move past their pain to take responsibility. You can't force someone to move from the victim posture to taking responsibility; that is a choice each individual has to make for himself. What you can do is provide the support and perspective necessary to begin this process. Most often, people don't want to stay locked in their pain, but they are unsure how to move forward. They don't realize that part of the healing process involves taking responsibility for their reaction to the offending circumstance. The opportunity for them, for you, and for your entire team, lies in their conscious choice to take responsibility.

Here are 5 tips to help inspire others to take responsibility:

1. Be Present: Create a safe space to talk with them about what was "done to them" and the impact or cost to them. You can help them acknowledge their feelings and see the bigger picture surrounding the situation. Give them an opportunity to re-think their options and see new possibilities.
2. Be Giving: Provide perspective. Make it clear that you come from a desire to help them and that you do not have a hidden agenda. Share your concern that they are holding themselves back and impacting others.
3. Be Proactive: Help them see actions they can take to rebound from setbacks and adversity. Be an example by sharing how you moved through distrust to taking responsibility. Tell them a few of the lessons you have learned along the way about yourself and about relationships.
4. Be Accountable: Hold yourself to the same standard as everyone else. Deliver on the promises you make, and take ownership for your choices and decisions without blaming others.
5. Be Strong: Exemplify an unmistakable commitment to facing reality, no matter how challenging that may be. Catch yourself when you might slip into the victim posture.

By taking responsibility for their reactions, your colleagues will start to regain a sense of confidence and competence. They will reclaim their professional lives, and will become increasingly able to see possibility and opportunity rather than doom and gloom. A sense of willingness and collaboration will ultimately replace blaming and abdication.

What will you see then?

Initiative. Engagement. Honesty. Energy.

In short, you'll see results.

 

Thanks to Reina Trust, Reina Trust Building Institute

http://www.reinatrustbuilding.com/reinatrustbuilding.com/index.php?id=96

 

===================

For Excellent Articles; Kindly Visit:

BlogSpot:-      http://ziaullahkhan.blogspot.com),

RSS Feed 1: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Z-S---KnowledgeCenter

RSS Feed 2: http://ziaullahkhan.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

YouTube:- --- http://www.youtube.com/user/ZKDQ786

Twitter:- ------  http://twitter.com/#!/Babajan786
Books:- ------  http://astore.amazon.com/amazon-book-books-20
Products:- --- http://astore.amazon.com/amazon-everyday-low-prices-sale-deals-bargains-discounts-20

 

 

Obesity: Sitting Isn't Pretty

Throw away the remote. Fire the maid. And never drive to work again. A study from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, proves that the real difference between people who are obese and those who are not is how often they stand up. Literally.

Researchers find that in an average day, obese people sit for 2.5 hours more than their lean peers. They burn 350 less calories per day. All else being equal, that translates to approximately 10 extra pounds per year.

"If you've ever gone to the gym and looked at the treadmill, 350 calories is no joke," says James A. Levine, the endocrinologist, who led the study. "It's enough to account for who becomes obese and who does not."

In an age of NetFlicks, FreshDirect and Domino's, when you can order everything online and never leave a chair, the solution to the nation's obesity crisis might be as simple as walking out the door. "Obesity may be more closely tied to activity levels than we ever imagined before," said Dr. Levine. And he's not talking marathons or even gym workouts. "The calories you burn in everyday activities can make a tremendous difference in your life," he insists. In case you missed it the first time, let me repeat: everyday activities.

Six years ago, Dr. Levine discovered something he calls NEAT, for non-exercise activity thermogenesis. It describes the energy we expend in physical movement other than planned exercise. The new study measured the NEAT levels of 20 self-proclaimed couch potatoes, half of whom were obese.

Their mundane movements were tracked for 10 days. In case you're wondering how: All wore custom-made, data-collecting underwear. Each morning, the participants were measured at the clinic, where they received fresh underwear and all of their meals. The researchers found that the 10 lean participants all walked, paced, cleaned, cooked and stood more than the 10 obese subjects.

"One by one, these movements added up," says Dr. Levine. "But it's about more than wiggling your toes. It's about getting up out of your seat."

