Many people working in large companies speak business-buzzwords as a second language. Business language is full of pretty meaningless words. I Don’t Understand What Anyone Is Saying Anymore article tells that the language of internet business models has made the problem even worse. There are several strains of this epidemic: We have forgotten how to use the real names of real things, acronymitis, and Meaningless Expressions (like “Our goal is to exceed the customer’s expectation”). This would all be funny if it weren’t true. Observe it, deconstruct it, and appreciate just how ridiculous most business conversation has become.
Check out this brilliant Web Economy Bullshit Generator page. It generates random bullshit text based on the often used words in business language. And most of the material it generates look something you would expect from IT executives and their speechwriters (those are randomly generated with Web Economy Bullshit Generator):
“scale viral web services”
“integrate holistic mindshare”
“transform back-end solutions”
“incentivize revolutionary portals”
“synergize out-of-the-box platforms”
“enhance world-class schemas”
“aggregate revolutionary paradigms”
“enable cross-media relationships”
How to talk like a CIO article tries to tell how do CIOs talk, and what do they talk about, and why they do it like they do it. It sometimes makes sense to analyze the speaking and comportment styles of the people who’ve already climbed the corporate ladder if you want to do the same.
The Most Annoying, Pretentious And Useless Business Jargon article tells that the stupid business talk is longer solely the province of consultants, investors and business-school types, this annoying gobbledygook has mesmerized the rank and file around the globe. The next time you feel the need to reach out, touch base, shift a paradigm, leverage a best practice or join a tiger team, by all means do it. Just don’t say you’re doing it. If you have to ask why, chances are you’ve fallen under the poisonous spell of business jargon. Jargon masks real meaning. The Most Annoying, Pretentious And Useless Business Jargon article has a cache of expressions to assiduously avoid (if you look out you will see those used way too many times in business documents and press releases).
Is Innovation the Most Abused Word In Business? article tells that most of what is called innovation today is mere distraction, according to a paper by economist Robert Gordon. Innovation is the most abused word in tech. The iPad is about as innovative as the toaster. You can still read books without an iPad, and you can still toast bread without a toaster. True innovation radically alters the way we interact with the world. But in tech, every little thing is called “innovative.” If you were to believe business grads then “innovation” includes their “ideas” along the lines of “a website like *only better*” or “that thing which everyone is already doing but which I think is my neat new idea” Whether or not the word “innovation” has become the most abused word in the business context, that remains to be seen. “Innovation” itself has already been abused by the patent trolls.
Using stories to catch ‘smart-talk’ article tells that smart-talk is information without understanding, theory without practice – ‘all mouth and no trousers’, as the old aphorism puts it. It’s all too common amongst would-be ‘experts’ – and likewise amongst ‘rising stars’ in management and elsewhere. He looks the part; he knows all the right buzzwords; he can quote chapter-and-verse from all the best-known pundits and practitioners. But is it all just empty ‘smart-talk’? Even if unintentional on their part, people who indulge in smart-talk can be genuinely dangerous. They’ll seem plausible enough at first, but in reality they’ll often know just enough to get everyone into real trouble, but not enough to get out of it again. Smart-talk is the bane of most business – and probably of most communities too. So what can we do to catch it?
2,693 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
How to write a developer CV that recruiters love
https://talented.fi/en/blog/how-to-write-a-developer-cv/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.dlacalle.com/en/why-the-european-recovery-plan-will-likely-fail/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Deadly sins of start-ups
https://impicode.com/blog/deadly-sins-of-start-ups/
Unfortunately, in the vast majority (approximately 19 out of 20) my experiences with start-ups aren’t good. Here I will try to shortly explain my opinion. I hope this text will help some of the people to avoid major mistakes.
First, the idea
Unfortunately, ideas aren’t usually good ones. Most of start-up ideas at my desk are copies of some other projects that are currently trendy. A few years ago people said “let’s do something like Facebook, but…”, now they seem to switch to “it is like an Uber/Tinder, but for…”. Such ideas pop up from time to time and always looks the same.
Luckily, there are sometimes good ones, but start-ups often forget that an idea is only the beginning of the journey to success.
