Nay-sayers Be Nay-saying

Posted on 2011/11/282011/11/28 by Jason Hensel

I’m usually a positive person. I like to think that I’m really open-minded and flexible. But lately, I’ve been experiencing a case of the nay-says, for myself and in my relationships with others.

I’ve been trying to figure out why this has started. Perhaps it’s because I experience a lot of nay-saying from others, and it’s just rubbed off on me. How many times must your ideas be nay-sayed before you just preemptively nay-say them yourself?

It’s debilitating. It creates a negative cycle that’s difficult to escape. I guess I can take comfort in the fact that I’m noticing it, but that doesn’t make it go away when it’s delivered from others.

After a quick Google search, I found several articles about how to deal with nay-sayers. Basically, I should stay away from them. But when you can’t, what do you do? Don’t let it get to you? Tried that; still trying that.

I think the best thing to do is to remain positive, offer positive rebuttals to the nay-sayers. It’s a fierce struggle, but if you stick with it, your positive attitude will prevail.

For example, when offering up something new at work, the conversation could go like this:

Positive You: I found a great thing that we can add to our system that will increase productivity, streamline our workflow and it’s free.

Nay-sayer: It doesn’t fit our strategy, and it won’t make us any money.

Positive You: This would be a great time, then, to discuss our strategy, especially if it’s one that doesn’t allow for greater productivity with free products.

Granted, the nay-sayer could counter with even more nay-saying. Just keep lobbing positive laser beams at that person. Eventually, you’ll win.

Or go down in a blaze of glory. There I go again, nay-saying myself.

(Photo via Flickr: Ahd Photography / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Review: The Night Season

Posted on 2011/11/21 by Jason Hensel

Ah, the family drama. What’s more fun than to learn about others, and what’s more disappointing than finding out that they’re just like you? I guess that’s the beauty of universal truths. Not handled well, though, these truths can drive you mad with boredom.

This is the case with The Night Season, by Rebecca Lenkiewicz, a play meandering for truth and completion. And what it does find is no different that what is found in hundreds of other stories. Some will welcome the familiarity. For others, knowing how it concludes before arriving at the end is an exercise in patience and concentration.

In the play, we witness a family drama set in Sligo, Ireland, which was once home for poet W.B. Yeats. Lenkiewicz–inspired by Yeats’ work–doesn’t handle language or image quite as well as her muse. However, like Yeats, she’s earnest with her ideas.

The family consists of three sisters (Judith, Rose, and Maud), a single father (Patrick), and a grandmother (Lily). The mother is never seen and living off in London, having left the family 15 years ago. This is the family’s underlying angst. Their need for love manifests itself in several ways. Rose sleeping with a visiting actor (playing Yeats…yes, Yeats, in a movie), Judith’s on again off again affair with Gary, and Maud’s care for her absent husband are the three most blatant examples. Patrick’s interest in a bartender with big breasts and Lily’s childlike adoration for the actor add levity to a play carrying a lot of woe-is-me weight.

Though filled with stock characters (e.g., the flighty grandmother, the drunken dad) and clichéd scenes (I won’t give away the ending), the writing’s structure is interesting enough to keep you reading. In fact, it feels like a screenplay, with quick, short scenes and various locations throughout its pages.

That’s actually what this play needs, to be made into a movie. If so, it will do well on Lifetime, where its tale of unrequited love would fit right in with that network’s programming.

With The Night Season, we have a so-so play by a promising writer whose ideas are still finding a foundation. Let’s just hope in the future, it’s one we haven’t seen before.

Send to Kindle

Your Face May Keep You from Getting Hired

Posted on 2011/11/15 by Jason Hensel

Have a big scar on your face? Maybe a huge mole? You might want to figure a way to cover up that mark if you’re seeking a job. A new study shows that marks (stigmas) on faces are huge distractions to interviewers, causing them to remember the stigma more than content.

“When evaluating applicants in an interview setting, it’s important to remember what they are saying,” Rice University Professor of Psychology Mikki Hebl said. “Our research shows if you recall less information about competent candidates because you are distracted by characteristics on their face, it decreases your overall evaluations of them.”