Taking the study further, the researchers sought to determine whether low NEAT levels were a cause of obesity or byproduct. Once again, the participants donned the special underwear.

For two months, the thin subjects were overfed, each gaining about nine pounds, and the obese subjects were underfed, each losing about 17 pounds. Even though the subjects gained and lost weight, their daily movements did not change. Our NEAT level seems to be hardwired into us.

But Dr. Levine is optimistic that, with a little conscious learning, people can change their daily activity levels, although NEAT may be genetic or established early in life. He serves himself up as Exhibit A. He contends his movement habits changed as a result of doing the study.

"Now, I'm addicted to standing up," he says. "People can change their lifestyles completely. I encourage everyone to just stand up and see how good it makes you feel."

In the interests of journalistic accuracy I feel bound to report that he then forced the reporter to stand up for the remainder of the interview.

"If people would just put a treadmill in front of their televisions and walk one mile per hour, it could completely change their health. The take-home message is get up, get up, get up."

Thanks to Jennifer Drapkin / Psychology Today
http://www.psychologytoday.com/collections/201106/get-fit-top-tips-exercise/obesity-sitting-isnt-pretty

===================

For Excellent Articles; Kindly Visit:

BlogSpot:- http://ziaullahkhan.blogspot.com),

RSS Feed 1: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Z-S---KnowledgeCenter

RSS Feed 2: http://ziaullahkhan.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

YouTube:- --- http://www.youtube.com/user/ZKDQ786

Twitter:- ------ http://twitter.com/#!/Babajan786
Books:- ------ http://astore.amazon.com/amazon-book-books-20
Products:- --- http://astore.amazon.com/amazon-everyday-low-prices-sale-deals-bargains-discounts-20

 

 

10 Steps To Keep Contact Wearers Safe In Chemical Environments

To keep contact lens wearers safe in chemical environments, NIOSH recommends these guidelines.

 

NIOSH recommends that workers be permitted to wear contact lenses when handling hazardous chemicals provided that the safety guidelines below here are followed and that contact lenses are not banned by regulation or contraindicated by medical or industrial hygiene recommendations.

1. Conduct an eye injury hazard evaluation in the workplace that includes an assessment of the following:

• Chemical exposures
• Contact lens wear among affected employees
• Appropriate eye and face protection for contact lens wearers

The eye injury hazard evaluation should be conducted by a competent, qualified person such as a certified industrial hygienist, a certified safety professional, or a toxicologist.

Information from the hazard evaluation should be provided to the examining occupational health nurse or occupational medicine physician.

The chemical exposure assessment for all workers should include, at a minimum, an evaluation of the properties of the chemicals in use—including concentration, permissible exposure limits, known eye irritant/injury properties, form of chemical (powder, liquid, or vapor), and possible routes of exposure. The assessment for contact lens wearers should include a review of the available information about lens absorption and adsorption for the class of chemicals in use and an account of the injury experience for the employer or industry, if known

2. Provide suitable eye protection for all workers exposed to eye injury hazards, regardless of contact lens wear. NIIOSH says the wearing contact lenses does not appear to require enhanced eye protection. For chemical vapor, liquid, or caustic dust hazards, the minimum protection consists of well-fitting nonvented or indirectly vented goggles or full-facepiece respirators. Close-fitting safety glasses with side protection provide limited chemical protection but do not prevent chemicals from bypassing the protection.

3. Establish a written policy documenting general safety requirements for wearing contact lenses, including the eye protection required and any contact lens wear restrictions by work location or task. In addition to providing the general training required by the OSHA PPE standard (29 CFR 1910.132), provide training in employer policies on contact lens use, chemical exposures that may affect contact lens wearers, and first aid for contact lens wearers with a chemical exposure.

4. Comply with current OSHA regulations on contact lens wear and eye and face protection.

5. Notify workers and visitors about any defined areas where contact lenses are restricted.

6. Identify to supervisors all contact lens wearers working in chemical environments to ensure that the proper hazard assessment is completed and the proper eye protection and first aid equipment are available.

7. Train medical and first aid personnel in the removal of contact lenses and have the appropriate equipment available.

8. In the event of a chemical exposure, begin eye irrigation immediately and remove contact lenses as soon as practical. Do not delay irrigation while waiting for contact lens removal.

