Introduction
Can I interest you in everything, all of the time? This is the question put to us by Bo Burnham’s carnival ringmaster of all things online in ‘Welcome to the Internet’, a song from his Covid-induced comedy special come mental unravelling Inside [1]. The song captures the imprisonment of the age, our shared, crooked addictions to the ever-flowing fountain of information that’s rarely more than a few metres from our fingertips. “Here’s a tip for straining pasta; here’s a nine year-old who died,” he grins, every bit as manic and entrancing as the technology he portrays. We all scroll idly past such travesties and worse daily on our phones, laptops and tablets. And of course it has an effect.
It’s hardly a secret that doomscrolling is bad for you. Or that too much time online is. Knowing these things does not make separation any easier. We are hooked. According to a journal published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, doomscrolling “appears as a vicious cycle in which users find themselves stuck in a pattern of seeking negative information no matter how bad the news is” [2]. And the news is bad. Take your pick from the growing rolodex of global travesties. The war in Ukraine. The impending one in Taiwan. A food crisis in Yemen. Ongoing climate struggles. The world’s greatest living footballer shilling out for oil money from a nation with a less-than-stellar human rights record [3]. Name your crisis, the news will find it for you; it is not low on stock.
The bad news
A 2020 Pew Research Center survey of more than 12,000 U.S. adults found that 66% felt worn out by the news. The same study shows that, “news fatigue is more widespread among the least engaged political news consumers. Nearly three-quarters of those who follow political and election news “not too” or “not at all closely” feel exhausted by the news (73%), higher than the share among those who follow political news “somewhat” (66%) or “very” closely (56%)” [4].In other words, political disengagement is not the answer to your prayers. Think of the news like Liam Neeson’s avenging father in Taken. It has a very particular set of skills. It will look for you. It will find you. And, to somewhat edit the final line, it will hit you with a debilitating fatigue that stalks you in your work and social life.
Unsurprisingly, this problem is more pronounced amongst the young. An American Press Institute survey found that more than 90% of Gen Z and Millennials report spending at least two hours a day online. That includes 56% who are online for more than 5 hours a day and 24% for more than 9 [5]. The World Health Organization recommends the public “[tries] to reduce how much you watch, read or listen to news that makes you feel anxious or distressed” [6]. The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University, meanwhile, coined a title for those who struggle with excess news consumption: the infodemically vulnerable [7].
Pandemic fatigue
The pandemic of course played a large role in our collective news fatigue. The Economist called Covid the most dominant news story since the Second World War [8]. I don’t think anyone with even a vague memory of the time would find that surprising. As early as April 2020, the World Health Organization was using the term “infodemic” to describe the abundance of pandemic coverage [9]. For many, disengagement became a vital tool of survival. Walking a tightrope of well-being that a single further graph of infections vs hospitalisations threatened to tip off balance.
That said, Covid only served to exacerbate trends that had begun with social media’s growing prevalence and an age of polarisation best exemplified by the Brexit vote in the UK and the election of Donald Trump in the US. The online world moved from a social space to a partisan one. It was important to have a tribe. If you didn’t choose one, one would be ascribed to you, likely unfavourably.
This no doubt contributed to an increased sense of digital fatigue as no longer were people simply consumers of news, they were engagers with it. You did not read an article, you reacted to it. Like, comment, retweet, post. It requires mental energy to not simply stay engaged but to embody engagement, building a mini-brand around your beliefs, demonstrable through the content you chose to respond to and pass on to other like-minded consumers. Social media ceased to be that Edenic place where you would blissfully log on to see what your friends were up to. Instead, it became an algorithmically dictated carousel of partisan avatars looking to prove their moral and intellectual credentials, often at the expense of an equally engaged opposing force.
Staying engaged
As noted in the Athens Journal of Mass Media and Communications, “research has confirmed the mental health impact of news consumption. One study found heightened anxiety, even sadness, in people who watched negative news-related material, such as bulletins, after only minutes” [10]. For citizens who want to remain engaged, then, there exists a quandary: do you sacrifice your own well-being out of a sense of civic duty, or do you cut down on your consumption, willfully opting for the bliss of ignorance?
Of course, the choice is not actually so binary. Like most things, it’s about balance. If you sense that you are feeling overwhelmed by the news – especially if you are conscious that you spend more time following it than it’s suggested you should – then take a step back. A recent study by Texas Tech University among people with problematic or high levels of news viewing found that nearly 74% experienced stress or anxiety “quite a bit” or “very much”, while sixty-one percent reported feeling physically ill “quite a bit” or “very much” [11]. If you recognise yourself in those brackets, step back.
Targeted screen time
Time notes that, “Excessive screen time has been shown to have negative effects on children and adolescents. It’s been linked to psychological problems, such as higher rates of depression and anxiety, as well as health issues like poor sleep and higher rates of obesity” [12]. The effects on adults are less well-documented, but are thought to be only mildly less potent. But as assistant adjunct professor of psychology at UCLA, Yalda T. Uhls, says, how much time you’re spending on your phone is far less pertinent as the content you’re consuming. To avoid news fatigue, you don’t need to throw your phone in the ocean and set up camp in Timbuktu. You can still use your phone. Just be sure to pay attention to what you’re paying attention to.
Cutting back on social media seems the best way to help yourself. A study published in 2018 in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology assessing the effects of Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat on the mental health of 143 college students found that if young people showed depressive symptoms at the start of the study, then reduced their social-media use to just 10 minutes per day on each platform—a total of 30 minutes on social media per day—for three weeks, their symptoms of depression and loneliness decreased [13].
Melissa Hunt, associate director of clinical training in the department of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and author of the above study, notes that, “It’s not that social media is in and of itself inherently problematic. It’s that using too much of it, or using it in the wrong way, is very problematic. My advice is if you’re going to use social media, follow friends for about one hour a day” [14]. A Canadian study during the pandemic found that the best way to boost mental and general health was to combine a reduction in screen time with increased outdoor exercise [15].
Switching off
Essentially, then, the solution is as simple as it is difficult: spend less time engaging with content that drains you. The obvious problem with that advice is that we are rarely engaging with such content blindly. Awareness that we are overdoing it does not preclude us from clicking on that next enticingly provocative link.
If you’re really struggling, going cold turkey might be the solution. Set limits on your phone so that there is at least some kind of barrier in place. Tell a friend or partner that you’re looking to disengage. Vocalising your intentions will likely help. If not, having someone willing to check in on you or hold you accountable is useful motivation.
And for those who don’t wish to step back their engagement out of a sense of civic responsibility, know that you’re not helping anyone by draining yourself in the name of staying informed. Making a martyr of yourself is futile. Adopt the oxygen mask rule: save yourself first. Then once you’re set, you’ll be that much better placed to help others.
References
[1] https://www.netflix.com/title/81289483
[6] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/searo/bangladesh/2019-ncov/mental-health-covid-19.pdf
[7] https://www.athensjournals.gr/media/2022-8-3-1-Fitzpatrick.pdf
[9] https://www.athensjournals.gr/media/2022-8-3-1-Fitzpatrick.pdf
[10] https://www.athensjournals.gr/media/2022-8-3-1-Fitzpatrick.pdf
[11] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10410236.2022.2106086?journalCode=hhth20
[12] https://time.com/6174510/how-much-screen-time-is-too-much/
[13] https://time.com/6174510/how-much-screen-time-is-too-much/
[14] https://time.com/6174510/how-much-screen-time-is-too-much/
[15] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-x/2020006/article/00001-eng.htm
Introduction
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s 1843 short story “The Birth-Mark” centres on a young scientific scholar who develops an unhealthy obsession with a small red birthmark on his wife’s cheek. His wife is noted for her beauty, but for the young scholar the issue lies in his bride’s tantalising proximity to perfection. This one tiny aberration proves too much for him to take. He ascribes the birthmark additional meaning, viewing it as a sign of the “fatal flaw of humanity” and his wife’s “liability to sin, sorrow, decay and death” [1].
His bride comes to internalise her husband’s feelings and so asks him to remove this single display of her physical fallibility – to “fix” her. He conceals her in a boudoir by his laboratory and subjects her to a variety of alchemical concoctions. The wife observes of her husband that “his most splendid successes were almost invariably failures, if compared with the ideal at which he aimed.” Eventually one of his potions succeeds in removing the birthmark. However, no sooner has it done so than his young bride passes away.
Hawthorne’s tale of the ruinous effects of perfectionism echoes louder today than ever. A study of over 41,000 people published by Thomas Curran and Andrew Hill in Psychological Bulletin found that perfectionism’s prevalence in society has increased [2]. Their study, the first of its kind in comparing perfectionism across generations (from 1989 to 2016), found significant increases in the rates of perfectionism among recent undergraduates in the US, UK and Canada compared with those of previous generations [3]. Kate Rasmussen, who researches child development and perfectionism at West Virginia University says that today, “As many as two in five kids and adolescents are perfectionists…We’re starting to talk about how it’s heading toward an epidemic and public health issue” [4].
