Research on Leadership and Employee Engagement You Really...

Research on Leadership and Employee

Engagement You Really Ought to Know

Contents

Team Motivation 1

Negative Thinking 3

Effective Teamwork 4

Employee Performance 6

Engaging Gen Y 7

Client Service 9

Restructures and Mergers 10

Proactiveness and Initiative 11

Volunteers and Committees 13

Employee Retention 14

Engaging your Team 16

Self-Engagement 18

Unmet Expectations 20

Balance 21

Values 23

Performance Management 24

Fun at Work 25

Earning Respect 27

Strategy and Direction 29

Temps and Contractors 30

Virtual Teams 32

Visionary Leadership 33

Office Politics 34

jamesadonis.com

Research on Leadership and Employee Engagement You Really Ought to Know

ii

Self-management 35

(Very) Difficult Teams 37

Employee Ownership 39

Motivation 40

Difficult Behaviour 42

Leadership 43

Generating Trust 45

Negativity 47

Workplace Morale 48

Change Resistance 50

Career Progression 52

Leadership Communication 54

Conflict Resolution 55

Job Insecurity 57

Employee Burnout 58

Retaining Employees 60

Constructive Feedback 61

Team Meetings 63

Long-term Staff 64

Passion at Work 65

Improving Absenteeism 67

Recruiting Engaged Employees 68

Engagement 70

Employee Energy 71

Diversity 73

Team Building 75

jamesadonis.com


iii

Learning and Development 76

Increasing Job Satisfaction 78

Coaching 79

Sharing Knowledge and Information 80

Job Performance 82

Employee Silence 83

Change Management 85

Workplace Sensitivity 86

Mental Illness at Work 88

Frontline Managers 89

Culture Change 91

Cynical Employees 92

Leading Virtual Teams 93

Insecurity at Work 95

The Gen Y Myth 96

Rude and Disrespectful Employees 98

Engagement During Tough Times 100

Budget Cutbacks 101

Team Performance 103

Work Motivation 104

Managing Up 105

Engagement at Work 107

Early Resistance to Change 109

jamesadonis.com


iv

Team MotivationTeam motivation, which is different to employee motivation, is all about the

ways in which leaders raise the collective motivation of their entire team.

Some studies suggest the only way to do this is by motivating each em-

ployee individually so that the combined levels of motivation lift the whole

team higher.

But one of the most exhaustive reviews ever conducted on motivation,

published a few months ago in the Journal of Management, determined that

some factors contribute more effectively to widespread levels of motivation

than the more time-intensive one-on-one approach. There are six factors in

particular.

Team design: This reflects the team’s interdependence. If members

of a team don’t rely on each other in some way then, in effect, the

team is unnecessary. That’s why team objectives—in addition to in-

dividual ones—are seen as an essential driver of teamwork.

Team needs: This refers to the internal tensions that exist within a

team. These tensions can be related to tasks, objectives, decisions,

jamesadonis.com


1

or personalities. When the tensions aren’t eased, motivation is neg-

atively impacted. The key is for you to identify (and rectify) them as

soon as they arise.

Team goals: A distinction here is between team goals and team goal

orientation. The latter is about the path that teams choose to follow

in pursuit of a goal. This is influenced by how easy you make it for

them to support each other and also by the opportunities you cre-

ate for their personal development.

Team self-regulation: This core factor can be attributed to feed-

back loops, which are split into two categories—individual feedback

and group feedback. Team members must receive (and, in reverse,

feel comfortable giving) feedback on how each of them is contribut-

ing to the team’s performance.

Team efficacy: This represents participatory decision-making, which

consists of three phases. First, team members must have dissenting

opinions. Second, they need to feel safe voicing them. And, third,

you’re required to make the most of this honesty by leveraging it to

increase your team’s effectiveness.

Team affect: That’s not a spelling mistake, by the way. It’s meant to

be affect rather than effect because it’s all about the team’s tone.

Another term for it is emotional contagion, and it means that team

dysfunction can often be the result of a leader’s bad mood—some-

thing you’re obviously able to control.

In fact, all six factors are within your control. That’s why the person who

has the greatest sway over team motivation is always—always—the leader.

jamesadonis.com


2

Negative ThinkingPositive thinking seems to be one of the hippest trends of the modern era.

But a review of the empirical evidence, released a few months ago by the

University of NSW, found those who think negatively actually have stronger

memories, make better judgements, are not as gullible, are less selfish, and

persevere longer at difficult tasks.

These are hugely important findings. They’re hugely important because

in many workplaces employees who are branded as ‘negative’ are immedi-

ately ostracised, considered too destructive and uncooperative to have on a

team. But what is now evident is that they really do have a valuable role to

play in any organisation if given the opportunity to do so.

(Unless we’re talking about the toxic people whose clear aim is to cause

mayhem by opposing and complaining and conniving and influencing oth-

ers to join them on the dark side. In those cases, treat them as a serious

performance management issue. That’s why it’s essential to distinguish be-

tween those who simply think negatively with those who work negatively.

The former are easy to coach; the latter not so much.)

The challenge for you as a leader is to avoid the temptation to turn

a negative thinker into a positive one. You’re better served identifying the

strengths they can bring to the team irrespective of their thinking style, and

then incorporate those strengths in some way within their job. In particular,

negative thinkers can make a great contribution in these areas:

Matters of cognition: This includes solving complicated problems,

simplifying organisational complexity, and developing subject mat-

ter experts.

Matters of judgement: This includes identifying flaws in strategic

plans, providing input on the recruitment of new employees, and

determining risk.

jamesadonis.com


3

Matters of motivation: This includes participating in long-term

projects, keeping colleagues focused on the core issues, and ques-

tioning the status quo.

Matters of social behaviour: This includes communicating critical

information, anticipating the impact of change initiatives, and as-

sessing the fairness of decisions.

Of course, positive thinkers can be just as successful at each of those areas.

It’s just that those inclined to think negatively have especially demonstrated

those competencies in various academic studies. Even then, that doesn’t

imply that negative thinkers are better than positive ones or vice versa.

They each have advantages (and disadvantages) that brilliant leaders are

able to maximise (or minimise).

What you’ll end up discovering is that when you stop seeing negative

thinkers as an issue to be rectified and instead see them as a talent to be

engaged, they begin to feel valued and acknowledged. And as soon as that

realisation sets in, they’ll eventually exhibit the positive traits that so many

of their colleagues have long desired.

Effective TeamworkIn the management arena, there are very few areas that have been re-

searched and analysed as much as teamwork. This field has been scruti-

nised for decades now, with hundreds—literally hundreds—of models de-

veloped to assist business leaders.

However, one study published in the Team Performance Management

journal a few months ago particularly stands out. It looked at the most criti-

cal factors for teamwork, but this study was especially interesting because

it was conducted among high-performing teams in the healthcare sector

(such as emergency departments) and high-performing teams in the manu-

facturing sector (such as factories). These two industries are well known for

requiring a greater level of teamwork than other industries.

jamesadonis.com


4

Despite being two quite different environments, both sectors had a lot

in common when it came to how they went about working effectively in

teams. This is important irrespective of your industry because if teamwork

can work in healthcare and manufacturing, it can work anywhere. The fac-

tors for success fall into three categories.

Member Inputs: These reflect the characteristics of the individual

team members, such as their attitude, diversity and commitment.

But, in this study, the member input rated most highly was the knowl-

edge, skills and abilities of each employee. Otherwise known as KSAs,

the three most essential for the purposes of teamwork are conflict

resolution, collaborative problem solving, and communication.

Team Inputs: These represent the elements that are identified and

created before a new team is even formed, as well as those intro-

duced shortly afterwards. The most prevalent include rules, proce-

dures, guidelines, training, structures and autonomy. But the team

input reported most highly in this study was interdependence. This

stems from the existence of collective goals, a sense of community,

the sharing of information, and mutual trust.

jamesadonis.com


5

Organisational Inputs: These are the bigger-picture elements in-

fluencing the management of teams. They encompass HR, IT, re-

sources, the competence of leaders, and business strategies. But,

in this study, the one area that both industries rated within their

top two priorities was open climate. This signifies that ideas are wel-

comed, team members accept each other, and it is safe for anyone

to question the status quo.

If you’re struggling with teamwork, you’re best served figuring out which

of the three inputs represents your weakest link. Then, address the cor-

responding factor, which means either (i) knowledge, skills and abilities, (ii)

interdependence, or (iii) open climate.

Of course, the research revealed some differences in the way healthcare

teams operated when compared to manufacturing teams. For instance,

teams in healthcare prioritised service to the patient whereas those in man-

ufacturing prioritised process improvement. As is often the case, though,

we learn more about the right path to follow based not on our differences

but on what we have in common.

Employee PerformanceEver since ‘employee engagement’ was introduced to the management lexi-

con in 1990, much of the subsequent thinking and analysing has been pret-

ty straightforward. In essence, the prevailing thought has been that if you

create highly engaged employees then high performance will surely follow.

But that concept can no longer be regarded as true.

This was the conclusion in a groundbreaking study published earlier

this year in The International Journal of Human Resource Management. The

researchers discovered that, yes, engaged employees can be really enthusi-

astic and, yep, they can even be madly in love with their job, but that doesn’t

necessarily mean they’ll perform any better because of it.

Being engaged is merely a prerequisite (rather than a precursor) of per-

formance. The higher performance comes directly from what the research-

jamesadonis.com


6

ers describe as “contextual factors in the work environment” that in-

fluence employees on whether they should work harder or whether they

should just slacken off.

So what are these contextual factors? There are two that tested strongly

in the study.

The first is perceived organisational support. This reflects the degree to

which employees feel their contributions are valued and their wellbeing is

taken into consideration. But the key word here is perceived. You may per-

sonally believe your organisation does a lot to support employees but if this

is not obvious to them, your efforts won’t be reciprocated.

The second is a positive managerial relationship. This represents the

level of trust, respect and likeability that leaders and employees have for

each other. If the relationship is weak, employees will be reluctant to invest

greater amounts of energy into their role. In contrast, when the relationship

is strong, the evidence suggests that better performance follows.

This really highlights that engaging people is always a terrific endeavour

but, when it comes to maximising performance, it’s actually not enough.

Engaging Gen YDepending on the demographer you follow, Generation Y includes anyone

born as early as 1977 or as late as 1994. This means Gen Ys in your team

are aged between 19 and 36. That’s a really wide period in which to group a

whole bunch of people. How is it possible that every person in that one age

bracket possesses the same characteristics and preferences? The answer

is—they don’t—and this was demonstrated earlier this year in research con-

ducted at the Queensland University of Technology.

The researchers wanted to discover whether there was a difference

between Gen Ys who are currently at university (and are yet to enter the

workforce) compared to Gen Ys already working full-time. Sure, there was

much they had in common—such as a desire for praise, collaboration, and

challenging work—but there were also clear distinctions.

jamesadonis.com


7

One such example was in rela-

tion to goals. Gen Ys in the work-

force placed a higher priority on

achieving their career objectives.

They seemed to be driven strongly

by the existence of these goals and

deemed their success in this area

to be critical. Gen Y students, on the

other hand, rated it as being of much

lesser importance.

What this demonstrates is not that we

should treat Gen Ys differently based upon their

work or study status. What it demonstrates is that

if differences exist between two groups within one de-

mographic, surely differences also exist between Gen Y males and Gen Y

females; Gen Y Aussies and Gen Y Asians; Gen Y doctors and Gen Y nurses;

and so on.

That’s why talented leaders put aside generalised stereotypes. They

accept the following:

• Whilst it’s true the evidence suggests Gen Ys value flexibility (doesn’t

everyone?), it’s more effective to identify the type of flexibility fa-

voured by each individual.

• While research indicates Gen Ys want meaningful jobs (doesn’t eve-

ryone?), it’s a good idea to figure out precisely what each employee

considers to be meaningful.

• Even though studies show Gen Ys would like more training and de-

velopment (doesn’t everyone?), it’s essential to cater for the unique

learning style of each person.

As the researchers conclude, “Gen Y is not a homogenous group”, and that’s

why treating them as such can be disengaging. Treating them as individuals,

however, is a far more certain way of increasing their levels of engagement.

jamesadonis.com


8

Client Service“Right, well I’ll go and have a lie down then.

No I won’t; I’ll go and hit some guests.”

BASIL FAWLTY

Anyone who’s ever seen an episode of Fawlty Towers will be aware of the

degree to which Basil detests his clients—even the most loyal who never

complain. And so, by default, he has an antipathy for any form of customer

service. Perhaps one reason for this is that he himself is deeply disengaged.

This connection between engagement and customer service was ex-

plored earlier this year in The International Journal of Human Resource Man-

agement. The researchers studied two organisations to find out whether

there was a difference in customer service among employees of leaders

who adopt soft engagement versus those who prefer hard engagement.

Soft engagement is when engagement is the primary objective. The em-

ployee is at the centre of focus because there’s a belief that everyone is

entitled to positive work experiences.

Hard engagement is when profitability and productivity are the primary

objectives. Engagement, therefore, is seen only as a mechanism through

which to achieve performance.

In the study, one of the organisations was a call centre that prioritised

soft engagement; the other was an energy provider that prioritised hard

engagement. In both environments, leaders from all levels were genuinely

committed to engaging their employees, but their intentions and core driv-

ers were very different. And so were their results.

Employees in the call centre went to extraordinary lengths to help

their clients. They performed unpaid work for them in their personal time;

they referred to their clients as being part of the family; and some would

even trudge through snow for three miles to get to work such was their

dedication.

jamesadonis.com


9

In contrast, those behaviours were not present at the energy company

where, incidentally, hard engagement was practiced and where, subse-

quently, three quarters of the employees were disengaged.

So which actions constitute soft engagement? Examples from the call

centre include:

• A culture that first and foremost values, cares, and trusts employees

• A high degree of employee discretion on how to perform the job

• Rewards that are competitive within the industry

• Leaders that go out of their way to recognise employees

• Senior leaders who are consultative and accessible

• Strong interpersonal relations among co-workers

As one of the call centre employees said in relation to soft engagement: “It

makes you want to come to work in the morning and do your job really well.”

Restructures and MergersThere’s a lot of debate among researchers on the effectiveness of corporate

restructures. (Actually, there isn’t that much debate about it at all. Almost

all of the research indicates there’s very little—if any—difference between

organisations that undertake restructures and those that don’t, but let’s

pretend for the moment that they’re valuable and necessary.)

Restructures, even at their most successful, can be tremendously dif-

ficult. Organisations are traditionally good at implementing them, but not

so good at keeping employees engaged throughout the process. An analysis

published in the Journal of Management earlier this year shed some new

light on one particular repercussion: employee ostracism.

There are two ways in which employees can be ostracised in the work-

place. The first is what’s known as purposeful ostracism, which is when

the ostracising is intentional. This occurs when leaders ignore, exclude, or

neglect an employee on purpose. They withhold information and communi-

cate less, usually for reasons of vengeance or power.

jamesadonis.com


10

The second is what’s known as non-purposeful ostracism. This is the

one most likely to happen during restructures, mergers, or other times of

major upheaval. It is accidental. Employees are excluded or ignored not

because of any malicious reason but because the uncertainty and pace of

change make leaders forgetful or temporarily inconsiderate.

So why is this important? It’s important because studies indicate that

employee ostracism leads to irrational behaviour, aggression, disengage-

ment, and poor performance. It’s critical, then, to be aware of the three

types of accidental ostracism that occur during a restructure so that you can

avoid them if you can.

• Linguistic ostracism is when you converse using words and phrases

that others don’t understand. If you find yourself using jargon un-

familiar to the people around you, either explain it or use common

language instead.

• Social rejection is when someone seeks to be a part of a group but

is rejected. If you notice this happening, ask the person doing the

rejecting to justify why that employee was knocked back.

• Organisational shunning is when you’re part of a clique into which

others are uninvited. If you find yourself being a member of a group

that has left someone out, be the one who thoughtfully brings that

person back into the fold.

If you didn’t have many friends in high school, or were ever left alone at a

party, you would know what it feels like to be ostracised. Those who are

ostracised at work end up experiencing a very similar sensation. It’s never

pleasant to be invisible.

Proactiveness and InitiativeIt’s no longer enough for employees to do just what’s stated on a job de-

scription. In dynamic and ever-changing workplaces, personal initiative is

required in order for organisational goals to be met. Some people will go

jamesadonis.com


11

beyond expectations simply because they’re flexible and committed, but

others are the opposite. So how do you develop such proactive behaviour

in those who believe they’re paid to do just what’s expected and nothing

more?

That question was examined in a study published in the Journal of Per-

sonnel Psychology earlier this year. In particular, the researchers looked at

two specific motivators: getting along and getting ahead. One of them

was found to have a positive impact on proactiveness whereas the other

had a negative effect.

Getting along is an interpersonal motivator. It represents the degree

to which employees’ behaviour is influenced by the relationships they have

with their colleagues. Leaders who use ‘getting along’ as a motivator usually

focus on collaborative activities, team building, and group work.

But even though ‘getting along’ is effective to a certain extent, it does

not lead to people taking initiative. That’s because those who are motivated

by it often perceive proactiveness as a risk to their workplace relationships.

They fear that colleagues and bosses may object to their initiative, resulting

in conflict, criticism, sabotage, or ostracism.

Getting ahead is an individual motivator. It represents the potential for

employees to increase their influence and power at work. This could include

the enhancement of their reputation or an expansion of their informal sta-

tus within the organisation. It is far more strongly related to the generation

of proactiveness.

Here’s why. People who are motivated by ‘getting ahead’ are less con-

cerned with whether others are threatened by them. Their primary concern

is simply the furthering of their own status and the attainment of more

resources. These resources include the possibility for a promotion, recog-

nition, more money, autonomy, opportunities, training, awards, bonuses,

control, esteem, and so on.

So what does this mean for you as a leader? Two main things.

First, you have a greater chance of motivating employees to be proac-

tive if you identify those who are driven by ‘getting ahead’. You then need

to articulate the resources they could potentially acquire if they were to be

jamesadonis.com


12

proactive. The research indicates they will not go beyond expectations if

these prospective resources are not made clear.

Second, some employees are high in both ‘getting along’ and ‘getting

ahead’. They’re the ones that demonstrate the greatest propensity for pro-

activeness. You just need to make sure that what you’re asking them to

do does not jeopardise the bonds they have already established with their

colleagues. In any case, employees lean towards proactiveness when they

have a proactive leader to emulate.