9. Instruct workers who wear contact lenses to remove the lenses at the first signs of eye redness or irritation. Contact lenses should be removed only in a clean environment after the workers have thoroughly washed their hands. Evaluate continued lens wear with the worker and the prescribing ophthalmologist or optometrist. Encourage workers to routinely inspect their contact lenses for damage and/or replace them regularly.

10. Evaluate restrictions on contact lens wear on a case-by-case basis. Take into account the visual requirements of individual workers wearing contact lenses as recommended by a qualified ophthalmologist or optometrist.

Thanks to BLR Business & Legal Reports / Safety Daily Advisor
http://safetydailyadvisor.blr.com/archive/2011/06/15/chemical_safety_contact_lenses_niosh.aspx?Source=SDF&effort=13

===================

For Excellent Articles; Kindly Visit:

BlogSpot:- http://ziaullahkhan.blogspot.com),

RSS Feed 1: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Z-S---KnowledgeCenter

RSS Feed 2: http://ziaullahkhan.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

YouTube:- --- http://www.youtube.com/user/ZKDQ786

Twitter:- ------ http://twitter.com/#!/Babajan786
Books:- ------ http://astore.amazon.com/amazon-book-books-20
Products:- --- http://astore.amazon.com/amazon-everyday-low-prices-sale-deals-bargains-discounts-20

 

 

The 13 Myths Of Sales Training

Sometimes it seems like everybody and his uncle is in the sales training business.   And a lot of the the sales training that's out there is substandard.  (See: "World Weirdest Sales Training Videos")

Even so, companies spend billions of dollars every year on sales training.   And a lot of that money is just being flushed down the toilet, according to Dave Stein, who's probably the world's top expert on sales training.  Dave's company, the ES Research Group, studies the sales training market and periodically issues a detailed report on the strengths and weaknesses of the top vendors.

One of the ways that I know Dave is that he's a frequent commenter on this blog.  He's also an active blogger himself (you can check the blog roll at the side of this column for the link).   Anyway, I was wondering how so many companies could hire so many lousy sales trainers, so I asked Dave for the straight scoop.

He says that the poor quality of sales training comes from the following 13 myths about sales training:

Myth #1: One or two new ideas justifies the effort.  Wrong! Research shows that 90% of all sales training programs result in only a 90-120 day increase in sales productivity. Spending time and money on ineffective sales training is worse than no training at all, since it provides management with a false sense that they have done the right thing.

Myth #2: The top training firms are a safe bet. Wrong! Research shows that every training company has been successful in some situations, but not in every one.  If the root cause of your biggest sales problem is not a core competency of your favorite sales training company, you will simply not get the best return on your investment, if any at all.

Myth #3: A motivational speaker is sales training. Wrong! It's not even close.  If your intent is to entertain your team, fine.  But motivation doesn't do anything to fix the two root causes of sales ineffectiveness, such as not having the right people in sales positions or not having a pragmatic selling methodology, or not training sales people on its use.

Myth #4: Classic sales training is now obsolete. Wrong! Companies are bombarded with so much hype about new approaches to selling that few realize that most of these programs are simple repackaging of the old, proven basics. Every salesperson needs to be competent at the basics of selling no matter how much buyers and the market have changed.

Myth #5: My best people don't need training.  Wrong! The world's top earning sales professionals know that if they don't keep their skills honed and up-to-date, they'll be scrambling to make the quarter, just like everyone else.  While training for top performers must be tailored to their unique needs, simply not providing them with training is the wrong approach.

Myth #6: Managers and executives need not attend.  Wrong! Managers and execs are involved in selling, so they must be competent with respect to selling skills.  They need to be part of the sales support infrastructure to provide coaching and guidance, and they need to prove to the salespeople that the training is so important that senior execs attend it.

Myth #7: You can't measure sales training ROI.  Wrong! While it seems as if there are too many variables to measuring sales, it is actually rather easy to measure the performance of a sales team before and after training, after adjusting for changes in the economy over the period being examined.  All that's needed is a "control" group that doesn't undergo the training.