As Amanda Ruggeri notes, writing on the subject for the BBC, that rise in perfectionism “doesn’t mean each generation is becoming more accomplished. It means we’re getting sicker, sadder and even undermining our own potential” [5].
The Perfect Body
As Hawthorne’s 19th century story demonstrates, perfectionism is nothing new. But aspects of today’s society serve to exacerbate it. The correlations between the young scholar and his bride in “The Birth-Mark” and the prevalence of plastic surgery in today’s society is obvious. As the bride died in the name of her husband’s obsessive pursuit, so too do a certain fraction of today’s patients die under the knife in pursuit of plasticised perfection. Others irrevocably change their appearance again and again, never quite satisfied, always certain they’re just one operation away. They place their faith in tomorrows, which of course are only – but more crucially, always – a day away.
Cosmetic surgery deaths are the most extreme and garish example of the perfectionism phenomena, but this rut runs far deeper. There’s no longer a need to fly to the Dominican Republic for cheap tummy tuck surgery, after all. Nowadays, one can simply use an app on their phone to slice away the flab, add some colour to the skin or remove those pesky, unwanted pimples from photos. You can easily obfuscate any and all potential flaws you see within yourself at the click of a button. Social media is awash with amended images of falsified selves living picturesque lives. These beautiful unrealities are designed to suppress insecurities (that they end up exponentially worsening) through the fleeting validation afforded by the likes of friends and strangers, who are themselves represented by equally falsified avatars.
Unsurprisingly social media’s impact on body image is most harmful to the young, who spend disproportionate amounts of time online (a survey by the nonprofit research organisation Common Sense Media found that the average screen time for 13-18 year-olds was eight hours and 39 minutes a day). Research published by the American Psychological Association found that “teens and young adults who reduced their social media use by 50% for just a few weeks saw significant improvement in how they felt about both their weight and their overall appearance compared with peers who maintained consistent levels of social media use” [6].
Meanwhile, the World Health Organisation have stated that record numbers of young people are experiencing mental illness, with depression, anxiety and suicide ideation more common in the US, Canada and UK today than even a decade ago [7]. This is of course not all down to the ease of Photoshop botox or sepia Instagram filters. To think the nefarious effects of perfectionism are limited to the physical would be to miss the mark. Dissatisfaction with the body stems from the mind.
The Perfect Self
Curran and Hill ascribe the exponential rise in perfectionism amongst today’s youth to “increasingly demanding social and economic parameters” as well as “increasingly anxious and controlling parental practices” [8]. In The Tyranny of Merit, the American philosopher Michael Sandel argues that meritocratic capitalism has created a permanent state of competition within society. This system sustains an order of winners and losers, “breeding hubris and self-congratulation among the former and chronically low self-worth among the latter” [9].
Millennials and those of younger generations are far more likely to have undertaken some form of higher education than their predecessors. And yet graduates, even those with highly specialised Master’s degrees, are finding it difficult to find work in increasingly oversaturated markets. Those who do gain employment are often settling for junior roles consisting of administrative duties that fail to make use of their (generally hugely expensive) education. They find themselves on the unrewarding bottom rung of a ladder that makes no guarantee of further ascent and pays them so little (if at all, in the era of the unpaid internship) that they often struggle to make rent or rely on a litany of exhaustive side-hustles to do so.
Josh Cohen, a psychoanalyst and professor of modern literary theory at Goldsmiths, University of London, notes that in such a culture “young people are likely to grow dissatisfied both with what they have and who they are.” Meanwhile, “social media creates additional pressure to construct a perfect public image, exacerbating our feelings of inadequacy” [10].
Concurrently, all around us self-help gurus preach the importance of betterment – educational, emotional, physical, financial – in droves. The idea that we must seek something better than what we have – something graspable if we just put the work in (or better yet, like and subscribe) – is pernicious, and fuels the fire of inadequacy. If we are seeking something better, it’s because there is something lacking in what we have. No wonder we feel unfulfilled when we’re surrounded by false prophets promising they have the key to fulfilment’s kingdom. Who knew satisfaction was just a pricey online self-help course away?
According to research examining 43 different studies over 20 years by York St. John University, perfectionism is linked to burnout as well as depression, anxiety and even mortality [11]. That’s right, perfectionists die younger [12]. Since it’s so linked to such disastrous outcomes, then, why is it we can’t kick the perfectionist habit?
Positive perfection
Because we don’t want to. For all its obvious faults, most of us still attribute some kind of value to perfectionism. It’s become job interview parody to say that your greatest weakness is that you’re a perfectionist. As we all know, this is really a sneaky positive. Perfectionism has come to be associated with a strong work ethic, ambition, and high attainment.
Researchers argue that these benefits are illusory. Sarah Egan, a senior research fellow at the Curtin University in Perth who specialises in perfectionism, eating disorders and anxiety, notes that “the difficult part of [perfectionism], and what makes it different than depression or anxiety, is that the person often values it. If we have anxiety or depression, we don’t value those symptoms. We want to get rid of them. When we see a person with perfectionism, they can often be ambivalent towards change. People say it brings them benefits.”
It becomes an endless loop. Perfectionism brings a person dissatisfaction – maybe even depression or suicidal ideation – so they go to a therapist to fix the problem. They want to get rid of the depression, they say, but they don’t want to lose the perfectionism that contributes to it as they believe it offers them something essential. It’s like going to a personal trainer and demanding they help you lose weight while telling them you have no intention of cutting the daily fast food, sugary drinks and excessive alcohol from your diet. Something’s gotta give.
Obviously ambition, diligence and high standards are positive traits. The problem is that these traits are wrongly associated with a kind of “healthy” perfectionism, when really they’re not perfectionism at all. They’re conscientiousness [13]. As Hill notes, “Perfectionism isn’t about high standards. It’s about unrealistic standards…Perfectionism isn’t a behaviour. It’s a way of thinking about yourself” [14]. Wanting to do well is good. Beating yourself up if you don’t is not.
Humanity’s quest for perfection
It’s possible that perfectionism is just part of our nature. Cohen draws parallels between the human strive for perfection and religious and mythical tales of divine wrath. Prometheus and the Tower of Babel provide examples of what happens when man tries to overextend his reach: the relevant divinity rains down punishment. According to Cohen, “Religious striving for moral and spiritual improvement goes in tandem with the sombre recognition that perfection belongs to God alone.” Or more strikingly, “In the religious imagination, the notion of human perfection is blasphemy” [15].
What to do?
As the late author David Foster-Wallace noted, “if your fidelity to perfectionism is too high, you never do anything” [16]. The writer Rebecca Solnit is also succinct in her denigration of perfection’s pitfalls: “The perfect is not only the enemy of the good; it’s also the enemy of the realistic, the possible, and the fun” [17].
To break out of the perfectionism trap takes a shift in mindset – an acceptance of fallibility. It’s a false economy, really. You can’t achieve the perfect, so why are you trying to? Elizabeth Gilbert says perfectionism is nothing more than, “fear in fancy shoes and a mink coat” [18]. And even that may be giving it too much credit.
Hard as society makes it, it’s important not to focus on the birthmark. Better to reserve your attention for the living, breathing woman on whose cheek it sits. Singer Jeff Rosenstock’s primal shouts on his album closer Perfect Sound Whateversum it up nicely: “Perfect always takes so long because it don’t exist. It doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist.”
It can be worth remembering that.
References
[1] http://www.lem.seed.pr.gov.br/arquivos/File/livrosliteraturaingles/birthmark.pdf
[3] https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-bul0000138.pdf
[4] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180219-toxic-perfectionism-is-on-the-rise
[5] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180219-toxic-perfectionism-is-on-the-rise
[6] https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/02/social-media-body-image
[7] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180219-toxic-perfectionism-is-on-the-rise
[8] https://www.economist.com/1843/2021/08/10/the-perfectionism-trap
[9] https://www.economist.com/1843/2021/08/10/the-perfectionism-trap
[10] https://www.economist.com/1843/2021/08/10/the-perfectionism-trap
[12] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19383652
[13] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180219-toxic-perfectionism-is-on-the-rise
[14] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180219-toxic-perfectionism-is-on-the-rise
[15] https://www.economist.com/1843/2021/08/10/the-perfectionism-trap
[16] https://fs.blog/david-foster-wallace-on-ambition-and-perfectionism/
[17] https://howtoacademy.com/videos/elizabeth-gilbert-lets-call-perfectionism-what-it-really-is-2/
[18] https://howtoacademy.com/videos/elizabeth-gilbert-lets-call-perfectionism-what-it-really-is-2/
Introduction
Clusters, as conceptualised by Michael Porter (1990), have been central in economic theory. Geographically concentrated interconnected companies within similar industries have spurred economic growth and driven innovation. Silicon Valley’s technology hub, Wall Street’s finance focus, and Milan’s fashion hotspot are just a few instances of this clustering phenomenon.