Volunteers and CommitteesThis is the time of year commonly associated with people volunteering

for an event or some kind of committee. Whether it’s organising the staff

Christmas party or joining one of the many working groups that kick off a

new year, it can be hard to engage people who voluntarily give up their time

without any compensation. They often have great intentions when they

start, but their enthusiasm and interest quickly diminish.

Insight on how to maintain this momentum can be gleaned from an

analysis published a few months ago by professors at the University of Lou-

isville. The researchers discovered it’s unlikely for employees to be engaged

unless they first see meaning in their work. If they’re able to do so, they not

only become engaged but their performance accelerates, too. This is espe-

cially important when working with volunteers and committee members.

Meaning at work is comprised of three main components: contribu-

tion, influence, and reward, all three of which need to be present in order

for engagement to follow.

Contribution focuses on statements beginning with ‘If…’ For example:

“If I volunteer for this cause, will it make a difference?”—or—“If I join this

committee, will it really matter?”

It’s a reflection of whether an individual feels as though his or her in-

volvement will end up having an impact. If the answer is ‘yes’, there’s a high-

er chance the employee will invest sufficient amounts of effort in pursuit of

jamesadonis.com


13

the objective. Your role as leader is to provide clarity on the necessity and

urgency of their input.

Influence focuses on employee statements beginning with ‘What…’ For

example: “What will the impact be if I volunteer?”—or—“What will result

from my contribution?”

It represents a belief that tangible change will be generated as a re-

sult of the employee’s effort. It can’t be subtle; the change needs to be sig-

nificant and long-lasting, affecting those the employee cares about and to

whom the employee is connected. Your role is to articulate this influence

and to provide updates (and evidence) of its progress.

Reward focuses on employee statements beginning with ‘How…’ For ex-

ample: “How will I derive value from volunteering?”—or—“How will I benefit

from being in this committee?”

This represents the currency to be earned by the employee. Since ex-

trinsic currencies are unavailable in this context, intrinsic currencies need

to be sourced instead. When it comes to meaning, the most potent include

pride, autonomy, accomplishment, belonging, dignity, love, support, and

commitment. Your role is to identify which of those is the strongest for each

employee and to then find a way to amplify them in the absence of mon-

etary incentives.

So, if you’re managing a group of volunteers or leading a workplace

committee and the people in front of you seem lethargic and disinterested,

consider what may be missing. They might need clarity on their contribu-

tion, or scope to have influence, or perhaps a stronger intrinsic reward.

As the professors wrote in their journal article: “As human beings, we yearn

for meaning in our lives; as employees, we yearn for meaning in our work.”

Employee RetentionThere is an understandable focus in many organisations these days on the

need to retain employees. But what’s often missing from the conversation

is the need to retain them for the right reasons. Failure to do so means you

jamesadonis.com


14

have people physically there even though they’ve mentally resigned. Gener-

ally, employees who don’t resign fall into three main categories.

The Need-to-stayers: These employees hang around because they

have no other choice. Perhaps they can’t find another job or maybe

they’re waiting for some kind of financial windfall (such as long ser-

vice leave). They don’t want to stay, but they do so regardless.

The Ought-to-stayers: These are the ones who

stay because they feel as though they

have a moral obligation to do so. For

example, they might assume things

will fall apart if they depart. Whatev-

er the reason, they hold back from

resigning because they feel guilty.

The Want-to-stayers: These are the staff

members who are emotionally attached to the

organisation. They remain loyal to their boss and

to their colleagues because they truly enjoy coming

to work, love their job, and can’t imagine working any-

where else.

When designing your employee retention strategy it’s important, then, to

consider how you can retain employees not because they feel they need

to or because they ought to but because they genuinely want to. A study

published a few months ago in the Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies shed some light on how this can be done.

The analysis carried out by the researchers singled out the essential

role that ethical leadership plays in achieving this objective. Whilst there are

many elements that constitute ethical leadership, three in particular were

identified: fairness, honesty, and concern.

jamesadonis.com


15

• Fairness: Employees are more likely to stay when they perceive their

supervisor as someone who doesn’t play favourites and is unpreju-

diced when making decisions.

• Honesty: Employees are more inclined to stay if they trust their boss

as someone who’s truthful and transparent.

• Concern: They’re similarly more loyal if their leaders make an effort

to know them as people, understand their issues, and be of service.

It’s basic stuff, really. And that’s what’s increasingly emerging in the em-

pirical literature. The science of retaining employees has less to do with the

specific actions you take, and much more to do with your character.

Engaging your TeamHumanitarian organisations generally regard food, clothing, shelter and

air as the basic human needs for survival. Even Maslow’s famous hierarchy

had physiological elements such as sleep and water as primary needs. But

emerging neuroscientific research is demonstrating that social needs are

just as important. In fact, the brain’s reaction when it lacks social connected-

ness can be very similar to its reaction when it lacks food and shelter.

That point was highlighted in a study published last month in the Stra-

tegic HR Review journal, which introduced the concept of brain-savvy lead-

ership. It’s a reference to leaders who use neuroscientific approaches—in

combination with social interaction—to engage employees. First, the neu-

roscientific approaches:

• Certainty: Brain-savvy leaders make the future more predictable by

setting a clear purpose, articulating their expectations, and commu-

nicating openly.

• Options: Brain-savvy leaders give employees choices at work by ex-

panding autonomy, making rules bendable, and promoting flexibility.

• Reputation: They also make employees feel important by praising

them, providing meaningful opportunities, and welcoming ideas.

jamesadonis.com


16

• Equity: They operate from a sense of fairness by being transpar-

ent, avoiding favouritism, and explaining the reasoning behind their

decisions.

But when it comes to engagement, those aren’t enough. The social interac-

tion is what elevates it to a new level. This similarly comprises four com-

ponents:

Getting Personal: Brain-savvy leaders get to know each individual.

They see employees not in terms of output but in terms of who they

are as people. They understand their likes and dislikes, motivators

and de-motivators, talents and ambitions.

Getting Connected: They’re cognisant of employees’ emotions and

can pinpoint with ease when they’re feeling bored, negative or frus-

trated. They act quickly to make them feel more valued and positive.

Getting Clear: Whenever change is occurring—whether large or

small—brain-savvy leaders clarify the rationale for the change and

the benefits it’ll bring.

Getting Real: Brain-savvy leaders are self-aware. They rarely wait

to receive feedback because they’re constantly evaluating their

own performance. They assess what they do well and what they

do poorly, putting in place measures to improve the quality of their

leadership.

What the above demonstrates is that to engagingly use your brain, you

must also use your heart.

jamesadonis.com


17

Self-EngagementToday let’s put aside your employees’ engagement and consider your own

engagement instead. This is important to do on a frequent basis because

it’s almost impossible for your team to be engaged if you yourself are disen-

gaged. Without doubt, your employees will emulate your mood and disposi-

tion in some way.

A new study published last month in the ‘Human Relations’ journal shed

some light on how you can reinvigorate your self-engagement. In particular,

the study looked at the concept of mindfulness. This is the first time any

empirical research has been conducted on the degree to which mindfulness

can impact work performance.

The results were clear. The more mindfully you work, the more highly

you perform. And the effect wasn’t minor; it was significant. This is because

mindfulness enables you to take greater control of your behaviour, lan-

guage, emotions, thoughts and feelings.

To begin with, let’s examine whether you’ve been experiencing the op-

posite of mindfulness lately: mindlessness. Listed below are ten statements.

Of those, count how many have applied to you at some stage over the past

week.

jamesadonis.com


18

• You have felt emotionally exhausted

• You have found it difficult to make decisions

• You have been stressed out

• You have struggled to focus

• You have been easily distracted

• You have found it tough to be creative

• You have felt as though your brain was switched off

• You have made mistakes

• You haven’t handled challenging situations well

• You haven’t been proactive enough

If five or more of those were true for you, it’s more than likely that mindless-

ness has been an issue for you at work, and that it’s consequently a major

inhibitor to your personal engagement. Here are six suggestions on how

you can turn it around.

Abandon Multitasking: It’s a myth. Research has proven we think

we multitask well, but we rarely ever do. Instead, concentrate on

just one task at a time.

Stay Connected: Rather than merely ‘being there’, choose instead

to ‘be present’. This means listening carefully not only to what peo-

ple say but also to what they don’t say.

Practice Gratitude: Keep a notebook in your drawer. Daily before

going home, write down three things that happened at work that

day for which you’re thankful.

Observe: Notice your surroundings. Don’t judge them; just notice

them. Awareness is an essential precursor to mindfulness. Too

many of us work mindlessly on auto-pilot.

jamesadonis.com


19

Meditate: This can be done in as little as five minutes. Simply pause

and feel your breath go through your nose, filling and expanding

your lungs. Then exhale and repeat.

Slow Down: Don’t speak so fast, don’t walk so rapidly, and don’t

be so rushed. Use the diminished level of frantic activity to breathe

consciously and to reflect with greater clarity.

Some of the above might sound like it’s nuts. But sometimes when you’re

feeling stale, lethargic or unproductive, something a little nutty might be

exactly what you need.

Unmet ExpectationsPrior to new employees joining your organisation, one of the first things

they do is sign a formal contract, often dozens of pages in length. But that

formal contract shrinks in importance when compared to the psychologi-

cal contract that employees mentally sign upon being offered a job.

A psychological contract exists between you and each one of your em-

ployees. It’s an unspoken agreement that details what they think they’ll get

from you as their boss, from the organisation, from their colleagues, and

from their job. In essence, the psychological contract is a summary of your

employees’ expectations. The problem, though, is that since those expecta-

tions are intangible and rarely spoken about, it’s common for them to be

broken.

Two months ago, the Journal of Human Resource Management pub-

lished the first ever study on the impact that unmet expectations have on

employee engagement. The results were predictable: when expectations

are unmet, there’s a drop in engagement. The solution is to reverse that

effect by making the psychological contract something you openly discuss.

Here’s why. Your employees’ expectations might be unrealistic. By at

least having a conversation about what they expect, you’re able to adjust

those expectations to something more reasonable. Or conversely, you might

jamesadonis.com


20

discover their expectations are totally achievable, in which case you’re able

to help them attain what they desire at work.

Neither of those options is possible unless you first bring the psycho-

logical contract out into the open. You can do so by asking the following

questions early in the employment relationship and, where appropriate,

every six months thereafter:

• What promises were made to you during the recruitment process?

• How do you like to be managed?

• What type of work do you think you’ll be doing?

• How do you think your performance will be measured and rewarded?

• What training and development do you need?

• Where would you like to be in two years’ time?

• If we could change one thing in this team that’d make you happier,

what would it be?

Remember: you don’t need to fulfil all their expectations. Your responsibil-

ity is simply to correct those that are unrealistic and to supply those that are

within reason. It may not require a handwritten signature, but the psycho-

logical contract is one of the most vital you’ll sign.

BalanceHere’s something interesting that’s only been discovered by researchers in

the past few years. When employees perceive their organisation as being

flexible, they’re less likely to feel there’s a conflict between their work and

their personal life – even when they don’t take advantage of flexible opportuni-

ties at work.

This means that what people think of their employer is sometimes more

important than what their employer actually does. If, for example, they

perceive their boss or their company as being rigid and uncompromising,

they’re more prone to feeling as though there’s an imbalance between their

work and their life—even if such an imbalance doesn’t really exist. But if

jamesadonis.com


21

they sense their employer is open and accommodating, that tension is di-

minished.

A new study published in The International Journal of Human Resource

Management has furthered this research by confirming there are two main

ways in which people seek to obtain a work/life balance: segmentation and

integration.

Segmentation occurs when employees put up strong boundaries to

protect their personal life from being invaded by their work. For instance,

they might refuse to stay in the office past a certain time; or they might

decline taking work home with them at night; or they might just switch their

work devices off outside of business hours.

Integration is the opposite. This is when employees have relaxed and

fluid boundaries. Their work and life overlap, which means they might run

personal errands while they’re at work and vice versa. Going to work late is

seen as no big deal, but neither do they hesitate staying back in the office

when the need arises.

Neither of those options is better or worse than the other. They merely

represent the preferred working style for those in your team who desire a

greater work/life balance. Some will want a clear separation between work

and life while others will prefer to weave in and out of the two. The ultimate

goal of both groups, however, remains the same.

Your task is to have a conversation with each employee during which

you learn about:

• Their values so that you can ascertain the option that suits them best.

• Their needs so that you understand the pressures they face outside

of work.

• And their preferences so that you can tailor flexibility in line with their

expectations.

What you might discover is that the conversation alone is enough to make

them feel as though their work and their life are no longer enemies compet-

ing for time and attention.

jamesadonis.com


22

ValuesMore likely than not, your organisation has a set of values, quite possibly

promoted on wall posters, fancy brochures, stationery, and cool videos. If

so, that’s great … except for one important detail: they probably don’t work.

Here’s why.

Each individual has his or her own distinct values. There are hundreds

to choose from such as accomplishment, accountability, adaptability, ad-

venture, affluence—and that’s just the A’s. There are seriously hundreds. So

whenever an organisation selects five of these and dictates to employees

that these are the ones they’re supposed to follow from now on, it’s rarely

possible for them to do so.

Your values are inherent to you as a person. They’re a fundamental ele-

ment of your character, and that makes them difficult to change. There’s

an organisation in Australia, for example, with a company value of ‘entre-

preneurship’, which is fantastic for employees who share that value and

uncomfortable for those who do not. It’s tough making people act entrepre-

neurially if that tendency doesn’t already exist within them.

That’s why a new research paper published in The International Journal

of Human Resource Management has made reference to how challenging it

can be to obtain high levels of commitment from employees when their

values are not aligned with those of their employer.

Employees who fall into that group end up experiencing what’s known

as values conflict. It’s a near certainty (if your organisation has a pre-

scribed set of values) that a significant proportion of your workforce feels

that way. The challenge for you as a leader is to avoid forcing your employ-

ees to adopt your specific values and to instead assist them in overcoming

the inevitable conflict that ensues. There are four ways you can do this.

• Connections: Identify each employee’s personal values and demon-

strate how they’re connected to those the organisation has selected.

• Behaviours: Rather than focus on values, focus instead on ideal be-

haviours that still result in the same outcome.

jamesadonis.com


23

• Prioritise: Create a longer list of company values and then give em-

ployees the freedom to choose the five that resonate the most with

them.

• Redefine: Rather than being specific about what each value means,

let employees define them based upon the ways in which they’re able

to apply them at work.

The alternative is to continue as per normal, which means company values

are mocked (and cynicism proliferates) all because people see little value in

values … unless they’re their own.

Performance ManagementWhen performance management comes up in organisations, the focus is

invariably on the employee. The employee is the one not meeting targets.

The employee is the one unresponsive to coaching. The employee is the

one who won’t improve. The focus, though, is very rarely on the leader, and

new research suggests that’s where it should be.

Published in the International Journal of Human Resource Manage-

ment, the study discovered that performance management is more effec-

tive when leadership perceptions are positive. In other words, the more

highly an employee thinks of his or her boss, the more likely they are to do

whatever it takes to change.

In particular, the researchers identified five leadership traits that de-

monstrably lead to higher leadership perceptions and subsequently better

performance. The five traits are:

Decisiveness: The most desirable leaders are those who are firm

in their resolve. They have the power to make decisions and, when

they do so, are not in doubt about the decision they’ve made. They’re

determined and they do not waste time reaching a conclusion.

jamesadonis.com


24

Intelligent: They are also clever. Employees admire them as experts

who are brilliant at their job. To expand on the previous paragraph,

they aren’t just good at making decisions; they’re good at making

good decisions—and people trust them for it.

Informed: They also know what they’re talking about. They are

clearly knowledgeable, and this is evident during performance dis-

cussions. Instead of just telling an employee what’s going wrong,

they first explore potential causes before prescribing the right solu-

tions.

Communicative: In addition, they provide employees with clar-

ity. They articulate their expectations, provide guidance on how to

achieve those expectations, and detail the impact that arises when

those expectations aren’t met.

Confidence-builder: Talented performance leaders are those who

make employees feel good about themselves by using language

(both and verbal and non-verbal) to convince them they’re absolute-

ly capable of attaining the target that currently eludes them.

It’s true that sometimes—perhaps often—the cause of sustained poor per-

formance can be directly attributed to your employees’ incapacity or un-

willingness. But, as you’re going through the performance management

process, it’s wise to also reflect on your own leadership traits because they

really could be making the problem worse.

As the old saying suggests: whenever you point one finger, there are

always three pointing right back at you.

Fun at WorkFun at work has been linked empirically to a range of positive outcomes:

less exhaustion, diminished anxiety, improved engagement, and now in a

jamesadonis.com


25

new study published in the Human Relations journal, it has been proven to

reduce staff turnover.

But what makes this research particularly interesting is that it tests

three specific elements of fun at work: (i) fun activities, (ii) co-worker social-

ising, and (iii) managerial support. As you read the following descriptions,

consider which one is the least effective in the workplace.

Fun activities: These activities are initiated by the organisation

and include team-building sessions, social events and public cel-

ebrations.

Co-worker socialising: This is when employees perceive each other

as friendly and outgoing, and so they voluntarily interact socially at

work and sometimes outside of work.

Managerial support: This is when an organisation’s managers ac-

tively allow and encourage employees to have fun on the job.

So which one of those do you think is the least effective? If you chose the

first option – fun activities – you’re correct.

According to the study, fun

activities aren’t that effective

because they’re less frequent,

which means the opportunity

for them to have a sustained

impact on engagement is

minimal. Also, many employ-

ees don’t value them as much

because they’re perceived as

overly manufactured and for-

mal, and are therefore viewed

as inauthentic and contrived.

jamesadonis.com


26

Co-worker socialising and managerial support, however, are highly effec-

tive because they’re organic rather than pre-packaged. They’re also present

in the day-to-day experiences that employees have at work, thereby gener-

ating a more evident and longer-lasting impact.

If you’re interested in increasing the level of fun in your workplace, focus

less on structured initiatives and more on the following:

• Facilitate light-hearted conversations regularly throughout the day.

• If you must have ‘fun activities’, get employees to initiate and

run them.

• Design workspaces that make it easy for staff to interact with

each other.

• When you hear team members joking around, join in.

• Share humorous pictures and videos.

• Don’t take yourself too seriously.

