Introduction
Are humanities subjects – and humanities students – doomed? – 1% Extra Article – Rob Darke
“We should cheer decline of humanities degrees.”
So read the headline of a piece by Emma Duncan in The Times. Duncan, who notably studied Politics and Economics at Oxford, thinks that the decline in the number of students enrolling in humanities degrees is a societal positive. And her reasoning is sound. She says that the humanities fail to engender in their students sufficient practical skills to be both employable once they graduate, and able to thrive once they’re part of the workforce. The lack of skills today’s humanities graduates are instilled with and the subsequent lack of employment they are able to find as a result is, she says, why so many of today’s youth feel betrayed by their elders (she acknowledges that the bleak state of today’s housing market is also a factor) [1].
It’s a provocative piece, featuring statements like, “Literature is lovely stuff but it’s not a way to earn your bread,” that make one suspect it is deliberately so. It ignited a furious backlash from some corners of the internet and an equally furious backlash to the backlash from others. Such are the times we live in. But Duncan’s argument is nothing new. This debate has been raging since well before her own student days, though the merit of the arguments on each side does tend to depend on the context of the times in which the debate is taking place. The shifting state of employment rates and the in-vogue professional skills of the era are always going to have an impact.
In lieu of the topic’s re-emergence in the column circuit, it’s worth investigating what humanities offer, what students and employers want from a University education, and whether things are really moving in the right direction or the wrong one.
Humanities graduates: Penniless and unskilled?
Duncan argues that, “the people who are struggling are those in nice, fluffy jobs like publishing and the creative arts, and in the caring professions” [2]. Leaving caring aside, as this falls outside of the remit of humanities, Duncan is right that humanities and social science graduates are less well off than their STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) studying counterparts. But not by much.
STEM subjects are generally considered to be the crème de la crème of the practical degrees, all-but guaranteeing jobs in engineering, the finance sector, and a whole other heap of other lucrative industries. In the UK, however, where Duncan’s article was focused, STEM graduates earn on average £38,272 a year compared with humanities and social science graduates’ £35,360 [3]. The difference is useful cash in the pocket, most certainly, but not such a striking distance apart that STEM might be seen as the educational pinnacle while the humanities are dragged kicking and screaming to the pedagogical chopping block. Similarly in the US, for those aged 25-34, the unemployment rate of those with a humanities degree is 4%. For those with an engineering or business degree? A little more than 3% [4]. The vigour of the anti-humanities debate doesn’t seem to accurately reflect the marginality of these differentials.
Meanwhile, creative industries represent 5.6% of the UK’s GDP. The UK is the largest exporter of books in the world, in large part because of the strength of its publishing industry, and the creative industries are not only growing, but doing so at a faster rate than the economy as a whole [5]
In other words, the humanities are fine. Except, as is plainly apparent to anyone with skin in the game, that’s not really true. For all the detractors of Duncan’s article there is a reason that she wrote it, as well as something intrinsically recognisable in the notion at its core. While we may disagree that the decline in humanities is something worth cheering about, we do understand that the decline she so celebrates is real and worsening. The chances are that everyone reading this either knows a struggling humanities graduate or is one themselves.
A striking statistic from Duncan’s piece notes that, “Looking at higher education as an investment, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates that the return for men on a degree in economics and medicine is about £500,000, for English it is zero and for creative arts it is negative” [6]. Meanwhile, a recent report from the British Academy found that, “English Studies undergraduate students domiciled in England fell by 29% between 2012 and 2021” [7].
In the UK, there has been a 20% drop in students taking A-levels in English and a 15% decline in the arts [8]. Across the pond, a 2018 piece in the Atlantic found that the number of University History majors was “down about 45 percent from its 2007 peak, while the number of English majors has fallen by nearly half since the late 1990s” [9]. The piece also noted that the decline was “nearly as strong at schools where student debt is almost nonexistent, like Princeton University (down 28 percent) and the College of the Ozarks (down 44 percent).” In other words, rising tuition fees were not a factor, or at least not a strong one, in these numbers.
Why is it then that we’re seeing such a drop off in the number of students wanting to pursue a degree in the humanities, especially if the unemployment and starting salary figures are as closely aligned as the stats suggest?
What you should be doing…
In the aforementioned Atlantic article, the author, Benjamin Schmidt, notes that in the US there was a large-scale drop off in the number of humanities majors in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Schimidt argues that in the wake of the crisis, “students seem to have shifted their view of what they should be studying—in a largely misguided effort to enhance their chances on the job market” [10].
It’s not hard to understand why students would take such an action, or to think that a similar phenomenon is not underway in the wake of the twin crises of Covid and the cost of living. People know that the economy isn’t in great shape. They know that there are by an order of magnitude more graduates than ever before that they will soon be thrust into the real world to compete with. And they know – or think they know – that STEM subjects offer a level of security that more artistic ventures do not. In large part because that’s what people in positions of power have told them.
Put plainly, Schmidt argues that, “Students aren’t fleeing degrees with poor job prospects. They’re fleeing humanities and related fields specifically because they think they have poor job prospects” [11]. The gulf between the real and the speculative here is vital, and damaging. As already noted, Duncan is offering nothing new in her argument other than an oddly fatalistic sense of glee. STEM equals rich, humanities equals poor. That’s the basic conception underpinning most of the public’s school of thought on this matter. But as has already been shown, the numbers on that don’t quite stack up.
One might argue that to attribute such enormous declines in the numbers of humanities students purely to a collective attitudinal miscalculation is short-sighted. To counter that, it would be worth running an experiment in which students were able to sign up to a University where tuition was free and every first-year student had a guaranteed job lined up after education. Under these favourable circumstances, would students still be shunning the humanities or would it turn out that the cost and perceived lack of employability is the real problem? In such a scenario, given that we’ve already ruled out the cost being a key factor, we could say with some credibility that the perceived lack of employability a humanities degree offers was the number one reason for the declining numbers.
Thankfully, we don’t need to run such an experiment as these institutions already exist in the form of US military service academies. Students are granted free tuition and a guaranteed job within the US military upon graduation. And what do the numbers show? That at West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs, humanities majors were at roughly the same level in 2018 as they were in 2008 [12]. They were not affected by the colossal drop-offs in History and English majors that were noted earlier in the article.
Hard skills vs Soft skills
Why someone might think a STEM subject offers more than a humanities one is obvious. One offers hard skills, the other soft. STEM students have something tangible to show for their hard work, whether that’s in the form of lab skills or a mastery of a certain equipment. Stand that up against an English literature graduate and it may look like one has received much more bang for their buck through the University experience than the other. In this regard Duncan’s argument is entirely justified. Humanities students aren’t being taught hard, practical skills that set them up for the workplace. But a skill doesn’t have to be part to be practical. Indeed, to focus only on hard skills is to massively undervalue the soft skills one learns in the humanities and the vital role they play in a real-life professional environment. Not to mention, as we will show in a moment, what they offer fiscally.
Humanities students are taught to think critically, to engage with arguments and frame their own, to deal with people and empathise with a variety of viewpoints. In stark contrast to scientific or mathematical endeavours, it is far more important in the humanities to be able to step back and understand a range of possible answers, acknowledging the merits and flaws in each, than to arrive at a single, binary, immovable conclusion. As Karan Bilimoria, a member of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the University of Birmingham has said on the subject, “Anyone who thinks [humanities] subjects are of low value [doesn’t] know what they are talking about…They provide many transferable skills — analytical, communication, written — that help students to take on a range of jobs” [13].
James Cole, a software engineer in Bath, wrote to The Guardian in response to Sheffield Hallam’s announcement that they would be dropping their English Literature course. He agreed that English Literature offered something vital, even in his much more technical line of work, saying:
English Literature degrees teach criticism, a form of analysis that suits the workplace very well. What is the truth in a given situation, how does it tie into wider themes, and how can I best communicate that? Deep reading skills, mental organisation, patience. Studying STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) doesn’t develop these skills in the same way, and I should know because I also have an MPhil in computer science. Almost none of my colleagues have Humanities degrees, and it shows. [14]
Sheffield Hallam
Writing in the journal Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, Eliza F. Kent argues similarly, saying that: “the most important resource necessary to succeed in today’s competitive marketplace is a clear, eloquent, impassioned voice. The learning exercises at the foundation of excellent humanities-based education may appear to lack any utilitarian benefit, but their long-term effect is the development of each student’s individual voice, which is priceless” [15].
Soft skills: Money in the bank
In direct contrast to the many arguments that humanities are a one-way ticket to poverty, studies have shown that, due to their superior soft-skills, including diplomacy and people-management, humanities graduates often go on to find themselves in positions of leadership. 15% of all humanities graduates in the US go on to management positions (more than go into any other role) [16]. Meanwhile, a recent study of 1,700 people from 30 countries found that the majority of those in leadership positions had either a social sciences or humanities degree – this was especially true of leaders under 45 years of age [17]. Perhaps poverty does not this way lie after all.