Although economic and geographical clustering offers intriguing insights, I’m particularly interested in applying this concept to the microcosm of individual organisations – their teams. Could the “cluster” effect potentially apply to the human aspects of businesses?
What is a team cluster?
Based on principles of organisational psychology, a “team cluster” is a group of people with unique strengths who work together to create an environment that fosters innovation and high performance, according to Sundstrom et al. (2000). This approach differs from the traditional “superstar” model, which relies on one exceptionally talented individual to drive success. Instead, it suggests that a team made up of consistently above-average members is more likely to achieve optimal performance.
The way a team works together is very important in this model (Forsyth, 2018). Adding a superstar could upset the balance of the team and cause conflicts or hard feelings. However, a team that is well-balanced will work well together and have better relationships, leading to better performance. The Galáctico project in Real Madrid which was cancelled in 2007, is an example of this (although there is a new one in development by all accounts).
The power of a strong team can be seen in historical examples, such as Walt Disney Studios’ ‘Nine Old Men’, a group of animators who worked together to create beloved films like ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’ and ‘Bambi’. This shows how a team with a balance of talent can be more effective than relying on one exceptional individual.
Social loafing
According to a theory called social loafing (Latane et al., 1979), people often put in less effort when they are part of a group, especially if they think that someone else in the group is responsible for most of the success. However, having a well-balanced team ensures that every member’s input is valuable, which decreases the chances of social loafing and leads to better overall performance.
The ground-breaking development of penicillin by Howard Florey, Ernst Boris Chain, and their colleagues at Oxford University exemplifies the power of such a team cluster (Ligon, 2004). Each individual played a vital role in the process, validating the potency of a balanced, collective effort in accomplishing a shared goal.
Training and collaboration
Developing the skills and relationships of team members can strengthen the effectiveness of team clusters. This involves training and development to promote shared understanding, mutual respect, and collaboration within the team, as stated by Salas et al. in 2008. A prime example of this is the COVID-19 vaccine development teams, like the one behind the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, who utilised their diverse skills and knowledge to successfully develop a vaccine through collective effort and collaboration.
Team cluster dynamics
The success of the ENIAC team in history underscores the significance of diversity and equality in teams. The “ENIAC Girls,” a group of six female mathematicians who were among the earliest computer programmers, played a crucial role in the creation of ENIAC, one of the earliest general-purpose computers. This demonstrates the value of utilising various skills and viewpoints, as well as the power of inclusiveness in optimising team performance.
The concept of the team cluster model can be applied in different fields, including sports. However, the dynamics may differ due to the unique nature of athletic performance. Nevertheless, the idea remains valid that a team with a good balance of contributions from each member often performs better than a team focused on one superstar, as proven by Fransen et al. in 2015.
Leadership’s role in team clusters
Creating effective team clusters requires intentional development and management. Encouraging self-development and peer-to-peer learning can raise the team’s overall competency level (Decuyper et al., 2010). Additionally, it’s important to nurture an environment where team members feel valued and understand their contribution to the overall goal. Leadership plays a crucial role in creating a culture that values collaboration, continuous learning, and collective success over individual brilliance.
Conclusion
In conclusion, team clusters are effective because they bring together a diverse range of skills, encourage collaboration, and promote continuous learning and development. By combining these elements, organisations can use team clusters to improve innovation and performance. In short, the team cluster model shows that working together can achieve more than working alone.
References
Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 111-133.
Fransen, K., Vanbeselaere, N., De Cuyper, B., Vande Broek, G., & Boen, F. (2015). The myth of the team captain as principal leader: extending the athlete leadership classification within sport teams. Journal of sports sciences, 33(14), 1377-1387.
Forsyth, D. R. (2018). Group Dynamics. Cengage Learning.
Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822-832.
Ligon, B. L. (2004). Penicillin: Its Discovery and Early Development. Seminars in Pediatric Infectious Diseases, 15(1), 52-57.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Free Press.
Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50(3), 540-547.
Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H. (2000). Work Groups: From the Hawthorne Studies to Work Teams of the 1990s and Beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 44-67.
Introduction
In a rapidly evolving socio-economic landscape punctuated by significant disruptions such as the global pandemic, the concept of emotional intelligence, specifically empathy, has become increasingly relevant within professional environments. Empathy, the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, is now viewed as a key leadership trait and an essential component of effective team dynamics.
Data from a series of international surveys conducted in recent years (Meechan et al., 2022 ; Holt, 2022) underscored the importance of empathy in the workplace. An overwhelming majority of respondents endorsed the idea that increasing empathy would contribute positively to societal improvement (EY, 2021). This perspective resonated with a significant segment of the European workforce, where empathy was deemed critical for employee satisfaction and retention (Chrousos, 2021). A UK study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2021) showed a rising trend in companies investing in empathy and interpersonal skills development.
Impact of empathy
Empathetic individuals play an instrumental role in an organisation, fostering effective communication, nurturing relationships, and enhancing social cohesion. By gaining an understanding of their colleagues’ lives, they create an environment where people feel confident to share their ideas, leading to increased teamwork and innovation. Empathetic leaders can respond more effectively to individual communication styles, thus motivating productive contributions.
Implementation of empathy
However, the implementation of empathy within organisations has its challenges. Creating an organisational culture of empathy requires more than just superficial changes. It involves a shift in mindset at all levels of the organisation and a commitment to aligning company policies, structures, and procedures with empathetic values. Additionally, empathy is often wrongly perceived as a sign of weakness, which can be an impediment to its acceptance in the workplace. Overcoming such misconceptions and creating a supportive environment where empathy is valued and practised is crucial.
Empathy and gender
Research has shown a correlation between empathy and gender, with some studies suggesting that women might inherently possess more empathetic traits than men (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). This does not imply that empathy is exclusive to women but rather that empathetic leadership styles could be more prevalent among women leaders. This observation can be used to encourage greater gender diversity in leadership roles, thus fostering a more empathetic organisational culture.
Empathetic leadership
From an employee perspective, empathy in leadership is highly valued. Employees tend to feel more engaged and committed when they believe their leaders understand and care about their feelings and perspectives. This can increase job satisfaction, improve morale, and reduce employee turnover.
However, there is a fine line between empathy and over-involvement. Excessive empathy can lead to emotional exhaustion and blurred boundaries between professional and personal life (O’Connor, 2021). Thus, it is essential for organisations to strike a balance between fostering empathy and maintaining professional boundaries. The sustainability of empathy over time has also proved difficult in some sectors and needs to be managed accordingly (Yu, et al., 202).
Performance impact of empathy
The impact of empathy on performance is also worth examining. While empathy can improve interpersonal relationships and communication within a team, its direct impact on performance metrics may be more complex. An overemphasis on empathy could distract from performance-oriented goals if not carefully managed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, empathy is far from being merely a “woke” concept, as some critics portray it. It holds significant potential for enhancing the workplace environment, promoting effective communication, and improving job satisfaction and retention. However, a balanced approach is necessary. Organisations should encourage and cultivate empathy but must also be aware of its potential pitfalls and educate their employees accordingly. As with any other organisational strategy, the key to successful implementation lies in the delicate balance between empathy and performance.
References
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism
Holt, S. (2022). Nurturing empathy. Innovative Leadership in Times of Compelling Changes: Strategies, Reflections and Tools, 117-131.
Meechan, F., McCann, L., & Cooper, C. (2022). The importance of empathy and compassion in organizations: why there is so little, and why we need more. In Research Handbook on the Sociology of Organizations (pp. 145-163). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Yu, Chou Chuen, Laurence Tan, Mai Khanh Le, Bernard Tang, Sok Ying Liaw, Tanya Tierney, Yun Ying Ho et al. “The development of empathy in the healthcare setting: a qualitative approach.” BMC Medical Education 22, no. 1 (2022): 1-13.
Introduction
It’s not who you are underneath, it’s what you do that defines you. Batman said it so it must be true. (Technically it was said to him first then made a running motif of the film’s core theme, but we may be splitting hairs.)
What we do does define us. Look no further than the first question directed your way by any small talk specialist at a party: what do you do? The question has a more pronounced meaning than simply what is your career. It’s designed to get a sense of what that profession says about you – your class, education, status, salary.
The most popular surname in Germany and Switzerland is Müller, meaning miller. In Slovakia, it’s Varga, the word for cobbler. In the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US, it’s Smith, due to the word’s attachment to a variety of once common trades such as blacksmith and locksmith [1]. Your work, then, used to be your literal identity.
In purely nominative terms, that has changed. We do not live amongst Wayne Footballer, Elon Disruptor or Donald Moron. But in terms of social function, our profession is still the definitive modus of identification, at least on first glance. In today’s world, unlike in Batman’s, our job is both what we do and indicative of who we are underneath.