• Smile more.

Considering the amount of time spent at work these days, it makes sense

why the latest research is demonstrating how therapeutic, engaging (and

productive) it can be to simply pause for a minute and have a laugh.

Earning RespectIf your employees were asked whether you as a leader were worthy of being

followed, what would they say? That’s a serious question to ponder because

it gets to the heart of how much they respect you. Do they genuinely want

to follow you or are they merely in your team because they have no other

choice?

The concept of respect is very different to other terms such as moti-

vation and inspiration. Employees, for example, can be motivated and in-

spired even when they have an average leader—they just need to (unfortu-

nately) source their motivation and inspiration from elsewhere within the

jamesadonis.com


27

organisation. The issue of respect, though, can’t be relegated someplace

else. It’s yours and yours alone to earn.

A new study in the Journal of Psychology outlines five ways in which

leaders can do that.

Integrity: Worthy leaders demonstrate integrity by telling the truth,

keeping their promises, making fair decisions, and respecting each

individual.

Humility and forgiveness: Worthy leaders forgive employees

when they make mistakes, finding instead a lesson to teach from

the error. They’re benevolent rather than egocentric, sacrificing per-

sonal gain for the benefit of the team.

Interest and gratitude: Worthy leaders genuinely care. They’re

compassionate and generous, seeing their role as a resource to help

the team become more successful.

Competence: Worthy leaders are credible, influential and capable.

They have a track record of success admired by staff members and

colleagues.

Role models: Worthy leaders display actions that are congruent

with their words. Employees see them not just as bosses but as peo-

ple they want to emulate.

So let’s return to the question that began today’s newsletter. Would your

employees, upon being asked, say you were a leader worthy of being fol-

lowed?

The answer to that question will determine whether the people in your

team are genuine followers or whether they’re merely subordinates craving

a better opportunity.

jamesadonis.com


28

Strategy and DirectionWhenever you take your pulse while exercising, you’re in effect checking to

see whether you’re ‘in the zone’. Being ‘in the zone’ means your heart rate

is at a level where it’s working hard enough to burn calories but not so hard

you’re at risk of heart failure.

At work, employee energy functions in much the same way. You want

employees energised enough so they perform productively and put in extra

effort. But push them too hard and you risk the onset of burnout, culminat-

ing in absenteeism, lethargy and turnover.

That analogy has just been published in the Employment Relations jour-

nal in reference to a new study of 1 million pieces of data on employee

energy. Some of the data generated results that were predictable. The re-

searchers found, for example, that workplaces with high levels of urgency,

ownership and rewards compelled employees to be highly energetic. No

surprises there.

But there was one finding that was quite unexpected. Of the employees

who were surveyed qualitatively, 70% of them—an undeniably significant

number—referred to the critical role that strategy and direction play in driv-

ing up (or driving down) their levels of energy.

The strategy part of the equation is actually fine. Employees understand

the organisation’s goals and usually embrace them. The real problem oc-

curs with the direction that follows a new strategy. In particular, the mix of

work and the amount of work.

Mix of work: Even though a new strategy can be reinvigorating for

employees, their replenished energy can dissipate quickly if the sub-

sequent direction results in work that’s dull and simplistic. The solu-

tion for leaders is to translate the strategy into tasks and projects

that are interesting, challenging, and in line with employees’ talents.

Amount of work: Employees find it frustrating when they’re given

projects or additional work without consideration for their current

jamesadonis.com


29

workload. This depletes their energy because it pushes them to-

wards the burnout end of the spectrum. The solution for leaders is

to either reprioritise (by changing deadlines) or to redirect (by real-

locating resources).

Often, executives are consumed by the high-level thinking needed to pro-

duce a winning strategy without realising their success will be determined

by how well the subsequent direction energises their employees. Because if

that critical part of the equation falls off, there’s little chance the organisa-

tion will ever hit the zone.

Temps and ContractorsIf there were just one word to describe the sentiment that many temps and

contractors have toward their workplace, that word would be ‘fragile’. But

that fragility doesn’t mean those workers are less engaged. In fact, the em-

pirical research on that point is inconsistent and inconclusive. Some studies

indicate temps and contractors are more engaged than their permanent

colleagues; others say the opposite.

But an interesting new study published in The Leadership and Organi-

sational Development Journal provides some insight on how that fragility

can be lessened. The study compared the source of job satisfaction among

temps and contractors on the one hand, and permanent employees on the

other.

The researchers found that permanent employees are more likely to pri-

oritise the connection they have with their organisation. This means their

job satisfaction is influenced by factors such as pay, stability, security, ca-

reer opportunities, wellbeing, and so on. In other words, they can poten-

tially still enjoy their job even if they have an average boss, so long as the

right organisational elements are in place.

Temps and contractors, though, are more likely to prioritise the connec-

tion they have with their supervisor. This means that, in the absence of

jamesadonis.com


30

permanent employment, they resort instead to the relationship they have

with their leader in order to generate job satisfaction.

So, if you’ve got temps and contractors in your team whose jobs you’d

like to make more engaging, consider the following:

• Include them in group activities as if they were a permanent

employee.

• Spend as much time coaching them as you do the rest of your team.

• Build relationships as though they were long-term workers.

• Keep them notified about new information, decisions and plans.

• Include them in rewards and recognition initiatives.

To treat temporary workers differently is to be a leader only some of the

time. Making it, in effect, only temporary leadership. Average at best.

jamesadonis.com


31

Virtual TeamsWhen it comes to virtual teams, there seems to be a rare consensus among

scholars and workplace leaders: leading virtual teams is far more difficult

than leading face-to-face ones.

The geographical distance and communication difficulties inherent in

virtual teams means leaders need to invest more time and effort, often

working harder than their peers, to generate the same results.

A new study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology provides

some insight on what remote leaders can do to better engage their teams.

The study identified three elements proven to lead to higher performance:

i) Information management

ii) Shared leadership

iii) Material rewards

Information management: The key with information is that it isn’t

just about sharing data and providing company updates. It’s also

about facilitating connectivity in a way that removes perceptions of

distance. The more distant employees feel, the more likely they are

to be disengaged. That means you should use communication as

a way of getting virtual employees to know and understand each

other, even though they’re in different locations.

Shared leadership: Traditional face-to-face teams are usually suited

to what’s known as ‘hierarchical leadership’, which means the leader

often directs the responsibilities and tasks. That style, however, isn’t

effective in virtual teams. Infinitely more successful is shared lead-

ership, which means you relinquish control by getting employees to

lead projects, coach each other, run meetings, and instigate change.

Material rewards: The remoteness of virtual teams diminishes

their motivation because, when they can’t see each other, they’re

jamesadonis.com


32

less inclined to exert high levels of energy. When that’s combined

with their physical anonymity, it becomes more difficult to moni-

tor their performance. That’s why material rewards, such as regular

outcomes-based incentives, are essential, more so than for face-to-

face teams.

Ultimately, the real measure of success for a remote leader is that the team

no longer feels so remote.

Visionary LeadershipIn The Alchemist, a book about following your dreams, the lead character

develops a philosophy on life: “I’m an adventurer, looking for treasure.” In

a sense, leadership is similar. Leaders are adventurers looking for treasure,

and the treasure they’re seeking—whatever that might be—is best encap-

sulated by their vision.

A new Australian study published in the Asia Pacific Journal of Manage-

ment has produced some interesting results in relation to organisational

visions. The researchers found that when leaders establish a compelling

vision and they communicate it with employees who believe in it, there’s an

increase in both staff satisfaction and customer satisfaction.

This can be explained by contagion theory, which is simply that people

are influenced by the emotions of those that surround them. If a vision

is aspirational and meaningful, employees feel challenged and motivated.

That’s contagious, which means customers end up being satisfied. But, if

a vision is dull and uninspiring, employees become bored and apathetic.

That, too, is contagious, leading customers to be disengaged.

And here’s the key: negative emotions are more contagious than posi-

tive ones, the consequence of which is that setting and sharing a great vi-

sion is not enough. The whole thing can be derailed if any negativity associ-

ated with it is allowed to persist. Here are three ways you might personally

be contributing to negative contagion:

jamesadonis.com


33

• Your mood: If you don’t believe in your organisation’s vision, and

it’s obvious in your body language and tone, that sentiment is con-

tagious.

• Your focus: If you’re concentrating more on trivial issues rather than

on how your team can contribute significantly to the vision, that myo-

pia is contagious.

• Your colleagues: If you’re socialising with people at work who are

unenthusiastic and pessimistic about the vision, that attitude is con-

tagious.

• Your style: If your leadership style is top-down, which means your

employees haven’t been consulted on how to bring the vision to life,

that disregard is contagious.

From a team leadership perspective, you may have no control over your

organisation’s vision, but you have enormous influence over how your em-

ployees react to it. So, be an adventurer. Seek treasure. Just make sure the

map is taking you to the right place.

Office PoliticsIt’s been thirty years since an esteemed management scholar referred to or-

ganisations as a highly “political arena”. Three decades later and it’s as true

today as it was back then. Organisations are inherently political institutions,

but what’s the impact of office politics?

The term describes people who pursue their own self-interest no mat-

ter the collateral damage. A new study conducted at Florida State University

has found that office politics frequently results in job dissatisfaction, disen-

gagement and depressed moods.

That outcome isn’t surprising at all—but most intriguing was the rem-

edy recommended by the researchers. It’s almost contradictory: whenever

politics is present, a leader should support employees who are affected by it by

acting politically on their behalf.

jamesadonis.com


34

It’s referred to as supervisor political support, and it represents actions

taken by leaders in a bid to improve their employees’ wellbeing. When em-

ployees can’t protect themselves or advance their own interests because of

an overly political workplace, the leader does it for them instead. The result

is that employees maintain their levels of engagement. There are four ways

of demonstrating ‘supervisor political support’:

• Pursue opportunities: Be on the lookout for projects, conferences,

or training and development opportunities that might be suitable for

members of your team.

• Acquire resources: Be tireless in getting for your team whatever re-

sources they need to do their job—from the trivial (like stationery) to

the major (like people).

• Facilitate promotions: Be your team’s strongest advocate whenever

job vacancies arise by putting in a good word and helping them pre-

pare for interviews.

• Remove roadblocks: Be ruthless in abolishing red tape such as cum-

bersome processes and policies that constrain your employees from

doing their best.

The great thing about this study is that it demonstrates your focus should

only be on what you can actually influence. It’s impossible to ever stamp out

office politics—it’s the nature of the beast. But it’s always possible to protect

the most vulnerable from it.

Self-managementSome leaders seriously have it easy. Their teams require minimal supervi-

sion, and this frees them up to get on with more important things as op-

posed to being caught up in daily trivialities. Other leaders aren’t so fortu-

nate. Their teams are dependent on them to such an extent they’re unable

to do anything other than sit close by and micromanage.

jamesadonis.com


35

If you reside in that second category, there are several reasons that

might explain your predicament. It could be that your team is new and in-

experienced. It could be that you are personally plagued by insecurity and

mistrust. Or it could be that you haven’t created an environment that moti-

vates employees to embrace self-management.

Self-management is when people take charge of their own performance.

They confidently make their own decisions and initiate change. Leaders are

able to step away for hours or days at a time without worrying about how

their teams will perform. And now, for the first time, a new study has found

that self-managing employees are more likely to be highly engaged because

they have, by default, a greater degree of influence over their work.

Published in the Journal of Vocational Behaviour, the researchers discov-

ered there are three ways in which self-management can be generated and

nurtured.

Personal observation: This represents your employees’ ability to

critically assess themselves. The more aware they are of their atti-

tudes, behaviours and habits, the more adept they’ll be at self-man-

agement. As the leader, you can help them to become more per-

sonally observant by asking regularly for examples of how they’re

applying their strengths successfully at work and how they’re man-

aging the enfeebling nature of their limitations.

Personal goal setting: This represents the latitude you

give employees to develop—or at least negotiate—their

targets. When employees have a say in what’s expected

of them, they pursue those goals with greater vig-

our than they otherwise would for dictatorial

goals. As the leader, you can facilitate

this by providing employees

with a high-level vision and

jamesadonis.com


36

then asking them to suggest the short-term goals they feel would

have the biggest impact.

Personal cueing: This represents the initiative your employees dis-

play in establishing reminders, such as written notes and to-do lists,

which prompt them to focus on the specific tasks that need to be

completed. You can assist them to put these sorts of cues in place

by providing training on time management, personal leadership,

thinking styles, and productivity.

The useful thing about self-management is that it can be taught. Research

has proven that when employees are provided with development on how to

personally observe, set goals, and establish cues, they perform remarkably

better than those who are left untrained.

So, in essence, self-management provides leaders with a valuable op-

portunity to step back. But first they need to step forward.

(Very) Difficult TeamsIf you’re a fan of Mafia flicks, you’d be familiar with the concept of a Mob.

It’s a term used to describe a group of people who team up for nefarious

purposes. Mobs exist in the workplace, too, and there’s a funky verb used

(surprisingly) by academia to describe what they do: mobbing. Mobbing

occurs when employees get together and stay together, united by their aim

to antagonise.

Their target could be a colleague, a customer, a stakeholder or … it could

be you. It’s not unusual for a leader to lead a difficult team, the employees

of which consistently display negative behaviours towards the boss. Their

ambition is to make life tough until such time that the leader is weakened

by feelings of inferiority, incompetence, and helplessness.

A new study conducted by three Italian universities has shed some

valuable insights on what causes workplace mobbing. In particular, the re-

searchers looked at three potential triggers:

jamesadonis.com


37

i) Individual factors

ii) Organisational factors

iii) Leadership factors

Each of those will be described in the following paragraphs. As you read

them, see if you can guess which one was found to stimulate the rise of

workplace mobbing the most.

Individual factors represent employees’ personality traits (such as envy

and over-ambition) and personal situations (such as the fear of losing their

employment).

Organisational factors represent the poor design of their jobs, excessive

workloads, broken promises, company crises, and unfair reward systems.

Leadership factors represent the leader being too authoritative or, more

neglectfully, failing to communicate, consult and delegate.

So which one of those three do you think came out on top—by far—as

the most likely cause of workplace mobbing? If you selected the Leadership

option, you’re correct. To remedy the problem, the researchers suggested

leaders should adopt these practices:

• Lead by example: behave in accordance with the high standards

you expect

• Participative decision-making: solicit (and act on) the team’s ideas

and opinions

• Coach: provide the team with help, training, feedback, support and

recognition

• Inform: explain (don’t just dictate) decisions, goals, rules and

expectations

• Show concern: genuinely care about, and get along with, each

team member

And of those five, which one do you think was the most successful at mini-

mising the risk of mobbing? The answer: participative decision-making. Which

goes to show that, even with difficult teams, the solution can be as simple as

jamesadonis.com


38

listening to your employees and putting in place, as much as you can, their

suggestions. Because being a leader sometimes means working alongside

people rather than ahead of them.

Employee OwnershipThe concept of ownership, from a psychologi-

cal perspective, is centred on this question:

“What do I feel is mine and a part of me?” That

question is relevant at home and at work. The

more affirmatively you answer it, the more

likely you are to invest substantial amounts of

energy protecting it and enhancing it.

In your personal life, you might address

that question positively if what you’re referring

to is your house, hobby, garden, car, health, or

children. As a result, ownership is present, and

so you’re destined to do whatever it takes to

look after it.

At work, a similar principle applies. If you can categorically say “my job is

mine and a part of me”, chances are you’ll invest significant amounts of en-

ergy making it a success. If your employees can say the same thing, they’re

almost certainly dedicating time and effort into making their performance

as excellent as possible. Many employees, however, can’t say that. And, in

essence, that’s what a lack of ownership is all about.

Two new studies have been published in the Journal of Organisational

Behaviour, both of which provide clues on what to do about it. The stud-

ies found complex jobs are the key ingredient. That’s because complexity

generates greater opportunities for employees to feel competent, influen-

tial, important, motivated and smarter, all of which are directly related to

ownership.

jamesadonis.com


39

But complex jobs are not enough—they’re just the beginning. Once that

part of the equation is taken care of, there are three additional elements to

incorporate:

Work methods: Employees are more inclined to take ownership

when they feel as though they’re free to decide how their work

should be completed.

Work scheduling: They’re also more open to ownership if they’re

given the independence to determine the order in which their tasks

are done.

Decision-making: Ownership is ramped up further when they can

use their personal initiative while carrying out their work.

So, to sum up, employees are usually willing to assume ownership; they’re

just not prepared for it. That preparation comes from, first, the creation of

complex jobs so that opportunities for ownership exist and, second, the

autonomy to make decisions. Both of those, incidentally, require a fair bit of

trust, without which employees don’t feel ownership; they just feel owned.

MotivationBack in the 1st century, the Roman philosopher Seneca coined the phrase

that “it is quality rather than quantity that matters”, which has endured in

many different ways even 2000 years later. The reality, though, is that in

many businesses, quantity and quality are of equal importance, and the

most treasured employees are those who can master both.

A fascinating new study published in the Psychological Bulletin journal

provides some useful insights on how you can use motivation to improve

those two aspects of performance. What makes this research truly special is

that it’s a meta-analysis, which means the researchers have analysed every

jamesadonis.com


40

single reputable study conducted on motivation over the past 40 years.

Their simple findings might surprise you.

First, a rhetorical question: When it comes to improving employee

performance, which motivational approach do you think is more success-

ful? There are two to choose from: extrinsic motivation and intrinsic mo-

tivation.

Extrinsic motivation is when you use incentives (such as money and

gifts). Intrinsic motivation is when you use intangible strategies (such as

meaningful jobs and inspirational visions). So which of the two do you think

elicits greater performance?

If you chose extrinsic motivation, you’re half right. And if you chose in-

trinsic motivation, again you’re only half right. That’s because, according to

the exhaustive meta-analysis, both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation lead to

higher performance. It just depends on whether you want to improve quantity

or quality.

Extrinsic motivation is ideal for quantity. If you want your employees,

for example, to generate more sales or to improve their productivity, you

need to look at extrinsic techniques. Awards, commissions and prizes are

all potentially appropriate if your aim is to lift numbers-based performance.

Intrinsic motivation is ideal for quality. This includes objectives such as

customer service and innovation. The easiest way to intrinsically motivate

people is to slightly alter their jobs so that they’re exposed to more of the

work they love. Generally, each person is driven by two, maybe three, from

the following list. Your role as the leader is to identify those that each em-

ployee prefers and to give them more of it.