The Future
What very few University degrees or workplaces are currently prepared for is the colossal impact AI is going to have on the kind of jobs that earn the most money, the kind that can be replaced, and the kind of skills students graduating into an AI-integrated workforce will need to be armed with. The likelihood that today’s students in any sphere are appropriately prepared for the wide scale changes ahead is slim. That’s probably doubly true for the aging and aged existing members of the workforce, who are generally likely to be less technologically articulate than their younger, tech-savvy counterparts.
Some people who do know about AI’s likely impact going forward are Brad Smith and Harry Shum, top-level executives at Microsoft who wrote in their book, The Future Computed, that:
As computers behave more like humans, the social sciences and humanities will become even more important. Languages, art, history, economics, ethics, philosophy, psychology and human development courses can teach critical, philosophical and ethics-based skills that will be instrumental in the development and management of AI solutions. [18]
Brad Smith and Harry Shum
Emma Duncan may be cheering on the demise of the humanities for the time being, then. But it seems like the soft-skilled graduates of tomorrow may end up having the last laugh.
Sources
[1] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-should-cheer-decline-of-humanities-degrees-5pp6ksgmz
[2] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-should-cheer-decline-of-humanities-degrees-5pp6ksgmz
[3] https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2023/06/university-degrees-students-humanities-economics
[5] https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2023/06/university-degrees-students-humanities-economics
[6] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-should-cheer-decline-of-humanities-degrees-5pp6ksgmz
[9] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/the-humanities-face-a-crisisof-confidence/567565/
[10] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/the-humanities-face-a-crisisof-confidence/567565/
[11] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/the-humanities-face-a-crisisof-confidence/567565/
[12] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/the-humanities-face-a-crisisof-confidence/567565/
[13] https://www.khaleejtimes.com/long-reads/are-humanities-degrees-worthless
[15] Kent, E. F. (2012). What are you going to do with a degree in that?: Arguing for the humanities in an era of efficiency. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 11(3), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022212441769
[18] https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-president-says-tech-needs-liberal-arts-majors-2018-1
Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, as its name suggests, focuses on the notorious father of the atomic bomb, J Robert Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer was recruited by the US government to lead the Manhattan Project during World War II. Oppenheimer and his team were in a frantic race of science against the Nazis for who could be the first to utilise newly discovered breakthroughs in fission to build an atomic bomb. The winner would wield more power than ever considered possible. They would be, as Oppenheimer himself famously noted, the “destroyer of worlds.”
Becoming death
Oppenheimer’s quote, originally from the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita – in full, “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds” – hints at the moral quandary at the centre of Nolan’s film and Oppenheimer’s legacy. What he and his team at Los Alamos achieved was an extraordinary feat of science, a rightly heralded achievement. As also noted in the film, Oppenheimer was not taking part in the project out of some twisted bloodlust, rather because he feared what would happen if the Nazis were able to create such a weapon first.
As it happened, the Nazis had surrendered by the time the bomb was complete. In August of 1945, the US government instead dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. Estimates vary but it’s thought that over the two to four months following the bombings between 90,000 and 146,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and between 60,000 and 80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of those deaths occurring on the first day [1]. Oppenheimer himself wrestled with the weight of what his creation had wrought for the remainder of his life. The question of whether dropping the bombs was a necessary act to bring the war to an end or a grotesque act of chest-puffing genocide continues to this day.
The Manhattan Project was not a business – though it did employ a whole town’s worth of scientists, engineers and their families. But the film is clear that the ethical implications of the work at hand went unconsidered until it was too late. While it may seem tenuous or trivialising to compare such an overtly destructive act to the ethical considerations of day-to-day business practice today, anyone who has read Patrick Radden-Keefe’s searing Empire of Pain [2] about the role of Purdue Pharma and the Sachler family in particular in generating the US opioid crisis, for which the death toll stands in the hundreds of thousands and counting, or has been paying close attention to the devastating climate impact wrought by Shell, Exxon, BP and the like over the past decades and its potential implications for the future of humanity, will recognise that ethics and business cannot be so easily separated. The ethical choices companies make can shape individual lives and entire worlds. It’s vital they’re taken seriously.
Business ethics
Business ethics refers to the standards for morally right and wrong conduct within a business. Businesses are, of course, held to account by law, but as we all know, there are slippery ways around the law. Something can be both legal and wholly unethical.
Business ethics are important for various reasons. As noted, in the most extreme cases, such as that of Purdue Pharma, the decision to downplay the addictiveness of their opioids contributed to or outright caused a deadly epidemic in the US. In less dramatic circumstances, some of the advantages of having a strong ethical practice in place are that it helps build customer trust (thus helping retain customers), improves employee behaviour, and positively impacts brand recognition. The numbers back that up.
Over half of U.S. consumers said they no longer buy from companies they perceive as unethical. On the flip side, three in 10 consumers will express support for ethical companies on social media [3]. A 2021 survey by Edelmen found that 71% of people believe that companies should be transparent and ethical [4]. Similarly a 2020 study on transparency from Label Insight and The Food Industry Association found that 81% of shoppers say transparency is important or extremely important to them [5].
Corporate executives surveyed by Deloitte, meanwhile, stated that the top reasons consumers lose trust in a consumer product company are that the brand is not open and transparent (90%), the brand is not meeting consumer environmental, social and governance expectations (84%), and the brand is engaging in greenwashing (82%) [6]. In case it wasn’t clear, then, ethics matter to consumers – which means they matter to business. And yet a 2018 Global Business Ethics Survey (GBES) found that fewer than one in four U.S. workers think their company has a “well-implemented” ethics program [7].
The businesses that are prioritising ethics, on the other hand, are reaping rewards.
Ethical profits
Ethisphere, an organisation that tracks the ethical conduct of the world’s largest companies, found that the businesses that qualified for its 2022 list of most ethical companies outperformed an index of similar large cap companies by 24.6 percent overall [8]. The Institute of Business Ethics similarly found that companies with high ethical standards are 10.7% more profitable than those without [9]. Honorees on the 2021 list of the World’s Most Ethical Companies outperformed the Large Cap Index by 10.5 percent over a three year period [10].
Not only do ethical companies make money, unethical ones lose it. 22% of cases examined in the 2018 Global Study on Occupational Fraud and Abuse cost the victim organisation $1 million or more [11]. And there are plenty of unethical companies who crashed and burned in a far more dramatic fashion.
Enron
Perhaps the most striking fall from grace was Enron, whose trading price plummeted to a level in accordance with its ethical standards in December of 2001. At the company’s peak, it had been trading at $90.75. Before filing for bankruptcy, its price was $0.26 [12]. For years Enron had been fooling regulators with fake holdings and off-the-books accounting practices while hiding its eye-watering levels of debt from investors and creditors. From 2004 to 2012, the company was forced to pay more than $21.8 billion to its creditors. Various high-level employees ended up behind bars.
Enron is the high-water mark for unethical disintegration. But there are plenty of moral and ethical quandaries for today’s mega-corporations to take on as well.
Ethics today
In the age of data, corporations, especially social media giants like Meta, have a huge ethical responsibility regarding their clients’ data. Extremely sensitive personal information is loaded into these sites on little more than an understanding of good faith on the consumers’ part. How that data is being used (or misused) by these companies is one of the defining discussion points of the age. That’s not to mention the targeting of ads and its potential detrimental impact, especially on the young. Rates of anxiety, depression and suicide in teen and tween girls, for example, surged from 2010, around about the time they first started getting iPhones [13]. A few years ago, Meta’s whistleblower, Frances Haugen, confirmed that the company’s internal data reflected that it was doing severe damage to the mental health of teenage girls. Despite having this information to hand, the company made no attempts to rectify the problem [14].
Meanwhile energy companies like BP, Shell and Exxon are being held to far greater scrutiny as the effects of their environmental wreckage are starting to play out more and more each year in the form of unprecedented spiking in temperatures, wildfires and floods. The company’s responsibility to its profit line is being put in conflict with its responsibility to the planet. Although record profits last year suggest that one is winning out over the other [15].
Companies like Google and Amazon, too, have ethical crises regarding their treatment of workers and data security. While their profits or position of dominance in their respective markets haven’t dropped, reputational damage has been done. Both companies will be working to try and keep the fallout to a minimum.
Implementing ethics
A company’s ethics start at the top. When management acts ethically, employees follow suit. Companies with strong ethical values tend to display their code of ethics publicly, allowing them to be held to account. Some key ways companies can create an ethical environment include conducting mandatory ethics training for all employees, integrating ethics with processes, creating a space where employees find it easy to raise concerns, clearly defining company values, fostering a culture of transparency, and aligning your incentive system with your company values [16].
The importance of ethics
Ethics are vital to an organisation’s longevity. Companies that choose to cut ethical corners may see short term gain, even thriving for decades, but when the chickens come home to roost, as they did for Enron, there’s no coming back. Climate change and issues around data-mining are placing greater scrutiny on companies who have historically been focused on profit-at-all-cost models detrimental to more macro struggles. In cut-throat business environments, morality and ethics can often be sidelined in pursuit of the bottom line. But as the numbers show, ethical companies are often rewarded by customers with repeat business, and reputational damage can prove irreversible.