Work as identity
The vast majority of people spend the bulk of their waking hours at work. That was true pre-pandemic when office work practices were the norm. Home and hybrid working have changed things somewhat. There is more flexibility to work schedules, but that does not detract from the amount of our time given to work. In fact, the ability to do our jobs from home has in many cases seen work spill over into what was once free time. Anne Wilson, a professor of psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, terms the psychological state that accompanies investing a disproportionate amount of time and energy to work as “enmeshment” [2].
Wilson found that workers with greater autonomy over their schedule – such as those in high-powered executive positions, lawyers, entrepreneurs and academics – were most affected by enmeshment. However, with greater autonomy over scheduling and certainly location now afforded to the many workers across the world, enmeshment’s prevalence is only growing.
What do you mean?
Given the prominent role our career plays in how we either identify ourselves or are identified by others, it makes sense that we want our work to provide meaning. After all, if work takes up most of your time and is seen as a solid representative indicator of who you are, then having a meaningful job surely necessitates that you also lead a meaningful life.
Meaning has the highest impact on whether an employee chooses to stay at their job or move on [3]. In fact, employees who derive meaning from their work are more than three times as likely to stay with their organisations [4]. On top of that, employees who consider their work to have meaning report 1.7 times higher job satisfaction and are 1.4 times more engaged with their work [5]. Meaning, it seems safe to say then, is good.
And yet a 2017 report from Gallup found that just 13% of the world’s workforce felt “engaged” at work [6]. Gallup defines unengaged workers as those who are “checked out” from their work, distinguishing between unengaged workers and those who are actively disengaged. This latter group, “act out on their unhappiness, take up more of their managers’ time and undermine what their co-workers accomplish” [7].
According to a separate Gallup study from 2013, actively disengaged workers cost US companies a whopping $450 billion to $550 billion per year [8]. In other words, for any cynical employers reading this who think their workers’ pursuit of meaning is nothing more than a tiresome display of existential narcissism that falls outside their professional remit, think again. Meaning is money. Meaning is business. And your staff’s search for meaning is your business.
A map to meaning
Positive Psychology lays out the most prominent job satisfaction theories. There’s Edwin Locke’s range of affect theory, predicated on the importance of meeting expectations. If employee A wants a team-oriented work culture, for example, offering one will provide them job satisfaction, and vice versa.
Then there is the dispositional approach, which posits that while our job satisfaction may fluctuate slightly according to our specific workplace circumstances, more important than whatever workplace culture we’re currently part of is our natural disposition. People with high self-esteem, high levels of self-efficacy, and/or low levels of neuroticism are more likely to be satisfied in their job than those of the opposite disposition, irrespective of whether the job caters to their specific needs or not.
The Job Characteristics Model argues that workplace satisfaction is contingent on factors such as skill variety, task significance, autonomy and feedback. While Equity theory posits that satisfaction depends on a trade-off between input and output. The level or hard work required, enthusiasm for the job and support of or for colleagues is being constantly evaluated against the financial compensation, feedback from higher-ups and job security the role offers, for example.
No theory is fully complete but all offer windows into what satisfaction supposedly looks like – with a great deal of crossover. Essentially a job that does all of or some of the following will prove satisfying: meets employee needs, offers work that is appropriately challenging, gives staff a decent level of control, provides a positive atmosphere (generally best obtained through co-worker collaboration and feedback from senior figures.). None of that, we’re sure you’ll agree, is groundbreaking information. As solutions, they’re easily identified, but harder to put into practice.
Tangible options
A practice often associated with job satisfaction is that of job crafting. For a deep dive on what crafting entails, read our article on the subject here. In short, it involves redefining the way you work, adjusting your role so that it better aligns with your specific skill sets. Sculpting a more personalised version of your position helps you – and in turn, the business – thrive, while simultaneously helping you derive meaning as you’re less likely to feel that your unique strengths are going to waste.
In accordance with the pursuit of meaning, psychologists Claudia Harzer and Willibald Ruch acknowledged the significance of finding a “calling” [9]. While many professionals may not end up working in the sphere of what they consider to be their calling, through crafting they can help bring their would-be calling to their existing role.
Another tangible step one can take to ensure they obtain a sense of meaning from their work is to prioritise relationships. Aaron Hurst, founder of Imperative and the Taproot Foundation and the author of The Purpose Economy, notes that his 20 years of research into the subject of workplace fulfilment found relationships to be, “the leading driver of meaning and fulfilment at work. If you lack relationships, it’s almost impossible to be fulfilled at work or life in general” [10].
Hurst’s definition of meaningful work revolves around three core questions. Do you feel like: (a) You’re making an impact that matters? (b) You have meaningful relationships? (c) You’re growing? If the answer to all three is yes, meaning will surely follow.
Assigning meaning
Of course, we all ascribe meaning to different priorities based on our outlook, upbringing, and social and fiscal circumstances, amongst other factors. As Douglas Lepisto and Camille Pradies describe in their 2013 book Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace, some people “may derive meaning not from the job itself, but from the fact that it allows them to provide for their families and pursue non-work activities that they enjoy” [11].
As noted earlier, some professions feel less like work and more like a calling. Researchers have found that those in jobs they consider their calling are amongst the most content [12]. One of the examples they give is that of zookeepers, noting that “though more than eight in 10 zookeepers have college degrees, their average annual income is less than $25,000.” On top of that, “there’s little room for advancement and zookeepers tend not to be held in high regard” [13]. Despite the relatively limited fiscal reward and few opportunities for growth, job satisfaction among zookeepers is strikingly high. That’s because many of them are doing a job that they deem to be their purpose.
Not only that, but to follow on from Hurst’s point regarding relationships, zookeepers were found to also feel that their co-workers experienced the same motivation and sense of duty they did, helping them form closer bonds. “It’s not just that you do the same work, but you’re the same kind of people,” explains Stuart Bunderson, PhD, a professor of organisational behaviour at the Olin Business School at Washington University. “It gives you a connection to a community” [14].
Approach
We’ve already looked at the dispositional theory around job satisfaction, which contends that our natural outlook has more bearing on our sense of purpose or satisfaction than the scope of the role itself. But we don’t all need to be shiny, happy people (as R.E.M. would put it) to find meaning in our work.
Michael G. Pratt, PhD, a professor of management and organisation at Boston College, demonstrates the variables of approaches we can adopt by relaying a tale of three bricklayers hard at work.
When asked what they’re doing, the first bricklayer responds, “I’m putting one brick on top of another.” The second replies, “I’m making six pence an hour.” And the third says, “I’m building a cathedral — a house of God.” [15]
“All of them have created meaning out of what they’ve done,” Pratt says, “but the last person could say what he’s done is meaningful. Meaningfulness is about the why, not just about what” [16]. Perhaps that’s why a 2013 Gallup report found that “employees with college degrees are less likely than those with less education to report being engaged in their work — even though a college degree leads to higher lifetime earnings, on average” [17]. They’re earning more money, sure. But they’re not scratching that vocational itch.
We’ve already written about the professional benefits associated with adopting a positive mindset here. A notable finding is the way that our approaches – both positive and negative – can land us in a feedback loop of sorts. A 2021 study in the European Journal of Personality investigating the relationship between self-esteem and work experiences found that, “The overall reciprocal pattern between work experiences and self-esteem is in line with the corresponsive principle of neo-socioanalytic theory, stating that life experiences deepen those personality characteristics that have led to the experiences in the first place” [18].
Put more simply:
an individual with high self-esteem tends to experience more job satisfaction, and experiencing job satisfaction positively affects the individual’s self-esteem. Thus, the reciprocal effects imply a positive feedback loop for people with high self-esteem and favorable work experiences and, at the same time, a vicious circle for people with low self-esteem and unfavorable work experiences. [19]
In your hands
A 2018 PwC/CECP study found that a remarkable 96% of employees believe that achieving fulfilment at work is possible, with 70% saying they’d consider leaving their current role for a more fulfilling one [20]. One in three even said they’d take a pay cut if necessary. Meanwhile 82% considered deriving meaning from work to be primarily their own responsibility, with 42% saying that they were their own greatest barrier to finding fulfilment at work [21].
There’s no one size fits all solution for finding meaning at work, but adopting a positive approach, building genuine workplace relationships, chasing your “calling”, or crafting your existing role so that it better aligns with your unique strengths and interests are all techniques worth exploring.