Secondly, a strict confidence
Unfortunately, most of my start-up clients overestimate the value of the idea. I have the impression that some of them think that their ideas are worth millions or billions of dollars. Which in some cases turns into paranoia that the idea will be “stolen” (whatever that means)
From the contractor’s point of view things look a little bit different – there is a new potential client with a strange idea and for some reason it demands signing an NDA with unusual terms, most often with a million-dollar penalty applied in under uncertain conditions. The client probably doesn’t know much about the business world and who knows, it may be even a sort of scam. How to protect yourself from this? It’s better not to sign this NDA and stay away from such a client.
To make it clear, we NDAs with our clients. Our contract template for programming services has a civilized clause regarding confidentiality. Even if we would not sign them, we are bound by law.
The confidentiality agreement is very important and should be signed but on reasonable terms. Unfortunately nearly half of start-ups that come to us demanding ridiculous clauses in NDA.
Third, maturity
Here is the next problem: the business maturity of start-ups is often very low. Extremely often the future founders end with a technical idea, without considering the business model. In some cases I was the first person they were discussing their business ideas.
Below is a list of the most basic questions that I ask:
Who is a targeted group of the product?
Why a user will want to reach for the product?
What is the estimated number of users?
How many users will be acquired at the MVP stage?
What will be the main marketing channels?
How will the product earn for itself?
Does the proposed business model have a chance to cover implementation costs (and how much time will that require)?
Unfortunately, the vast majority of start-up runners don’t know the answers and have a very naive point of view. For example, I often hear that “if the product is well made, it will sell itself”
If you want to run a star-up, please do your homework. Prepare yourself at least on a basic level. If an idea will come to you, don’t start looking for a company to implement it, but talk it through with several people. Let it grow up and mature.
Fourth, financing
Building a start-up is an expensive and long-lasting process. It requires a full commitment, so it is rather incompatible with another job. You must therefore have a source of income for many months. If the start-up is based on technology, it should be remembered that its creation is also a very expensive process.
Fifth, time
Building a start-up is not a sprint but a marathon. Exactly the same is when comes to build of an innovative software. You need to be aware that the first version may not be a hit. At an early stage, careful observation of users, making corrections and changes, and perhaps even redefining the goals and the idea of the system are necessary. The product creation process will take many months or years. Even if you have an accurate idea of what your product will be like, you have to confront it with reality.
Meanwhile, many start-ups do not seem to know the MVP concept at all, wanting to immediately implement an application (sometimes really huge) with a number of side functionalities which are costly but not important from the point of view of the main goal of the product.
Sixth, arrogance
And here we come to the last of my private list of sins of major start-ups. The startup environment is specific. Undoubtedly, starting this type of business requires courage and determination. A large dose of confidence is needed, but when it is supported by success (whatever it may be), it can turn into arrogance.
The main argument that I am wrong, supporting the thesis that the project can be done within the prescribed period was the student’s statement: “You have your own experience, but I have my own experience that says it can be done“. Unfortunately, the project failed.
The summary
For balance, I should mention that I also had contact with very reliable and well-prepared start-ups. But unfortunately they were a vast minority. So if you plan to start your own innovative business, remember that:
It is worth to confront your idea with others from the very beginning.
A company that makes meaningful business won’t even think about “stealing” your idea.
You have to think not only about the product but also how to acquire customers and make money on it because nothing sells itself.
You have to take into account the costs, i.e. you must have funds or obtain them.
Do not count on the fact that the first implementation of your idea will have a serious impact – this is just the beginning of the journey.
Use the common sense and listen carefully to the criticism.
Good luck!
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.choicehr.fi/osaatko-tunnistaa-osaamisen/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=blogi-traffic&utm_term=director&utm_content=tunnista-osaaminen&hsa_acc=2519978498095486&hsa_cam=23844634456150143&hsa_grp=23844634463230143&hsa_ad=23844634463220143&hsa_src=fb&hsa_net=facebook&hsa_ver=3
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://talented.fi/fi/blog/koodaajan-linkedin-profiili/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.aalto.fi/en/aalto-university/practical-tips-for-fostering-diversity
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.nitor.com/fi/uutiset-ja-blogi/miten-luon-valmiuksia-paasta-ulos-kriisista
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Future of Work Belongs to Entrepreneurs
by Infobae
January 2019
https://www.scalabl.com/businessreview/en/the-future-of-work-belongs-to-entrepreneurs
Francisco Santolo foresees a future of unlimited possibility in which the individual will be more powerful than ever, with their impact multiplied by the communities which they are part of, linked to purpose, passion, vision, and values.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.veikkaus.fi/fi/x/kattely
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://op.media/chydenius/talous-ja-yhteiskunta/resilientit-organisaatiot-selviavat-kriiseista-muita-paremmin-51c91eddd213437cb2404f2080c77e21
Tomi Engdahl says:
USA Plunges To 10th Place In World Competitiveness Rankings
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/usa-plunges-10th-place-world-competitiveness-rankings
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ketteryyden ytimessä on jatkuva oppiminen.