• Control: The opportunity to work autonomously without being

micromanaged.

• Cooperation: The opportunity to work collaboratively with others.

• Fantasy: The incorporation of imagination, games and learning

in the workplace.

• Curiosity: The regular inclusion of activities that are fresh and

different.

jamesadonis.com


41

• Recognition: The feeling of being noticed, acknowledged and

appreciated.

• Challenge: The completion of tasks that require a certain amount

of difficulty.

• Competition: The opportunity to compete with, and outdo,

colleagues.

And while you’re at it, don’t forget to motivate yourself using these same

techniques. Few things are as motivating as a motivated leader.

Difficult BehaviourDifficult behaviour comes in many forms. In the workplace, this includes

employees who are rude, aggressive, disrespectful and temperamental. It’s

also anyone who hurls insults, talks condescendingly, blames others and is

hard to get along with.

Two new studies have been released that shed some light on how to

deal with it. The first, published in the Journal of Occupational Health Psy-

chology, has found employees are more likely to be difficult if they’ve been

the victims of similar behaviour in the past.

This means you need to be mindful you’re not encouraging such be-

haviour, albeit unconsciously. If, for instance, you notice it and you don’t

immediately confront it, you’re inadvertently encouraging it to continue.

And, if someone who’s notoriously difficult gets promoted or receives a rare

opportunity, you’re again encouraging the widespread adoption of that be-

haviour because, in effect, you’re rewarding it.

The second study, conducted in Australia by Macquarie University, is

especially fascinating. The researchers found difficult employees increase

their colleagues’ stress and diminish their colleagues’ engagement. No sur-

prises there, really. Except that the solution for those two consequences is

very different depending on which one is present.

If the difficult behaviour causes stress, the solution is supervisor sup-

port. This means your well-behaved employees will feel less stressed when

jamesadonis.com


42

you demonstrate interest and care for their wellbeing. This helps them cope

because it makes them feel as though they’re valued and appreciated de-

spite the negativity that surrounds them.

But if the difficult behaviour causes disengagement, supervisor support

is actually not the answer. The answer is a more positive self-perception,

which comprises self-esteem, confidence, emotional stability and capability.

In other words, the more highly your employees think of themselves, the

less likely they’ll be affected by difficult colleagues.

So how can you enhance their self-perception? A few ideas:

• Provide training and coaching on resilience.

• Make available the tools and resources they need to get on with

the job.

• Orchestrate work in such a way that positive employees have

more influence.

• Role model the behaviour you want them to emulate.

• Praise their contributions.

Because, to paraphrase (and adapt) the old maxim, having a low self-per-

ception is like driving at work with the hand-break on.

LeadershipThere’s just one style of leadership that half of the ‘best companies to work

for’ have implemented as a fundamental part of their organisation. Can you

guess which style that is?

It’s the same one that, in a new study published in the Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics, has been shown to increase employee engagement. The re-

search also found it’s a style of leadership that motivates employees to pro-

vide better customer service, to more effectively solve problems, and to be

more committed to the organisation.

That style is … servant leadership.

jamesadonis.com


43

Servant leadership is when leaders abandon their own self-interest and

instead prioritise the needs of their employees. They do this by building

authentic trust-based relationships. They genuinely care about the develop-

ment and engagement of each employee, and are even willing to sacrifice

their own preferences for the sake of the team.

When the study’s participants were asked to state the qualities they

most admired in a servant leader, the following came out on top.

Lead by example: It’s a term mentioned endlessly in leadership cir-

cles but it’s very rarely followed. Essentially it just means this: if your

employees acted in the same way you did, would that be all right? If

the answer is no, this attribute should be your primary focus.

Kindness: This is when you show concern for others. Servant lead-

ers don’t wait for the annual RUOK day to ask employees if they’re

okay. They’re regularly checking in and looking out for cues that

something’s up.

jamesadonis.com


44

Open-mindedness: This isn’t just about being receptive to new

ideas. It’s also about enthusiastically seeking them out and consid-

ering them on their merits. Then, if an idea is workable, it’s imple-

mented. If it’s not, feedback is provided.

Compassion: This occurs when you tap in to the emotion an em-

ployee is feeling. Emotions are at the core of servant leadership and

they’re also a vital aspect of engagement, which is why it’s not sur-

prising the two concepts are positively related. Compassion starts

with empathy.

Willing to lead: You can easily spot reluctant leaders. They’re the

ones who avoid contact with employees, think engagement is fluffy

and unnecessary, and ignore performance issues until it’s too late.

Servant leaders are the total opposite.

In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt: “To handle yourself, use your head; to

handle others, use your heart.”

Generating TrustThe problem with a concept like ‘trust’ is that it’s such a soft and fluffy term,

a term that very quickly raises eyebrows among the more cynical of leaders.

After all, how can something all about vulnerability have any respectable

impact on the bottom line?! Well, a new study published in the Journal of

Applied Psychology should silence some of the critics.

The researchers discovered that something known as shared leadership

has a positive impact on trust, which in turn has a positive impact on per-

formance. The researchers themselves were surprised at the strength of

the connection. What they found was that shared leadership encourages

people to interact more frequently with each other. This elevated interac-

tion builds trust. And that trust boosts performance.

jamesadonis.com


45

So what does shared leadership mean? Essentially, it represents the no-

tion that, within a team, there’ll be times when employees are leaders and

there’ll be times when they’re followers. Whether they’re a leader or a fol-

lower depends on their talents, the task, the situation, the project, and a

host of other factors. It can change day by day, week by week.

This poses a challenge to you since you’re the one with ‘leader’ or ‘man-

ager’ in their job title or job description. And it’s a challenge because the

whole point of shared leadership is that you’re supposed to relinquish some

of your leadership responsibilities. In other words, you’re required to let go

of duties you’ve worked so hard to earn.

If you can get over the outdated notion that the formal leader is the only

one who can do leadership stuff, here are four ‘shared leadership’ roles you

can create within your team:

Information providers: These are the people you empower to ac-

quire, evaluate and distribute relevant information to other mem-

bers of the team.

Problem solvers: These are the employees tasked with identifying

needs, setting goals, formulating plans, clarifying expectations and

communicating them to the team.

Personnel managers: These are the staff members who are skilled

enough to develop, coach, mentor and motivate their colleagues.

Resource coordinators: These are the people who obtain, allocate,

maintain, and monitor whatever resources the team needs to get

the job done.

So here’s what all this means for you. Shared leadership isn’t about del-

egating any old thing you don’t want to do. What it means is that you pass

on genuine leadership tasks. Sure, you can still hang on to a large degree

of authority and influence but, by at least giving away some of your more

jamesadonis.com


46

substantial duties, you’ll get back something far more valuable: trust—and

evidently better performance.

NegativityGenerally, there are two types of negative people in the workplace.

The first represents employees whose negativity is quite harmless—it

may be annoying and at times frustrating, but it’s still relatively harmless.

These are the pessimistic complainers who relentlessly spot flaws, but their

negativity is thankfully limited to their disposition. There is even substantial

empirical evidence to indicate that such workers (in small doses) might be

good for organisations.

It’s the second type you really need to worry about. These are the peo-

ple who act out on their negative tendencies. In some cases, they’ll sabotage

projects. In others, they’ll refuse to follow instructions. They might steal,

lie, harass—whatever the consequences, their intention is to create harm,

either to colleagues or to the organisation.

So why would some employees be content with just appearing negative

while others are satisfied only when they’re engaging in destructive behav-

iour? The answer can be gleaned from a new study published in the Journal

of Business Ethics.

The researchers discovered that people who turn their negativity into

harmful actions are distinguished by something known as moral disen-

gagement. This is when they switch off their self-discipline and, most criti-

cally, their guilt. With neither censorship nor remorse, they’re free to wreak

havoc without fearing the repercussions.

There are several ways they justify their behaviour. Some of them blame

others. Some state they wouldn’t be so adversarial if their employer didn’t

break promises. And then there are those who do it because they believe

their co-workers are doing it, too. No matter their justification, they ration-

alise their behaviour by coming up with reasons why it’s okay.

The question for you becomes: how can you prevent moral disengage-

ment from arising in your workplace? Here are some suggestions.

jamesadonis.com


47

• Be ruthless: The minute you notice any employees turning their neg-

ativity into harmful behaviour, have a formal performance conversa-

tion immediately.

• Promote ethics: Many studies have proven that toxic cultures breed

moral disengagement. So focus intensely on creating a team environ-

ment in which people feel it’s safe to speak up about ethical breaches

and damaging actions.

• Interview carefully: When recruiting new employees, incorporate

into your interview guide several questions that give you a sense of

the candidate’s moral character.

• Provide training: Sometimes employees morally disengage because

they don’t know any other way. By running training sessions on ethi-

cal standards, you increase not only their awareness but also that of

their colleagues.

It can be difficult, and often impossible, for a leader to transform a nega-

tive employee into a positive one. You’re instead best served directing your

efforts towards those who turn their negativity into neg-activity.

Workplace MoraleMorale is one of those things you can feel and sense but can’t pin down.

Workplaces are electric when it’s present and miserable when it’s not. But

often what we think generates morale isn’t what generates it at all.

In a new study conducted at Eastern Kentucky University, a variety of

factors were tested. Of the following eight, which three do you think were

found to have a minimal impact on morale?

• Input into decision-making: Having a say in what happens at work.

• Fairness: Leaders treating employees equitably.

• Low stress: Sustainable levels of pressure.

• Communication: Clear, timely and accurate messages.

• Role clarity: Information on how jobs should be performed.

jamesadonis.com


48

• Co-worker perceptions: Colleagues thinking positively of each

other.

• Cooperation: Resources, support and guidance within the team.

• Public support: Doing work that’s good for the community.

So, of those eight, which three do you think had a negligible effect? If you

selected communication, role clarity and public support, well done. That

doesn’t mean they’re not important; they’re essential. It’s just that they don’t

necessarily translate into greater morale. The others do.

Input into decision-making: When employees are given the oppor-

tunity to express their opinion, they feel as though they’re making a

more meaningful contribution to the team. That emotion of feeling

valued leads to greater morale.

Fairness: Fairness arises when people believe they’re treated with

dignity and respect, that decisions are unbiased, and that processes

are transparent. With those factors in place, it’s unsurprising to see

why morale would be the natural outcome.

Low stress: Previous research has already proven excessive job

stress causes health issues, absenteeism, turnover, conflict and—

seriously—divorce and death. But when job stress (and those conse-

quences) are absent, the resulting harmony ramps up morale.

Co-worker perceptions: Morale is also enhanced when employees

feel as though their colleagues are upbeat, pleasant and supportive.

And, here’s the important part, they also need to believe their team-

mates are producing work of high quality.

Cooperation: Finally, there has to be some form of interaction in

pursuit of a common goal. If team members are working indepen-

jamesadonis.com


49

dently without any need to collaborate, a vital ingredient for morale

is missing: people contact.

And here’s the thing. That study was conducted among prison officers.

So, if morale can be increased in a prison, it can surely be increased in your

team, right?

Change ResistanceThere’s a simple reason why so many employees are resistant to change:

They’ve been burnt by it too many times in the past and so now they’re jad-

ed and cynical, unable to trust that the latest initiative will be implemented

considerately.

Organisations are often excellent at instigating and embedding change.

They hire talented project managers and teams of professionals who ex-

pertly take care of the technical details. What they frequently neglect, how-

ever, is the people side of things. And hence we have employees pushing

back, sabotaging, withdrawing.

It’s true that leaders have massive influence over the degree to which

employees resist change. For example, the help you provide, the attention

you give, the care you demonstrate, the appreciation you show—all of that

has a big impact. But a new study published in the Journal of Change Man-

agement has offered a different perspective.

jamesadonis.com


50

The researchers have discovered that co-worker support has as much

of an effect—if not more so—than supervisor support. What this means is

that the key to getting employees to embrace change has more to do with

their colleagues than with you personally. In particular, the researchers pin-

pointed four elements, each of which you can still play a role in amplifying.

Co-workers help each other: Whenever someone falls behind with

their work, their colleagues voluntarily lend a hand. You can facili-

tate this by establishing support groups in which employees voice

their concerns about the change and devise team-based solutions.

Co-workers offer encouragement: When someone seems down

or lacking in motivation, colleagues step in to lift their spirits. You

can promote this behaviour by establishing peer-to-peer recogni-

tion programs for actions related specifically to the change.

Co-workers share their expertise: When team members learn

something new, they eagerly teach it to their colleagues. You can

make this widespread by appointing subject matter experts in the

team who coach and train each other on various aspects of the

change.

Co-workers resolve conflict: When disagreements arise, col-

leagues immediately look for ways to deal with it peacefully. You

can expedite this process by providing your employees with training

on conflict resolution, personality differences and resilience.

There’s a Japanese proverb that’s quite instructive about change: The bam-

boo that bends is stronger than the oak that resists.

It could be that you have several oaks in your team. During times of

change, you’re probably best served getting their colleagues on side first—

the bamboos. Because it’s not unusual for employees to trust their peers

more than they trust their boss.

jamesadonis.com


51

Career ProgressionOne of the most frequent comments made by leaders is that their younger

employees are restless and impatient. Keen to climb the corporate ladder

quickly, they seem unwilling to put in the hard yards, expecting instead to

be promoted before they’re ready.

If you can relate to that gripe, a new study in the International Journal of

Behavioural Development provides some fresh insight that might help you.

The researchers assessed the career progression of hundreds of individuals

over the space of seven years. What they discovered was that people tend

to fall into one of four career pathways:

• Consistent Pursuit

• Adapted Pursuit

• Survivors

• Confused / Vague

Consistent Pursuit: This represents those who are clear on their

goals. They have an elaborate career development plan in place,

connected to their values and motivators. Even though they pursue

their career with vigour, they nonetheless remain open-minded and

flexible, ready to change course should the need arise.

Adapted Pursuit: These are the individuals who shift their career in

a different direction because they’ve been disappointed along the

way. This might be because they realised they weren’t good enough

for their original goal or maybe they found it wasn’t what they ex-

pected. Either way, they successfully adapt and enjoy a fulfilling job

in an unexpected career turn.

Survivors: This reflects those who, on the surface, seem stable. But,

in reality, they’re dissatisfied with their career and feel as though

their job is unaligned with who they truly are. In a sense, they see

jamesadonis.com


52

themselves as failures. Often, that’s not because they don’t have as-

pirational goals, but because they haven’t taken the necessary steps

to achieve them.

Confused / Vague: These are the people who still have no idea what

they want to do. This causes them some distress, frequently result-

ing in job-hopping in a desperate attempt to discover what they’re

great at and what they love. As a result, their lives are unstable.

Their level of wellbeing is usually much lower than people in other

categories.

Your priority as a leader should be to discover the stages into which your

employees belong. And then put in place actions to help them progress. For

example:

• Consistent Pursuit employees need additional tasks and responsi-

bilities that are linked to the position they’re most likely to apply for

next.

• Adapted Pursuit employees need opportunities for work experi-

ence, secondments, or job shadowing before they embark on their

next career change.

• Survivors need motivation above and beyond anything else. Find out

their underlying aspirations and prod them regularly to make sure

they’re taking action.

• Confused/Vague people need clarity. Consider providing them with

personality profiling, strengths assessments, or a professional ca-

reers coach.

So long as you’re seen to be doing something to help further their career,

it’s usually enough to keep their restlessness and impatience at bay. Well,

for the time being, anyway.

jamesadonis.com


53

Leadership CommunicationWhen it comes to your success as a leader, no skill is more important than

communication. Nothing else comes close. That’s because the way you

communicate influences every aspect of your leadership style. How you

coach, mentor, motivate, influence, delegate, inspire—and much more—is

all dependent on how good you are at this vital skill.

And yet despite the all-important role of communication, it has been

mostly neglected in empirical research on effective leadership. Why that’s

the case, no one really knows. It’s true there have been countless studies

conducted on communication in general, but very few have focused specifi-

cally on leadership communication.

Until now, in the Journal of Psychology, in which the findings of new re-

search have taken a big step towards rectifying that anomaly. The research-

ers conducted four separate studies resulting in six simple statements that

give you an indication of whether you’re communicating well with your

team. The statements are:

1. I am sensitive to the needs of others.

2. I like devoting my time to my employees.

3. I am content with the way my communication with my employees

is going.

4. My employees and I share an understanding of how we would like

to achieve our goals.

5. My employees and I can speak openly with one another.

6. Especially when problems arise, we talk to one another even more

intensively in order to solve the problems.

So, based upon those six statements, would you say you’re a great com-

municator? Or one in need of some improvement? It’s almost certain you

said ‘yes’ to the former. Most leaders, when asked, rate their leadership

capabilities favourably. But here’s the curious thing to note with this short

jamesadonis.com


54

instrument: it’s called The Perceived Leadership Communication Question-

naire. That key word—perceived—is the most critical of all.

You may think you’re a talented communicator. You may even be sure

of it. But it’s common for many of us to be a tad too generous with how we

evaluate our abilities. That’s why the word ‘perceived’ is so well placed. The

only way to check that your own perception is accurate is by asking your

employees for their feedback on those same six statements.

Which is why George Bernard Shaw’s famous quote is still such genius:

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has

taken place.”

Conflict ResolutionIf you get nothing work-related out of this newsletter, hopefully you’ll at

least get some pointers on how to have a happier relationship with your

partner, if you have one. That’s because the study I’ll be sharing has been

tested not on employees but on married couples. The lessons, though, are

just as applicable in employment as they are in romance.

In significant new research just published in the Journal of Counselling

Psychology, eleven academics wanted to explore the trend that half of mar-

riages end in divorce. But, even more importantly, they were keen to better

understand the early years of marriage, which are apparently the riskiest.

(Incidentally, similar trends occur in the workplace. Conflict and break-ups

are much more frequent in the early stages of a team’s formation.)

Anyway, the researchers analysed the effect of two different strategies

on 145 couples. One of the strategies was called HOPE, which stood for

Handling Our Problems Effectively. The other was called FREE, which stood

for Forgiveness and Reconciliation through Experiencing Empathy. Here’s a

brief summary of the distinction between the two.