Myth #8: Learning is mostly in the classroom. Wrong! When training is done the right way, upfront work is involved-building processes, tools, metrics, a sales support function, for example.  And post-program reinforcement is critical to success.  That comes in the form of coaching, technology (or other) refreshers and reinforcement.

Myth #9: I can train the mediocre to excel. Wrong! You can't train intelligence, drive, integrity, personality, analytical thinking, optimism and confidence into someone and these are required traits for most sales jobs.  What you can train is sales skills such as communication, relationship-building, motivation, product knowledge, negotiation skills, and so forth.

Myth #10: Classroom training is the best medium. Wrong! As sales teams become more and more diverse (generational, cultural, geographical, experiential) classroom training doesn't do the job for a larger and larger sampling of the audience.  Research reveales that a mixture of classroom, self-paced learning, coaching, e-learning, etc., is optimal for most situations.

Myth #11: Providing "sales tips" is sales training. Wrong! Under the right circumstances, carefully selected tips and tricks can be incorporated into an overall approach to selling.  But signing your salesreps up to sales tips newsletters (even Sales Machine!) as the primary form of education does them a disservice.

Myth #12: "Off the shelf" sales training works.  Wrong! Trainers must tailor or customize their content for each unique situation.  A pharmaceutical sales rep will not connect with a case study of how someone else sold $3 million of SAP software.  Similarly, a medium-sized business isn't likely to learn much from studying the "best sales practices" inside a giant company like GE.

Myth #13: I can skimp on the "extras". Wrong! Sales training that doesn't include manager training, post-session follow-ups and tools to reinforce behavior cannot possibly drive the long-term changes that will create ongoing revenue growth.  These are critical components of any sales effectiveness initiative; they are not optional "nice-to-haves.'

So there you have it.  If you want your company to spend its sales training dollars wisely, simply send the URL of this post to your management team.  And you might want to point them at ES Research's 2008 Sales Training Vendor Guide.

Of course, you can always hire one of the weirdos in "World Weirdest Sales Training Videos" instead.

Thanks to Geoffrey James / BNet
http://www.bnet.com/blog/salesmachine/the-13-myths-of-sales-training/531#ixzz1Q5Cs1nRN

 

===================

Other Sites Related to This Blog
(BlogSpot:- http://ziaullahkhan.blogspot.com), Kindly Visit:

RSS Feed 1: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Z-S---KnowledgeCenter

RSS Feed 2: http://ziaullahkhan.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

YouTube:- --- http://www.youtube.com/user/ZKDQ786

Twitter:- ------ http://twitter.com/#!/Babajan786
Books:- ------ http://astore.amazon.com/amazon-book-books-20
Products:---- http://astore.amazon.com/amazon-everyday-low-prices-sale-deals-bargains-discounts-20

 

 

Mission Critical: 15 Principles To Help Leaders Meet Their Toughest Challenges

In his new book, The Leader's Checklist, Wharton management professor Michael Useem presents a collection of 15 principles that can help leaders navigate successfully through even the most difficult circumstances. Using such milestone events as the rescue of the 33 Chilean miners in 2010, the collapse of AIG in 2008 and the surrender of the Confederate army at Appomattox in 1865, Useem illustrates the difference between good and bad leadership, and how to achieve one's own personal leadership success. The Leader's Checklist is the first ebook published by Wharton Digital Press. To mark the occasion, the book will be available as a free download at leading retailers until June 28, 2011.

Useem, who is director of Wharton's Center for Leadership and Change Management, talked with Knowledge@Wharton about his book. Also included is a video conversation between Useem and Laurence Golborne, Chile's mining minister, who is a speaker at this year's Leadership Conference 2011 titled, "Leading in a Reset Economy and Uncertain World." The conference is co-sponsored by the Leadership Center and Wharton's Center for Human Resources.

Knowledge@Wharton: Mike, you have written several books on leadership. What was the inspiration for this particular one?

Michael Useem: I became convinced that everybody needs a leader's checklist by virtue of watching leaders in action who didn't have it. They made -- call it "an unforced error," or sometimes a couple of unforced errors. Simply having a piece of paper that says, "Don't forget to honor the room," or "Don't forget to talk about a company strategy," would help people avoid these kinds of mistakes. It really goes back to Atul Gawande's great argument in The Checklist Manifesto. Most people in surgery and most pilots don't make errors. But when they do make an error, it has significant implications. A checklist helps prevent such a mistake.