Miten se saadaan osaksi yrityksen jaettua tapaa toimia? Lue blogistamme miksi ketterä ajattelutapa tulee ulottua organisaation jokaiseen toiminnan osaan.
Jos ketteryys ei ole kulttuurissa, niin sitä ei ole
https://www.nitor.com/fi/uutiset-ja-blogi/jos-ketteryys-ei-ole-kulttuurissa-niin-sita-ei-ole?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=resilience_summer_2020&utm_content=a
Ohjelmistokehityksestä alkunsa saanut ketterä toimintatapa valloittaa yhä uusia toimialoja ja alueita, eikä se ole enää vähään aikaan ollut pelkästään ohjelmistoyritysten tapa organisoida työtä. Jos ketteryyttä ei kuitenkaan omaksuta osaksi organisaation yleistä tapaa ajatella ja toimia, sitä ei ole.
Tomi Engdahl says:
COVID-19′s effects on consumer behaviour and businesses – Market research results, part I
https://www.columbiaroad.com/blog/covid-19s-effects-on-consumer-behaviour-and-businesses-market-research-results
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.inc.com/bill-carmody/your-title-doesnt-make-you-a-great-leader-but-these-7-dimensions-do.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
Eat the Frogs First – A Guide to Prioritizing
https://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/eat-the-frogs-first-a-guide-to-prioritizing.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/a-brief-history-of-money
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-people-and-companies-feel-about-working-remotely/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Growth Hacking, mitä se on? Viisi käytännön esimerkkiä
https://kubla.fi/blogi/growth-hacking/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=6187247301236&utm_content=6187247302036&utm_term=6187247301436
Tomi Engdahl says:
28 Examples Of Hilariously Unrealistic Expectations When Applying For A Job
https://www.boredpanda.com/unrealistic-criteria-hiring-professionals-recruiters/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=BPFacebook
Tomi Engdahl says:
When many organizations value bullshit over real competence starting from recruiting process and measure work performance with bullshit metrics it is no wonder that many business results are often shitty.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Shock.. The ability to bullshit in front of people is better than actual real skills. Sounds absolutely 2020.
Tech Sector Job Interviews Assess Anxiety, Not Software Skills
https://news.ncsu.edu/2020/07/tech-job-interviews-anxiety/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Psychology Shows 12 Things Men and Women Need to Change in Their Communication Styles in Order to Understand Each Other Better
https://brightside.me/inspiration-psychology/psychology-shows-12-things-men-and-women-need-to-change-in-their-communication-styles-in-order-to-understand-each-other-better-797839/
Tomi Engdahl says:
10+ Unobvious Things to Do As Soon As You Enter Your Hotel Room
https://brightside.me/inspiration-tips-and-tricks/10-unobvious-things-to-do-as-soon-as-you-enter-your-hotel-room-795384/?utm_source=tsp_pages&utm_medium=fb_organic&utm_campaign=fb_gr_foodgasmic
Tomi Engdahl says:
Elon Musk Owes His Success to This Accelerated Learning Process Used by Thomas Edison and Nikola TeslaBy the age of 46, the man has built three multibillion-dollar companies, and this is his secret.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-3-step-problem-solving-trick-thomas-edison-and-nikola-tesla-2019-3
Tomi Engdahl says:
‘Why Do You Want This Job?’ Is A Trick Question — Here Is How To Intelligently Answer It
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/03/26/why-do-you-want-this-job-is-a-trick-question-here-is-how-to-intelligently-answer-it/?utm_campaign=forbes&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Malorie/#6d616c6f7269
As an interviewee, you want to get the “Why do you want this job?” question. Compared to all of the other challenging brain teaser questions, this is the best one to use to your advantage—if you handle it the right way.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Heikki Valkama: Sä kun olet ammattilainen, voisit vähän auttaa – teettävätkö kaverit sinulla häikäilemättä ilmaistyötä?