HOPE is about prevention. It’s a process that focuses on communication

and conflict resolution. Couples are taught how to properly express them-

selves, how to listen, and how to resolve differences so that small issues

don’t escalate into larger ones.

jamesadonis.com


55

FREE is about remediation. It’s a

process that seeks to repair the dam-

age caused by conflict that’s already

out of control. Couples are taught

how to confront past misbehaviour,

how to admit it when they’re wrong,

and how to forgive.

Both methods were found to have

merit but only one of them was found

to be a “potent strategy” resulting in

“significant benefits” to the relation-

ship. If you guessed HOPE, you’re correct. In fact, the couples that practiced

HOPE also subsequently had lower levels of cortisol, which means they

were less stressed.

Now here’s what this means for you in the workplace. In order to man-

age conflict within your team, it’s true that HOPE and FREE are both essen-

tial, but HOPE—just like in the study on couples—is infinitely more valuable.

That’s because it prevents conflict from occurring in the first place, whereas

FREE is useful on the odd occasion things get out of hand.

To maximise the effects of HOPE, and by virtue reduce the chances of

conflict, you need to instil similar communication and resolution skills with-

in your team. So:

• Teach it: Run training programs on how to spot the early signs of

discord, how to tactfully express disagreement, and how to resolve

issues constructively.

• Model it: Be mindful of the ways in which you yourself represent

good conflict or bad conflict. The former results in creativity; the lat-

ter in bad blood and poor morale.

• Coach it: Provide employees with immediate feedback on how well

(or how badly) they deal with conflict whenever it occurs.

jamesadonis.com


56

• Practice it: Even though people dislike role plays, they can still be a

great way to embed the communication skills that are at the heart of

making HOPE a success.

As they say, HOPE will set you FREE.

Job InsecurityJob insecurity, in some form or another, characterises many organisations

these days. If it isn’t restructures, it’s downsizing. If it isn’t mergers, it’s off-

shoring. Whatever the type, the outcome is usually the same: employees

end up experiencing anxiety, distress and fear at the thought of suddenly

losing their employment.

The challenge for you as the leader is that you, too, might be feeling the

same emotions. Which means helping employees to overcome them can be

all the more difficult. Some guidance on how to do this can be gleaned from

a new study just published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

The researchers wanted to discover what makes employees go above

and beyond even when their jobs are at risk. How is it that some people can

remain highly efficient and effective despite the uncertainty that surrounds

them? Well, after studying 271 employees and 133 supervisors, the scholars

found the answer rests in something known as psychological capital.

Employees are high in psychological capital when they possess the fol-

lowing four attributes: hope, resilience, self-efficacy, and optimism. When

all four are present within the one individual, they’re compelled to try hard-

er even when faced with adversity. Here are some suggestions on how to

ramp up each of those within your team.

Hope: This begins with setting an inspirational goal but it’s amplified

by making it realistic in two ways. First, outline a clear pathway to

help your team achieve the goal and, second, brainstorm some of

the likely obstacles and the ways you’ll get around them.

jamesadonis.com


57

Resilience: For many people, their resilience comes from within. It’s

who they are as a person as a result of the events they’ve confront-

ed throughout their life. But there are still a couple of things you can

do to assist the others. For instance: make enough resources avail-

able, debrief the lessons learned from any setbacks, and provide

emotional support.

Self-efficacy: The key to self-efficacy is confidence. You can build

this up by providing positive feedback, allocating tasks aligned to

people’s strengths, and by being a role model.

Optimism: There are two methods that generate greater optimism:

development and language. The former—development—requires

employees to receive training and coaching on resilience and self-ef-

ficacy. The latter—language—requires you to be a positive example

by being mindful of the words, tone and body expressions you use.

Previous studies have demonstrated that when employees lack psychologi-

cal capital, they’re more likely to be cynical, deviant, dysfunctional and dis-

satisfied. So it’s worth pursuing, really, not only when times are tough but

also when times are good.

Employee BurnoutHere’s what’s curious about stressful events. Every team has them but they

affect the members of that team very differently. For some employees, the

existence of a traumatic episode leads to burnout, which means they be-

come exhausted and their productivity plummets. But then there are those

who experience the same thing but with the opposite effect. Rather than

feeling burnt out, they instead feel engaged, energetic and focused.

Why is that and how does it happen? A new study published in the Jour-

nal of Psychology gives us the answer. The researchers studied over 1000

jamesadonis.com


58

employees and discovered the difference between the two reactions comes

down to self-efficacy.

Employees who are high in self-efficacy feel as though they have greater

control over their environment. This is because they have enough faith in

their abilities to know they’ll overcome the problem. Actually, they don’t

even see problems as problems; they see them as challenges. Motivating

challenges. This is especially the case if they believe the experience will

teach them something valuable for their personal growth.

But when employees have low levels of self-efficacy, they’re more likely

to be pessimistic and to subsequently experience anxiety. You can imagine,

then, that such sustained feelings can lead to burnout. After all, they’re too

depleted and distressed to persevere or to trust that they have what it takes

to get through the drama.

Here are three ways to increase self-efficacy in your team.

Create mini-experiences: Some employees have been sheltered

for too long. This means that when a stressful event eventually ma-

terialises, they’re mentally unprepared to deal with it. So don’t wait

until then. Start now by delegating challenging tasks, tough projects

and big responsibilities so that they get some practice in enduring

stress and pressure.

Teach vicariously: Many leaders think they must put on a happy

face and protect their employees from the stress they’re personally

experiencing. Not true. Use what you’re going through as a lesson

by explaining to employees what they could learn from it should it

ever happen to them. By demonstrating self-efficacy yourself, your

employees get it by osmosis.

Verbally encourage: It’s incredible—really—how frequently lead-

ers underestimate the power of their language. The words you use

are potent. What you say and how you say it determines whether

employees think they’re hopeless losers or whether they genuinely

jamesadonis.com


59

believe they have sufficient talent and fortitude. The latter is what

self-efficacy is all about.

Of course, some employees lack self-efficacy for good reason. Maybe they’re

in the wrong job or perhaps they’ll just never have the aptitude to deal with

the stress of your workplace. For the rest, however, there’s hope. Just be

careful you’re not placing them in the wrong basket.

Retaining EmployeesThere are many potential causes of staff turnover. Some people just hate

their job. Others feel a cultural misalignment with the organisation. There

are also those who don’t get along with their colleagues. And now, in an

extensive new study published in the Journal of Management, a fresh and

prominent cause of turnover has emerged: hypocritical leadership.

The researchers put hundreds of people through an experiment as well

as a survey. What they discovered was that employees have an innate de-

sire for a predictable and reliable workplace. But when they perceive their

manager’s actions as being incongruent with what they say—when they’re

not walking their talk—the uncertainty spikes. With little ability to change

their boss’s behaviour, they instead choose to look for a job elsewhere.

That leader could be you. The first step in overcoming such a tendency

is to catch yourself doing it. Here’s how you can tell if your leadership style

is verging on the hypocritical:

• You talk about performance but aren’t a high performer yourself.

• You advocate teamwork but don’t work well with others.

• You try to motivate staff but aren’t motivated yourself.

• You state ethics is important but then behave unethically.

The underlying issue is that employees with a hypocritical leader can’t

predict their leader’s behaviour. This is an important point because when

employees aren’t certain of your potential actions, they begin to question

jamesadonis.com


60

their ability to meet your expectations. The consequence is that they end up

thinking they’re going to fail, and so they move to a workplace where there’s

a greater chance of success.

Is that a bit melodramatic? Possibly. But is it also the reality for many

people? Definitely.

If you feel this has described your leadership style, there’s a solution: in-

tegrity (the opposite of hypocrisy). This means practicing what you preach;

keeping your promises; committing to personal improvement; being ac-

countable; showing respect; and doing the right thing.

Otherwise, people will start resigning. As the scholars note in their jour-

nal article, employees will leave in order “to relieve the strong distaste and

repulsion they have for the leader.”

Constructive FeedbackThroughout our childhood and adolescence, there are events that happen

to us—often characterised by the things people say and do—that end up in-

fluencing how we think, act and feel as adults. These events have an impact

on something known as ‘attachment’, which reflects the degree to which we

feel comfortable receiving support from others.

Generally, there are three categories of attachment. Have a think about

the one that best describes your employees in the context of receiving

feedback:

• Secure attachment: These employees see feedback as positive and

helpful because they know it fulfils a specific need or a current gap

in knowledge.

• Anxious attachment: These employees demand constant reassur-

ance and immediate feedback. When you’re not around, they quickly

become helpless.

• Avoidant attachment: These employees resist feedback—even

when they need it—because they dislike the idea of being dependent

on someone else.

jamesadonis.com


61

It should be obvious that the third category of employee is the one to whom

managers struggle to give feedback the most. Even when feedback is tact-

ful, these employees still interpret it as distressing and negative because it

threatens their sense of self-worth.

And now, in four new studies published in the Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, researchers have discovered a novel way to cut through.

Each of their studies focused on romantic relationships where one partner

is avoidant while the other is trying to help. The two main lessons of this

research are just as applicable in the working world.

Lesson 1: Do it anyway—but do it a lot: The scholars found that when

avoidant personalities were provided with only low-to-moderate levels of

support, they resisted it. But when high levels of support were offered, they

embraced it. That’s because the extra effort was proof the support-giver

was reliable and could be trusted.

What this means for you is that, unlike many managers, don’t shy away

from giving constructive feedback to avoidant employees just because

they seem hostile. Do it anyway. Do it immediately. And do it by dedicating

enough time and resources. Eventually, they’re more likely to see (and ac-

cept) your genuine intention to help.

Lesson 2: Be practical—not emotional: There are two main types of sup-

port. One of these is ‘practical’, which includes the giving of advice, infor-

mation, and guidance. The other is ‘emotional’, which includes listening,

reassurance, and providing comfort. The researchers found it’s practical

support—not emotional support—that avoidant people value most.

What this means is that you should focus more on pragmatic feedback

rather than sessions where you might come across as a counsellor or a

therapist. So focus on facts, be direct, and empower your avoidant employ-

ees to be involved in generating solutions.

It’s also useful, by the way, to spend some time in self-reflection: In

which of the three attachment categories do you personally belong? And

does it serve you well to stay there?

jamesadonis.com


62

Team MeetingsEmpirical estimates suggest approximately half of all workplace meetings

are a total waste of time. It’s probably unsurprising, then, to learn they’re

one trapdoor through which employee engagement plummets.

New research released by the University of Nebraska reveals how this

can be mitigated. The researchers discovered employees end up being

more engaged when, during a team meeting, they’re actively involved in

decision-making.

This can be explained by what’s known as the norm of reciprocity, which

means employees see their involvement in decision-making as a reward,

and so they reciprocate their leader’s generosity by being more energised

and dedicated. So, to ramp up employee decision-making in meetings, and

to subsequently raise levels of engagement, try the following:

Make it safe to do so: Encourage employees to

share their ideas, feelings, opinions and beliefs.

Paraphrase what they say and genuinely re-

flect on their thoughts. Be vigilant in stop-

ping others from belittling or punishing

the contributions that are made.

Strengthen the relationship: Peo-

ple will open up only when trust is

present. You can speed up this pro-

cess by adopting a supportive lead-

ership style. This is evident in leaders

who prioritise their employees’ wellbe-

ing, listen to their concerns, and demon-

strate they care.

Have fewer meetings: The researchers discovered

that, for the purposes of engagement, it’s better to have

jamesadonis.com


63

only a few meetings of high quality than to have many ineffective

ones. This can be attributed to the critical role of memory. A higher

frequency of mediocre meetings generates a greater number of

poor experiences for people to remember, thereby relegating the

few engaging meetings to the realm of the forgotten.

As the cartoonist, Ashley Brilliant, once illustrated: “Meetings are usually

held to discuss many problems which would never arise if we held fewer

meetings.”

Long-term StaffThe great thing about (most) new employees is their willingness to learn.

As enthusiastic newcomers keen to master their job—and eager to make a

good impression—they’re almost always open to feedback. Long-term em-

ployees, not so much. The longer they stay in the same job, the more set

they become in their ways.

This has just been verified in an exhaustive new analysis published in

the Journal of Management. The researchers scrutinised every credible

study conducted on feedback in the past few decades, and they especially

analysed the degree to which employees embrace it based upon the length

of their tenure.

What the scholars found was the longer an employee stays in the one

job or the one organisation, the less likely they are to seek feedback. That’s

because some long-timers feel they already know it all while others just

want to save face. That latter group is particularly sensitive to being seen as

incompetent by their neophyte colleagues, and so they act in the way they

want to be perceived; hence why so many become resistant (or worse).

The problem, though, is that you need employees to be active seek-

ers of feedback, never satisfied with the status quo. So how can you make

that happen? The research uncovered something known as the cost-value

framework, which basically means people will be more open to receiving

feedback if they see more value in it than cost.

jamesadonis.com


64

For example, in the case of long-timers, the costs of getting feedback

could include losing the respect of their colleagues, changing long-held hab-

its, or dealing with the ego-bruising reality of realising they don’t know as

much as they think they do. These costs can be negated when their leader is

able to make them see sufficient value in constructive feedback.

The culmination of studies over the past 30 years gives you some of the

following value features to choose from.

• Learning goals: Find out what they most want to learn and then

incorporate your feedback into the training solution.

• Performance goals: Find out their ambition—where they aspire

to go—and then include your feedback into their career develop-

ment plan.

• Leader expertise: Work on being a credible source of feedback

by acquiring knowledge and information that’s reliable, considerate

and practical.

• Leader trustworthiness: Strengthen the quality of your relation-

ships because that alone will lessen the intensity of a long-timer’s

negative reaction.

Ego really is a fascinating thing. In some situations, it can be an insurmount-

able barrier to personal improvement. In other, it can be leveraged in such

a way as to generate greater performance. Such as this one.

Passion at WorkIf you were to ask any leader if they want their employees to be passionate,

all of them would probably say yes. But they should be cognisant of the fact

there are actually two different types of passion, both of which generate

very different organisational outcomes. One is known as holistic passion;

the other as obsessive passion.

Employees who are holistically passionate engage in activities because

the completion of them is aligned to who they are as a person. In other

jamesadonis.com


65

words, their identity is associated very strongly with their job. This might be

because the work is fun, generous, important, creative, people-oriented, or

a number of other characteristics.

Employees who are obsessively passionate undertake tasks because of

the subsequent boost to their sense of self worth. They’ll do stuff at work

not because they genuinely love it but because they feel as though there’s a

benefit that might arise from it. These benefits could include a promotion,

social acceptance, a pay rise, or other types of reward.

And now a new study published in the Human Relations journal has

attempted to discover which of the two passions is most likely to result in

greater workplace performance. The answer is that both of them do well

but, as you’ve probably guessed, holistic passion significantly outperforms

obsessive passion. Your responsibility as a leader, then, is to be mindful of

the following:

Holistic passion: This begins with recruitment. Ask questions dur-

ing the interview that can help you understand the candidate’s pas-

sions. That way, you can ascertain whether they’re a good fit for

your organisation’s purpose. For people already in your team, adapt

their jobs (if you can) so that they’re more affiliated with their inter-

ests. This might require more autonomy, variety, challenges, flex-

ibility, and involvement. Experiment to see what works.

Obsessive passion: This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. So long as

employees are passionate, the driving force shouldn’t really matter

(unless you want that passion to translate into even greater per-

formance). Just be aware, though, that if you have an obsessively

passionate person in your team, they’re more prone to work/life

imbalances than those whose passion is holistic. This means that,

in addition to providing regular rewards and recognition, it’s just as

important to monitor their levels of exhaustion.

jamesadonis.com


66

Irrespective of the type of passion, the combination of this study and prior

ones demonstrates that passionate employees provide better customer

service, collaborate more effectively, and derive greater job satisfaction.

That alone makes this objective one worth pursuing.

Improving AbsenteeismUnexplained (and non-credible) absences are among the most frustrat-

ing aspects of leading people. When an employee’s genuinely sick, it’s un-

derstandable. But when the legitimacy of the absence is questionable, it’s

enough to make you, well, sick.

There are many different factors that play a role in absenteeism. Prior

research indicates there’s a sharp rise when employees work in a job they

dislike, or at a workplace that’s toxic, or for a manager who’s incompetent.

Absenteeism is also contagious, so that if an employee’s leader and co-

workers are chucking sickies, so too will the employee.

And now the number of contributing factors has been expanded via

three new important studies. All three have been published over the past

couple of months in the International Journal of Human Resource Manage-

ment.

The first study aimed to see whether training was one way through

which absenteeism can be reduced. The researchers analysed a major or-

ganisation and what they found was that employees who participated in

learning and development initiatives (on any topic) ended up calling in sick

15% less frequently than those who weren’t involved in training. That’s be-

cause of gift-exchange theory, which means employees see training as a re-

ward, and so they reciprocate that generosity with greater loyalty.

The objective of the second study was to assess whether diversity has

an impact on absenteeism. What the researchers discovered was that, yes,

diversity programs have a positive influence and that, subsequently, there’s

an increase in innovation and performance. That’s because workplaces in

which diversity is neither preached nor practiced are more likely to have

employees who “withdraw psychologically and behaviourally”.

jamesadonis.com


67

The third study looked at work-hour

congruence, which reflects employees

who feel they’re working the number of

hours they desire. For some it might be

more; for others less. The researchers

found that when work-hour congruence

is present, employees take an average of

3.5 fewer sick days each year than their

colleagues. This can be explained by the

fact people feel obligated to come to work

when their boss is perceived as accommodating.

So here’s what this means for you:

1. Provide employees with opportunities for learning and development

because these will improve their performance and at the same time

diminish absenteeism.

2. Initiate diversity programs (such as the advancement of women, LG-

BTI awareness, and racial understanding) not only because these

make for a fairer workplace but also because they’ll result in fewer

absences.

3. Be as flexible as possible—even if this generates logistical inconven-

iences in the short term. Planned changes are always preferable to

unplanned ones.

Which just goes to show that, often, absenteeism has more to do with what

happens at work than what happens outside of it.

Recruiting Engaged EmployeesAlmost all of the research conducted on engagement has so far focused on

what leaders can do to engage their employees. But what if it were possible

to recruit people who could actually engage themselves? In other words, are

jamesadonis.com


68

there specific characteristics some employees have that make them inher-

ently more engage-able?

The answer, of course, is yes. And that has just been demonstrated in

a new study conducted by psychologists at the University College London.

The researchers assessed over 1000 adults and they discovered there are

seven personality traits that predict whether an employee is more likely to

be engaged. The results are as follows.