Like the scientists at Los Alamos discovered, it’s possible to be so focused on innovation and achievement that you’re blinded to the ultimate consequences of your ambition. Sew the ethical seeds early so as not to be undone further down the line when your decisions play their course.
References
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
[2] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/612861/empire-of-pain-by-patrick-radden-keefe/
[4] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/importance-business-ethics-why-ethical-conduct-success-manelkar/
[5] https://www.business.com/articles/transparency-in-business/
[6] https://www.business.com/articles/transparency-in-business/
[8] https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/9424-business-ethical-behavior.html
[9] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/importance-business-ethics-why-ethical-conduct-success-manelkar/
[12] https://www.investopedia.com/updates/enron-scandal-summary/
[13] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/facebooks-dangerous-experiment-teen-girls/620767/
Introduction
Welcome to the leadership paradox. Let’s start with a scenario. You joined your company many years ago, starting in a more junior role, where you proved your skill sets over and over. Maybe you were a born salesperson, maybe you were a master at client relations, maybe you were product focused, perhaps something else entirely. Regardless, with every task and every further year at the company, you demonstrated your value. As such, you were rewarded with a series of promotions. Eventually you found yourself in a management position, the leadership role you’d always wanted. Sounds great. All is well, right?
Not necessarily. Because once you’d reached this position, you discovered that the skills you’d demonstrated to get there weren’t needed anymore. You’d ceased to be the one selling; you’d ceased the one fronting the call; you’d ceased to be the one making decisions around specification. You might have still tried to do all those things, to involve yourself heavily and bring yourself back to the fore. Perhaps you rolled up your sleeves and said your management style was “hands-on”, justified your involvement in lower-level projects by saying you were a lead from the front type.
To do so is only natural. After all, you got to where you are by being an achiever, someone who not only got things done but prided themselves on being the one actively doing them. And this is where the paradox lies. Because the skills that served you so well and earned you your promotion might be the very same ones preventing you from succeeding in your new role.
This notion is distilled to its essence in the title of Marshall Goldsmith’s bestselling book: “What got you here won’t get you there” [1]. Being a thriving part of the workforce and being a leader are two entirely different things. The skills are not the same. To achieve, you need to be able to get the best out of yourself. To lead, you need to be able to get the best out of other people.
Oftentimes, newly promoted leaders try to continue as they were before. They want to get their hands dirty, to micro-manage and ensure that every aspect of a project is marked by their fingerprints. But micro-management is not the answer. As Jesse Sostrin PhD, Global Head of Leadership, Culture & Learning at Philips, puts it, leaders need to be “more essential and less involved.” He adds, “the difference between an effective leader and a super-sized individual contributor with a leader’s title is painfully evident” [2].
For many, the adjustment is difficult and can take time. If a leader is too eager to imprint themselves on every aspect of a project, not only is the leader likely to end up feeling overstretched (according to Gallup research, managers are 27% more likely than individual contributors to strongly agree they felt a lot of stress during their most recent workday [3]) but the project will suffer too. Staff will come to feel constrained and undervalued. They may not feel they have the opportunity to grow or express themselves fully. They will be less likely to try new and innovative ideas with someone breathing down their neck or dictating that they must service a single vision at all times rather than being allowed to bring themselves to the fore.
In other words, micro-management offers a whole lot of downsides in exchange for very few upsides. Sostrin proposes that a useful way for a manager to tell if they are taking on too much responsibility is by answering the simple question: If you had to take an unexpected week off work, would your initiatives and priorities advance in your absence? [4] A well-functioning team run by an effective leader should in theory be able to get by without that leader – for a period of time, at least. Whereas an organisation that orbits around the whims of a single figure is likely to stall, and fast. It’s why all good managers practice delegation.
Why delegate?
Delegation is something every business practices but not all do well. Just handing an employee some of the work does not count as delegation in any meaningful sense. Successful delegation involves genuinely trusting the employee and granting them autonomy. That can be a scary prospect for a leader used to having a controlling stake in all output. But there are ways to ensure that even without constant supervision, your team is working in a manner you approve.
The first is obviously to hire smart, capable workers to whom you feel comfortable delegating responsibility. Oftentimes leaders take on extra workplace burdens out of a lack of faith in their team. They think, “I’m not confident they have the ability to do the task,” and so instead choose to take it on themselves. But trust is paramount to any successful workplace. And to paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, the best way to know if you can trust an employee is to trust them – at least until they give you a reason not to. The best thing a leader can do is give their employees a chance and see what happens.
After all, a leader’s job is to get the best out of their employees. As Forbes writer Cynthia Knapek puts it, “Some people work to show you what their superpower is, but a good leader works to show you yours…you’ll never be a good delegator if you’re holding on to the belief that no one can do it as well as you can” [5].
Trusting your team – and shedding the arrogance of presuming you can do everything better yourself – is pivotal to good leadership. Refusing to cede control is the sign of an insecure leader, one who sees their role and status as proportional to their decision-making authority. They think that any act of delegation would lead to a dilution of their power.
This theory is backed up by a 2017 study on psychological power and the delegation of authority by Haselhuhn, Wong and Ormiston. They ultimately found that, “individuals who feel powerful are more willing to share their decision making authority with others. In contrast, individuals who feel relatively powerless are more likely to consolidate decision making authority and maintain primary control” [6]. Delegation is a sign of strength, not weakness. Consolidation of all authority is the remit of the insecure.
Another thing leaders can do to help ensure their team is working autonomously but towards a clear end goal is to have a solid set of principles in place. These principles shouldn’t just highlight the leader’s values and goals but make clear the approach they want to use to achieve them. Shift Thinking founder and CEO Mark Bonchek calls such a set of principles a company’s “doctrine”. Bonchek argues that, “without doctrine, it’s impossible for managers to let go without losing control. Instead, leaders must rely on active oversight and supervision. The opportunity is to replace processes that control behavior with principles that empower decision-making” [7].
Having a guiding set of principles in place lets you delegate responsibility more freely because you know that even with limitless autonomy, your employees are aware of the parameters they should be working within – it keeps them drawing within the lines.
Evidently, a pivotal part of leadership is and always will be people management. But if a leader has already clearly defined their principles, they’ll find they need to manage their people much less. Some companies that advocate for principles-based management include Amazon, Wikipedia and Google. The proof is in the pudding.
Effective delegation
How delegation is handled contributes enormously to what kind of company one is running and what kind of leader one is. For example, consider two scenarios. In scenario one, a tired and over involved leader, seeing that they have taken on more than they can chew with a deadline fast approaching, tells one of their team that they no longer have time to do a report that they were meant to be writing and so thrusts it on the employee to hastily pick up the slack.
In scenario two, a leader identifies a member of their team who they want to write a report for them. They talk to the employee and tell them that they’ve noticed the employee’s precision in putting facts across concisely and engagingly and want them to put those skills to use in this latest report. They talk through what they want from the project and why this employee is the perfect person to achieve those goals. They make known that they are available for support should any be needed.
In both examples, the boss is asking their employee to write a report. But in one that work is something fobbed off on the employee, a chore the leader no longer wants to do. In the second example, the leader is identifying the skills of a member of their team, letting the employee know that these are the skills needed for the task at hand and thus giving the employee an idea of what’s needed from them as well as a confidence boost.
Sostrin suggests four strategies for successful delegation [8]. First, to start with reasoning. As in the example above, this includes telling someone not just what work they want done but why – and that means both why they are working towards a certain goal and why the employee is the person to do it.
Second, to inspire their commitment. This, again, is about communication. By relaying the task at hand, their role in it and why it’s important, they can understand the bigger picture, not just their specific part of it. They’re then more able to bring themselves to the project, rather than viewing it as simply a tick-box exercise they’re completing for their boss.
Third, to engage at the right level. Of course delegation doesn’t mean that a leader should hand work over to their employees and then never worry about it again. They should maintain sufficient engagement levels so that they can offer support and accept accountability, but do so without stifling their team. The right balance depends on the organisation, the project and the personnel involved, but Sostrin suggests that simply asking staff what level of supervision they want can be a good start.
Fourth, to practise saying “yes”, “no”, and “yes, if”. That means taking on demands that you think are best suited to you, saying “yes, if” to those that would be better off delegated to someone more suited to that specific task, and giving outright “no”s to those you don’t deem worthwhile.
For example, Keith Underwood, COO and CFO of The Guardian, said that he doesn’t delegate when “the decision involves a sophisticated view of the context the organisation is operating in, has profound implications on the business, and when stakeholders expect me to have complete ownership of the decision” [9].
Kelly Devine, president of Mastercard UK and Ireland, says, “The only time I really feel it’s hard to delegate is when the decision is in a highly pressurised, contentious, or consequential situation, and I simply don’t want someone on my team to be carrying that burden alone” [10].