The research conclusions came from two studies. The first involved 171 undergraduate students watching a computer-mediated interview while tracking their eye activity. They had to recall candidate information after the interview.

“When looking at another person during a conversation, your attention is naturally directed in a triangular pattern around the eyes and mouth,” said Juan Madera, a University of Houston professor and co-author of the study. “We tracked the amount of attention outside of this region and found that the more the interviewers attended to stigmatized features on the face, the less they remembered about the candidate’s interview content, and the less memory they had about the content led to decreases in ratings of the applicant.”

Face-to-face interviews were held during the second study. Thirty-eight full-time managers enrolled in a part-time MBA and/or a Master of Science in a hospitality management program, all of whom had experience in interviewing applicants for current or past staff positions, interviewed candidates who had a facial birthmark.

Even with their workplace experience and education, the interviewers had a tough time managing their reactions to the stigma, Madera says. The stigma’s effects were actually stronger with this group, which he attributed to the face-to-face interview setting.

“It just shows that despite maturity and experience levels, it is still a natural human reaction to react negatively to facial stigma,” Madera said.

“The bottom line is that how your face looks can significantly influence the success of an interview,” Hebl said. “There have been many studies showing that specific groups of people are discriminated against in the workplace, but this study takes it a step further, showing why it happens. The allocation of attention away from memory for the interview content explains this.”

Well, now, even more proof that looks do matter. What, then, is a good solution?

(Photo via Flickr: Bart Everson / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Review: Whatever

Posted on 2011/11/102011/11/10 by Jason Hensel

Duality is a common theme in literature. In fact, it’s one of my favorite themes, especially when it’s an internal struggle. Questions such as who we are, what’s our place in the world, how we perceive ourselves as opposed to how others perceive us are questions that have fascinated and baffled humans for thousands of years. I suspect we’ll still be trying to answer them millions of years from now as the growing Sun swallows our planet.

Whatever (Original French title: Extension du domaine de la lutte) by Michel Houellbecq is another book posing these types of questions without definitive answers. With so much literature published on this topic, the most important question rises as to how well a writer attempts an answer.

The novel’s protagonist is a 30-year-old computer programmer who writes strange stories about talking animals in his spare time. He’s content (or resigned) to how is his life is playing out, until he’s sent on a trip with a co-worker to train provincial workers on how to use a new computer system.

His traveling partner, Raphael Tisserand, is younger and a virgin. Together, they train by day and go out at night in various French cities. The protagonist (he’s never given a name) observes Tisserand’s repeated failures in trying to have sexual relations with women and comes to the conclusion that capitalism is to blame. Because of a free-market economy, the rich (the good-looking) get richer and the poor (the ugly) get poorer.

In one of the more suspenseful scenes in the book, the protagonist urges Tisserand to exact revenge on a woman and her lover that has thwarted Tisserand’s advances. The outcome, though, succumbs to the protagonist’s capitalist theory about love.

After this scene, the book becomes a lot more philosophical, shooting toward the universal like a slim rocket.

“For years I have been walking alongside a phantom who looks like me, and who lives in a theoretical paradise strictly related to the world,” the protagonist says toward the end of the book. “I’ve long believed that it was up to me to become one with this phantom. That’s done with.”

This is a common feeling among many in the world, that what you once thought would happen–or once thought you’d be–will no longer be a part of reality. It’s a difficult realization. Some never accept it, for better or for worse.

It’s this realization that Houellbecq asks his readers to consider in Whatever. His hero’s response may not be your choice. Nevertheless, it’s the only choice that will keep us alive.

Send to Kindle

Good Credit Scores and Rudeness

Posted on 2011/11/08 by Jason Hensel

One of the most ridiculous parts of the job hiring process is letting a company conduct a credit check to determine if you are financially responsible. Yes, I can see how this might be a good process for a job at a bank, for example. But just because you have a good or bad credit score shouldn’t qualify or disqualify you for most jobs.

Now, there’s some research to back up my belief. In fact, people who have good credit scores are more likely rude.

In a study to be published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, researchers from Louisiana State University, Texas Tech University and Northern Illinois University focused on links between credit ratings and personalities.