Knowledge@Wharton: It's catastrophic.

Useem: Yes, catastrophic. Mission critical. And so for that reason, the FAA and military aviation authorities many years ago imposed the Aviator's Checklist. Hospitals in the U.S. and abroad have begun to impose the Surgical Checklist, very similar in import. Because even surgeons -- smart, well-trained, they have done a thousand procedures of a given kind -- they still once in a while do make an error, given all the complexity, stress and fast-moving circumstances they operate under. In surgery, you don't want that to happen. And by implication, you don't want that to happen to a leader who is trying to help everybody understand where the company is going to go in the coming 12 months but forgets to hit all those items on the checklist.

Knowledge@Wharton: You pick out the Chilean mining disaster and rescue, the near collapse of AIG and the ceremonial surrender of the Confederate Army during the Civil War as your three main examples to kick you off. Very briefly, why did you pick those three?

Useem: I think it's very important for people to appreciate why a given item is on the checklist, and to see where it is illustrated by somebody's leadership moment. Or not illustrated, as in the case of AIG. By seeing that, I think we hang on to these ideas. That becomes critical in a leader's checklist, as opposed to an aviator's checklist, in the sense that with a pilot, you can't take off if you don't go through a checklist in modern aircraft.  Literally, the aircraft won't go forward if you haven't hit the buttons on the electronic panel.

But in leadership, we have no FAA equivalent. We've got to walk around with this set of ideas ourselves. And my own experience is that people remember, hang on to and are ready to use some of the ideas of the checklist if those ideas are embedded in something very graphic, something very memorable, something very powerful. And just to recall that AIG went belly up back on September 16, 2008, partly because the people who led that firm didn't have a full checklist. That serves as a reminder.

Knowledge@Wharton: So these three examples correlate to specific items on your checklist?

Useem: Yes. At the outset of the book, I identify 12 principles that are pretty obvious as soon as I report them. You've got to have a vision, a strategy, honor the room, say it so it sticks, and so forth. But then I offer arguments to the reader that there are three other principles that are very important, and they don't necessarily stem from some of the research or writings that I review earlier on.

So in the case of AIG, leadership principles were not followed by the CEO of AIG, or by the managing director of AIGFP, the financial products group that led to AIG'd downfall. Keep in mind that the leader's calling is to help people stay confident without being over-confident, to be realistic, to guard against hubris. What happened in the case of AIGFP is it began to insure all these fancy products on the premise that AIG, the parent, would keep its Triple-A Standard & Poor's credit rating. That was vital to the way that AIG operated. But credit agencies do have a habit of down-grading organizations.

Think AIG, think Greece at the moment. Neither the AIGFP managing director nor Martin Sullivan, who was AIG's CEO at the time, really had a rainy-day scenario. There were plenty of signs that down-grading was possible after Bear Sterns. It's in the spring of 2008 that agencies -- in part because they're under a lot of criticism -- are beginning to down-grade many companies. But AIG's top people evidently had no worst-case scenario. "Suppose we get down-graded?" And it was that down-gradingthat put AIG under.

Knowledge@Wharton: So that was their lack of a leadership vision or leadership moment?

Useem: Yes.

Knowledge@Wharton: In terms of the Chilean Mining Minister, what one principle or two principles do you think were demonstrated in that rescue?

Useem: There were many actions that Chilean Mining Minister Laurence Golborne took between August and October of 2010 to bring the 33 trapped miners to the surface. One factor, though, in particular that I emphasize is that -- given his background in retail, not mining -- he didn't bring any technical knowledge of how to mine, let alone how to rescue miners 2,000 feet below. He not only had to get the miners out -- that was a huge engineering challenge -- he also had to manage relations with the government. There were 2,000 full-time reporters on site with plenty of time to find Golborne and ask him questions. And he had 33 families who had a very strong point of view on just about everything he was doing.

So to his credit, he pulled together a team, an extremely diverse team. Leadership is both an individual and a team sport. You can't lead if you don't have a good and diverse team. That was graphically evident back in the Atacama Desert last summer and fall.