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11449020
Ystäviä on mukava auttaa, mutta jossain menee raja, kirjoittaa Heikki Valkama blogissaan.
Tomi Engdahl says:
How To Demonstrate Your True Competence And Win People Over
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2018/10/22/how-to-demonstrate-your-true-competence-and-win-people-over/
Caprino: How can we shape people’s expectations of our skills so they can believe in our capabilities?
Nasher: One of the keys to displaying your expertise is a high level of confidence. Your clients and superiors don’t select what they like best, they choose what they fear least. So eliminate others’ anxieties and you will be handsomely rewarded. Demonstrate confidence regarding your skills and underpin this with your successes, whether from past achievements or from experiences related to a project you are currently working on.
Due to a mechanism known as the ‘confirmation bias’, others will believe in you and will confirm their assumptions – unconsciously. You should therefore avoid modesty regarding your core competencies, as people tend to confirm low expectations as well and would then search for weaknesses and shortcomings. Women especially tend to be too modest about their presumed outcome, a mistake you should avoid.
Caprino: Delivering bad news is challenging and often damaging to our reputation. How can we deliver good and bad news to gain the most advantage?
Nasher: As a clever impression manager, you can use the ‘halo effect’ to your advantage, to maximize the impact of success while suffering the least damage from your failures.
With good news, maximize your presence: always deliver the news in person, stand up in meetings when reporting good news, speak as long as possible and do not distract from yourself by using too many slides.
When delivering bad news, put as little focus on yourself as possible. Stay in the background and be as invisible as possible. If they are so bad that you have to deliver them in person, describe your mistakes clearly and honestly, but move on to optimism as quickly as possible and talk about your key learnings and the bright future ahead of you – this will again lead to a positive halo shining on you.
Caprino: How do we frame our competence so we can insulate it from corrosive influences?
Nasher: It’s not easy to determine the part an individual’s competence plays in a successful solution to a given problem. The result of a successful treatment by a physician, for example, seems clear at first sight. But the factors leading up to the outcome are all mixed up in the result and impossibly difficult to unravel, as factors other than mere competence play a role.
There are three main factors involved are:
difficulty level (ease)
luck
motivation
The more difficult the task, the more bad luck experienced, and the less effort the individual put into the task, then the greater the role that the individual’s competence played in the success.
You should emphasize the challenges of the job at hand and point out any unfavorable circumstances that will make the job more difficult. Most people only do that after a failure, but that’s too late. You should not, however, awaken the impression that it was necessary for you to work very hard for your earlier successes. They came easy for you. Since you are a natural, you were born for your special field, and your path was, in a way, predestined.
Caprino: You’ve mentioned “power talking.” What is it and how can we engage in it?
Nasher: Speech plays a key part in projecting an image of expertise, with a technique called power talking. American linguist Robin Lakoff observed that women typically use “powerless” speech patterns containing certain low-status elements.
On the other hand, masculine language typically displays higher status and greater power by leaving out unnecessary ballast. “Powerless speech” is overly polite and seems weak. For example, a sentence beginning with “Won’t you please” is characteristic of powerless speech. The powerless speaker doesn’t expect to be taken seriously and won’t be.
Perceived status plays a major role here: Powerless language is associated with low social status and little convincing.
You should therefore use language that is commanding and ‘powerful.’
Caprino: How do we elevate our status through everyday interactions?
There are many ways to display status. Clothing, for example, has a remarkably strong effect on status. And yet people place surprisingly little emphasis on their clothes in everyday life. What are you wearing right now? Have you chosen your clothing wisely? When a researcher questioned passersby about their clothes, it became evident that there was hardly any connection between their preferred style and the clothes they actually wore. They had chosen their clothes for supposedly practical reasons, such as comfort or weather, and were neglecting the effect it had on other people’s perception of them.
So choose your clothes deliberately, according to the saying “Don’t dress for the job you have but for the one you want.”