On top of these four, it’s worth adding the benefits around communicating high-profile, critical company decisions to your team, whether that be layoffs, new investors, or whatever the case may be. Leaders should want their employees to feel part of the organisation. That means keeping them in the loop of not just what is happening but why. Transparency is highly valued and in turn valuable.
In summary
It can be all too easy for managers who rose through the corporate ranks to eschew delegation in favour of an auteur-esque approach – shaping a team in their distinct image, if not actively trying to do all the work themselves. But delegation not only makes life less tiring and stressful for the leader, who cannot possibly hope to cover everyone’s work alone, but it also results in a happier, more productive, and likely more capable workforce, one that feels trusted and free to experiment rather than constrained by fear of failure.
Good ideas come from anywhere. Good organisations are built on trust. Good leaders don’t smother their workers but empower them. And with each empowered collaborator, the likelihood of collective success grows.
More on Trust
Leadership in Focus: Foundations and the Path Forward
Unleashing Leadership Excellence with Dan Pontefract (podcast)
References
[1] https://marshallgoldsmith.com/book-page-what-got-you-here/
[2] https://hbr.org/2017/10/to-be-a-great-leader-you-have-to-learn-how-to-delegate-well
[4] https://hbr.org/2017/10/to-be-a-great-leader-you-have-to-learn-how-to-delegate-well
[6] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886916311527
[7] https://hbr.org/2016/06/how-leaders-can-let-go-without-losing-control
[8] https://hbr.org/2017/10/to-be-a-great-leader-you-have-to-learn-how-to-delegate-well
[9] https://hbr.org/2023/03/5-strategies-to-empower-employees-to-make-decisions
[10] https://hbr.org/2023/03/5-strategies-to-empower-employees-to-make-decisions
Introduction
The role of a CEO, once defined by strategy charts and bottom lines, is undergoing a sea change. With constant technological advances, changing business complexities, and societal expectations, CEOs are required to expand their expertise beyond traditional business acumen. Today, a truly great CEO needs to master the art of social skills, demonstrating a keen ability to interact, coordinate, and communicate across multiple dimensions.
As the business landscape continues to grow more complex, the ability to navigate this intricacy has become a defining factor in effective leadership. This holds true for large, publicly-listed multinational corporations and medium to large companies operating in a rapidly evolving marketplace. As a result, leaders must possess the skills and acumen to navigate this complex landscape, make informed decisions, and steer their organisations toward success.
Social Skills
Top executives in these firms are expected to harness their social skills to coordinate diverse and specialised knowledge, solve organisational problems, and facilitate effective internal communication. Further, the interconnected web of critical relationships with external constituencies demands leaders to demonstrate adept communication skills and empathy.
The proliferation of information-processing technologies has also played a crucial role in defining a CEO’s success. As businesses increasingly automate routine tasks, leadership must offer a human touch—judgment, creativity, and perception—that can’t be replicated by technology. In technologically-intensive firms, CEOs need to align a heterogeneous workforce, manage unexpected events, and negotiate decision-making conflicts—tasks best accomplished with robust social skills.
Equally, with most companies relying on similar technological platforms, CEOs need to distinguish themselves through superior management of the people who utilise these tools. As tasks are delegated to technology, leaders with superior social skills will find themselves in high demand, commanding a premium in the labour market.
Transparency
The rise of social media and networking technologies has also transformed the role of CEOs. Moving away from the era of anonymity, CEOs are now expected to be public figures interacting transparently and personally with an increasingly broad range of stakeholders. With real-time platforms capturing and publicising every action, CEOs need to be adept at spontaneous communication and anticipate the ripple effects of their decisions.
Diversity & inclusion
In the contemporary world, great CEOs also need to navigate issues of diversity and inclusion. This calls for a theory of mind—a keen understanding of the mental states of others—enabling CEOs to resonate with diverse employee groups, represent their interests effectively, and create an environment where diverse talent can thrive. (See our article on the Chief Coaching Officer for an alternative solution to this issue)
Hiring strategies
Given this backdrop, it is essential for organisations to refocus their hiring and leadership development strategies. Instead of relying on traditional methods of leadership cultivation, companies need to build and evaluate social skills among potential leaders systematically.
Current practices, such as rotating through various departments, geographical postings, or executive development programs, aren’t enough. Firms need to design a comprehensive approach to building social skills, even prioritising them over technical skills. High-potential leaders should be placed in roles that require extensive interaction with varied employee populations and external constituencies, and their performance should be closely monitored.
Assessing social skills calls for innovative methods beyond the traditional criteria of work history, technical qualifications, and career trajectory. New tools are needed to provide an objective basis for evaluating and comparing people’s abilities in this domain. While some progress is being made with the use of AI and custom tools for lower-level job seekers, there is a need for further innovation in top-level searches.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the role of the CEO is more multifaceted than ever. The modern world demands executives to possess exceptional social skills, including effective communication, empathetic interaction, and proactive inclusion. Companies need to recognise this change and adapt their leadership development programs accordingly to cultivate CEOs who can effectively lead in the 21st century.
In order to thrive, workplaces need to build cohesive teams that are intrinsically motivated. In this insight piece we address ways of approaching, obtaining, optimising and sustaining performance.
Every working environment is made up of four core layers:
Organisation
Leadership
Team
Personal
Within those layers exist both complementary and competing factors that can contribute to organisational growth. Some of these factors are in our control and can be strengthened directly, such as maintaining an active, healthy team and prioritising people development. Others are outside our scope, such as employee disengagement born of a change in personal priorities.
Linking each layer is a daily demand. Organisational design, positive leadership intent, a disciplined feedback loop and dedicated culture of growth must work in tandem. Improving and aligning each layer is pivotal.
- Every organisation needs to set out their strategic vision. Typically this outlines who the organisation is, what they stand for, their strengths, recent and notable successes, people development programmes and how to capitalise on future market opportunities.
Get right: Generate trust with a clear understanding of the journey ahead
Research shows that when it comes to maximising performance, trust is pivotal. An abundance of academic and anecdotal evidence points to trust’s long-term strategic value. Benefits include increased collaboration, vulnerability, communication and idea generation.
Communicating a coherent strategic vision requires a thoughtful engagement plan. Some important points include:
- An organisation’s strategy should flow downward and outward. For a strategy to successfully capitalise on opportunities, the leadership team needs to be aligned.
Get right: Leaders and leadership teams need to work on themselves first
Leadership teams are too often misaligned, leading to a lack of conviction in critical areas such as providing direction, communication (verbal and non-verbal) and role modelling positive behaviours. Obtaining a high standard of performance relies on resolute leadership alignment.
- A coherent strategic vision and aligned leadership group is a positive start. However, if mishandled, competing projects, team dynamics and internal politics can quickly hamper an organisation’s growth.
Get right: Ensure your teams provide consistent space for professionals to grow
Teams can better optimise their potential through an embedded performance professional (internal or external). Their fundamental role is to work with a team to provide objective feedback and help cultivate or better maintain high performance behaviours, all while keeping an eye on the wider professional context and the organisation’s long-term aims.
- Everyone has the potential to be a high performer. The necessary skills can be practised and honed. Curiosity to learn, a strong work ethic and leadership skills (such as a commitment to bettering others as well as oneself) are all indications of an individual primed for long-term sustainable performance.
Get right: Provide your people with the support to truly grow
Many traditional ‘off the shelf’ options are available for employees. Research suggests that organisations should actively focus on bespoke people development areas such as performance coaching. Shifting from a learning and development platform to a learning development experience is paramount to sustainable performance.
Interested in a further conversation about personal, team or leadership performance?
The persistent pulse of inquiry in history
Throughout history, our innate curiosity has been the heartbeat of progress, driving us from basic questions about nature, like “Why does it rain?” to profound existential inquiries, such as “Do we have free will?”. In today’s fast-paced world, the art of asking questions feels somewhat overshadowed by the avalanche of information available. Yet, recognising what we don’t know often serves as the true essence of wisdom.
One lasting method of exploring knowledge through questioning is the Socratic method, a tool from ancient Greece that aids critical thinking, helps unearth solutions, and fosters informed decisions. Its endurance for over 2,500 years stands as a testament to its potency. Plato, a student of Socrates, immortalised his teachings through dialogues or discourses. In these, he delved deep into the nature of justice in the “Republic”, examining the fabric of ideal societies and the character of the just individual.
Questions have not only transformed philosophy but also propelled innovations in various fields. Take, for instance, Alexander Graham Bell, whose inquiries led to the invention of the telephone or the challenges to traditional beliefs during the Renaissance that led to breakthroughs in art, science, and philosophy. With their profound questions about existence and knowledge, the likes of Kant and Descartes have shaped the philosophical narratives we discuss today.
Critical questioning has upended accepted norms in the scientific realm, leading to paradigm shifts. For example, Galileo’s scepticism of the geocentric model paved the way for ground-breaking discoveries by figures such as Aristarchus, Pythagoras, Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein. At its core, every scientific revolution was birthed from a fundamental question.