References
[1] https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210409-why-we-define-ourselves-by-our-jobs
[2] https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210409-why-we-define-ourselves-by-our-jobs
[3] https://www.fastcompany.com/3032126/how-to-find-meaning-during-your-pursuit-of-happiness-at-work
[4] https://www.fastcompany.com/3032126/how-to-find-meaning-during-your-pursuit-of-happiness-at-work
[5] https://www.fastcompany.com/3032126/how-to-find-meaning-during-your-pursuit-of-happiness-at-work
[6] https://positivepsychology.com/job-satisfaction-theory/
[7] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/12/job-satisfaction
[8] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/12/job-satisfaction
[9] https://positivepsychology.com/job-satisfaction-theory/
[11] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/12/job-satisfaction
[10] https://bigthink.com/the-learning-curve/finding-fulfillment-at-work/
[12] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/12/job-satisfaction
[13] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/12/job-satisfaction
[14] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/12/job-satisfaction
[15] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/12/job-satisfaction
[16] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/12/job-satisfaction
[17] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/12/job-satisfaction
[18] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08902070211027142
[19] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08902070211027142
Introduction
In any organisation, the vitality and productivity of its workforce is crucial. Gauging this contribution through performance assessments can act as a stimulus for growth or can become an obstacle when subject to biases. A noteworthy bias often overshadowing the review process is recency bias, tending to replace objective judgement with the impact of recent happenings. This piece delves into the depth of recency bias within the context of performance evaluations, its implications, and the ways to mitigate its influence. Our investigation draws on a wealth of insights from organisational psychology research and successful industry practices.
What is Recency bias?
Performance assessments are not merely a corporate ritual. They serve as strategic instruments to measure employee performance, provide meaningful feedback, set targets, and determine crucial outcomes such as promotions and compensation changes. However, these evaluations can be subjective and susceptible to cognitive biases. The issue of recency bias, where the most recent events or behaviour unduly influence the evaluation, often overlooks a consistent history of performance.
The principle of recency bias suggests that an individual’s latest actions or achievements disproportionately sway evaluators, sometimes casting a shadow over the individual’s past endeavours. This cognitive bias can distort assessments, potentially obstructing both personal development and organisational progress. Research within the field of organisational psychology underscores the significance of recency bias in performance evaluations. Studies indicate that individuals tend to give greater weight to fresh information when forming impressions (Todorov & Uleman, 2002).
This bias can twist evaluations, leading to sub-optimal decisions and employee dissatisfaction. Thus, recognising and combating this bias is crucial for fair and accurate evaluations. In the business world, several companies have identified the potential downside of recency bias in performance evaluations and devised strategies to curb its impact:
Strategies to reduce recency bias
Google, for instance, cultivates a culture of continuous feedback. This involves real-time performance evaluations, ongoing coaching, and constructive criticism, effectively reducing the effect of recency bias on annual reviews. This continuous feedback approach promotes a focus on long-term development rather than recent incidents.
Adobe adopted the “Check-in Model”, a system that encourages regular discussions between managers and employees about progress, difficulties, and goals. By taking into account a wider timeframe for evaluations, this method lessens the influence of recency bias. Deloitte implemented a similar approach with their “Performance Snapshot” system, providing employees with continuous feedback and conducting frequent performance evaluations. This broader information base minimises the impact of recency bias, allowing a more comprehensive and accurate assessment.
Though the above examples offer valuable insights, there are further strategies to help reduce the impact of recency bias in assessments:
- Embracing a multi-source feedback approach can provide a more well-rounded view of an employee’s performance, as it involves varied stakeholders such as colleagues, juniors, and customers. This diverse feedback can counterbalance the impact of recency bias.
- Encouraging self-reflection and documentation among employees can help maintain a record of their achievements, skills, and challenges throughout the evaluation period. When this record is referred to during performance discussions, it provides a balanced perspective and combats the undue influence of recent events.
- Lastly, focusing on clear criteria and objectives during performance evaluations can reduce subjectivity. Transparent expectations and predetermined metrics can significantly lessen the possibility of recency bias, leading to more accurate evaluations.
Conclusion
Performance evaluations are key to the success of any organisation, but the presence of recency bias can threaten their effectiveness. By understanding the sway of recency bias and taking proactive steps to mitigate its impact, we can foster a culture of fairness and objectivity that ultimately benefits both individuals and organisations.
Reference:
Todorov, A., & Uleman, J. S. (2002). Spontaneous trait inferences are bound to actors’ faces: Evidence from a false recognition paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1051-1065.
Introduction
A decade ago, the Harvard Business Review presented a viewpoint that Human Resources Directors (HRDs) needed help to assert their influence at the boardroom level, predicting that roles like CTOs and CDOs were set to outpace them. In this revealing blog post, we explore why, contrary to these predictions, HRDs have emerged as key players in the corporate hierarchy and how they’ve successfully carved a niche for themselves at both C-Level and D-Level. The narrative that unfolds is a testament to the unexpected evolution of power dynamics in the corporate world.
HRDs: The Unforeseen Influencers in the C-Suite
Historically, corporate leadership was synonymous with the CFO, CEO, and COO. As the business landscape evolves, it’s essential to identify figures whose influence is growing beyond these traditional roles. Here, a recent meta-study published in the Journal of Organisational Leadership comes into play, indicating that organisations with strong HR leadership witnessed a striking 23% boost in employee engagement, leading to significant improvements in performance and profitability. This challenges the stereotype of who the movers and shakers in the corporate world should be, highlighting the powerful impact of HRDs.
The Talent Tug of War: A Stepping Stone for HRDs
In the fiercely competitive arena for top talent, HRDs have grabbed the spotlight. They’ve used their strategic acumen to navigate the challenges of attracting, developing, and retaining the best in the business. A Harvard Business Review article published in 2011 claimed that HR still needs to work on gaining clout in the C-Suite. But, a decade later, HRDs have emerged as critical players, challenging that very notion. A recent study by a respected global consulting firm featured in the Harvard Business Review demonstrated that organisations with HRDs heavily involved in talent management saw a remarkable 35% improvement in retention rates for high-performing employees.
Driving Organisational Success and Culture
According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), organisations that adopt strategic HR practices have reported a 20% increase in productivity and a 25% decrease in turnover rates. HRDs are crucial in shaping and nurturing a healthy organisational culture and enhancing employee engagement, retention, and productivity. They are positioning themselves as invaluable allies to C-suite and D-level executives, actively contributing to the company’s success.
Reimagining Leadership for the Future
Today, companies are acknowledging the importance of people-centric strategies more than ever, and HRDs are well-positioned to shape the future of leadership. Their expertise in harmonising talent management, leadership development, and cultural transformation places them as key drivers of success.
An article by McKinsey & Company titled “The new possible: How HR can help build the organisation of the future” emphasises the strategic role of HRDs in the modern corporate environment. As they step up to the plate and redefine the path of organisational growth, HRDs are demonstrating their invaluable contribution to the C-suite and D-level executives.
In a post published by the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, the authors advocate for elevating the Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) to a more strategic role with a regular boardroom presence. As companies increasingly recognise this, HRDs are being given greater responsibility for overseeing talent development and cultural efforts.
Conclusion
The rise of HRDs as influential power players is not conjecture. It’s now a reality supported by compelling evidence, as seen in the meta-study and various reputable publications. As companies navigate the changing corporate landscape, leveraging the strategic contributions of HRDs is vital for driving productivity, attracting top talent, and crafting a thriving organisational culture. The time has come to embrace the emergence of HRDs and usher in a new era of corporate leadership.
References
“The New Path to the C-Suite” – Harvard Business Review (2011): https://hbr.org/2011/03/the-new-path-to-the-c-suite
“Has Your C-Suite Changed to Reflect the Changing Times?” – EY (2021): https://www.ey.com/en_us/growth/has-your-c-suite-changed-to-reflect-the-changing-times
“Evolution of the C-Suite: What Changes Can We Anticipate in the Coming Years?” – HR Daily Advisor (2019): https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2019/06/19/evolution-of-the-c-suite-what-changes-can-we-anticipate-in-the-coming-years/
“A Deeper Dive into Talent Management: The New Board Imperative” – Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance (2021): https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/08/12/a-deeper-dive-into-talent-management-the-new-board-imperative/
“The new possible: How HR can help build the organisation of the future” – McKinsey & Company (2023): https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/the-new-possible-how-hr-can-help-build-the-organization-of-the-future
Introduction
The coveted office window seat has been the subject of much debate and envy among coworkers. But why is it so popular? As it turns out, science has a lot to say about our preference for this prime piece of real estate. From enhancing productivity and creativity to benefiting physical health, the perks of a window seat go far beyond the view. In this blog post, we’ll explore the scientific explanations behind the allure of the office window seat, sharing some amusing stories along the way.
The Power of Natural Light
It’s no secret that natural light can do wonders for our mood and well-being. Research has shown that exposure to daylight is linked to increased serotonin levels, which in turn can boost happiness, attentiveness, and productivity (Cajochen et al., 2000). In one office-based study, employees with windows in their workspaces reported higher job satisfaction and improved mental health compared to those without access to natural light (Matusiak et al., 2019).
A study conducted by Heschong (2003) explored the impact of daylight on human performance and satisfaction in various settings, including offices. The findings suggested that employees with access to daylight, even without a captivating view, experienced increased productivity and overall well-being. This supports the idea that the benefits of natural light, such as improved mood and performance, can be more significant than having an inspiring view from the window.
