Shyam's Slide Share Presentations

VIRTUAL LIBRARY "KNOWLEDGE - KORRIDOR"

This article/post is from a third party website. The views expressed are that of the author. We at Capacity Building & Development may not necessarily subscribe to it completely. The relevance & applicability of the content is limited to certain geographic zones.It is not universal.

TO VIEW MORE CONTENT ON THIS SUBJECT AND OTHER TOPICS, Please visit KNOWLEDGE-KORRIDOR our Virtual Library

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Three Wrongs Make a Right 11-06

Three Wrongs Make a Right

Today I was eating at a restaurant with my family and it was one we had never tried before. As it turns out, it will be the basis of this week’s blog post. The server does not come to our table for 10 minutes after we were seated. Wrong #1. So, I had to go ask someone who our server was and then he magically appeared. We told him we were ready with our drink and food order if that made it easier for him. (Yes, we were hungry.) Oh yeah, and before I forget, this restaurant has one of those Coke machines that can make tons of variety flavors of drinks. So, we order a few like Cherry Coke Zero and then a couple of iced teas (yes Kelly Mallozzi, and John Foley) sweet tea. OK, back to the story...

So, the server disappears for quite a while and finally comes back and has the drink order entirely wrong. Wrong #2. He went back to fix this once we told him. Third, the manager comes out to ask if we ordered only two food orders (there were four of us there today) instead of four food orders. We said no and she apologized and said the server put in all the food wrong as well. Wrong #3.

The server never told us it was his first day or we might have been more understanding. This was just a lack of good communications on his part. However, the manager did everything right. She rushed to get all the drinks fixed, took care of our table herself, offered us a free appetizer, and then explained all the options with each meal (which we did not get the first time). You see, she took a situation that was quickly getting bad and fixed it. So my experience was not great today, but it would not stop me from going back. Why? She cared and communicated she was sorry and explained the truth as to what was going on.

She was honest, did not make excuses and simply took care of the problem. Is this not something we can all learn from and apply to our business? There are times when it might be appropriate to explain “why” something went wrong to a customer. However, in many cases the best policy is to say we have “dropped the ball” on this and we will do whatever it takes to make the situation right. This is what the manager did for my family at lunch. Little does she know I am blogging about this on an international blog. 

Customers do not like mistakes. However, my most loyal customers were earned based on how I make bad situations “right” for them. Once a customer knows you will go the extra mile and do what is right, you have reached an entirely new level in your relationship. You make them feel important and they know that you will stand behind a problem. Thus, you create more than a loyal customer...you make a raving fan.

So, as the title states...sometimes three wrongs can make a right!

Wharton Professor Eric Bradlow unveils a new metric for marketers to determine customer lifetime value. 11-06


SIX STEPS TO A CLUMPIER CONSUMER

Wharton Professor Eric Bradlow unveils a new metric for marketers to determine customer lifetime value.
152992029
Professor Eric Bradlow, W’88, HOM’00, shares an epiphany from his latest marketing analytics research: how one data point could help marketers better identify their customers with the most promising customer lifetime value (CLV).
It’s called “clumpiness”—a measurement of how binge-y a shopper is. Clumpy shoppers—those that shop in spurts comparable to the behavior of binge drinkers and binge sleepers—are more valuable in the long run than nonclumpy shoppers, according to data collected by Bradlow, who serves as Wharton’s K.P. Chao Professor, vice dean and director of Wharton Doctoral Programs, and co-director of the Wharton Customer Analytics Initiative.
Your options are to watch the full webinar to gain a greater understanding of clumpiness, or read our six takeaways, presented below.
Better yet, you could do both—read this blog and watch the full webinar.
1. Does clumpiness apply to business-to-business customers? “I have no empirical proof,” Bradlow told his remote webinar audience. “I am willing to bet a lot of money that clumpy B2B is worth more in the future,” he said, adding that if any B2B marketers would like to share their data sets, he would be happy to test his hypothesis on them.
2. Bradlow will offer links to the two research papers that explain his new finding, as well as an Excel spreadsheet to demonstrate how to measure the clumpiness of your customers, on his Wharton homepage  .
3. Digital consumers seem to behave more clumpily. In his analysis, 40 to 50 percent of Hulu, YouTube, Amazon and eBay customers are clumpy. Shoppers of traditional products—like toilet paper, for instance—tend not to be clumpy.
Prof. Eric Bradlow
Prof. Eric Bradlow
4. There are two types of clumpy—visit clumpiness and purchase clumpiness. Shoppers who are visit clumpy are not necessarily purchase clumpy and are thus not necessarily more valuable. Purchase- clumpy shoppers tend to have that long-term value.
5. Female shoppers, younger shoppers under 30, loyalty program members and customers with wish lists tend to be clumpier.
6. The traditional framework of CLV and customer segmentation is RFM: recency, frequency and monetary value. This framework is lacking without a fourth attribute: C for clumpiness.

For others—and those Wharton community members who want as much of Bradlow as they can get—please watch the video below of Bradlow’s Wharton Lifelong Learning master class on “mining for gold in marketing.”

View at the original source

Nice or Tough: Which Approach Engages Employees Most? 11-06


20130912_2

Nice or Tough: Which Approach Engages Employees Most?