On the educational front, the importance of questioning is backed by modern research. Historically, educators have utilised questions to evaluate knowledge, enhance understanding, and cultivate critical thinking. Rather than simply prompting students to recall facts, effective questions stimulate deeper contemplation, urging students to analyse and evaluate concepts. This enriches classroom experiences and deepens understanding in experiential learning settings.
By embracing this age-old method and recognising the power of inquiry, we can better navigate the complexities of our contemporary world.
Questions through the ages: an enduring pursuit of truth
Throughout the annals of time, the act of questioning has permeated our shared human experience. While ancient civilisations like the Greeks laid intellectual foundations with their spirited debates and dialogues, their inquiries’ sheer depth and diversity stood out. These questions spanned from the cosmos’ intricate designs to the inner workings of the human soul.
Historical literature consistently echoed this thirst for understanding, whether in the East or West. It wasn’t just about obtaining answers; it celebrated the journey of arriving at them. The process, probing, introspection, and subsequent revelations hold a revered spot in our collective memory. The reverence with which we’ve held questions, as seen through the words of philosophers, poets, and thinkers, showcases the ceaseless human spirit in its quest for knowledge.
In today’s interconnected world, the legacy of these inquiries remains ever-pertinent. We live in an era of information, a double-edged sword presenting knowledge and misinformation. As we grapple with this deluge, the skills of discernment and critical inquiry, inherited from our ancestors, are invaluable. It’s no longer just about seeking answers but about discerning the truths among many voices.
With the current rise in misinformation and fake news, a sharpened sense of questioning becomes our compass, guiding us through the mazes of contemporary challenges. By honouring the traditions of the past and adapting them to our present, we continue our timeless pursuit of truth, ensuring that the pulse of inquiry beats strongly within us.
Understanding the Socratic Method
Having recognised the age-old reverence for inquiry, it becomes imperative to explore one of its most pivotal techniques: the Socratic method. Socrates, widely regarded as a paragon of wisdom, believed that life’s true essence lies in perpetual self-examination and introspection. His approach was unique in its time, as he dared to challenge societal norms and assumptions. When proclaimed the wisest man in Greece, he responded not with complacency but with probing inquiry.
The Socratic method transcends a mere question-answer paradigm. Instead, it becomes a catalyst, prompting deep reflection. This dialectical technique fosters enlightenment, not by spoon-feeding answers but by kindling the flames of critical thinking and understanding. The beauty of this method rests not solely in the answers it might yield, but in the journey of introspection and dialogue it necessitates.
Beyond philosophical discourses, this method resonates powerfully in contemporary educational spheres. It underscores that genuine knowledge transcends rote memorisation, emphasising comprehension and enlightenment. This reverence for knowledge stresses the imperative of recognising our limitations fostering an ethos where learning is ceaseless and dynamic.
In our information-saturated age, the Socratic method’s principles are not just philosophical musings but indispensable. According to Statistica, only about 26% of Americans feel adept at discerning fake news, while a concerning 90% inadvertently propagate misinformation. Herein lies the true power of the Socratic approach. It teaches us discernment, evaluation, and the courage to seek clarity continuously. By integrating this method into our lives, we are better equipped to navigate our intricate world, fostering lives marked by clarity, purpose, and profound understanding.
Why the question often surpasses the answer
Having delved into the rich tapestry of historical inquiry and the transformative power of the Socratic method, one may wonder: Why such an emphasis on the question rather than the answer?
We are often trained to seek definite conclusions throughout our educational journey and societal conditioning. Yet, as Socrates demonstrated through his dialogues, there’s profound wisdom in embracing the exploration inherent in questioning. His discussions rarely aimed for definitive answers, suggesting that the reflective process, rather than the conclusion, held deeper significance.
Imagine a complex puzzle. While the completed picture might offer satisfaction, aligning each piece, understanding its intricacies, and appreciating its nuances truly enriches the experience. Similarly, questions, even those without clear-cut resolutions, can expand our horizons, provoke self-assessment, and challenge our preconceived notions. This process broadens our perspectives and fosters a more holistic understanding of our surroundings.
By valuing the act of questioning, we equip ourselves with the tools to navigate ambiguity, confront our limitations, and engage with the world more thoughtfully and profoundly.
The Socratic Method in contemporary frameworks
Socratic questioning involves a disciplined and thoughtful dialogue between two or more people, and its methodologies, rooted in ancient philosophy, remain instrumental in today’s diverse contexts. In the realm of academia, especially within higher education, this collaborative form of questioning is a cornerstone. Educators don’t merely transfer information; they challenge students with introspective questions, compelling them to reflect, engage, and critically evaluate the content presented.
Beyond the classroom, the applicability of the Socratic method stretches wide. Business environments, such as boardrooms and innovation brainstorming sessions, harness the power of Socratic dialogue, pushing participants to confront and rethink assumptions. Professionals employ this method in therapeutic and counselling to guide clients in introspective exploration, encouraging clarity and self-awareness.
Through its emphasis on continuous dialogue, deep reflection, and the mutual pursuit of understanding, this age-old method remains a beacon, guiding us as we navigate the ever-evolving complexities of our modern world.
Conclusion: the timeless art of inquiry
From the cobbled streets of ancient Athens to contemporary classrooms, boardrooms, and counselling sessions, the enduring legacy of the Socratic method attests to the potent force of inquiry. By valuing the exploratory process as much as, if not more than, the final insight, we pave a path towards richer understanding, intellectual evolution, and the limitless possibilities of human achievement.
In today’s deluge of data and information, the allure of swift answers is undeniable. Yet, Socrates’ practice reminds us of the transformative power held in the act of questioning. Adopting such a mindset, as this iconic philosopher once did, extends an open invitation to a life punctuated by curiosity, wonder, and unending discovery.
Depending on who you listen to working from home is either proof of a declining work ethic – evidence of and contributor to a global malaise that is hampering productivity, decimating work culture and amplifying isolation and laziness – or it’s a much-needed break from overzealous corporate control, finally giving workers the autonomy to do their jobs when, where and how they want to, with some added benefits to well-being, job satisfaction and quality of work baked in.
Three years on from the pandemic that made WFH models ubiquitous, the practice’s status is oddly divisive. CEOs malign it. Workers love it. Like most statements around WFH, that analysis is over simplistic. So what’s the actual truth: is WFH good, bad or somewhere in between?
The numbers
Before the pandemic Americans spent 5% of their working time at home. By spring 2020 the figure was 60% [1]. Over the following year, it declined to 35% and is currently stabilised at just over 25% [2]. A 2022 McKinsey survey found that 58% of employed respondents have the option to work from home for all or part of the week [3].
In the UK, according to data released by the Office for National Statistics in February, between September 2022 and January 2023, 16% of the workforce still worked solely from home, while 28% were hybrid workers who split their time between home and the office [4]. Meanwhile, back in 1981, only 1.5% of those in employment reported working mainly from home [5].
The trend is clear. Over the latter part of the 20th century and earliest part of the 21st, homeworking increased – not surprising given the advancements to technology over this period – but the increase wasn’t drastic. With Covid, it surged, necessarily, and proved itself functional and convenient enough that there was limited appetite to put it back in the box once the worst of the crisis was over.
The sceptics
Working from home “does not work for younger people, it doesn’t work for those who want to hustle, it doesn’t work in terms of spontaneous idea generation” and “it doesn’t work for culture.” That’s according to JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon [6]. People who work from home are “phoning it in” according to Elon Musk [7]. In-person engineers “get more done,” says Mark Zuckerberg, and “nothing can replace the ability to connect, observe, and create with peers that comes from being physically together,” says Disney CEO Bob Iger [8].
Meanwhile, 85% of employees who were working from home in 2021 said they wanted a hybrid approach of both home and office working in future [9]. It seems there’s a clash, then, between the wants of workers and the wants of their employers.
Brian Elliott, who previously led Slack’s Future Forum research consortium and now advises executive teams on flexible work arrangements, puts the disdain for WFH from major CEOs down to “executive nostalgia” [10].
Whatever the cause, and whether merited or not, feelings are strong – on both sides. Jonathan Levav, a Stanford Graduate School of Business professor who co-authored a widely cited paper finding that videoconferencing hampers idea generation, received furious responses from advocates of remote-work. “It’s become a religious belief rather than a thoughtful discussion,” he says [11].
In polarised times, it seems every issue becomes black or white and we must each choose a side to buy into dogmatically. Given the divide seems to exist between those at the upper end of the corporate ladder and those below, it’s especially easy for the WFH debate to fall into a form of tribal class warfare.
Part of the issue is that each side can point to studies showing the evident benefits of their point of view and the evident issues with their opponents. It’s the echo-chamber effect. Some studies show working from home to be more productive. Others show it to be less. Each tribe naturally gravitates to the evidence that best suits their argument. Nuance lies dead on the roadside.
Does WFH benefit productivity?
The jury is still out.