Knowledge@Wharton: And what about the Confederate Army having to formally surrender at Appomattox?

Useem: Yes, Robert E. Lee surrendered his army to Union general Ulysses S. Grant, and Grant in turn assigned the organization of a ceremonial surrender three days later to one of his officers, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.

Knowledge@Wharton: How was that handled by Chamberlain?

Useem: It was a day of ignominy for Lee's army, the Army of Northern Virginia, 25,000 strong. They surrendered April 9. The "surrender at Appomattox" is the phrase that historians have given us. Meanwhile, though, as Grant signed the document with Lee in a private home, a telegram goes up to Lincoln in Washington. Lincoln, of course, is thrilled. But he also is mindful of what's next.

Knowledge@Wharton: The future of the country now that the war was over.

Useem: Which is reconciliation. And that's a little bit of a bitter pill since, as we know in retrospect, it is just five days before April 14, when the President and  Mrs. Lincoln had tickets to Ford's Theatre, where the President was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth.

Lincoln in the White House is thinking, "I've got to start the process of reconciliation." Meanwhile, Grant gives Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, a one-star non-regular army officer, the almost singular honor of organizing the ceremonial surrender of Lee's army. The formal surrender is all over on April 9. But the ceremonial surrender comes on April 12. Grant says to Chamberlain, "Chamberlain, you're going to be in charge of the informal surrender. You decide what to do. I'm only going to require that you collect the muskets and the flags." So Chamberlain -- in a very unorthodox move -- brings his own 4,000 Union soldiers to attention with what is called "carry arms." The Confederate officers, about to give over their flags and their arms to Chamberlain and who come out of the same military tradition, know that "carry arms" is a mark of great respect.

So Chamberlain, believing that Lincoln probably wants reunification, decides to help reconciliation in his own smaller way. This moment becomes known as the "salute returning the salute" when the Confederate commander, John Gordon, who's marching toward the field with the 4,000 Union soldiers all lined up, sees them "carry arms." He says to his own subordinate officers, "carry arms." The two armies saluted each other, and that leads to the 15^th point on the Leader's Checklist. With a foundation of 12 principles, I have added a 13th from AIG, 14th from the miners' rescue in Chile, and then a 15th from  Chamberlain at Appomattox, which is the most important principle of all. It runs through the Jim Collins' book Good To Great, for example. And that is, at the start of the day and at the end of the day, leadership is not about you; it's not about anything in a leadership position -- except the mission and purpose of the organization.

Chamberlain is criticized for saluting the enemy, but arguably it was the right gesture given the mission of the moment.

Knowledge@Wharton: Right. So those are three very important principles that you have just illustrated very well. Which of the other 12 that you start out with -- which is the hardest for a leader to focus on?

Useem: That's an easy question to answer because I've noticed this one missing more often in practice than any of the other 15. I have a phrase I use there to capture it. It's a bit of shorthand: "Honor the room." In a discussion with one person, a team, a class, an off-site meeting, before you get off-stage, take a moment to tell the people you are with -- those who may be ready to follow you -- that you know who they are, that you respect what they're doing and that you're extremely grateful for their hard work upon which you're going to get your job done.

Knowledge@Wharton: You also note in your book that there needs to be customized check lists for distinct times and contexts, including what the company is, what country a business is operating in, what is happening at that moment in time, and so forth. We're experiencing, obviously, the tail end of a recession and a very struggling economy. What would your checklist be for companies trying to get out of that recession and recover?

Useem: There are different ways to answer the question. The way I've chosen to answer it in this particular e-book is to draw upon the thinking of 14 people we interviewed right in the middle of the height of the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009. We went to 14 CEOs and asked them a very simple question: "Look, in light of what you are in the middle of now, what are you doing a little bit differently from what you ordinarily would have done?" The one thing that really stands out -- from among six actions that were somewhat distinctive and really should be seen as add-ons to the checklist -- is the cardinal importance of being clear about what's out there, saying what, in your realistic appraisal of the environment, is the good news and what sometimes is the very bad news. And repeatedly communicating an extremely realistic appraisal, along with an unequivocal re-commitment to what you're trying to do, the purpose and goals of the enterprise.