“With regards to personality and credit–it makes sense that conscientiousness is related to good credit, but what was really interesting was that agreeableness was negatively related to your credit score,” said Jeremy Bernerth, assistant professor in LSU’s E. J. Ourso College of Business Rucks Department of Management. “That suggests easy-going individuals actually have worse credit scores than disagreeable and rude individuals. This suggests that agreeable individuals might get themselves in trouble by co-signing loans for friends or family or taking out additional credit cards at the suggestion of store clerks.”

The researchers also found that there’s no correlation between poor scores and bad behavior on the job.

“It was telling that poor credit scores were not correlated to theft and other deviant types of work behaviors,” said Bernerth. “Most companies attempt to justify the use of credit scores because they think such employees will end up stealing, but our research suggests that might not be the case.”

I shared this study with an HR professional. She suggested that those who score poorly could also be more naive, which is something you don’t want in the workplace.

Interesting. Would you rather have a nice and naive or disagreeable and rude employee working for or with you?

(Photo via Flickr: Richard Lemarchand / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Social Media Preferred Over Salary

Posted on 2011/11/042011/11/04 by Jason Hensel

There’s some good news from the 2011 Cisco Connected World Technology Report. In it, 40 percent of college students or young professionals say they would take lower paying jobs if companies offered more flexible social media policies.

This shows, to me, that people are getting away from the idea that money buys happiness. We’re becoming a society that values time more than how fat a wallet can get.

Findings include:

Half of those surveyed would rather lose their wallet or purse than their smart phone or mobile device.
More than two of five would accept a lower-paying job that had more flexibility with regard to device choice, social media access, and mobility than a higher-paying job with less flexibility.
At least one in four said the absence of remote access would influence their job decisions, such as leaving companies sooner rather than later, slacking off, or declining job offers outright.
Three out of 10 feel that once they begin working, it will be their right–more than a privilege–to be able to work remotely with a flexible schedule.

For years, I’ve gone on record several times where I work that I’d take a pay cut if management would allow me more freedom in my workday. It’s a losing argument, though, because it means managers have to give up some control. They would have to focus mainly on results.

The result of a controlling mindset, though, could be a disengaged, unproductive workforce. That is, if people actually want to work for a company like that anymore. And it’s beginning to a lot look like people don’t.

How important is social media access and workplace flexibility to you? Or are you just happy to have a job (if you have one)?

(Photo via Flickr: Kalyan Chakravarthy / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

The Doors of Forgetting

Posted on 2011/11/03 by Jason Hensel

Imagine walking through a door and forgetting everything. It’s possible, and a new study in The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology explains how. Abstract, you have the floor.

Previous research using virtual environments has revealed a location-updating effect in which there is a decline in memory when people move from one location to another. Here we assess whether this effect reflects the influence of the experienced context, in terms of the degree of immersion of a person in an environment, as suggested by some work in spatial cognition, or by a shift in context. In Experiment 1, the degree of immersion was reduced by using smaller displays. In comparison, in Experiment 2 an actual, rather than a virtual, environment was used, to maximize immersion. Location-updating effects were observed under both of these conditions. In Experiment 3, the original encoding context was reinstated by having a person return to the original room in which objects were first encoded. However, inconsistent with an encoding specificity account, memory did not improve by reinstating this context. Finally, we did a further analysis of the results of this and previous experiments to assess the differential influence of foregrounding and retrieval interference. Overall, these data are interpreted in terms of the event horizon model of event cognition and memory.

Still with me? Basically, what the researchers found is that new memory episodes (event models) form in our brains whenever we enter a new environment. As you move from place to place, you’re stacking memories on top of memories, making them harder to retrieve.

I imagine this knowledge could affect how educators, event planners, or anyone involved in learning and group collaboration structure their operations. If you know that moving people from room to room causes them to forget, wouldn’t it be better to keep everyone in one room all day? If that’s not technically feasible, then what can you do design-wise to mitigate the forgetting?

(Photo via Flickr: Istvan / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Commuting Can Be Costly

Posted on 2011/11/02 by Jason Hensel

One of my pet peeves is traffic. More specifically, I don’t like commuting, which is the cause of most traffic. If you’re a knowledge worker and you can do 90 percent of your job at home, why bother with a commute? It’s time that could be better used for productivity. True, you could put in a language learning disc, for example, and listen to it while driving. But I think it would be more fun to learn a language at home where you can fully concentrate on it and not worry about someone crashing into you. Then again, maybe you live for danger. More power to you.