You may think that in your modern organization, nobody needs a Rolex watch or a Ferragamo tie. Well, it doesn’t have to be a classic. What constitutes a status symbol depends on the environment, but you’ll find them everywhere
Do you feel that it is somehow disgraceful to want to shine more brightly? We all have only one life at our disposal, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to achieve our personal best while we’re here.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Manipulators Are More Likely To Engage in ‘Virtuous Victim Signaling,’ Says Study
Plus: Protesters sue over alleged mistreatment by arresting officers, a new ruling on robocalls, and more…
https://reason.com/2020/07/07/narcissists-psychopaths-and-manipulators-are-more-likely-to-engage-in-virtuous-victim-signaling-says-study/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Continental Shift: The World’s Biggest Economies Over Time
https://www.statista.com/chart/22256/biggest-economies-in-the-world-timeline/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Why Compassion Is a Better Managerial Tactic than Toughness
https://hbr.org/2015/05/why-compassion-is-a-better-managerial-tactic-than-toughness?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=hbr
The question is: How should we react when an employee is not performing well or makes a mistake?
Frustration is of course the natural response — and one we all can identify with. Especially if the mistake hurts an important project or reflects badly upon us.
The traditional approach is to reprimand the employee in some way. The hope is that some form of punishment will be beneficial: it will teach the employee a lesson. Expressing our frustration also may relieve us of the stress and anger caused by the mistake. Finally, it may help the rest of the team stay on their toes to avoid making future errors.
Some managers, however, choose a different response when confronted by an underperforming employee: compassion and curiosity. Not that a part of them isn’t frustrated or exasperated — maybe they still worry about how their employee’s mistakes will reflect back on them — but they are somehow able to suspend judgment and may even be able to use the moment to do a bit of coaching.
What does research say is best? The more compassionate response will get you more powerful results.
First, compassion and curiosity increase employee loyalty and trust. Research has shown that feelings of warmth and positive relationships at work have a greater say over employee loyalty than the size of their paycheck. In particular, a study by Jonathan Haidt of New York University shows that the more employees look up to their leaders and are moved by their compassion or kindness (a state he terms elevation), the more loyal they become to him or her.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/security-data-protection/entry-level-career-advice-aspiring-cybersecurity-professionals/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Kuinka kannustan henkilöstöä arvion jättämiseen?
https://www.tuntopalvelu.fi/artikkeli/kuinka-kannustan-henkilostoa-arvion-jattamiseen
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google Recruiters Say Using the ‘X-Y-Z Formula’ on Your Resume Will Improve Your Odds of Getting Hired at GoogleAlternative: Reverse engineer their advice and improve recruitment at your business.
https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/google-recruiters-say-these-5-resume-tips-including-x-y-z-formula-will-improve-your-odds-of-getting-hired-at-google.html?cid=sf01002
More than two million people apply to work for Google each year, which is more than 20 times the number of employees at the company at any given time.
With that kind of volume, it makes sense that Google proactively tries to tell applicants what they should do to improve their odds of getting noticed within the herd.
Use the X by Y by Z formula
Google describes this as: “Accomplished [X] as measured by [Y], by doing [Z].”
This means that you want to focus on accomplishments — quantitative results and the impact that you had as a result. It’s probably easiest to explain this by using a few examples from the Google recruiters’ YouTube videos themselves.
Best: “Won second place out of 50 teams in hackathon at NJ Tech by working with two colleagues to develop an app that synchronizes mobile calendars.
Best: “Grew revenue for 15 small and medium business clients by 10% QoQ by mapping new software features as solutions to their business goals.”
One point about jargon: Use shorthand like “QoQ” (for quarter over quarter) only if you’re 100 percent sure that the resume reviewer will know exactly what you mean.
Tomi Engdahl says:
When a team member fails to pull their own weight on group projects, it isn’t just frustrating; it can affect your entire group’s performance.
How to Work with Someone Who Isn’t a Team Player
https://hbr.org/2017/04/how-to-work-with-someone-who-isnt-a-team-player?utm_campaign=hbr&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Do you work with someone who isn’t a team player? Maybe they’re overly focused on completing and promoting their own work. Or they don’t chip in when everyone else is scrambling to meet a deadline or pulling a presentation together. This isn’t simply frustrating; it can affect your entire group’s performance. How do you work with this person in a way that doesn’t make you resentful? And how can you encourage them to think more about the team?
Tomi Engdahl says:
An analysis of 100 productivity hacks suggested timeboxing was the most useful.
How Timeboxing Works and Why It Will Make You More Productive
https://hbr.org/2018/12/how-timeboxing-works-and-why-it-will-make-you-more-productive?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=hbr&fbclid=IwAR0HjyPCzDFfIg1tKzM2D8bEtSvQAGIF-NbwbndY3EriOJP8WJy5Frrr5Lc
Five years ago I read Daniel Markovitz’s argument for migrating to-do lists into calendars. Since then, my productivity has at least doubled.