So something like: "Don't forget that this is why we're on earth, this is our mission, it seems like hard times, here's how hard it is -- but we're going to get through it."

Knowledge@Wharton: Can you name a few of those CEOs who were among the 14?

Useem: We interviewed A.G. Lafley of P&G, for example and Ed Breen, who essentially came in and rebuilt Tyco, cleaned up the mess in one of the most remarkable remakes of all time.

Knowledge@Wharton: When you were researching your book, was there anything that surprised you? You have studied leadership for quite a while, so you must have seen and heard it all. But was there something that was surprising or that was so counter-intuitive that you were shocked by it?

Useem: Here's the most counter-intuitive point of all, which has nothing to do with leadership, but it has implications for it. Several articles published this year in the New England Journal of Medicine compare hospitals that use surgeons' checklists with those that don't. You had to be careful -- different kinds of patients, different kinds of protocols all had to be taken into account. A hospital that does not use a surgeon's checklist has, on average, a rate of mortality of about one percent. But at hospitals that use a surgeon's checklist, required and enforced by the surgeon and sometimes the chief nurse in the room, mortality rates are cut in half.

Knowledge@Wharton: A half of one percent?

Useem: Yes. Not a big deal, unless that happens to be your daughter or son who is in that 50 basis point range.

Knowledge@Wharton: Absolutely.

Useem: I'm actually surprised the reduction was that large. And, by implication, in a study yet to be done, my guess is that a leader who gets out there, pretty consistently applying the 15 most important principles, is going to be materially better for it. I can't prove that now, although intuitively, it seems right. I think that was the most surprising element. That it really does make a difference, especially among seasoned professionals.

Knowledge@Wharton: That raises the question of what proof can you have or can you fall back on to show that the checklist makes a difference. It's fairly subjective and almost anecdotal -- or maybe not. Comparing one hospital to another hospital is a little bit easier than saying this list makes a certain leader into a better one, maybe by saving people's jobs, or whatever.

Useem: It's an amalgam of sources of evidence. To cite one well-known method, Jim Collins in Good To Great takes 11 companies that went from good to great and 11 companies that did not, over five years. What's the difference? One that emerges is that the CEOs of those 11 companies that went from good to great were totally focused on mission, absolutely not focused on their own welfare or getting ahead. There are lots of particular studies out there that get at this facet or that facet, but no study that I know of -- and I haven't done it myself -- has taken all 15 of these separate items. Yet pulling from a range of sources, I've become convinced that these 15 are all mission critical. Which means that you've got to have them all. None is sufficient.

Let's take the number one item -- "having a vision, a strategy and being able to execute around it." I will track down a study that finds that chief executives who are more strategic and more thoughtful about vision do perform more strongly. What I don't have though -- it's a good challenge -- are those involving all 15.

Knowledge@Wharton: If you could name, without any explanation, the top four leaders who are actively leading today, who would they be?

Useem: Indra Nooyi of Pepsi. Steve Jobs at Apple. I am drawn to Laurence Golborne, and I have long standing and continuing great admiration for the man who built Lenovo, Liu Chuanzhi. I picked the four in part because they each illustrate a different part of the spectrum there.

Knowledge@Wharton: I notice, of course, that one of them is a woman. Did you find there any traits or principles that you think are actually more likely to resonate with leaders who are women than with leaders who are men?

Useem: You know, from a research standpoint, no, and even intuitively, no, in observing leaders like Indra Nooyi or Ellen Kullman, who has a very good start in taking over as CEO of DuPont.

Knowledge@Wharton: It's good if we're beyond the point where we have to say "women are different from men in terms of leadership."

Useem: Yes, that's where I am. To make an obvious point, there is more variation within gender than between gender these days. Put that differently -- I think men and women can learn from Indra Nooyi and Ellen Kullman and Laurence Golborne.

Knowledge@Wharton: You note in the beginning of your book that the "animating premise" of The Leader's Checklist is that effective leadership can be learned, and, indeed, should be learned. Does this mean that you're negating the role of gut reaction or spontaneous reaction to events? Can people still be leaders by the seat of their pants, if you know what I'm getting at?