What I’m trying to say is commuting can be costly. Check out the graphic below and learn just how costly it is. Maybe this is something you can use for future wage negotiations or in creating a more flexible work arrangement. Or maybe you can read it for just the numbers, if you’re in to that sort of thing. More power to you.

Click image to enlarge

Via: Streamline Refinance

Send to Kindle

Why Engagement Matters

Posted on 2011/11/012011/11/02 by Jason Hensel

National Novel Writing Month is in November. I tried it once. I didn’t succeed. Writing more than 1,666 words a day is hard, especially if you have an editing and writing job. After a day’s work, I just want to come home and do anything but write or read for a few hours. Then by the time I want to write, it’s time for The Daily Show. Can’t miss that! Then it’s The Colbert Report. Have to watch that, too! Oh, look, it’s 11 p.m. What’s on Facebook? A few hours later, it’s time for bed. National Novel Writing Month, I hardly knew you.

There’s another national writing project that happens each month, though. It’s National Blog Posting Month. Writing a blog post a day seems totally doable, primarily because there’s no word count requirement or need for a complete story. If I want to write about banshees one day and then write about the dangers of electricity the next, as Bobby Brown would say, that’s my prerogative. It just takes engagement on my end.

Engagement, however, is difficult. A recent Gallup poll found that 71 percent of U.S. workers were “‘not engaged’ or ‘actively disengaged’ in their work, meaning they are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and are less likely to be productive.”

And who are these less engaged workers that are bringing down production? They’re primarily college educated, men, and between the ages of 30 and 64. Oh dear, I’m in my prime disengagement period.

A perceived lack of progress or the fear of layoffs are two of the main reasons employees are less engaged in their work. Leaders, though, can mitigate the lack of engagement, according to Gallup:

Every manager can play a role in engaging workers by clarifying expectations, getting employees what they need to do their work, giving workers recognition when they do good work, encouraging employee development, helping workers connect to the broader purpose of the organization, and frequently measuring and discussing progress. The managers and departments within organizations that do these things are more likely to produce high-quality work and help their organizations grow and improve the wellbeing of their workforce.

Now while I believe a lot of workplace issues are due to mismanagement and poor communication from leaders, they shouldn’t solely take the blame. Employees should communicate with their employers about what’s bothering them. They should have honest conversations, without fear of retribution, about an organization’s direction and their role in that direction. Unfortunately, there’s usually a huge highway between employers and employees.

The Gallup poll says that employees younger than 30 or older than 65 are more engaged. That raises the question: Are these age groups just happily employed due to economic conditions?

Increasing engaged workers could spur job growth, according to the Gallup report. But maybe people don’t care about things such as job growth, seats at the table, and money anymore. Maybe 30- to 64-year-old, non-engaged worker concerns are about other things, such as time, family, and spiritual matters. Maybe to them, work is just work, so why be engaged in it? Get in, get enough money, and get out as soon as you can in time to enjoy the rest of your life. If that is your plan, then maybe being more engaged will get you there sooner. Or maybe not. Maybe you’re more engaged in throwing a Frisbee with friends every afternoon.

What I’m saying is choose your focus. Figure out what you ultimately want in life and do it. Maybe it’s working hard every day. Maybe it’s writing a daily blog post. Whatever it is, figure it out for yourself and be engaged in it, because there’s nothing worse in this world than a life half lived.

(Photo via Flickr: drinksmachine / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Review: In a Forest, Dark and Deep

Posted on 2011/10/25 by Jason Hensel

Neil LaBute is my favorite contemporary playwright. His style, his subjects, his view of the world all appeal to me for reasons I’ve yet to figure out for myself. While I wouldn’t give all his plays five stars, most of them deserve that much praise.

In a Forest, Dark and Deep, however, is not one of those. It’s the worst LaBute play I’ve ever read, with its lack of nuance and its overt narrative cliches reminding me of rookie scripts in a playwriting 101 course. Seriously, LaBute, you’re going to put in thunder and lightning to mirror the storm between the characters? That’s bush league.