Emotional intelligence: This is the biggest predictor of engage-

ment. It reflects employees who can control and understand their

own emotions as well as those of their colleagues.

Openness to experience: This is the second-biggest predictor.

That’s because employees brave enough to embrace new opportu-

nities have higher reserves of resilience.

Extraversion: Extraverted people are less likely to be affected by

emotional exhaustion and cynicism, the absence of which ramps up

their energy.

Conscientiousness: Conscientious individuals are predisposed to

being engaged because they’re less likely to allow interferences to

get in the way of their commitment.

Interpersonal sensitivity: An interpersonally sensitive team mem-

ber is one who can maintain sound relationships with colleagues

and can communicate in a tactful manner.

Adjustment: If an employee has the ability to remain calm under

pressure, that individual is said to have a high rate of adjustment.

And subsequently greater engagement.

jamesadonis.com


69

Ambition: The more competitive someone is—or the more they as-

pire to progress further in an organisation—the more inclined they’ll

be to push themselves into an engaged state.

So what does this mean from a recruitment perspective? Four things.

1. Incorporate questions into your interview guide that enable you

to ascertain the degree to which a candidate is high on those seven

attributes.

2. Since emotional intelligence is of supreme importance, consider

including an EQ questionnaire as part of the recruitment process.

3. Be mindful you’re not over-emphasising aptitude over attitude

in your hiring decisions. Those seven traits could outshine any tech-

nical shortfalls.

4. Think about providing developmental opportunities to your current

employees so they, too, can learn how to adopt those characteristics.

It’s also worth considering whether you, as the leader, are high or low on

those attributes. A good place to start is with emotional intelligence. Be-

cause there are few things more disengaging than an emotionally unintel-

ligent boss.

EngagementQuite a few studies conclusively demonstrate employees are more engaged

when they trust their immediate supervisor. And now, in a new study pub-

lished in the International Journal of Human Resource Management, re-

searchers have discovered a specific leadership style that particularly leads

to engagement because of its powerful ability to generate trust.

That style is authentic leadership. Prior studies have focused on the

way authenticity increases job satisfaction, creativity, performance, and

proactive behaviour. But now what we also know, via these findings, is that

jamesadonis.com


70

it’s actually not enough to just be authentic. In order for engagement to rise,

employees need to also perceive you as being authentic.

That means you can be an authentic leader through and through, but if

your team—for whatever reason—thinks you’re untrustworthy or question-

able, you can kiss engagement goodbye. Your challenge, then, is to not only

be authentic but to also make sure you’re behaving in such a way others are

left with that same impression.

So how authentic is your leadership style? In the study, the researchers

used an academically famous 16-point survey they distributed to hundreds

of employees and leaders. For the purposes of brevity, I’ve combined (and

rephrased) some of these questions so there’s just eight. Grab a piece of

paper, a pen, and see how you go:

1. Do you seek feedback as a way of improving your interactions with

your team?

2. Can you accurately describe how employees view your capabilities?

3. Do you say what you mean and express how you feel?

4. Are you willing to admit your mistakes?

5. Are your actions and decisions consistent with your core values and

beliefs?

6. Can you list your three greatest strengths and weaknesses?

7. Do your employees know who you truly are as a person?

8. Do you seek out (and carefully consider) your team members’ views—

even when they disagree with you?

If you answered ‘yes’ to a majority of these questions, well done. You’re an

authentic leader. Or well on the way to becoming one.

Employee EnergySuccess in today’s workplace is very much dependent on employees’ level

of energy. And yet the demands placed upon those reserves of energy have

never been greater. Take, for example, the size and speed of change, the

jamesadonis.com


71

long hours spent at work, the way technology intrudes into our life, and the

‘doing more with less’ trend.

All of that stuff drains people’s energy, the consequence of which is

quite predictable: disengagement. And now, in a series of five new studies

published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, researchers have discov-

ered an important antidote: energy brokers.

Energy brokers are individuals within organisations who have the moti-

vation and ability to energise other people. In most cases, the responsibility

falls on the leader’s shoulders but colleagues can embrace this role just

as effectively. What this comprehensive research has found is that when

you effectively energise your employees, their levels of engagement subse-

quently increase and so, too, does their performance.

There are several reasons that explain this effect. One is that energy is

contagious, so that when you’re authentically energised, that disposition

catches on. Another is that energy is what’s known in academic parlance as

a ‘resource’, which means it helps employees to cope with stressful experi-

ences. And finally, deep down, most people yearn to have more energy, so

they’re more likely to share some of yours if you have some to share.

So here are a few suggestions on how you can become more of an en-

ergy broker at work:

• Assess your own energy levels. If your employees seem lethargic and

bored, it could be because you yourself are lethargic and bored.

• Employees are more inclined to exert energy if they like you and

respect you. So invest time building meaningful relationships with

them.

• They’re also more energetic when they feel their boss has faith in

their ability to perform well. If you believe they have real potential,

they’ll try to meet that expectation.

• Snap out of routine by engineering surprises such as celebrations,

icebreakers, team activities, downtime, job redesign, and brain-

storming.

jamesadonis.com


72

• Be on the lookout for other energy brokers and put them into posi-

tions of influence. Employees are often more swayed by their peers

than they are by their boss.

• Be cognisant of burnout. Energy brokers frequently end up exhaust-

ed, so make sure you look after yourself by eating well, exercising,

taking breaks, and getting enough sleep.

As one of the hundreds of participants involved in the research emphati-

cally said: “Having this energising boss made me feel motivated to work. It

helped encourage me to work my hardest.”

DiversityThe scholarly consensus on diversity is now quite clear. Many studies have

proven, and continue to prove, that diverse teams are more creative, flex-

ible, profitable and successful. And now, for the first time, researchers have

also discovered a positive link between diversity and employee engage-

ment. But the findings aren’t as straightforward as you might think.

jamesadonis.com


73

The study found that, unsurprisingly, diversity practices have an engag-

ing effect on minority groups. But what has also been discovered is that

even employees who are part of the majority end up experiencing greater

engagement.

How so? In one word: inclusion. The study of 4500 people published

in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology found having a diverse team is

rarely enough. Leaders who truly embrace diversity also make an effort to

genuinely foster employee inclusion, which means everyone ends up feel-

ing trusted and engaged, irrespective of whether they’re part of a minority

group or the dominant majority.

To determine the degree to which the participants felt included by their

leader, the researchers asked them to complete a questionnaire, which

comprised the following statements. See if you can ascertain how many of

these your employees would answer in the affirmative:

1. I play an important role in helping to shape policies, procedures, and

practices.

2. All viewpoints, including those that differ from the majority opinion,

are considered before decisions are made.

3. My co-workers show their appreciation for the contributions I make.

4. At this organisation, everyone works closely together to accomplish

goals.

5. Everyone here, regardless of background and perspective, is encour-

aged to share their ideas openly.

So how did you go? Whatever the outcome, keep in mind that inclusion

can be a relatively subjective judgement. Which means that you might think

you’re giving employees an opportunity to shape policies, share opinions,

derive appreciation and so on, but if they feel as though they’re not, well,

then they’re probably not.

jamesadonis.com


74

Team BuildingMany leaders facing the challenge of uniting a dysfunctional team resort to

team-building games, after-work drinks, and other social (and oftentimes

juvenile) activities in an attempt to overcome the problem. What they don’t

realise is that there’s very little research to suggest these kinds of events

have any lasting impact on how well their teams function.

But now, in extensive new research just published in the Human Re-

source Management journal, some of the world’s leading scholars have

reviewed every significant study on teamwork over the past few decades

to find an answer to this question: What should leaders take into account

when building a cohesive and high-performing team? The culmination of

this analysis has produced six critical factors, each one beginning with C.

Cooperation: There are two ways through which you can foster co-

operation. First, celebrate team-based wins. Second, build trust by

encouraging (and even instructing) employees to share their experi-

ences, successes and failures. This gives them an understanding of

each other’s strengths and it also highlights areas of similarity that

can potentially create bonds.

Conflict: There are two types of conflict. Task conflict arises due to

the differences in how employees think a goal should be achieved.

Relationship conflict arises due to personality clashes. The former

can be healthy; the latter is almost always toxic. Relationship conflict

can be mitigated by establishing team norms, by providing training

on conflict resolution, and by dealing with conflict as soon as it oc-

curs (as opposed to avoiding it).

Coordination: This can be explicit or implicit. Explicit coordination

is when you directly plan how the team should operate. Implicit co-

ordination is when your team members anticipate what needs to

be done and then get on with it. To promote implicit coordination,

jamesadonis.com


75

debrief immediately after team successes but also, perhaps most

valuably, immediately after team failures. That way you can review,

together, what worked and what could be improved.

Communication: No type of communication is more vital to team-

work than information. This means providing it promptly but also

implementing processes—such as face-to-face meetings– in which

your employees are able to effortlessly share information with each

other.

Coaching: While the coaching you provide is essential, consider the

value that each of your employees can also bring when they coach

one another.

Cognition: Another term for cognition is ‘shared team knowledge’.

This includes making sure your employees understand each other’s

roles, skills and personalities, as well as the organisation’s objectives

and the contexts in which you operate.

So, by all means, continue running team-building games and after-work

drinks. They can be excellent for morale and for breaking the ice. But if your

objectives are teamwork, team performance and team cohesion, you’re bet-

ter off sticking to the six Cs.

Learning and DevelopmentI’ve just come across compelling new research that blows apart what many

of us have assumed to be true about adult education.

Ask people who teach for a living to share what they think is critical dur-

ing the learning process, and most will say the training should be centred on

learning styles. Which implies you need to use visual aids (such as videos)

for visual learners, listening exercises (such as stories) for auditory learners,

and activities (such as games) for kinaesthetic learners.

jamesadonis.com


76

But what if I told you this widespread philosophy has actually never

been proven empirically? In fact, a fresh study on this topic, published in

the Journal of Educational Psychology, has found there is absolutely no im-

provement in performance when a trainer teaches people based on their

preferred learning style.

Here’s the reason: Just because

an individual prefers a particular

style does not mean that’s the style

most suited to successfully impart-

ing the learning objectives.

What matters most is learn-

ing aptitudes. This means people

should be taught how they can get

the most out of all learning styles

rather than just relying on their pref-

erence. For example, if someone is

a visual learner, the solution isn’t to give them more visual-based training.

The solution is to give them more auditory and kinaesthetic training so that

all of their learning faculties are strengthened. This then transforms them

into a more holistic student.

So here’s what this means for you:

• Consider teaching your employees not just what to learn but how

to learn.

• Ramp up the use of learning styles that are the opposite of your

team’s preferences.

• Design programs with the learning objectives in mind rather than

the learner’s biases.

• Conduct testing after training programs to make sure information

has been retained.

• Experiment. Embrace trial-and-error to see what works for you in

your context.

jamesadonis.com


77

After all, some of the best learning occurs when people are pushed out of

their comfort zone. That’s indeed what stimulates behavioural change—and

subsequently makes the learning experience so much more memorable.

Increasing Job SatisfactionNo aspect of organisational psychology has been studied more extensively

than job satisfaction. In fact, more than 10,000 academic studies have been

conducted on this topic so far. And yet the results of all this research might

surprise you. For example:

• Does job satisfaction result in fewer rates of absenteeism? No.

• Does job satisfaction reduce the rate of staff turnover? No.

• Okay then, what about performance? Surely employees who love

their work will generate a greater amount of productivity and quality,

right? Unfortunately not.

That’s why, in a new analysis published in the Journal of Organizational Be-

havior Management, researchers have found there’s really only one reason

why leaders should increase their employees’ job satisfaction: simply be-

cause it’s the right thing to do.

How come? Well, even though there’s no evidence to indicate job satis-

faction has a direct effect on organisational outcomes, there’s a lot of evi-

dence to suggest it culminates in less heart disease, fewer accidents, lower

rates of depression, less burnout, and fewer infections. It even improves

marriages and family life. Job satisfaction, then, becomes a moral responsi-

bility that ethical leaders pursue enthusiastically.

So, consider doing more of the following:

• Identify people’s strengths and incorporate these into their work.

This necessitates…

• Autonomy so that employees have freedom to make decisions, to

innovate and to…

jamesadonis.com


78

• Learn so that they’re constantly growing and developing.

This means they’ll need…

• Support, which can be a quick chat, a helping hand, some vital

resources, or…

• Information, a lack of which can be frustrating and restrictive,

which is why…

• Feedback is essential—positive and negative, timely and tactful,

aligned with…

• Goals that, if possible, are mutually negotiated or, at the very least,

rewarded. And…

• Respite so that difficult and exhaustive periods are broken up with

moments of recovery and expressions of genuine gratitude.

As the scholars conclude: “People deserve to be treated well … It is now time

to lead.”

CoachingNothing makes a leader’s job easier than to coach an employee who loves

to be coached. It’s known as feedback-seeking behaviour, and it repre-

sents people who genuinely want to receive meaningful feedback on how

they’re going. The question for you is this: How can you cultivate this kind of

mentality within your team?

The answer to that question can be found in a new analysis published

in the Journal of Management. Five scholars from the Universities of Min-

nesota and Ghent reviewed every credible study conducted over the past 25

years on feedback-seeking behaviour. They critically assessed each one of

them, resulting in the following discoveries on what makes employees more

likely to embrace feedback and, more importantly, to actively ask for it.

Cost versus value: If employees feel as though they’d derive more

value than cost from seeking feedback, they’ll do it. ‘Value’ includes

things like recognition, support, tactfulness, and helpful advice.

jamesadonis.com


79

‘Cost’ includes things like punishment, humiliation, frustration, and

rejection.

The source of the feedback: There are three qualities you need

for employees to welcome what you have to say. The first is exper-

tise—your credibility in being a reliable source of knowledge. The

second is trust—the degree to which you make it safe for people to

speak up, to experiment and to challenge assumptions. The third

is relationships—because the closer your connection with your em-

ployees, the more comfortable they’ll be in seeking your thoughts.

Negative feedback: This was the most surprising finding in the

study. Basically, when employees hear their performance has been

below standard or poor, most of them are actually then inclined to

continue seeking feedback in the hope they rectify what went wrong.

In effect, the giving of feedback generates the seeking of feedback in

a mutually beneficial cycle.

The problem, though, is that many leaders refrain from giving negative (or

constructive) feedback because they’re afraid of having difficult conversa-

tions, which is really the antithesis of what coaching (and leadership) is all

about.

Sharing Knowledge and InformationIt’s rare to pick up a business book these days without seeing at least one

reference to the present ‘information age’. It’s become a cliche even though

it’s undeniably true. But managing this truism, from a workplace leader-

ship perspective, poses a challenge for many leaders who, on the one hand,

don’t want to overwhelm employees with too much information but, on the

other, don’t want to give them too little.

Insights on how to deal with this conundrum can be gleaned from a new

analysis published in the Journal of Business and Technical Communication.

jamesadonis.com


80

In essence, the analysis demonstrates that many leaders mistake informa-

tion for knowledge. This isn’t semantics. The two concepts are quite distinct

with very different results.

Information is about data. It reflects the need for spreadsheets, codes,

and documentation. In other words, it can be managed. Knowledge, con-

versely, is about wisdom. It reflects the need for experience, perspective,

and influence. It cannot be managed but it can be inspired.

So how can you inspire people to acquire knowledge and, more impor-

tantly, to share it? The answer, according to this synthesis of prior work, is

to establish three informal roles:

Knowledge brokers: These are the connectors. They’re the indi-

viduals within your team who have built relationships throughout

the organisation such that they’re able to introduce one person to

another for mutual benefit. You should recognise and promote their

ability to unite stakeholders, break down silos, and collaborate with

disparate colleagues.

Knowledge stewards: These are the cultivators. They’re the people

tasked with helping others produce and share the knowledge that

already exists within them. This could include employees whose role

you expand to include coaching and mentoring. Or it might even be

workplace trainers you encourage to facilitate more than teach.

Knowledge researchers: These are

the creators. They’re responsible

for generating new knowledge. You

might send them to conferences

with the intention of returning with

fresh insights to impart. Alternative-

ly, you could reward them for read-

ing academic journals and industry

jamesadonis.com


81

publications, which they then communicate to everyone else in a

learnable and memorable manner.

As they say, knowledge is power. But there’s probably more power in

knowledge.

Job PerformanceThere are many factors that influence employee performance. A lack of

motivation, poor leadership, and ineffective recruitment are just a few ex-

amples. But now, in two new studies published in the Journal of Applied

Psychology, there’s another (major) one that can be added to the list: de-

energising relationships.

It’s best reflected in this comment by a participant in the research who

was talking about a colleague: “Working with her sucks the life right out

of me.”

The problem with de-energising relationships is that they can’t be avoid-

ed. Much of what happens in the workplace involves teamwork and inter-

dependence, such that the energy-sapping nature of one person is easily

contagious. The result is a deterioration in creativity, enthusiasm and con-

centration.

That’s why the scholars weren’t surprised, in their first study, to find

that de-energising relationships are “especially related to the lowest levels of

job performance”. That’s quite a big statement to make. Their second study,

however, is even more interesting because it discovered, among hundreds

of participants, the potential solution: thriving.

We all know what thriving means but, in the context of this research,

it’s a term used to describe employees who are engaged enough, resilient

enough, and smart enough to withstand the performance-depleting influ-

ence of their colleagues. To build a sense of thriving within your team so

that there’s a buffer between them and their toxic colleagues, focus on the

two experiences that comprise it.

jamesadonis.com


82

The experience of vitality: This represents employees who feel

alive at work. To ramp this up, give people a variety of interesting

tasks and be sensitive to energy troughs you can respond to with

stimulants. That stimulant might be a coffee run, a short break, a

laugh, a team activity, a sugar hit, a reward, some recognition, or

something else.

In the long term, a better solution is to isolate the de-energisers

so that they’re not impacting everyone else. (Isolating someone is

different to ostracising them. The former gives employees inde-

pendent duties where there’s little need to interact with, or rely on,

anyone else; the latter makes people feel left out, which should nev-

er be the intention.)

The experience of learning: This represents employees who feel

as though the workplace is a location at which they can embark on

continuous self-improvement. To ramp this up, establish a regular

schedule of development opportunities, conduct 360 surveys, set

stimulating challenges, and design jobs that are more meaningful

and of greater substance.