To-Do Lists Don’t Work
https://hbr.org/2012/01/to-do-lists-dont-work
Stop making to-do lists. They’re simply setting you up for failure and frustration. Consider the to-do lists you’re currently managing: how many items have been languishing since Michelle Bachman was leading the field for the Republican nomination? How often do you scan your list just so that you can pick off the ones you can finish in two minutes? How many items aren’t really to-dos at all, but rather serious projects that require significant planning?
Tomi Engdahl says:
It’s not enough to simply assume that employees will act with integrity. Leaders must talk openly, explicitly, and regularly about its importance.
MANAGING ORGANIZATIONS
How to Build a Company That (Actually) Values Integrity
https://hbr.org/2020/07/how-to-build-a-company-that-actually-values-integrity?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=hbr
For decades, leaders were expected to focus on one thing: financial results. But we are now in the midst of an ethical revolution. Leaders are increasingly held accountable for poor behavior, and companies are pushed by employees, governments, and customers to step up and adopt a multi-stakeholder approach that serves social purposes as well as investor demands.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Job interviewer: So why are you deeply passionate about working with us?
Me: You need servers, networks, and firewalls. I need to eat.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Power of Leaders Who Focus on Solving Problems
https://hbr.org/2018/04/the-power-of-leaders-who-focus-on-solving-problems?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=hbr&utm_medium=social
It’s the leadership that dare not speak its name — we’ve heard this discomfort with the term expressed so many times that we now call people like Ming “anti-leadership leaders.” But while we started out thinking it was “MIT style,” we now believe it is a style that is generally trending in the world, at least in settings where a premium is placed on innovation. People like Vivienne Ming can be found in many places, getting focused on opportunities, getting others energized and organized, and getting problems solved. Call them what you want, but what they’re doing is leading.
Tomi Engdahl says:
People Don’t Want to Be Compared with Others in Performance Reviews. They Want to Be Compared with Themselves
https://hbr.org/2018/03/people-dont-want-to-be-compared-with-others-in-performance-reviews-they-want-to-be-compared-with-themselves?utm_campaign=hbr&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
People hate performance evaluations. They really do. According to a survey of Fortune 1,000 companies done by the Corporate Executive Board (CEB), 66% of the employees were strongly dissatisfied with the performance evaluations they received in their organizations. More strikingly, 65% of the employees believed that performance evaluations were not even relevant to their jobs.
This is unfortunate considering the amount of resources that organizations devote to conducting performance evaluations. CEB research says that when we take into account how much money organizations are investing in their performance appraisal technology and how much time managers are spending to evaluate their employees, on average U.S. organizations spend $3,000 per year, per employee. This implies that billions of dollars are spent across the country because more than 90% of American companies provide performance evaluations at least once a year.
Why are employees so frustrated about the way they are evaluated, despite all the time and money being spent on these evaluations? What are organizations missing?
We believe that one clue lies in the fact that 71% of the American employees thought that their evaluations had problems in the domain of fairness.
Fairness is at the heart of enhancing employees’ work experiences. It begets numerous benefits such as employees’ satisfaction with their jobs and commitment to their companies. In the context of performance evaluations, when people believe that the outcomes of their evaluations are commensurate with how well they performed, they are likely to consider the evaluations as fair. But there is so much more that goes into people’s perceptions of fairness. Specifically, employees perceive the fairness of evaluation processes when they feel included and respected.
When employees perceive fairness in the evaluation processes, they are more likely to accept their evaluations, in which case they will digest the information contained in the evaluations and motivate themselves accordingly.
important driver of the fairness in performance evaluations is the reference point managers use to appraise their employees’ performance.
One reference point is the focal employees’ own past performance. When employees’ current performance is compared with their past performance, managers evaluate the temporal trajectory of the employees’ achievement, thereby providing feedback on how much employees have (or have not) made progress over time. We call those temporal comparison evaluations.
Another reference point is other employees’ performance during the same period. When employees’ performance is compared with how others have done, managers evaluate how much employees have (or have not) demonstrated superiority over others. We call those social comparison evaluations.