An Owl Labs report on the state of remote work in 2021 found that of those working from home during 2021, 90% of respondents said they were at least at the same productivity level working from home compared to the office and 55% said they worked more hours remotely than they did at the office [12].
On the other end of the spectrum, a paper from Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom, which reviewed existing studies on the topic, found that fully remote workforces on average had a reduced productivity of around 10% [13].
Harvard Business School professor Raj Choudhury, looking into government patent officers who could work from anywhere but gathered in-person several times a year, championed a hybrid approach. He found that teams who worked together between 25% and 40% of the time had the most novel work output – better results than those who spent less or more time in the office. Though he said that the in-person gatherings didn’t have to be once a week. Even just a few days each month saw a positive effect [14].
It’s not just about productivity though. Working from home can have a negative impact on career prospects if bosses maintain an executive nostalgia for the old ways of working. Studies show that proximity bias – the idea that being physically near your colleagues is an advantage – persists. A survey of 800 supervisors by the Society for Human Resource Management in 2021 found that 42% percent said that when assigning tasks, they sometimes forget about remote workers [15].
Similarly, a 2010 study by UC Davis professor Kimberly Elsbach found that when people are seen in the office, even when nothing is known about the quality of their work, they are perceived as more reliable and dependable – and if they are seen off-hours, more committed and dedicated [16].
Other considerations
It’s worth noting other factors outside of productivity that can contribute to the bottom line. As Bloom states, only focusing on productivity is “like saying I’ll never buy a Toyota because a Ferrari will go faster. Well, yes, but it’s a third the price. Fully remote work may be 10% less productive, but if it’s 15% cheaper, it’s actually a very profitable thing to do” [17].
Other cost-saving benefits of a WFH or hybrid work model include potentially allowing businesses to downsize their office space and save on real estate. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) estimated that increases in remote work in 2015 saved it $38.2 million [18].
Minimising the need for commuting also helps ecologically. The USPTO estimates that in 2015 its remote workers drove 84 million fewer miles than if they had been travelling to headquarters, reducing carbon emissions by more than 44,000 tons [19].
A hybrid model
Most businesses now tend to favour a hybrid model. Productivity studies, including Bloom’s that found the 10% productivity drop from fully remote working, tend to concede there’s little to no difference in productivity between full-time office staff and hybrid workers. 47% of American workers prefer to work in a hybrid model [20]. In the UK, it’s 58% [21]. McKinsey’s American Opportunity Survey found that when given the chance to work flexibly, 87% of people take it [22].
However, as Annie Dean, whose title is “head of team anywhere” at software firm Atlassian, notes: “For whatever reason, we keep making where we work the lightning rod, when how we work is the thing that is in crisis” [23].
Choudhary backs this up, saying, “There’s good hybrid – and there’s terrible hybrid” [24]. It’s not so much about the model as the method. Institutions that put the time and effort into ensuring their home and hybrid work systems are well-defined and there’s still room for discussion, training and brainstorming – all the things that naysayers say are lost to remote working – are likely to thrive.
That said, New Yorker writer Cal Newport points out that firms that have good models in place (what he calls “agile management”) are few and far between. Putting such structures in place is beyond the capability of most organisations. “For those not benefiting from good (“Agile”) management,” he writes, “the physical office is a necessary second-best crutch to help firms get by, because they haven’t gotten around to practising good management [25].”
The future
Major CEOs may want a return to full-time office structures, but a change seems unlikely. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Home and hybrid working is popular with employees, especially millennials and Gen Z. As of 2022 millennials were the largest generation in the workforce [26]; their needs matter.
The train is only moving in one direction – no amount of executive nostalgia is going to get it to turn back. It seems a hybrid model is the future, and a healthy enough compromise.
References
[1] https://www.economist.com/special-report/2021/04/08/the-rise-of-working-from-home
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2023/03/29/why-working-from-home-is-here-to-stay/
[3] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/real-estate/our-insights/americans-are-embracing-flexible-work-and-they-want-more-of-it
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/14/working-from-home-revolution-hybrid-working-inequalities
[5] https://wiserd.ac.uk/publication/homeworking-in-the-uk-before-and-during-the-2020-lockdown/
[6] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenamcgregor/2023/08/19/the-war-over-work-from-home-the-data-ceos-and-workers-need-to-know/
[7] https://hbr.org/2023/07/tension-is-rising-around-remote-work
[8] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenamcgregor/2023/08/19/the-war-over-work-from-home-the-data-ceos-and-workers-need-to-know/
[9] https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/businessandindividualattitudestowardsthefutureofhomeworkinguk/apriltomay2021
[10]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenamcgregor/2023/08/19/the-war-over-work-from-home-the-data-ceos-and-workers-need-to-know/
[11] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenamcgregor/2023/08/19/the-war-over-work-from-home-the-data-ceos-and-workers-need-to-know/
[12] https://owllabs.com/state-of-remote-work/2021/
[13] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenamcgregor/2023/08/19/the-war-over-work-from-home-the-data-ceos-and-workers-need-to-know/
[14] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenamcgregor/2023/08/19/the-war-over-work-from-home-the-data-ceos-and-workers-need-to-know/
[15] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenamcgregor/2023/08/19/the-war-over-work-from-home-the-data-ceos-and-workers-need-to-know/
[16] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenamcgregor/2023/08/19/the-war-over-work-from-home-the-data-ceos-and-workers-need-to-know/
[17]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenamcgregor/2023/08/19/the-war-over-work-from-home-the-data-ceos-and-workers-need-to-know/
[18] https://hbr.org/2020/11/our-work-from-anywhere-future#:~:text=Benefits%20and%20Challenges,of%20enhanced%20productivity%20and%20engagement
[19] https://hbr.org/2020/11/our-work-from-anywhere-future#:~:text=Benefits%20and%20Challenges,of%20enhanced%20productivity%20and%20engagement.
[20] https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/hybrid-future-work#:~:text=Hybrid%20is%20the%20future%20of%20work%20Key%20Takeaways,implications%20of%20how%20and%20when%20employees%20work%20remotely.
[21] https://mycreditsummit.com/work-from-home-statistics/
[22] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/real-estate/our-insights/americans-are-embracing-flexible-work-and-they-want-more-of-it
[23] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenamcgregor/2023/08/19/the-war-over-work-from-home-the-data-ceos-and-workers-need-to-know/
[24] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenamcgregor/2023/08/19/the-war-over-work-from-home-the-data-ceos-and-workers-need-to-know/
[25] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2023/03/29/why-working-from-home-is-here-to-stay/
[26] https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2023/01/10/whats-the-future-of-remote-work-in-2023/
Introduction
Originally published in 2013, Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga’s The Courage to be Disliked quickly became a sensation in its authors’ native Japan. Its English language translation followed suit with more than 3.5 million copies sold worldwide.
The book is often shelved in the ‘self-help’ category, in large part due to its blandly overpromising subheading: How to free yourself, change your life and achieve real happiness. In truth it would be better suited to the philosophy or psychology section. The book takes the form of a discussion between a philosopher and an angsty student. The student is unhappy with his life and often with the philosopher himself, while the philosopher is a contented devotee of Adlerian psychology, the key points of which he disseminates to the student over the course of five neatly chunked conversations. His proposed principles offer sound advice for life in general but also prove useful when integrated into a business setting.
Adlerian Psychology
Alfred Adler was an Austrian born psychotherapist and one of the leading psychological minds of the 20th century. Originally a contemporary of Freud’s, the two soon drifted apart. In many ways Adler’s theories can be defined in opposition to his old contemporary; they are anti-Freudian at their core. Freud is a firm believer that our early experiences shape us. Adler is of the view that such sentiments strip us of autonomy in the here and now, seeing Freud’s ideas as a form of determinism. He instead proffers:
No experience is in itself a cause of our success or failure. We do not suffer from the shock of our experiences – the so-called trauma – but instead, we make out of them whatever suits our purposes. We are not determined by our experiences, but the meaning we give them is self-determining.
Essentially, then, the theories are reversed. Adler posits that rather than acting a certain way in the present because of something that happened in their past, people do what they do now because they chose to, and then use their past circumstances to justify the behaviour. Where Freud would make the case that a recluse doesn’t leave the house because of some traumatic childhood event, for example, Adler would argue that instead the recluse has made a decision to not leave the house (or even made it his goal not to do so) and is creating fear and anxiety in order to stay inside.
The argument comes down to aetiology vs teleology. More plainly, assessing something’s cause versus assessing its purpose. Using Adlerian theory, the philosopher in the book tells the student that: “At some stage in your life you chose to be unhappy, it’s not because you were born into unhappy circumstances or ended up in an unhappy situation, it’s that you judged the state of being unhappy to be good for you”. Adding, in line with what David Foster-Wallace referred to as the narcissism of self-loathing, that: “As long as one continues to use one’s misfortune to one’s advantage in order to be ‘special’, one will always need that misfortune.”