That way, you’ll avoid comments like this from another partici-

pant in the research: “There are many things that I love about my

job. Working with him is certainly not one of them.”

Employee SilenceMany failures in business, and many workplace errors that occur, can be

attributed to just one thing: employees who were aware of the impending

doom refused to say anything about it. They could see the disaster coming

but didn’t care enough to tell their boss.

But it’s futile blaming your employees. According to a comprehensive

new analysis by Griffith University, employees’ reluctance to speak up and

tell the truth comes down to the kind of climate you’re creating as the leader.

More specifically, there are two types of climate to which the scholars refer:

a climate of silence and a climate of voice.

jamesadonis.com


83

Climate of silence: If you sense your employees aren’t telling you the whole

story and that they’re reticent to open up, there’s a big chance it’s due to the

climate of silence that exists within your team. This is generated:

• When your employees think you’re afraid of receiving negative feed-

back.

• When they suspect you believe management has all the answers.

• When they can tell you’ve got neither the time nor the appetite for

action.

• When they don’t feel trusted.

• When previous experience indicates you avoid conflict and dissent.

Climate of voice: This is clearly the opposite. It’s the type of environment

that inspires employees to say what’s going on because they feel comfort-

able and safe to express their opinion and to share bad news. A climate of

voice is generated:

• When you make employees feel as though they have something of

value to share.

• When you demonstrate their contributions have the potential to in-

fluence decisions.

• When you genuinely consult and invest in face-to-face interactions.

• When you’re perceived as trustworthy because of your ethics and au-

thenticity.

• When you’re indisputably open to change and have a tendency to

take action.

Be mindful, though, of merely going through the motions just because you

know it’s what’s expected. That just culminates in what the researchers re-

fer to as a “hollow shell”—or the more common idiom: the lights are on but

there’s no one home.

jamesadonis.com


84

Change ManagementThe most reputable studies conducted on change management indicate

that approximately 70 per cent of change initiatives fail. All that time, ener-

gy, planning and money goes to waste and for what? All because too many

leaders get carried away with the change itself without considering the ways

in which resistance to it can be overcome.

That’s why a new analysis published in the Journal of Change Manage-

ment is so important. It challenges the predominant view that employees

are ultimately responsible for their resistance.

It’s widely believed, for example, that those who favour routine tasks,

who think inflexibly, and who focus mostly on the short term, are those who

most resist change in the workplace. But what we now know is that even

when employees have those same rigid dispositions—even when their de-

fault attitude is set at Resist with a capital R—they can still enthusiastically

embrace change despite their stubborn inclination. What matters most is

context.

In particular, there are three contextual factors you need to consider:

Your employees’ values: If the change you’re about to announce

contrasts sharply with your employees’ values, they’ll respond to the

shock and discomfort with hostility. That doesn’t mean you need to

change the change. Instead, modify your language and adapt your

plans so that they’re aligned to the beliefs and priorities of your gen-

eral workforce.

The psychological impact: Forecast the degree to which you think

your employees are going to feel emotional anguish as a result of

the change. If you suspect it’s going to be a lot, their anguish (and

subsequent resistance) will be diminished the more you involve

them in the change’s implementation. This involvement can include

genuine consultation, project participation, expertise development,

knowledge sharing, program testing, research, and so on.

jamesadonis.com


85

Prevailing expectations: There are two parts to this. First, what

are your employees’ expectations? There is no faster dive into the

depths of disengagement than to neglect what they need from you

as they face the change. Second, which expectations are you set-

ting? In an attempt to inspire your team, be careful not to exagger-

ate the future benefits because, should they fail to materialise, one

consequence is assured: widespread cynicism.

To paraphrase the professor who conducted the analysis above, in order to

change your employees’ behaviour, you might first have to change your own.

Workplace SensitivityIf you were asked whether, in terms of leadership, it’s important to be overly

kind, helpful and understanding, you’d surely respond with an immediate

yes. Similarly, if you were asked whether it’s worth being exceedingly friend-

ly, warm and respectful, you’d likely respond with a firm nod. But what if the

correct answer is actually it depends…?

That’s the finding of a surprising new study just published in the Journal

of Occupational Health Psychology. The qualities mentioned in the previ-

ous paragraph are grouped into a scholarly category known as leadership

jamesadonis.com


86

sensitivity. Many people (wrongly) assume that leadership sensitivity is vital

in every context. The reality, though, is that it isn’t always essential and that,

sometimes, it can have the opposite effect. Here’s how that happens.

Every employee has expectations of how they think their leaders should

act. When their leaders’ actions are incongruent with those expectations,

a number of consequences can ensue such as job dissatisfaction and staff

turnover. In the case of sensitivity, employees have expectations of the de-

gree to which their leaders should be sensitive. If their leaders end up be-

ing oversensitive or under-sensitive, consequences arise. In the aforemen-

tioned study, those consequences were found to include negative emotions

and harmful behaviour.

The researchers believe these adverse reactions occur for a number

of reasons. For instance, if an employee only desires a little sensitivity but

receives a lot, that employee may subsequently feel overwhelmed and dis-

tracted from more-important work. Conversely, if an employee desires a lot

of sensitivity but only receives a little, he or she feels neglected.

So how can you determine your employees’ preferred level of sen-

sitivity? Consider:

• The results of psychometric testing and personality profiling.

• The frequency with which they ask you questions.

• Their body language. Is it open or is it closed?

• Trial and error. Which of your actions work? And which ones don’t?

• Approachability. Do your employees make it comfortable to engage

them in conversation?

• Psychological safety. If you make it safe for people to tell you the

truth, most will honestly reveal the extent to which they need you.

What this research demonstrates is that prior to showering employees with

plenty of overt understanding and abundant assistance, it’s probably worth

figuring out whether they actually want it. If they don’t, consider backing

off. If they do, give it all you’ve got. It’s all about being sensitive to their need

for sensitivity.

jamesadonis.com


87

Mental Illness at WorkMental illness—especially depression and anxiety—is the leading cause

of employee sickness and absence in most developed countries. But even

when mentally ill employees are at work, it can be challenging for leaders to

know the most appropriate and effective support they need.

A major new analysis, led by the University of NSW, aims to fill that gap

in understanding. The researchers have conducted the first-ever meta-

analysis of workplace mental health interventions, which means they’ve re-

viewed hundreds of studies to determine what works.

What they’ve discovered is that there are several promising solutions

that seem to work relatively well. These include employee control, such as

giving employees the latitude to choose their own shifts; physical activity,

such as the running of on-site exercise programs; health promotions, such

as healthy eating campaigns; and counselling, such as the services offered

by EAP programs.

But those solutions, while legitimate and worthwhile, have been found

to pale in comparison to the positive outcomes associated with stress man-

agement programs. Workplace stress can be a significant aggravator of

mental illness so anything that can help employees to more effectively cope

with stress can be of substantial assistance. This can include:

• Problem-solving strategies: Workshops or coaching sessions that

teach employees how to focus, brainstorm, persevere, and learn

from experience.

• Coping skills: Information and guidance on how employees can

practice self-discipline, connect with others, express how they feel,

and accept themselves.

• Identification of stressors: An awareness of specific triggers—such

as changes, deadlines, emails, interactions, and workloads—and the

ways in which these can be controlled.

• Relaxation techniques: Meditation, deep breathing, visualisation

exercises and yoga.

jamesadonis.com


88

• Therapy: Especially cognitive-based solutions delivered by qualified

professionals.

And the best thing about these practices? They’re of benefit not only to

mentally ill employees but each one of their colleagues, too. Including you.

Frontline ManagersIt’s hard to think of a more important role in any organisation than that of

the frontline manager. What frontline managers say and do every day has

the greatest influence on employee engagement, certainly more so than

what executives and CEOs say and do.

That’s because many HR-related tasks are actually implemented by

frontline managers, which means on-the-job training, rostering, recruiting,

rewarding, and managing performance are frequently carried out by people

who, unfortunately, aren’t as well supported as they should be. That’s the

conclusion of a new study just published by the University of Kent.

The researchers explored why many frontline managers drop the imple-

mentation of HR-related activities even when they know they’re important.

The reason, they found, is that frontline managers encounter a number

of stressors in the workplace—three in particular—the existence of which

forces them to reprioritise away from what truly engages their team.

Role ambiguity: This occurs when frontline managers are unclear

about expectations, policies, processes, and competencies. As one

of the respondents remarked in the study: “I’ve no idea what they

really want us to do as it changes all the time.”

Role conflict: This occurs when frontline managers feel as though

what’s expected from a HR perspective contradicts what’s expected

from a business perspective. As one example, some of the participants

in the research felt compelled to sacrifice their employees’ work/life

balance in order to generate greater operational efficiencies.

jamesadonis.com


89

Role overload: This occurs when frontline managers don’t have the

time to focus on the activities they know will lead to engagement.

Faced with a mountain of tasks but only a limited amount of time,

they instead just pick and choose what creates the quickest wins.

Those wins, however, are often short-term transactional tasks that

don’t impact engagement as much as longer-term energy-demand-

ing ones.

If you’re a leader of frontline managers, or an influencer of them, consider

the following:

• To reduce role ambiguity, issue clearer instructions, check for under-

standing, provide sufficient training, and communicate regularly with

relevant information.

• To reduce role conflict, reward behaviour as well as results since HR-

related activities don’t always produce tangible outcomes immedi-

ately. In addition, be an advocate of ethical workplace practices so

that when frontline managers are faced with a choice between what’s

right and what’s easy, they’re inspired to choose the former.

• To reduce role overload, give frontline managers more control over

their work, renegotiate objectives and deadlines, and be sensitive to

early signs of burnout.

And if you’re indeed the frontline manager experiencing the above, proac-

tively seek clarity when your role is ambiguous, seek guidance when your

role is conflicted, and seek assistance when your role is overloaded. Oth-

erwise, you’ll end up sacrificing the one thing you probably shouldn’t: your

employees’ engagement.

jamesadonis.com


90

Culture ChangeThings aren’t looking good for culture

change initiatives. A study last year by

Cardiff University deemed such efforts

“frequently unsuccessful” because the

solutions that many leaders implement

are “often naïve”. It’s a harsh assessment.

Harsh but apparently true.

That’s because it can be near impos-

sible to change an organisation’s culture—

especially in large organisations. Culture

is an enormously complicated beast with many dimensions and years of

ingrained baggage. To turn that around is a slow and herculean task, which

is why a new study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology makes a

simple conclusion: “It is easier to change one’s leadership behaviour than to

change an organisation’s culture.”

The team of scholars from a number of institutions, including the Uni-

versity of South Australia, analysed hundreds of leaders from 120 organisa-

tions. What they discovered was that the performance of organisations was

highest when the leader’s behaviour was different to that of the culture. In

other words, when a leader’s actions contradict the cultural norms of the

organisation, that’s when the organisation performs most strongly.

Therefore, rather than trying to shift an organisation’s culture towards

a set of idealistic values, it’s more effective (and efficient) to instead de-

termine precisely what your current culture is lacking. Then, as the leader,

demonstrate and deliver those missing elements. In essence, you’re filling

the gaps rather than changing the culture. This means that:

• If your culture is uncommunicative, communicate a lot.

• If your culture is not collaborative, enforce collaboration.

• If your culture is not process-orientated, implement processes.

• If your culture is uncompetitive, establish competitions.

jamesadonis.com


91

• If your culture is risk averse, take big risks.

• If your culture is goal deficient, set ambitious goals.

And so on. It really is a shift in mindset. It’s exhausting and oftentimes futile

to view organisational culture as something to change. When you instead

view it as the character of an organisation with gaps that need to be filled,

well, all of a sudden it becomes a much more manageable and achievable

endeavour.

Cynical EmployeesCynicism in the workplace consists of three main components. First, cynical

employees generally think negatively about the organisation (“That’s typi-

cal of this place.”) Second, they react negatively to events that impact them

(“I can’t believe this is happening to me.”). Third, they act out their negativity.

(“I don’t care, I’m not following that process.”)

Until now, there hasn’t been much research conducted on workplace

cynicism, but two studies just published in the Journal of Managerial

Psychology provide interesting insights:

1. Some employees are predisposed to being cynical.

2. There’s something you can do about it.

In the first study, the researchers discovered that people who have a low

self-evaluation are more likely to engage in cynicism because they perceive

themselves as lacking competence, confidence and control. The absence of

those factors compels them into a cynical state of mind because each event

at work reaffirms how they view their life: i.e. negatively.

In the second study, the researchers discovered that supervisor sup-

port is a primary way through which the consequences of cynicism can be

alleviated. Since many employees are cynical because they question their

own self worth, having a supportive supervisor can lift their esteem such

that even their job satisfaction increases.

jamesadonis.com


92

The lesson for you as a leader is to know that, if you have a cynical

employee, you might not need to focus your energies on stopping their

negativity. Focus instead on lifting their self-evaluation; how they see them-

selves. You can do this in a number of ways:

• Be on the lookout for signs that an employee has limited self-worth.

These can include low productivity, excessive bragging, and defen-

siveness.

• Use affirming language that builds their sense of potential and capa-

bility. They might be perfectly capable but they won’t believe it unless

you do.

• Be an exemplar of ethics and fairness. Having a supervisor whose be-

haviour contradicts the negative perception of the organisation can

give them hope.

• Set strict boundaries and standards about the type of behaviour you

expect. Self-esteem issues shouldn’t excuse a toxic influence in the

workplace.

And if you’re in a position much higher in the hierarchy, consider that some

decisions are best communicated by supervisors than by executives. Some-

times cynicism can be kept at bay when announcements are made by those

who are most trusted.

Leading Virtual TeamsIt’s estimated that 80 per cent of large organisations make use of virtual

teams. Which means it’s almost certain you can expect to eventually be

responsible for recruiting and managing employees you’ve never met and

probably never will.

Providing guidance on how to navigate this terrain is a new study pub-

lished in Human Performance, an academic journal. The researchers ana-

lysed 175 virtual employees as well as 204 who worked in traditional face-

to-face environments. The two groups were then compared to each other

jamesadonis.com


93

to identify the characteristics that were unique to those employed virtually.

The findings generated important lessons about recruitment and manage-

ment.

In relation to recruitment, the researchers discovered two factors that

were especially prominent among successful virtual teams:

1. ‘Leading and Deciding’: Since virtual teams work in ambiguous con-

ditions, they need to be able to source information and to proactively

generate solutions, both of which are actions that require an aptitude

for self-leadership and decision-making.

2. ‘Analysing and Interpreting’: Since virtual teams usually work on-

line, they need to be able to make sense out of complex and uncertain

data in ways that may not be as pressing for face-to-face colleagues.

That’s why, when hiring virtual employees, it’s wise to include questions

during the interview that give you an indication of the candidates’ self-lead-

ership skills, decision-making abilities,analytical competence, and digital com-

munication nous. If they score well on those attributes, you can be relatively

confident they’ll adapt well to a virtual workplace.

But that’s just about recruitment. What about management? Well, the

researchers have identified the following six critical areas for leaders to fo-

cus on and nurture:

• Initiative: Create a safe environment that gives employees courage

to be proactive.

• Autonomy: Teach the self-management techniques that make

autonomy possible.

• Goal setting: Reward employees who set and pursue ambitious

work-related goals.

• Written communication: Coach specifically on how to convey clear

information.

• Analysing: Run regular sessions on how to utilise data to solve

problems.

jamesadonis.com


94

• Digital media: Pair up employees to foster collaboration and a

sense of belonging.

All in all, it’s a way of operating in a digital world without an analogue

mindset.

Insecurity at WorkUsually when we think of job insecurity, we think of it as the risk that em-

ployees might lose their employment due to workplace uncertainty. But

fresh research led by the University of Oxford has identified a new form of

insecurity that appears to be up to 500% more prevalent.

Known as job status insecurity, it reflects the fear among employees

that they could potentially lose aspects of their job they especially value.

The findings pinpoint four areas in which employees are particularly vul-

nerable:

• Less say: That their influence within the organisation will diminish.

• Less skill: That their talents will no longer be utilised as often.

• Less pay: That their income will be negatively affected.

• Less interesting work: That their job will become dull and

unchallenging.

In the analysis of thousands of employees, there were no differences in age

or contract status. In other words, it didn’t matter whether they were Gen Ys

or Baby Boomers or whether they were permanent or casual workers. The

key demographic affected differently was the one associated with hierarchy.

Lower-level employees were substantially more likely to worry about immi-

nent losses in the make-up of their work.

Here’s what that means. If you’re reading this newsletter, there’s a de-

cent chance you’re not affected by job status insecurity and probably never

will be. Because of the seniority of your role, you’re quite fortunate when

it comes to having a say, utilising your skills, being paid well, and enjoying

jamesadonis.com


95

interesting work. That may not be the case for your employees, which is

why it’s worth heeding the lesson from the final finding to emerge from this

research.

That final finding is this: employee participation. More specifically, or-

ganisations in which employees were encouraged to be actively involved

were less likely to be afflicted by job status insecurity. It’s worthwhile, then,

to discuss workplace changes before they occur, to take your employees’

needs into account during implementation, to consult them for their opin-

ion, to include them in decision-making, to give them some freedom to

mould their jobs, and to identify ways of incorporating their talents into

their work.

Even though you may have long forgotten what it’s like to be without

those job characteristics.

The Gen Y MythYou can safely assume anyone aged below 35 in your workplace is a mem-

ber of Gen Y. It’s also safe to assume they’re tarred with the same stereotyp-

ical brush: an infamous sense of entitlement. It’s a common perception held

among older generations who see Gen Y as entitled, especially in relation to

pay, promotions, benefits, balance, job tasks, and more.

But how true is it, really? The problem with most of the ‘research’ on

Gen Y is that commercial pollsters have conducted it, which means very

little of it can be trusted. The reason why it can’t be trusted is that random

polls conducted on the internet are rarely the focus of scientific rigour and,

if we’re going to treat one generation differently to the others, it’s probably

a good idea to make sure the information we’re relying on is, well, reliable.

Which is why two new empirical studies on Generation Y are worth

heeding. The first was led by scholars at Middlesex University Business

School. They interviewed students in the UK who were just about to enter

full-time employment. What they discovered was a “weak sense of entitle-

ment” among the soon-to-be employees. These school leavers were genu-

inely looking forward to working long hours, putting in a lot of effort, and

being responsible.

jamesadonis.com


96

The reason for those results can be summarised by one word: context.