Our findings demonstrate that employees consider temporal comparison evaluations to be fairer than social comparison evaluations.
Participants who received temporal comparison evaluations perceived significantly higher levels of fairness than those who received social comparison evaluations. When their current performance was discussed relative to their own past performance, participants believed that the evaluations were more individualized, believing that the manager incorporated specific information about them. Thus, they considered that the evaluations were more discerning and accurate, and that they had been treated in a more respectful way.
Employees whose performance was compared with another person’s performance believed that while delivering such evaluations, their manager failed to account for specific details of their performance. Thus, they considered the evaluations to be less accurate. They thought that their evaluations were less respectful, perhaps because they felt like they were being treated like another face in the crowd. Importantly, these differences in the perceived fairness between temporal and social comparison evaluations were independent of the favorability of the evaluations: even when the evaluations were positive, employees perceived the process of their performance evaluations to be fairer when they received temporal comparison evaluations (“You did better than before”) rather than social comparison evaluations
Past research on fairness suggests that such consequences can be very costly to organizations, especially in the long run.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Here are three ways to get naysayers onboard when you make a tough call.
How to (Actually) Change Someone’s Mind
https://hbr.org/2020/07/how-to-actually-change-someones-mind?utm_campaign=hbr&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
If you’re a leader, it’s likely that not everyone who works with you will agree with the decisions you make — and that’s okay. Leadership involves making unpopular decisions while navigating complex relationships with colleagues, partners, and clients. But often, you will need to get buy-in from these constituents, and therefore you will need to convince them to change their mind.
There is little friction involved in convincing people who are your natural supporters. But trying to change the mind of a dissenter, or a detractor, is a different story. How do you go about convincing someone who, for one reason or another, doesn’t see eye-to-eye with you? Someone who gives you a flat out “no”?
The leaders who were most successful in overcoming others’ skepticism were those who diagnosed the root of the fundamental disagreement before trying to persuade. They first asked themselves, “What’s driving my detractor’s resistance?” These leaders often pinpointed which aspects of their arguments elicited the most pushback and the most emotional reactions. Then, depending on the answer, they approached the situation with one of the following three targeted strategies.
The Cognitive Conversation
When to use it: The detractor may be opposed to your argument because of an objective reason. If they’ve clearly articulated a logical set of objections, and they don’t appear to be hiding ulterior motives, approach them with a cognitive conversation. This is especially useful when the detractor is known to have a no-nonsense attitude and can easily set aside emotions in their decision-making process.
How it works: A successful cognitive conversation requires two things: sound arguments and good presentation.
You also want to use a logical framework and clear storyline to force the detractor to reassess their thinking. For example, you can emphasize that the decision is based on cost, quality, and service, but above all, cost and quality.
Be cautious about not introducing emotions into the discussion, which could give the impression that you and your detractor are not on common ground.
The goal is to show the person that, on an objective and factual basis, their initial stance on the situation isn’t as reasonable as your argument. Be warned, these detractors are not easily swayed by broad generalizations.
The catch: Don’t assume that getting a “yes” from this type of detractor signals a conversion into an everlasting supporter. You may have persuaded them on this specific issue, but they may disagree with you again in the future. If that’s true, expect to have another cognitive conversation on that separate argument.
The Champion Conversion
When to use it: When the detractor isn’t easily persuaded through cognitive arguments, or when they harbor a grievance in your relationship with them, engaging in debates may be futile.
How it works: Don’t jump in and try to convince the other person. Instead, invest time in personally learning about and building rapport with them. Here, it’s not about arguments or presentation, at least initially, but understanding their perspective and why they might feel personally affronted. For instance, you might ask questions about her team, and which team members she feels have the most potential. Gradually convert this detractor into someone who is your champion or advocate, perhaps by shedding more light on the qualities that you value in individuals, both on your team as well as your counterpart’s team, or showing how you value her leadership style. By the time the decision must be made, try to make sure you’re both on the same page as to which qualities matter for promotion decisions and that you’ve clearly articulated how your candidate exemplifies those qualities.
The catch: No matter how much of a champion the other person becomes, don’t expect them to agree with a decision that’s fundamentally illogical. You can’t rely on relationship alone; your stance still needs to be backed by clear logic. Additionally, these types of detractors can easily sense if you’re trying to manipulate the situation to get them on your side.
Authenticity is key: allow the other person to see who you are so that they can more fully understand your point of view.