Cognitive Benefits of Gazing into the Distance
Staring into the distance is often seen as a sign of daydreaming or lack of focus, but in reality, it can be an essential mental break that leads to increased creativity and productivity. Research has demonstrated that brief periods of mind-wandering help facilitate problem-solving and creative thinking (Baird et al., 2012). Furthermore, being able to gaze out of a window provides the opportunity to rest our eyes and reduce eye strain, which is especially important for those who spend long hours in front of a computer screen (Rosenfield, 2011).
The Connection between Nature and Well-being
The view from a window seat often provides a glimpse of nature, whether it’s a bustling city park or a serene landscape. Studies have shown that even brief exposure to nature can positively impact our mental health and well-being (Bratman et al., 2015). In one study, participants who took a 50-minute walk in a natural setting experienced reduced anxiety and improved cognitive function compared to those who walked in an urban environment (Bratman et al., 2015).
A study conducted by Kaplan (1995) found that exposure to natural settings, even through a window, can have restorative effects on individuals experiencing mental fatigue. In this study, an accountant who felt overwhelmed and stressed during the busy tax season was relocated to a window seat with a view of a small garden. They discovered that taking short breaks to observe the birds and plants helped them feel more relaxed and increased their focus throughout the day.
The Social Status of the Window Seat
Let’s not forget the social aspect of the window seat. Being situated near a window often signals a certain level of status within the office hierarchy (Vinchur et al., 1998). It’s not uncommon for employees to feel a sense of accomplishment and pride when they’ve earned the right to sit by the window.
So, the next time you find yourself envious of a colleague’s window seat, remember that science is on your side. Natural light, cognitive benefits, and connections to nature all contribute to the allure of the office window seat. Who knows, maybe one day you’ll be lucky enough to snag that coveted spot and enjoy its perks.
References
Baird, B., Smallwood, J., Mrazek, M. D., Kam, J. W. Y., Franklin, M. S., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Inspired by distraction: mind wandering facilitates creative incubation. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1117-1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612446024
Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., Hahn, K. S., Daily, G. C., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(28), 8567-8572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510459112
Cajochen, C., Münch, M., Kobialka, S., Kräuchi, K., Steiner, R., Oelhafen, P., Orgül, S., & Wirz-Justice, A. (2000). High sensitivity of human melatonin, alertness, thermoregulation, and heart rate to short wavelength light. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 90(3), 1311-1316. https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem.90.3.8550785
Heschong, L. (2003). Daylighting and human performance. ASHRAE Journal, 45(6), 65-67. Retrieved from https://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/standards/ashrae-journal-june-2003-volume-45-issue-6?product_id=1722476
Kaplan, R. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
Matusiak, B., Lyssenko, L., & Sakellaris, I. (2019). Window view, indoor daylight climate, and office occupants’ satisfaction, mood, and well-being. Building and Environment, 149, 347-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.12.017
Rosenfield, M. (2011). Computer vision syndrome: a review of ocular causes and potential treatments. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 31(5), 502-515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00834.x
Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 586-597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.586
Innovation is everywhere. It always has been. From the discovery of fire through advances in weaponry, healthcare and industrialisation, humanity has always found a way to adapt to the latest grand alteration; the next big thing. Invariably, once something as profoundly groundbreaking as the aeroplane or the internet comes along, change is wrought. Old practices are overhauled, then quickly shunted into the annals of history to be either forgotten or roundly mocked – can you believe we used to…?
And yet, to trudge through the mastheads, web blurbs or corporate video montages of almost any organisation today is to see and hear the word innovation endlessly. It’s wielded freely and often vaguely, to the extent that its meaning is diluted if not lost entirely. You’d be forgiven for thinking, given its overwhelming prevalence, that innovation itself was a 21st century innovation. Some of the companies claiming to be innovators are indeed just that – Apple can justly lay claim to having changed the way the majority of people operate in their day-to-day lives. Others simply know how to cash in on a buzzword when they see it.
But what actually is innovation? What does it offer businesses? How should it be used? What are risks and tradeoffs of pursuing the oft-discussed “innovation mindset”, and can they be side-stepped?
What is innovation?
Innovation is a bit of a catch-all term, but generally it just means finding a better way of doing things. That doesn’t necessarily mean inventing something new, though that is of course included. Innovation is just as much about fostering improvements to existing processes and ideas as it is about designing some groundbreaking new product.
When Alexander Bell first communicated with someone on the other end of the phone line, that was an innovation. When industries moved in their droves from the traditional in-office 9-5 to a hybrid working system just a few years ago, that was an innovation too, albeit one forced by global circumstances. It can be too easy to believe (the self-promotion of self-proclaimed) innovators and think that innovation must be cut-throat: the death of the old way; the birth of the new. In practice, things are rarely so straightforward. Which is a helpful reminder of what innovation is not.
Innovation ≠ disruption
Innovation and disruption have come to be seen as one in the same. This is understandable as some innovations are disruptive. Naturally, the more disruptive the innovation is, the more coverage it will receive, thus developing an associative bond between the two in the mind of the public. Uber and Amazon would be prime examples of disruptive innovators. Almost overnight, industries that we took for granted were irrevocably changed. Many taxi drivers, as well as booksellers both commercial and independent, lost their livelihoods. Similarly streaming’s impact on the entertainment industry has seen a total upheaval in how multi-billion dollar organisations now operate, whether that was Netflix’s obliteration of Blockbuster or Napster and its contemporaries’ shake-up of the music industry that paved the way for Spotify’s ascendency.
But there exists a far more gentle (and far more prevalent) form of innovation; W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, authors of Beyond Disruption: Innovate and Achieve Growth Without Displacing Industries, Companies, or Jobs, call this “non-disruptive creation” [1].
Non-disruptive creation is defined as a means by which new industries, new jobs, and profitable growth come into being without destroying existing companies or jobs [2]. The obvious benefit of such forms of innovation are that they can “foster economic growth in a way that enables business and society to thrive together” [3]. Chan Kim and Mauborgne are swift to differentiate between this non-disruptive creation and disrupting, noting that, “Disruption imposes a clear trade-off between winners and losers…That’s because the leap in consumer surplus provided by the disrupter can nearly wipe out the existing industry and its incumbent players” [4].
Non-disruptive creation, on the other hand, “provides no evident losers and only minimal painful adjustment costs,” while having “a positive impact on growth and jobs” [5]. They cite Kickstarter as a good example of non-disruptive creation. The users were able to fund projects that otherwise would have struggled to accumulate backing; they could choose which projects they wanted to give their money to, as well as how much and how often, and artists on the site were able to realise their dream projects. No livelihoods were displaced. Everyone emerged a winner.
Chan Kim and Mauborgne argue that there is an increased demand from the public for capitalism to give back to society, rather than simply chasing the profit-at-all-costs ideology first theorised by Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman [6]. Non-disruptive creation, they say, is in-step with such demands.
Social defence
Whether an innovation is disruptive or not, it is still at the mercy of social defence. For innovators, social defence is the great nemesis, stifling their dogged pursuit of progress at every turn. As a definition, social defence is the – quite natural, and often unconscious – attempt to preserve the more traditional aspects of an organisation [7]. Essentially, the “legacy structures, strategies, or cultures that make leaders feel proud and their followers feel safe” [8].
To the innovator, such blockades to all things new and shiny can be sources of great frustration. They argue that change is on its way, if not already here, and that attempts to slow its approach are as futile as they are jurassic. But it’s easy to understand why legacy employees at a large and successful company would be reluctant to rock the boat. The old approach has carried them to such heights; it looks a dangerous game to turn around and bite the hand that has fed them so well. After all, new is not a synonym of better.
That said, change is inevitable, and there are plenty of examples of companies who fell by the wayside because they failed to see it coming, or outright ignored warnings it was on its way. Reactions of major industry players to large-scale innovations have been compared to that of grief, with denial and defensiveness featuring heavily [9].
The music industry’s reaction to the initial emergence of MP3 and streaming is a prime example. Unsure how to fold this game-changing new technology into its existing offer (or at least how to do so and still reap the major profits they were raking in at the time), they went on the offensive, suing the free streamers into oblivion. They won in court, but as Justin Timberlake’s smug grin tells you in The Social Network [10] (where he plays Napster founder Sean Parker), the major labels emerged from the affair as anything but winners. “You wanna buy a Tower Records, Eduardo?” Timberlake smirks, like the fourth horseman of the old industry’s apocalypse.
How should businesses approach innovation?
Writing in Harvard Business Review, Gianpiero Petriglieri, associate professor of organisational behaviour at INSEAD, argues that, “Leadership, at its core, is an argument with tradition. As a leader, you are always relating to a tradition that you are trying to preserve, expand, or change. That means, as a priority, that you must care about the tradition. Or, more precisely, you must care about what the tradition is trying to accomplish” [11]. This is where those desperate to innovate at all costs can go wrong. They see change itself as the destination, not the means by which they’re getting there.