Adler in the workplace: teleology vs aetiology
An example of the difference in these theories in the workplace could be found by examining the sentence: “I cannot work to a high standard at this company because my boss isn’t supportive.” The viewpoint follows the cause and effect Freudian notion: your boss is not supportive therefore you cannot work well. What Adler, and in turn Kishimi and Koga, argue is that you still have a choice to make. You can work well without the support of your boss but are choosing to use their lack of support as an excuse to work poorly (which subconsciously was your aim all along).
This is the most controversial of Adler’s theories for a reason. Readers will no doubt look at the sentence and feel a prescription of blame being attributed to them. Anyone who has worked with a slovenly or uncaring boss might feel attacked and argue that their manager’s attitude most certainly did affect the quality of their work. But it’s worth embracing Adler’s view, even if just to disagree with it. Did you work as hard as you could and as well as you could under the circumstances? Or did knowing your boss was poor give you an excuse to grow slovenly too? Did it make you disinclined to give your best?
Another example in the book revolves around a young friend of the philosopher who dreams of becoming a novelist but never completes his work, citing that he’s too busy. The theory the philosopher offers is that the young writer wants to leave open the possibility that he could have been a novelist if he’d tried but he doesn’t want to face the reality that he might produce an inferior piece of writing and face rejection. Far easier to live in the realm of what could have been. He will continue making excuses until he dies because he does not want to allow for the possibility of failure that reality necessitates.
There are many people who don’t pursue careers along similar lines, staunch in the conviction that they could have thrived if only the opportunity had arisen without ever actively seeking that opportunity themselves. Even within a role it’s possible to shrug off this responsibility, saying that you’d have been better off working in X role in your company if only they had given you a shot, or that you’d be better off in a client-facing position rather than being sat behind a desk doing admin if only someone had spotted your skill sets and made use of them. But without asking for these things, without actively taking steps towards them, who does the responsibility lie with? It’s a hard truth, but a useful one to acknowledge.
Adler in the workplace: All problems are interpersonal relationship problems
Another of the key arguments in the book is that all problems are interpersonal relationship problems. What that means is that our every interaction is defined by the perception we have of ourselves versus the perception we have of whomever we are dealing with. Adler is the man who coined the term “inferiority complex”, and that factors into his thinking here. He spoke of two categories of inferiorities: objective and subjective. Objective inferiorities are things like being shorter than another person or having less money. Subjective inferiorities are those we create in our mind, and make up the vast majority. The good news is that “subjective interpretations can be altered as much as one likes…we are inhabitants of a subjective world.”
Adler is of the opinion that: “A healthy feeling of inferiority is not something that comes from comparing oneself to others; it comes from one’s comparison with one’s ideal self.” He speaks of the need to move from vertical relationships to horizontal ones. Vertical relationships are based in hierarchy. If you define your relationships vertically, you are constantly manoeuvring between interactions with those you deem above you and those you deem below you. When interacting with someone you deem above you on the hierarchical scale, you will automatically adjust your goalposts to be in line with their perceptions rather than defining success or failure on your own terms. As long as you are playing in their lane, you will always fall short. “When one is trying to be oneself, competition will inevitably get in the way.”
Of course in the workplace we do have hierarchical relationships. There are managers, there are mid-range workers, there are junior workers etc. The point is not to throw away these titles in pursuit of some newly communistic office environment. Rather it’s about attitude. If you are a boss, do you receive your underlings’ ideas as if they are your equal? Are you open to them? Or do you presume that your status as “above” automatically means anything they offer is “below”? Similarly if you are not the boss, are you trying to come up with the best ideas you can or the ones that you think will most be in-line with your boss’ pre-existing convictions? Obviously there’s a balance here – if you solely put forward wacky, irrelevant ideas that aren’t in line with your company’s ethos and have no chance of success then that’s probably not helpful, but within whatever tramlines your industry allows you can certainly get creative and trust your own taste rather than seeking to replicate someone else’s.
Pivotal to this is whether you are willing to be disagreed with and to disagree with others or are more interested in pleasing everyone, with no convictions of your own. This is where the book’s title stems from. As it notes, being disliked by someone “is proof that you are exercising your freedom and living in freedom, and a sign that you are living in accordance with your own principles…when you have gained that courage, your interpersonal relationships will all at once change into things of lightness.”
Adler in the workplace: The separation of tasks
The separation of tasks is pivotal to Adlerian theory and interpersonal relationships. It is how Adler, Kishimi and Koga suggest one avoids falling into the trap of defining oneself by another’s expectations. The question one must ask themselves at all times, they suggest, is: Whose task is this? We must focus solely on our own tasks, not letting anyone else alter them and not trying to alter anyone else’s. This is true for both literal tasks – a piece of work, for example – but also more abstract ideas. For example, how you dress is your task. What someone else thinks of how you dress is theirs. Do not make concessions to their notions (or your perceptions of what their notions might be) and do not be affected by what they think for it is not your task and therefore not yours to control.
This idea that we allow others to get on with their own tasks is crucial to Adler’s belief in how we can live rounded, fulfilling lives. The philosopher argues that the basis of our interpersonal relationships – and as such our own happiness – is confidence. When the boy asks how the philosopher defines the “confidence” of which he speaks, he answers:
It is doing without any set conditions whatsoever when believing in others. Even if one does not have sufficient objective grounds for trusting someone, one believes. One believes unconditionally without concerning oneself with such things as security. That is confidence.
This confidence is vital because the book’s ultimate theory is that community lies at the centre of everything. The awareness that “I am of use to someone” both allows one to act with confidence in their own life, have confidence in others, and to not be reliant on the praise of others. The reverse is true too. As Kishimi and Koga state, “A person who is obsessed with the desire for recognition does not have any community feeling yet, and has not managed to engage in self-acceptance, confidence in others, or contribution to others.” Once one possesses these things, the need for external recognition will naturally diminish.
For high-level employees, then, it’s important to set a tone in the workplace that allows colleagues to feel that they are of use. But as the book dictates, do not do this by fake praise – all that will do is foster further need for recognition (“Being praised essentially means that one is receiving judgement from another person as ‘good.’”) Instead, foster this atmosphere by trusting them, showing confidence.
The courage to be disliked
The Courage to be Disliked is at odds with many of the accepted wisdoms of the day. Modern cultural milieu suggests that we should be at all times accepting and validating others’ trauma as well as our own. Many may even find solace in this approach and find that it suits them best. But there is no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to fostering a successful workplace and even less so when it comes to leading a fulfilling life. For anyone who feels confined by the idea that there are parameters around what they can achieve and are capable of because of some past event or some subjective inferiority that has been harboured too long, perhaps look at those interpersonal relationships, perhaps find the courage to be disliked, and in doing so hope to find a community that you’re willing to support as much as it supports you. There is no need to be shackled to whatever mythos you’ve internally created.
As the book states: “Your life is not something that someone gives you, but something you choose yourself, and you are the one who decides how you live…No matter what has occurred in your life up to this point, it should have no bearing at all on how you live from now on.”
References
Kishimi, Ichiro & Koga, Fumitake. The Courage to Be Disliked: How to Free Yourself, Change your Life and Achieve Real Happiness. Bolinda Publishing Pty Ltd. 2013.
Introduction
Consider a simple yet profound question: What does your work mean to you? Is it merely a task to be completed, or does it resonate with a deeper purpose in your life?
Viktor Frankl, a prominent Austrian psychiatrist and philosopher, grappled with these very questions, evolving them into a broader exploration of life’s meaning. Drawing from his harrowing experiences in Nazi concentration camps, he developed logotherapy—a form of psychotherapy that centres around the search for meaning and purpose. Through logotherapy, Frankl illuminated the idea that life’s essence can be found not just in joyous moments but also in love, work, and our attitude towards inevitable suffering. This pioneering approach underscores personal responsibility and has offered countless individuals a renewed perspective on fulfilment, even in the face of daunting challenges.
In this piece, we delve into the intricacies of Frankl’s teachings, exploring the symbiotic relationship he identified between work and our quest for meaning.
A Holistic Approach to Life and Work
In his seminal work, ‘Man’s Search for Meaning,’ Viktor Frankl delved deeply into the multifaceted nature of human existence. He eloquently described the myriad pathways through which individuals uncover meaning. For Frankl, while work or ‘doing’ is undoubtedly a significant avenue for deriving meaning, it isn’t the only one. He emphasised the value of love, relationships, and our responses to inevitable suffering. Through this lens, he offered a panoramic view of life, advocating for a holistic perspective where meaning is not strictly tethered to our work but is intricately woven through all our experiences and interactions.
Progressing in his exploration, Frankl sounded a note of caution about the perils of letting work become an all-consuming end in itself. He drew attention to the risks of burnout and existential exhaustion when one’s sense of purpose is confined solely to one’s occupation or the relentless chase for wealth. To Frankl, an overemphasis on materialistic achievements could inadvertently lead individuals into what he termed an ‘existential vacuum’ – a state where life seems starkly devoid of purpose. He argued that in our quest for success, we must continually seek a deeper, more intrinsic purpose. Otherwise, we risk being blinded by life’s profound significance and richness beyond material gains.