Useem: There is lots of research evidence on that, and a great argument from the author of the book called Blink that intuition is extremely important and vital to have. Gut instinct is a great platform for making good and timely decisions. Having said that, gut instinct, intuition that is not informed by experience, is likely to be a disaster. So when the author of Blink writes as a subtitle, The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, the sub sub-title should be, After Having Digested Prior Experience." And there's just lots of evidence on that.

Knowledge@Wharton: What's an example?

Useem: Probably the best example that comes to mind very quickly here is what we learned from the US Marine Corps. As we watch the officers and the officer candidate school train future Marine Corps officers, the teaching method is for people to get out, act, experience, succeed and fail, and then conduct what they call the "After Action Review." To take it apart -- what went well? What did not go well? And that is, in my view, one of the great avenues for leadership development -- which is to take apart your last day or your last week and reflect on it. After a couple years of doing those "after action reviews," you can say correctly with confidence, "My intuition tells me right now that we ought to be going in this direction and not that direction."

Knowledge@Wharton: So that's informed intuition?

Useem: Yes, informed intuition ... informed by your own and other's experiences.

Knowledge@Wharton: So what is the biggest challenge that our leaders face today?

Useem: It's a really important question because it gets at whether leadership -- and getting your leadership formula right -- is really important. So here's the argument. For people in positions of responsibility organizationally, one of the best predictors of how much impact a given leader will have -- a college president, a corporate manager, a country prime minister -- is the extent to which the company, the university or the country is facing changing or non-changing circumstances, and the extent to which the future is discernable and predictable or not. So, to make that more affirmative and to put it simply: If life looks like it's going to be more uncertain going ahead, you really want to get your leadership formula right. Think Greece as we speak, think companies in some of these tough telecom markets, think the globalization of firms now trying to get into the China or India market. If you're a leader of any of the above, you're facing, in the next five or 10 years, arguably more uncertain and more changing circumstances. If so, it's more critical than ever to get your leadership right. And what does it mean to get it right? You have to apply all 15 principles of the Leader's Checklist. One or five won't do it.

Knowledge@Wharton: What is the 16^th principle?

Useem: The one that's not in there.

Knowledge@Wharton: The one that got away.

Useem: This is not meant to dodge your question, but I'm going to answer it in kind of a sideways fashion. As soon as you sit down and look at these 15, it's obvious. There's definitely no rocket science here. If you're going to lead, let's say as a mid-level manager at Google or at GE, you need a 16^th and a 17^th and an 18^th principle, ones that apply to those particular settings. So in the case of GE, it's that unrelenting focus on getting results quarter in and quarter out. You just have to do it. You've got to be really good at that. At Google, it is sustaining intellectual energy and excitement about projects. I wouldn't make those universal, because at some organizations they are not vital. If you operate in India, it's going to be different ones than if you are operating in China.

Knowledge@Wharton: Thanks very much, Mike. It's been great talking with you.

Useem: Thanks to you as well.

About the Author:- Michael Useem is Director of the Center for Leadership and Change Management and William and Jacalyn Egan Professor of Management at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author of The Leadership Moment, Investor Capitalism, and The Go Point, among other books. The Leadership Moment was included in The 100 Best Business Books of All Time, written by the publishers of 800 CEO Read, and listed as one of the 10 best leadership books on the Washington Post's "Leadership Playlist." Useem's articles have appeared in the Chicago Tribune, Fast Company, Financial Times, Fortune, Harvard Business Review, McKinsey Quarterly, New York Times, U.S. News & World Report, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere.

Thanks to Knowledge@Wharton
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/printer_friendly.cfm?articleid=2799

===================

Other Sites Related to This Blog
(BlogSpot:- http://ziaullahkhan.blogspot.com), Kindly Visit:

RSS Feed 1: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Z-S---KnowledgeCenter

RSS Feed 2: http://ziaullahkhan.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

YouTube:- --- http://www.youtube.com/user/ZKDQ786

Twitter:- ------ http://twitter.com/#!/Babajan786
Books:- ------ http://astore.amazon.com/amazon-book-books-20
Products:---- http://astore.amazon.com/amazon-everyday-low-prices-sale-deals-bargains-discounts-20