Still, an openness to change is vital. This is at the core of the fabled “innovation mindset”. That mindset can be established in-house or it can be forced upon businesses by external circumstances. The Covid pandemic was a clear example of this. Workplace practices were altered almost overnight; overlong vaccination protocols were streamlined – only possible because the whole world was in step, a rare instance that likely won’t roll around again any time soon.
Susan Rienow, Country President of Pfizer UK, wrote as much in the New Statesman, saying of the incredible innovations and the speed with which they were introduced [12]:
…these kinds of breakthroughs don’t happen by chance. It takes the right environment, support and conditions for science and innovation to thrive. It is not just about expertise; it’s about mind-set and how we come together in pursuit of a shared mission. This mission-led approach and entrepreneurial spirit, coupled with collective and powerful collaboration, helped us achieve what had previously been unthinkable. This shouldn’t begin and end with Covid-19.
Risk vs return
The key, as is often the case, is balance. Genuine openness to change paired with an understanding of what your business is and why – as well as what would happen to it were that to alter. And it’s not solely about whether the business itself is fine to change. Equally important are the circumstances around the business, and its users.
All innovations change the trade-off between risk and return, and “many of the risks associated with an innovation stem not from the innovation itself but from the infrastructure into which it is introduced” [13]. What ardent innovators can miss is that the rate of innovation is often so high that it becomes counterintuitive to invoking systemic change – companies cannot restructure according to each new innovation because by the time they’ve done so the next innovation will have emerged to displace the one they’ve just changed to accommodate. Innovations can possess the most hurrysome of expiration dates – store in the fridge and use within 24hrs of opening, etc. – and so the urgency to adjust with haste feels palpable to the innovation driver. But if you were told the best way to store a bottle that’s soon to go off is to buy a new fridge, well, you can understand the reluctance. Especially when the next bottle is just a day away.
Which innovations are worth adopting or adapting for is a difficult call. Some will alter life as we know it forever; others will fade faster than last summer’s T-shirt tan. To an extent, it’s a gut call and a leap of faith. One that if you get right, can pay huge dividends. Approach with cautious openness, and do not fear the inevitable overhauls. Business, after all, is no more or less predictable or ephemeral than life itself.
References
[1] https://hbr.org/2023/05/innovation-doesnt-have-to-be-disruptive?ab=hero-main-text
[2] https://hbr.org/2023/05/innovation-doesnt-have-to-be-disruptive?ab=hero-main-text
[3] https://hbr.org/2023/05/innovation-doesnt-have-to-be-disruptive?ab=hero-main-text
[4] https://hbr.org/2023/05/innovation-doesnt-have-to-be-disruptive?ab=hero-main-text
[5] https://hbr.org/2023/05/innovation-doesnt-have-to-be-disruptive?ab=hero-main-text
[5] https://hbr.org/2023/04/driving-organizational-change-without-abandoning-tradition
[7] https://hbr.org/2023/04/driving-organizational-change-without-abandoning-tradition
[8] https://hbr.org/2023/04/driving-organizational-change-without-abandoning-tradition
[9] https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2018/5/5-key-steps-to-creating-an-innovation-mindset
[10] APA. Fincher, D. (2010). The Social Network. Columbia Pictures.
[11] https://hbr.org/2023/04/driving-organizational-change-without-abandoning-tradition
[13] https://hbr.org/2013/04/innovation-risk-how-to-make-smarter-decisions
As the sun sets behind the opulent stadiums, top-level athletes and their agents are huddled in boardrooms, fiercely negotiating their futures. The stakes are high, and the pressure is palpable. But negotiating a job offer isn’t a skill reserved solely for sports stars; it’s just as crucial for C-level and D-level executives (Curhan, Elfenbein, & Eisenkraft, 2010). So, how can you, as a top-tier executive, ensure that you secure the best possible offer without alienating your potential employer? Let’s explore some practical rules, drawing upon organisational psychology and empirical negotiation strategy, to help you navigate the labyrinth of job offer negotiation.
1) Embrace the Power of Likeability
In the cutthroat world of business, it’s easy to forget the importance of likeability. Sports agents and athletes recognise that maintaining good club relationships is paramount to securing favourable deals (Deephouse, 1999). As an executive, striking a balance between being persistent and being likeable is crucial. Be firm with your demands and sensitive to your approach’s perception. Show empathy and understanding, and you’ll be more likely to forge a strong connection with your potential employer.
2) Focus on Your Market Value
Before entering negotiations, clearly understand your market value (Pruitt, 1981). Research industry benchmarks and consider your skills, experiences, and achievements. Having a solid grasp of your worth will enable you to negotiate confidently and realistically.
3) Establish Your Reasons for Negotiating
Be clear about your motivations for negotiating. Is it about the salary, benefits, or working conditions? By identifying your reasons, you can develop a strategy that addresses your concerns while also demonstrating how meeting your demands will benefit the organisation (Thompson, 1990).
4) Assess Your Bargaining Position
Understanding your industry’s supply and demand dynamics is essential for successful negotiation (Malhotra & Bazerman, 2007). If your skills are in high demand, you’ll have more leverage to negotiate favourable terms. Conversely, if the market is saturated, you may need to adopt a more cautious approach.
5) Know When to Walk Away
Sometimes, negotiations may not yield the desired outcome. Recognise when it’s time to walk away from an offer that doesn’t align with your values or meet your expectations. By knowing your limits, you’ll avoid accepting a subpar deal out of desperation (Fisher & Ury, 1981).
6) Conduct Yourself Professionally and Politely
Throughout the negotiation process, maintain a professional and courteous demeanour. Avoid aggressive tactics or making ultimatums, as these can damage your reputation and harm your chances of securing a favourable outcome (Shell, 2006).
In conclusion, mastering the art of job offer negotiation is essential for top executives looking to secure the best possible deal. By being likeable, focusing on your market value, establishing your reasons for negotiating, assessing your bargaining position, knowing when to walk away, and conducting yourself professionally, you’ll set yourself up for success. Remember, the path to the perfect job offer is paved with empathy, strategy, and perseverance. As organisational psychologist Adam Grant would put it, it’s not about winning or losing; it’s about creating value for both parties (Grant, 2013).
References:
Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Eisenkraft, N. (2010). The objective value of subjective value: A multi-round negotiation study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(3), 690-709.
Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and a trade-off) that organizations face all the time. Research in organizational behavior and human decision processes, 80(3), 212-238.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Galen, M. (2013). Negotiating your next job. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2013/02/25/negotiating-your-next-job/
Grant, A. (2013). Give and take: A revolutionary approach to success. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Malhotra, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2007). Negotiation genius: How to overcome obstacles and achieve brilliant results at the bargaining table and beyond. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation behaviour. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation strategies for reasonable people. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behaviour and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 515-532.
Introduction
Ireland has experienced a rapid increase in housing costs over the past few years, making it increasingly difficult for both Irish citizens and those coming to the country for work to find affordable housing. The most recent data available from the residential tenancies board showed that in Q2 2022, average rents for new tenancies in Dublin were €2,011 per month, and outside Dublin (non-Dublin), averaged €1,130 per month, and new rents nationally increased by 8.2% in Q2 2022 over Q2 2021 (1). The high housing costs have impacted employee morale, retention, and overall financial well-being. This article explores potential strategies that employers can adopt to help address high housing costs in Ireland and discusses the benefits and risks associated with these initiatives.
Employee housing assistance programs
One potential solution for employers is offering their employees housing assistance programs. These programs can come in various forms, such as rental subsidies, low-interest loans for home purchases, or even the provision of company-owned housing
The benefits of offering housing assistance programs can lead to increased employee retention, as employees are more likely to stay with a company that helps ease their financial burden. Additionally, these programs can improve employee morale, as workers feel more secure and supported in their housing situation. Research has shown that comprehensive employee benefits packages can be a key driver in employee retention and a differentiator for attracting top talent. It suggests that organisations that provide a robust benefits package tailored to the needs of their employees are more successful in retaining employees (2).
It is also seen that employees who feel cared for by their employer are ten times more likely to recommend their company as a great place to work. It was also shown that when employees feel valued and supported through benefits and other initiatives, they are more likely to be engaged and stay with the company longer. Research also reiterates benefits and assistance programs’ positive impact on employee retention (3). For example, Facebook has offered housing subsidies to some employees living near its headquarters in Menlo Park, California, to help alleviate housing affordability issues (4).
Employers should be aware of the potential risks associated with offering housing assistance programs, such as becoming overly reliant on the company’s support or creating a sense of obligation from employees. To mitigate these risks, employers can work with third-party organisations or financial institutions to provide housing assistance without directly owning employee homes.
Advocacy for government support
Employers can also advocate for government support and policies that address housing affordability. This can include lobbying for increased investment in affordable housing, rent control measures, and tax incentives for businesses that provide housing assistance to employees. In the United States, some companies have formed the Employers Housing Council to address housing affordability issues and work with local governments to develop solutions (5).