Delving deeper into the realm of employment, Frankl confronted the psychological and existential challenges of unemployment. He noted that without the inherent structure and purpose provided by work, many individuals grapple with a profound sense of meaninglessness. This emotional and existential void often manifests in a diminishing sense of significance towards time, leading to dwindling motivation to engage wholeheartedly with the world. The ‘existential vacuum’ emerges again, casting its shadow and enveloping individuals in feelings of purposelessness.
Yet, Frankl’s observations were not merely confined to the challenges. He beautifully illuminated the resilience and fortitude of certain individuals, even in the face of unemployment. He showcased how, instead of linking paid work directly with purpose, some found profound meaning in alternative avenues such as volunteer work, creative arts, education, and community participation.
Frankl firmly believed that the essence of life’s meaning often lies outside the traditional realms of employment. To drive home this perspective, he recounted poignant stories, such as that of a desolate young man who unearthed profound purpose and reaffirmed his belief in his intrinsic value by preventing a distressed girl from taking her life. Such acts, as illustrated by Frankl, highlight the boundless potential for a meaningful existence, often discovered in genuine moments of human connection.
Work as an Avenue for Meaning and Identity
Viktor Frankl’s discourse on work transcended the common notions of duty and obligation. For him, work was more than a mere means to an end; it was a potent avenue to unearth meaning and articulate one’s identity. Frankl posited that when individuals align their work with their intrinsic identity—encompassing all its nuances and dimensions—they move beyond merely working to make a living. Instead, they find themselves working with a purpose.
This profound idea stems from his unwavering belief that our work provides us with a unique opportunity. Through it, we can harness our individual strengths and talents, channelling them to create a meaningful and lasting impact on the world around us.
In line with modern philosophical thought, which views work as a primary canvas for self-expression and self-realisation, Frankl also recognised its significance. He believed that work could serve as a pure channel, finely tuned to our unique skills, passions, and aspirations. This deep sense of accomplishment and fulfilment from one’s chosen profession, he asserted, is invaluable. However, Frankl also emphasised the importance of seeing the broader picture. While careers undeniably play a significant role in our lives, they are but a single facet in our ongoing quest for meaning.
Frankl reminds us that while our careers are integral to our lives, the quest for meaning isn’t imprisoned within their boundaries. He believed the core of true meaning emerges from our deep relationships, our natural capacity for empathy, and our virtues. These treasures of life, he asserted, can be manifested both within the confines of our workplace and beyond.
The True Measure of Meaning Through Work
For Viktor Frankl, our professional lives brim with potential for fulfilment. Yet, fulfilment wasn’t solely defined by accolades. Instead, it was about aligning our work with our deepest values and desires. It wasn’t just the milestones that mattered but how they resonated with our core beliefs.
Frankl’s logotherapy reshapes our perception of work, emphasising that even mundane tasks can hold significance when approached with intent. With the right mindset, every job becomes a step in our journey for meaning.
In Frankl’s writings, he weaves together tales of profound significance—a young man’s transformative act of kindness, a narrative not strictly tethered to work’s traditional realm. Yet, these stories anchor a timeless truth: In every endeavour, whether grand or humble, lies the potential for unparalleled meaning. Here, work isn’t just about designated roles—it becomes an evocative stage where profound moments play out. Beyond job titles and tasks, the depth, sincerity, and fervour we infuse into each act truly capture the essence of meaningful work.
Finding Fulfilment in Every Facet
Viktor Frankl’s profound insights into the human pursuit of meaning provide a distinctive lens through which we can evaluate both our daily tasks and life’s most pivotal moments. Through his exploration—whether addressing the ordinariness of daily life or the extremities of crisis—Frankl illuminated the profound interconnectedness of work and personal identity. He posited that our professions, while significant, are fragments of a vast tapestry that constitute human existence.
Navigating the journey of life requires continual adjustments to our perceptions of success and meaning. While our careers and professional achievements are significant, true fulfilment goes beyond these confines. It’s woven into our human experiences, the bonds we nurture, the challenges we face, and the joys we hold dear.
Frankl’s pioneering work in logotherapy urges us to approach life with intention and purpose. He beckons us to see the value in every moment, task, and human connection. As we delve into our careers and strive for success, aligning not just with outward accomplishments but with the very essence of who we are is vital.
Introduction
Coaching has long been viewed as a premium service, frequently offered only to the upper echelons of organisations, the C-suite executives. The potential benefits of coaching in enhancing leadership skills, strategic thinking, and overall effectiveness are well-documented (Gawande, 2011; Coutu & Kauffman, 2009). However, current research also underscores its broader utility across all tiers of an organisation, promoting it as an indispensable instrument for comprehensive personal and professional development (Grover & Furnham, 2016; Wang, Qing, et al., 2021).
Contemplating a world where coaching benefits could be accessed by every individual within an organisation, irrespective of their position, is invigorating. Envision a Chief Coaching Officer (CCO) guiding this transformation, meticulously integrating coaching into every facet of the organisational structure. Such progressive thinking could trigger a paradigm shift in the corporate landscape.
Coaching is now in the top three tools for modern organisations. There are a number of global organisations who are actively utilising coaching – those that are show marked individual and team improvements.
Coaching Beyond Conventional Domains
Atul Gawande’s (2011) illuminating article “Personal Best” and Ted Talk narrates how the power of coaching can transcend beyond traditional spaces into unexpected realms like the operating theatre. He invites a retired colleague to observe his surgical techniques and offer coaching, effectively bridging the coaching principles of sports or performing arts with the medical field. This compelling narrative is a testament to the universality of coaching, emphasising its potential for ongoing self-improvement across various professional disciplines.
Dispelling Misconceptions Around Coaching
To achieve an effective rollout of a comprehensive coaching strategy, we need to challenge the pre-existing association of coaching with performance improvement or the resolution of performance issues, particularly outside the C-suite. Coaching should be viewed as something other than a remedial measure but as a proactive tool for fostering personal and professional growth. This proactive view promotes an organisational culture where coaching becomes a regular aspect of professional development rather than a response to performance deficiencies.
Expanding the Horizon of Coaching
Consider an early career employee mastering technical skills while being coached to negotiate broader career challenges. Or a mid-level manager augmenting their leadership prowess through a customised development journey. The utility of coaching extends beyond conventional confines, offering numerous benefits, including amplified self-awareness, goal attainment, and improved stress management (Grant, 2013; Bozer & Sarros, 2014).
Introducing the Chief Coaching Officer
The advent of a Chief Coaching Officer (CCO) could revolutionise coaching. By nurturing a coaching culture within the organisation, a CCO can make coaching accessible to all, from entry-level professionals to senior executives. The CCO’s responsibilities would include overseeing the execution of coaching programmes, designing an overarching coaching strategy, and ensuring effective resource allocation. Crucially, the CCO would assess the impact of these initiatives on individual and organisational performance, thereby validating the effectiveness of the coaching interventions.
Addressing Potential Hurdles
The transition towards a coaching culture does not come without its challenges. These range from financial constraints and identifying apt coaches to the potential discomfort of professionals who may be reluctant to expose themselves to scrutiny. Nevertheless, these hurdles are not insurmountable. Retirement, for instance, need not symbolise the end of one’s career; the wealth of experience accumulated by retirees could be channelled into coaching roles. Furthermore, investing in coaching can yield significant returns, not just in the form of avoided mistakes but also through augmented performance (Gawande, 2011).
The Final Word
In our ever-competitive and rapidly evolving world, organisations must recognise the potential benefits of expanding the scope of coaching. Empirical evidence supports its effectiveness as a developmental intervention (Grover & Furnham, 2016; Sharma, 2017; Wang, Qing, et al., 2021). Adopting an organisation-wide approach to coaching can catalyse individual potential and drive company-wide growth. The appointment of a Chief Coaching Officer can be a strategic move towards fostering a culture of continuous learning and improvement. Ultimately, the goal is to enable every professional to achieve their personal best, regardless of their position or field.
References
Coutu, D., & Kauffman, C. (2009). What can coaches do for you? Harvard Business Review, 87(1), 92–97.
Gawande, A. (2011). Personal best. The New Yorker, October, 3.
Grover, S., & Furnham, A. (2016). Coaching as a developmental intervention in organisations: A systematic review of its effectiveness and the mechanisms underlying it. PloS one, 11(7), e0159137.
Bozer, G., & Sarros, J. C. (2012). Examining the effectiveness of executive coaching on coachees’ performance in the Israeli context. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 10(1), 14-32.
Grant, A. M. (2013). The efficacy of executive coaching in times of organisational change. Journal of Change Management, 13(4), 411-429.
Sharma, P. (2017). How coaching adds value in organisations-The role of individual level outcomes. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 15.
Wang, Q., Lai, Y., Xu, X., & McDowall, A. (2021). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: a meta-analysis of contemporary psychologically informed coaching approaches. Journal of Work-Applied Management.
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.