The Gen Y stereotypes that prevail are contextually absent. They don’t ac-

count for the diverse experiences, cultures, and values that make individu-

als unique. They’re stereotypes that generalise something that may apply to

some people but certainly not to most.

The second study was led by researchers at the Australian National Uni-

versity where the notion that Gen Ys seek instant gratification was disprov-

en. They were instead found to be incredibly focused on long-term develop-

ment. Also disproven was the ‘work to live’ mantra. Far more prevalent was

an inclination to work more than rest. Likewise, doubts about their work

ethic were disproven by evidence showing Gen Ys concentrate very much

on process improvement, change, efficiency, performance management,

and direct communication.

There are several lessons to take out of these findings:

• First, don’t manage generations; manage individuals. That means dis-

covering the needs and motivators of each person rather than the

needs and motivators of each age-based cohort.

• You’ll occasionally come across Gen Ys who fit the unkind stereotype

of, say, narcissism or impatience. But if you expect the worst, you’re

likely to get it.

• Be mindful that even though ageism is most often targeted at older

employees, it can also occur in reverse.

• Sometimes what we dislike in others is what we dislike in ourselves.

So consider whether your perception of Gen Ys exists not because

there’s anything wrong with them but because they remind you of

who you once were (or of who you were once prevented from being).

Generation Y? More like Generalisation Y.

jamesadonis.com


97

Rude and Disrespectful EmployeesOften a challenge of managing people stems not from the major things they

do (or don’t do) but from their trivial everyday actions that, over time, build

up to a pretty big deal. One such example is rudeness and disrespect. Usu-

ally it’s a level of discourteousness that’s difficult to detect. But the more it

happens, the more it becomes apparent that the disregard for others has a

harmful effect even when it’s only subtle.

The academic term for it is workplace incivility. It includes behaviour

such as sending nasty emails, spreading rumours, being untidy and taking

credit for others’ work. Prior research has shown it’s increasing in promi-

nence with most people admitting they’ve been either a perpetrator or a

victim of it and, when it’s left unaddressed, it frequently leads to a climate

of bullying, harassment, undermining, and even abuse.

And now a new study published in the esteemed Work & Stress journal

has revealed, for the first time, the causes of this behaviour. The research-

ers surveyed more than 500 employees. They discovered five culprits.

Recent incivility: The number one greatest predictor of rudeness

and disrespect is whether employees have recently been confront-

ed by those same behaviours. It’s otherwise known as emotion-

al contagion. How people think and feel in the workplace is

infectious, which is why it’s important that you don’t turn a

blind eye to inappropriate behaviour.

Organisational change: The next major instigator of inci-

vility is change. Many employees are burnt out by it. It’s not

unusual for them to retaliate by taking out their cyni-

cism on their colleagues. It’s therefore a good idea

to implement change in consideration of how your

employees’ resistance can be overcome, as per this

newsletter from last year.

jamesadonis.com


98

http://www.jamesadonis.com/Newsletter_Change_Management.htm

http://www.jamesadonis.com/Newsletter_Change_Management.htm

Job insecurity: When employees feel their job isn’t safe, a similar

reaction occurs. They become vulnerable. That vulnerability can

lead them to impulsively act in a detrimental manner. It’s worth-

while, then, to become familiar with the ways in which you can miti-

gate some of these perceived threats of insecurity, as per this article

from a few months ago.

Job demands: For some people, the existence of a demanding work

environment is stimulating and motivating. For others, it’s too much

to handle, thereby pushing them into acts of discourtesy and disre-

gard. For those in your team who struggle with pressure, consider

giving them coaching on time management and coping skills or per-

haps reallocate some of their challenging work to others who’ll actu-

ally relish it.

Low social support: Social support reflects the extent to which

employees feel they can rely on each other. When it’s low, incivil-

ity ensues. You can’t foster social support by playing juvenile team-

building games. But you can nurture it by making it safe for people

to ask for help, by creating forums at which employees can share

challenges and successes, and by encouraging collaboration instead

of competition as per these suggestions.

Here’s a final point worth heeding from the researchers: “The incivility pro-

cess often starts from the top of the organisation when high-status em-

ployees enact uncivil behaviours towards lower status employees.” In other

words, rude and disrespectful staff may indeed just be mirroring our own

actions.

jamesadonis.com


99

http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/managing/work-in-progress/job-insecurity-the-new-normal-20160623-gppxwb.html

http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/managing/work-in-progress/the-case-against-competition-20160602-gp9otn.html

Engagement During Tough TimesWith the Australian economy recently recording a period of economic de-

cline, it’s worth thinking about the work-related consequences were it to

be repeated. More specifically, would the process of engaging employees

during these tough times need to change? The answer is yes, and it comes

down to something known as psychological safety.

That’s what scholars have identified in an analysis published in Learn-

ing in Organizations, an academic journal. When employees feel as though

they’re vulnerable due to factors beyond their control, they’re more likely to

feel anxious, depressed, isolated and fearful. But when their managers are

able to cultivate a psychologically safe environment, they’re more likely to

be engaged despite the uncertainty surrounding them.

So how can that be done? The answer is found in the work of Professor

William Kahn who in 1990 coined the term ‘engagement’ to describe em-

ployees who are physically, cognitively and emotionally stimulated at work.

In his seminal study, he similarly used the term psychological safety to ar-

ticulate how engagement can be achieved. Of the methods he identified as

being most useful, two in particular are relevant in today’s context:

1. Interpersonal relationships: This represents supportive and trust-

ing teams, the existence of which you can promote in the following

ways:

• Treat sensitively the employees you retrench so that ‘survivor

guilt’ is minimised among your team that’s still employed.

• Establish forums at which employees can connect with, and

support, each other.

• Denounce public criticism that appears destructive rather

than constructive, especially since conflict and competition are

heightened when times are tough.

2. Management style: This was most strongly reflected in my own PhD

research completed a few months ago, which investigated how en-

jamesadonis.com


100

gagement is influenced during organisational crises. The findings re-

vealed that nothing disengaged employees more than a laissez-faire

leader, which is one who’s passive, incommunicative and distant.

Therefore:

• Communicate frequently – even when you don’t have any new

information to share. Simply reaching out and offering support

is often enough.

• Be aware that your absence ramps up dread since employees

are inclined to think the worst unless you’re there to counter

the gossip and rumours.

• It’s natural for employees to feel frustrated, angry and upset

during these times, so it’s valuable giving them opportunities

to express what they’re thinking and feeling.

• Train team leaders in preparation for the emotional fallout

that occurs when organisations inevitably react to a downturn

with layoffs and budget cuts.

It’s not so much the downturn that affects engagement. It’s how the organi-

sation deals with it.

Budget CutbacksThere wouldn’t be many organisations immune to budget cutbacks these

days. Doing more with less – and less and less – has become the norm,

which is perhaps understandable in a world of hyper-competition where

the leanest companies often survive.

But it’s also understandable that research has proven conclusively there

are some inevitable consequences, particularly on job satisfaction, morale,

stress, productivity and attrition. And now in new research just published in

the American Review of Public Administration, employee engagement has

also been put to the test.

The scholars surveyed more than 6000 people and what they found was

that engaged employees were actually no less engaged when confronted by

jamesadonis.com


101

cutbacks. In other words, their energy, focus and effort remained at a high

level despite their tighter work environment.

This underscores the importance of prioritising engagement in your

organisation because, when an employee is engaged, even the announce-

ment of bad news can be received in positive terms. But as we all know,

most employees aren’t engaged. At all. So in the context of cutbacks, how

can we better manage the unwelcome budget squeeze?

According to the research findings, it comes down to three basic

change management principles: (i) communication, (ii) participation, and

(iii) attention.

Communication: This involves explaining why the cutbacks are

necessary and urgent. The implementation plan should also be clar-

ified so that employees are prepared for what’s to come. The deci-

sion-making process, too, needs to be articulated so that employees

clearly see why some cuts were prioritised over others.

Participation: Anxiety and uncertainty can be lessened when em-

ployees have a role to play in the implementation of the change. You

can do this by simply seeking their feedback and ideas, or more pro-

foundly by informally appointing staff as advocates, project mem-

bers, team trainers, monitors, analysts, and reviewers.

Attention: Providing employees with attention – more so than usu-

al – is an important way through which they’ll feel as though their

needs are being considered. This means it’s vital to check regularly

that they’re okay, to provide coaching and support, and to promptly

put in place solutions to the difficulties they’re facing as they adapt

to the cutbacks.

Budget cutbacks are really just like any other change management process.

It’s rarely the change itself that’s the issue but the way it ends up being

implemented that matters most.

jamesadonis.com


102

Team PerformanceUsually when we think of how to improve

team performance, we often think of what

could be changed about the team, such as

the team members themselves, the envi-

ronment they work in, their job tasks, and

so on. But a new study just published in

the Journal of Management proves one of

the strongest indicators of team perfor-

mance is actually who the leader is.

That last part is critical because the researchers discovered that what

matters most in relation to team performance is not so much what leaders

do but who the leaders happen to be. It’s about character more than about

action.

More specifically, the scholars investigated the trait of humility. In a

series of three studies, they found humble leaders inspire hope, resilience

and optimism among employees, the outcome of which is that their teams

end up working more successfully together.

So how is that possible? Well, when you’re a humble leader you’re

defined by three key characteristics, each of which has subsequent impacts

on team effectiveness. For example:

1. Your willingness to view yourself accurately means you declare

your limitations and admit to your mistakes. That kind of self-disclo-

sure gives your team permission to see challenges and setbacks as

a normal part of development, thereby generating a greater willing-

ness to admit to their own shortcomings and to overcome them.

2. Your appreciation of your team’s strengths means they’re filled

with a greater sense of confidence about their potential contribution.

And as we know from prior research, people excel more when they

focus on amplifying their strengths than when they try too hard to

mitigate their weaknesses.

jamesadonis.com


103

3. Your openness to ideas and feedback means you’re role-model-

ling the virtue of ‘teachability’. That’s when you’re sending an implicit

message to your team that it’s wise for them, too, to critically evaluate

their own progress as a group. This creates an adaptive mindset that

prioritises honest conversations and continuous improvement.

Once upon a time, leadership was about heroism, toughness and charisma.

These days, thankfully, it’s a little more subtle, a little more modest, and a

whole lot more effective.

Work MotivationCould it be there are aspects of an employee’s job that are straining, difficult

and energy depleting but still result in high rates of motivation and engage-

ment? According to a new study, the answer is a definite yes.

The findings, which have been published in the European Journal of Work

and Organisational Psychology, differentiate between two types of work-re-

lated demands: challenge demands and hindrance demands. Both types

can be arduous and stressful. And they both involve hard work and stamina.

It’s just that one of them (challenge demands) also create a sense of ac-

complishment, personal growth and learning while the other (hindrance de-

mands) result in feelings of overwhelm, anxiety and frustration.

It’s not surprising, then, that the researchers discovered challenge de-

mands lead to high levels of motivation while hindrance demands lead to

low levels of motivation. So, when it comes to motivating and engaging your

employees, the question is this: How can you increase your employees’ chal-

lenge demands while simultaneously decreasing their hindrance demands?

Here are eight suggestions.

To increase challenge demands:

• Up their workload. Because motivation drops when people don’t

have enough to do.

jamesadonis.com


104

• Allocate complex tasks. Because overly simple jobs can become

repetitive and dull.

• Delegate responsibility. Because autonomy and influence are

empowering.

• Emphasise purpose. Because a sense of importance makes big

hurdles worthwhile.

To decrease hindrance demands:

• Abolish unnecessary tasks. Because superfluous activities are a tiring

waste of time.

• Set clear expectations. Because ambiguity leads to misguided plans

and futile effort.

• Avoid contradictions. Because conflicting instructions raise confusion

and cynicism.

• Diminish bureaucracy. Because excessive red tape can make people

see red.

In essence, by providing employees with meaningful challenges, you’re also

effectively creating a challenge demand for yourself, thereby even enhanc-

ing your own motivation.

Managing UpWhenever people subscribe to this newsletter, they’re asked to submit the

greatest engagement-related challenge they experience in their workplace.

Of more than 10,000 people who’ve subscribed to date, it’s surprising that

the number one challenge they face at work – by far – is not actually their

employees. It’s their boss.

Successfully managing up, in the context of employee engagement, be-

comes manifest in several different forms. Many managers, for example,

know how to engage employees but find themselves blocked by leaders

who won’t provide the resources to do so. Many HR professionals similarly

jamesadonis.com


105

know how to shift engagement but find themselves blocked by executives

who don’t believe in it. Trainers and coaches, too, know how to lift engage-

ment but can’t break through when organisations devalue it by not measur-

ing it. And so on.

Managing up, therefore, becomes a critical skill to acquire, not only in

terms of better engaging your employees but really in all aspects of work.

Which is why a new study just published in the Leadership & Organization

Development Journal is especially instructive.

The researchers surveyed 407 people. They discovered two types of in-

fluencing tactics you can use to persuade your manager, but the tactic you

use should be dependent on one key factor: the strength of your relationship.

If your relationship with your manager is strong, the optimum tactic is

known as rational influence. Rational influence means you use logic and

reason to get your point across. This works because there’s usually mutual

trust and respect, and you’re probably seen as credible and knowledgeable.

You can utilise rational influence in the following ways:

• Put forward data and evidence to justify the outcome you’re seeking.

• Incorporate relevant case studies into your argument.

• Include recent and credible studies that validate what you’re saying.

• Rely on objective facts rather than emotion.

But if your relationship with your manager is weak, the ideal tactic is

coalition influence. Coalition influence means you leverage the support of

others. That’s because your boss might be controlling and authoritative or

perhaps sceptical about you personally or the department you represent.

You can utilise coalition influence in the following ways:

• Identify an internal stakeholder your manager admires and get

them on side first.

• Assemble a cross-functional working group so it appears your idea

is widespread.

jamesadonis.com


106

• Include the opinion of trusted experts when putting forward your

position.

• Submit a motion to an internal committee, such as an executive

board.

• Build a relationship with your manager’s assistant and then ask him/

her for help.

• Be prepared to share the credit with those you recruit as allies.

It’s tough but, sometimes, to engage your employees you must first engage

your manager.

Engagement at WorkEmployee engagement is one of the fastest growing areas of research. You

would already be familiar with findings that have proven, for example, that

employees are far more engaged when they have autonomy, purpose, flex-

ibility, training, support, and interesting work.

And now a study just published in the British Journal of Management

has revealed a new source of engagement that will seem so obvious when

you read it but will probably surprise you when you reflect on how rarely

it’s practiced. In short: the more engaged a leader is, the more engaged that

leader’s employees become.

When you consider how frequently leaders interact with their team, it’s

a wonder organisations don’t concentrate more on making sure that lead-

ers, too, are just as engaged. Instead, the focus is almost always on provid-

ing leaders with the results of their most recent staff engagement survey,

which they’re then tasked with improving. This clearly misses a vital step:

the leader’s own engagement.

It’s known as emotional contagion, which means that how leaders feel

is infectious. If they’re disengaged, it’s likely their employees will be as well.

If they’re engaged, then that, too, is likely to catch on. And as the research-

ers discovered, it catches on because engaged leaders are more inclined to

earnestly build meaningful relationships with their employees.

jamesadonis.com


107

So what this research means for you personally can be split into two

areas: (1) your own engagement, and (2) your influence on the engagement

of other leaders.

Your own engagement:

• Make use of the greater autonomy you have as a leader to subtly

mould your role so that it encompasses more of the tasks you find

engaging.

• Be aware of emotional contagion so that on days when you’re not

feeling positive, you’re at least able to control the infectious signs of

your disengagement.

• Eat well, exercise, sleep and practice mindfulness, since all four have

been found to result in higher levels of engagement even though

they’re not directly related to work.

Your influence on the engagement of other leaders:

• Analyse engagement surveys not only among employees but also

among leaders.

• Provide leaders with training on the techniques they can use to be

self-engaged.

• Make it easy for leaders to build relationships by granting space and

time to do so.

This is all fundamentally linked to the adage that to love others you must

first love yourself. Similarly, to engage others, it’s now abundantly true that

you must also first engage yourself - or at least those engaging others.

jamesadonis.com


108

Early Resistance to ChangeA large financial services organisation recently

announced a major restructure. Employees

were told some would be relocated, others

would see their tasks automated, and many

would lose their jobs. This was of particular in-

terest to scientists who wanted to analyse the

first stage of change – Anticipation. (The other

two stages are Implementation and Aftermath.)

They were especially interested in Antici-

pation since it’s arguably the most important

stage because what employees experience at

the very beginning of the change process can

determine entirely what happens in the re-

maining two stages.

In addition to there being three stages of change, there are also three

types of resistance. Affective resistance reflects how employees feel about

the change; cognitive resistance is what they think of it; and behavioural re-

sistance is how they end up reacting. What the researchers discovered was

that cognitive and affective resistance are most prominent during the An-

ticipation stage of change. More specifically:

Cognitive resistance – what people think – is the outcome when

employees believe an unfair process is about to be implemented

and when they don’t trust the decision makers. The organisation as

an entity is blamed for their state of mind.

Affective resistance – what they feel – is the outcome when em-

ployees sense the atmosphere in the workplace has deteriorated,

when they don’t feel valued, when they can’t express their opinions,

and when they fear their relationships with colleagues are at risk.

Their direct supervisor is deemed to be at fault.

jamesadonis.com


109

The findings, which have just been published in The Journal of Applied

Behavioural Science, reach the following conclusion: you personally might

have very little control over cognitive resistance but you’re completely able

to influence the affective resistance your employees feel when they’re

confronted by change at work. That means you should:

• Be candid in your communication.

• Provide timely and credible information.

• Explain impending procedures thoroughly and patiently.

• Structure your ongoing messages using reason and consideration.

• Tailor your communication style to suit each individual’s needs.

• Create opportunities for employees to share their thoughts.

• Initiate mini projects that foster collaboration.

• Vigilantly act as a source of support and appreciation.

As the researchers note: “While employees may feel the organisation has

acted procedurally unjust, their manager can still be fair in his or her treat-

ment of employees, thereby mitigating the negative effects of the organisa-

tion’s unfair treatment.”

jamesadonis.com


110

Copyright © 2017

Research on Leadership and Employee Engagement You Really...

Documents

Transcript of Research on Leadership and Employee Engagement You Really...