By advocating for government support, employers can help create a more sustainable solution to high housing costs, benefiting their employees and the wider community. This collaborative approach can also improve the company’s public image and strengthen relationships with local government and community stakeholders.
The success of advocacy efforts depends on the willingness of governments to implement the proposed policies or provide the necessary support. Employers should be prepared for potential setbacks and be patient with the process, as policy changes can take time to materialise.
Flexible working options
Offering flexible working options, such as remote work or compressed workweeks, can help employees cope with high housing costs by enabling them to live in more affordable areas outside of city centres. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the feasibility of remote work for many industries, with several major companies, including Twitter and Shopify, announcing permanent remote work options for their employees (6).
Flexible working options can increase employee satisfaction, reduce commuting costs and time, and allow employees to find more affordable housing. This flexibility can also help companies attract talent from a wider geographical area.
Employers should consider the potential impact of remote work on team cohesion, communication, and company culture. To minimise these risks, companies can implement regular team meetings, clear communication channels, and occasional in-person gatherings to maintain a sense of connection.
Conclusion:
Employers in Ireland have a role to play in addressing high housing costs and supporting their employees’ housing needs. By offering housing assistance programs, advocating for government support, and providing flexible working options, companies can help ease the burden of housing costs on their employees, ultimately benefiting both the company and its workforce.
References:
(1) Residential Tenancies Board. (2022). Rent Index Q2 2022. Retrieved from https://www.rtb.ie/news/rtb-publishes-q2-2022-rent-index
(2) Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). (2019, October 28). Employee Benefits: The Evolution of Benefits. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/the-evolution-of-employee-benefits.aspx
(3) O.C. Tanner. (2018). The 2018 Global Culture Report. Retrieved from https://www.octanner.com/content/dam/oc_tanner/documents/pdfs/2018-Global-Culture-Report.pdf
(4) Dwoskin, E. (2016, August 19). Facebook Offers Employees $10,000 to Live Near the Office. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-offers-employees-10-000-to-live-near-the-office-1471611000
(5) Employers Housing Council. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved from https://www.employershousingcouncil.org/about-us
(6) Kelly, J. (2020, May 12). Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Tells Employees They Can Work From Home Permanently. Forbes. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/05/12/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-tells-employees-they-can-work-from-home-permanently/?sh=547b4c6f7384
It sounds too simple, doesn’t it? Fluffy and naïve. “Just be a little more positive and you’re bound to see results.” Healthy scepticism and an eye roll feel a fitting response. And yet the benefits of adopting a positive attitude are increasingly well-documented and steeped in research from leading academic institutions.
Having a positive attitude can transform how we view work and perform in our roles. It also, notably, has drastic impacts on our health and well-being. In fact, John Hopkins Medicine reported that those with a positive outlook on life but with a family history of heart disease were, “one-third less likely to have a heart attack or other cardiovascular event within five to 25 years than those with a more negative outlook.”1 All of a sudden that eye roll feels a lot less fitting.
To properly implement this advice of taking a positive approach, we must first understand what it is. And, crucially, what it is not…
A positive attitude
A positive attitude is not the same as a blinkered, fact-denying, all-is-shiny-and-well outlook. It does not mean contorting reality or pretending setbacks and difficulties aren’t real. That much positivity would of course, ironically, be a negative, transporting you into the realm of delusion. Indeed, research shows that people who are excessively optimistic might overestimate their own abilities and take on more than they can handle, ultimately leading to more stress and anxiety.2 That’s not what positive psychology is about. Rather, it’s about perspective.
Believing in yourself, trying to learn from setbacks and constantly improve, and attempting to make the most from a bad situation are obviously advantageous traits. But they’re easier said than done. Positive thinking is the tool you can use to turn them from being nice hypotheticals to actionable practices that impact your life and career.
Positivity in numbers
Research into the power of positive thinking has yielded some striking results. In a landmark paper3 published by The Royal Society, Barbara Fredrickson, a positive psychology researcher at the University of North Carolina, tested the impact of positive emotions on the brain, in which 5 segmented groups were shown different film clips (two groups seeing positive clips, one group seeing neutral, two groups negative) and were then asked to imagine themselves in a scenario in which similar feelings would arise and to write down what they would do, starting with the phrase, “I would like to…”
The two groups who saw positive clips – of joy and contentment, respectively – wrote down a significantly higher number of actions they would take than both the negative groups and the neutral. Essentially, the findings found that positive emotions helped broaden the sense of possibility in the mind and open it up to more options, while negative emotions narrowed the field of possibility.
Research into positivity in the workplace has found its impact to be similarly prominent. A study by Dr. Martin Seligman at the University of Pennsylvania found that optimistic sales professionals outsell their pessimistic counterparts by 56%4. While Shawn Achor, author of The Happiness Advantage, found that, “doctors put in a positive mood before making a diagnosis show almost three times more intelligence and creativity than doctors in a neutral state, and they make accurate diagnoses 19% faster.”5 A separate survey found that optimists were 40% more likely to get promoted over the next year, six times more likely to be highly engaged at work and five times less likely to burn out than pessimists.6
Clearly, then, positive thinking has tangible benefits in the workplace and elsewhere. But for those whose natural disposition is a little less sunny, how do you start thinking on the bright side?
Techniques for positivity
The good news is that our thought impulses are not fixed. The patterns of our brains can be trained and altered until we’re able to wield them more effectively. In other words, if your natural disposition is to think negatively, you can change that – with practice.
There are a variety of practices you can bring into your routine to help make positivity a default. Atomic Habits author James Clear focuses on three7. First, meditation. The aforementioned Barbara Fredrickson and her colleagues found that people who meditate daily display more positive emotions than those who do not, as well as displaying increased mindfulness, purpose in life, social support, and decreased illness symptoms.
Second, writing. Clear cites a study in the Journal of Research in Personality8, in which 90 undergraduates were split into two groups, the first writing about an intensely positive experience each day for three consecutive days, the second group writing about a control topic. Three months later, the students who wrote about positive experiences had “better mood levels, fewer visits to the health center, and experienced fewer illnesses.”
Third, play. Clear advocates for taking time to do some fun activities, even at the expense of work (within reason – don’t skip that big meeting to have a quick go on the swings.) Too often, he argues, we are slaves to our calendars, to the detriment of our merriment and well-being. Stifling our joy stifles our work too. In the long run, taking and making time for more enjoyable activities helps far more than it hurts.
Those are just Clear’s three staples. Advice from others includes starting a gratitude journal9 (documenting some things big or small each day for which you are grateful), adjusting your language to introduce more positive phrasing, or even just smiling. A University of Kansas study found that smiling – fake smiles included – reduces heart rate and blood pressure during stressful situations10.
Broaden and build
The benefits of positive thinking don’t stop at mood enhancement. For anyone looking at the numbers cited in this article and wondering, “how can a simple adjustment in temperament bring all those results?” The answer is that it’s not just about the improved psychology, but all of the other avenues that psychology opens up. This is what Frederickson refers to as “broaden and build.”
Because positive emotions broaden the number of possibilities you consider (as opposed to actively narrowing, as negative emotions do), you are then more likely to use that positive thinking as the launchpad to build more skills, resources and relationships, which then lead to further opportunities. By broadening the avenues you consider, positive thinking opens up a whole world of additional prospects. Essentially, then, positive thinking sets the wheels in motion for further success, which will likely produce further positivity – and so the cycle is born. As Clear says, “happiness is both the precursor to success and the result of it.”11
Bringing positivity to the workplace
The benefits of positive thinking are clear and obvious. And better news still, positivity spreads. Amy Finlay, co-founder of Edinburgh IFA, notes that “Exuding positivity can be infectious and, over time, can influence your co-workers.”12 The same is true for negativity, however, which is why it’s crucial for those in management positions to facilitate a positive workplace culture. If employees are imbuing each other with positive energy, they are more likely to concentrate, improve their productivity, volunteer for tasks, and better manage their time. If management lets a negative attitude set in, it’s bound to lead to worse productivity, sloppiness, and generally make the company an unpleasant place to be.
In summary
To cynics, adopting a positive mindset sounds like a frivolous, new age concept, especially compared with more tangible changes one can make to workplace practices. But in reality, positive thinking goes a long way to improving the quality of our work, our creativity, our attitude around the office, and our dealings with others. As well as just being a nicer way to live.
Looking for a more productive, fulfilling, happier work life? Why not give positive thinking a go?
1 https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/the-power-of-positive-thinking
2 https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/the-power-of-positive-thinking
3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1693418/pdf/15347528.pdf
7 https://jamesclear.com/positive-thinking
8 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656603000588
9 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-pessimists-guide-to-embracing-positivity-11674431476
10 https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/the-power-of-positive-thinking
11 https://jamesclear.com/positive-thinking
12 https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/6912-develop-positive-mindset.html