The two-character play focuses on a brother-sister relationship. The brother, Bobby, comes to a cabin in the woods to help his sister, Betty, clear it out for some new tenets. Throughout the play, we learn more about Betty and the cabin and her real purpose for being there. But the story is so predictable, because in our crime drama-driven world, you’re able to pick up the clues if you have half a brain and give it a 10th of your attention.

And how does LaBute lead you to the conclusion? Through pages and pages of arguing and yelling. Now maybe this is the improv side of me coming out, but I’m tired of arguing in scenes. I’m tired of seeing it, hearing it and participating in it. It’s more fun to engage in conflict subtly. LaBute is great at that, or has been in the past. I don’t why or how he lost his cool in this play.

LaBute writes in the intro

We miss the missing. It’s a simple enough concept, I suppose–when someone has made an impact on our lives and then they’re gone, we long for them and what it was that made them special.

What makes LaBute special is his subtly, his finely tuned dialogue full of understated tension, the way he keeps you cringing but eager to continue watching disaster unfold. Let us hope soon it is that talented LaBute who returns from the missing.

Send to Kindle

Real Leaders Embrace Dissension

Posted on 2011/10/21 by Jason Hensel

I’ve been thinking a lot about dissension and its role in business. It appears that most leaders avoid it at all costs, especially from customers. Or if we’re talking about associations, if you don’t march in time with the brand, you’re labeled a traitor.

However, as Howard Zinn, U.S. historian and activist, said, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

So, why would leaders be afraid of those who offer contradictory opinions?

The answer is simple: Ego. Most leaders take to the notion that they’re “leading.” And by “leading,” that means their word is final, their roads in the woods the only ones to walk.

But what about the loyal customer or the long-time member who offers a different opinion? Shouldn’t she be listened to, as well?

Yes! More often than not, though, she is not listened to. That person is dismissed as a rebel rouser, someone out to undercut the business.

But what if that person has been a loyal customer or a renewing association member year after year? Maybe she is really out to help the company. Maybe that person put a lot of time and money into something she feels like she “owns”?

I think leaders are short-sighted to ignore these “owners.” They’re probably more invested in the company than managers or board members, who may be in the business for a quick buck or to pad their resumes.

Real leaders embrace contradictory opinions. They know how to engage. They build up rather than put down. If you’re afraid of a little criticism, you’re not a real leader.

(Photo credit via Flickr: Romain Rolland / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Review: The Chairs are Where the People Go

Posted on 2011/10/192011/10/20 by Jason Hensel

I work in the meeting and event industry. And one of the things that attracts me most to this field is group dynamics and learning. I love figuring out why people get together to exchange ideas, what ways best foster interaction, and how all of this can make us better humans.

Misha Glouberman loves it, too.

Glouberman, a Toronto-based event planner and facilitator, is also a thinker, a ponderer. His book, The Chairs are Where the People Go: How to Live, Work, and Play in the City, is an exploration of his opinions on a variety of topics. Primarily, though, they focus on interactions and how best to nurture them.

The book is co-written with his friend, Sheila Heti, who originally set out to write a fiction book based on Glouberman. She didn’t get too far into it, because she realized that a fictionalized Misha is no match for the real deal. She decided she would ask him his thoughts about several topics and transcribe verbatim (some of you grammarians may squirm a bit).

Examples of these mini-essays include: “Conferences Should be an Exhilarating Experience,” “Don’t Pretend There’s No Leader,” and “Sitting Down and Listening as a Role.” Each topic analysis is strictly Glouberman’s opinion. This isn’t balanced, journalistic reporting. And that’s what makes this book enjoyable and interesting.

For, you see, Misha Glouberman is a modern-day Montaigne. His thoughts are never settled. He leaves himself room to let alternatives enter into view. And that’s the book’s main theme: Think of others. Learn from them. Entertain other viewpoints.

“It’s easy to underestimate the fact that other people have had similar problems to yours and that you can learn from their experiences–and learn from people who’ve spent lots of time thinking about certain problems,” he tells Heti in the chapter titled, “A Decision is a Thing You Make.”

Glouberman’s thinking about certain problems will cause you to think, as well. And for me, that’s the sign of a great book.

Send to Kindle