The Credible Colleague Approach
When to use it: There are times when the detractor’s deeply-held personal beliefs make them fundamentally opposed to your proposal.
How it works: Rather than trying to argue with someone who seems resistant, bring in a credible colleague. A champion of your position from another part of the organization, whether they are a peer or superior, may be better-suited to convince this detractor. This forces the detractor to disentangle who you are from what your argument might be and evaluate the idea based on its objective merits. If you and the detractor are at an impasse, the credible colleague might just tip the scales in your favor.
The catch: Calling in an external supporter is a double-edged sword. While it can achieve the outcome you want, it may exacerbate your detractor’s opposition, especially if the detractor feels that the credible colleague has forced them to take your side. It’s critical to find the right colleague who can tactfully advocate for your position while maintaining a cordial relationship.
It’s not easy to have detractors, and it’s even harder to change their minds.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://hbr.org/2018/10/the-6-fundamental-skills-every-leader-should-practice?utm_campaign=hbr&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
Tomi Engdahl says:
I’ve been talking to conspiracy theorists for 20 years – here are my six rules of engagement
https://theconversation.com/ive-been-talking-to-conspiracy-theorists-for-20-years-here-are-my-six-rules-of-engagement-143132
Tomi Engdahl says:
How to (politely) turn down requests for things that aren’t worth your time:
9 Ways to Say No to Busywork and Unrealistic Deadlines
https://hbr.org/2019/03/9-ways-to-say-no-to-busywork-and-unrealistic-deadlines?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=hbr&utm_source=facebook
The difference between living a life of peace and productivity versus a life of stress and resentment could lie in one simple skill: Learning how to say no.
Tomi Engdahl says:
There are 6 simple attributes Google instills in their managers.
Google Spent Years Studying Effective Bosses. Now They Teach New Managers These 6 Things
http://on.inc.com/GeNeK1W
The transition to management requires a transformation of thought.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Narsisti janoaa alituista ylistystä, koska hermoreitti reistailee.
https://www.tiede.fi/artikkeli/uutiset/narsistin-palkitsemisjarjestelma-takkuaa
Tomi Engdahl says:
If someone takes credit for your idea, respond by saying “thanks for spotlighting my point.”
DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS
7 Tricky Work Situations, and How to Respond to Them
https://hbr.org/2017/10/7-tricky-work-situations-and-how-to-respond-to-them?utm_campaign=hbr&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
You know the moment: a mood-veering, thought-steering, pressure-packed interaction with a colleague, boss, or client where the right thing to say is stuck in a verbal traffic jam between your brain and your mouth.
Tomi Engdahl says:
If you think you’re underperforming at work, you’re probably right. Here’s what to do about it.
4 Reasons Talented Employees Don’t Reach Their Potential
https://hbr.org/2019/03/4-reasons-talented-employees-dont-reach-their-potential?utm_campaign=hbr&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
No matter how talented someone might be, there is no guarantee that their talents will translate into top performance. The science of human potential has generally illustrated that an individual’s overarching competence cannot be fully understood unless we also account for their emotional make-up, preferences, and dispositions. No matter how smart, knowledgeable, and experienced you are, there is generally a difference between what you can do and what you normally do.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Best not to ignore
” disengagement ” Your top performers can lose complete interest through bad management and morph into entirely different people with entirely different interests.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Most organizations want a yes-man. That’s why they lose the good ones. Most yes-men are promoted but become overworked and eventually resign. What gives?
Tomi Engdahl says:
7 Things Confident People Always Say
http://on.inc.com/iv05ygM
Of all the traits a person can possess, this one may be most highly correlated with success.
Of all the personality traits, confidence may be most highly correlated with success. In business, it helps a person take risks and pursue opportunities. And compared with insecure people, those who are confident are perceived as more attractive and tend to have a larger circle of high-quality relationships.
What is it about confidence that’s so enticing? First off, it’s important to make distinctions about what confidence is not. It’s not cockiness or a sense of being better than others. Rather, it’s a quiet belief in one’s own ability without the hubris that results in arrogance. Here are the kinds of things you’ll hear truly confident people say.
1. “I wouldn’t worry about it.”
2. “Go for it.”
3. “Doing it this way works for me.”
4. “Why not me?”
5. “I need to say something.”
6. “Tell me more.”
7. “Can you help me?”