It’s probably no news to most people who work that poor leaders produce disgruntled, unengaged employees. Our research also shows convincingly that great leaders do the opposite — that is, that they produce highly committed, engaged, and productive employees.
And the difference is cavernous — in a study of 160,576 employees working for 30,661 leaders at hundreds of companies around the world, we found average commitment scores in the bottom quarter for those unfortunate enough to work for the worst leaders (those leaders who had been rated in the bottom 10th percentile by their bosses, colleagues, and direct reports on 360 assessments of their leadership abilities). By contrast, average commitment scores for those fortunate enough to work for the best leaders (those rated in the 90th percentile) soared to the top 20th percentile. More simply put, the people working for the really bad leaders were more unhappy than three quarters of the group; the ones working for the really excellent leaders were more committed than eight out of ten of their counterparts.
What exactly fosters this engagement? During our time in the training and development industry we’ve observed two common — and very different — approaches. On the one hand are leaders we call “drivers”; on the other, those we call “enhancers.”
Drivers are very good at establishing high standards of excellence, getting people to stretch for goals that go beyond what they originally thought possible, keeping people focused on the highest priority goals and objectives, doing everything possible to achieve those goals, and continually improving.
Enhancers, by contrast, are very good at staying in touch with the issues and concerns of others, acting as role models, giving honest feedback in a helpful way, developing people, and maintaining trust.
Which approach works best? When we asked people in an informal survey which was most likely to increase engagement, the vast majority opted for the enhancer approach. In fact, most leaders we’ve coached have told us that they believe the way to increase employee commitment was to be the “nice guy or gal.”
But the numbers tell a more complicated story. In our survey, we asked the employees not only about their level of engagement but also explicitly, on a scale of one to five, to what degree they felt their leaders fit our profiles for enhances and drivers. We judged those leaders “effective” as enhancers or drivers who scored in the 75th percentile (that is, higher than three out of four of their peers) on those questions.
Putting the two sets of data together, what we found was this: Only 8.9% of employees working for leaders they judged effective at driving but not at enhancing also rated themselves in the 10% in terms of engagement. That wasn’t very surprising to many people who assume that most employees don’t respond well to pushy or demanding leaders. But those working for those they judged as effective enhancers were even less engaged (well, slightly less). Only 6.7% of those scored in the top 10% in their levels of engagement.
Better to be Nice and Tough Chart  
Essentially, our analysis suggests, that neither approach is sufficient in itself. Rather, both are needed to make real headway in increasing employee engagement. In fact, fully 68% of the employees working for leaders they rated as both effective enhancers and drivers scored in the top 10% on overall satisfaction and engagement with the organization.
Clearly, we were asking the wrong question, when we set out to determine which approach was best. Leaders need to think in terms of “and” not “or.” Leaders with highly engaged employees know how to demand a great deal from employees, but are also seen as considerate, trusting, collaborative, and great developers of people.
In our view, the lesson then is that those of you who consider yourself to be drivers should not be afraid to be the “nice guy.” And all of you aspiring nice guys should not view that as incompatable with setting demanding goals. The two approaches are like the oars of a boat. Both need to be used with equal force to maximize the engagement of direct reports.

Monday, November 4, 2013

Who Has 1 Billion Users And Is About To Overtake Facebook? 11-05


Who Has 1 Billion Users And Is About To Overtake Facebook?

It’s not Twitter, Google+ or LinkedIn. It’s a company that most people in the West don’t know. That, however, is set to change, with the explosive growth of China’s Tencent and its mobile messaging app WeChat...
Last week, Facebook, the current king of social networks, admitted that it’s losing teen users, and that the overall growth in its monthly active users has slowed to 18% year-on-year. This isn’t helped by the fact that it and other Western social networks are banned in China. By contrast, Tencent recently announced that WeChat’s users have almost tripled from the 85 million of the year before.
Source: WorldOfCEOs, JPMorgan, Credit Suisse, Bloomberg & company announcements
And Tencent’s reach – unlike local Twitter-equivalent Sina Weibo and Facebook-equivalent RenRen – is not just restricted to China. WeChat was rebranded from the more Chinese-sounding Weixin to appeal to an international audience, and it’s now virally coming across here. In just four months between May and September 2013, its overseas users have doubled from 50m to 100m.
So, in an increasingly crowded mobile messaging, what is Tencent and WeChat doing right?
First, it has managed to differentiate its product with some killer features that keep users coming back for more. On the messaging side, users can “hold-to-talk” and send free walkie-talkie style messages that bypass the need for voicemail. Yet what keeps its network growing are fun discovery features that can connect users locally and across continents.
WeChat has neatly fused together the open approach of social networks such as Twitter, where anyone can follow anybody, and more closed networks such as Facebook, which rely on mutual friend connections. It’s growing virally through social connection and not just social media.
For instance, the ability to identify “People Nearby” can make the daily commute or a night out with friends much more interesting. Here is a quick summary of my results when looking for other WeChat users in London...
Alternatively, you can “shake” your smartphone, and be connected with other users anywhere in the world who are shaking their phones at the same moment.
In growing its international user base, Tencent has brought on board brand ambassadors, such NBA star LeBron James, soccer star Lionel Messi and Bollywood actors Varun Dhawan and Parineeti Chopra, who users can follow and interact with.

Massive Value Creation

Shaking and tapping on smartphones are not just gimmicks: floated on the Hong Kong stock-exchange in 2004 (the same year as Google), Tencent has far outstripped Google in the rate of appreciation of its share price, up 104 times on it IPO price compared to Google’s 8.5 times price appreciation.
With a $101bn US market cap (still some way off Google’s $343bn valuation), Tencent joins Yahoo!, eBay and Amazon among the world’s most valuable internet companies.

From Copycat To WeChat

Like many of China’s tech companies, Tencent’s roots lie in the “copycat innovation” and localization of what was happening in Silicon Valley. The company was founded in 1998 by Shenzhen University computer sciences graduate Huateng “Pony” Ma, and five classmates. Its first product, OICQ or Open ICQ, was a Chinese copy of the popular ICQ desktop instant messenger that had been acquired by AOL in the same year. When AOL filed a lawsuit in March 2000 for violation of its intellectual property, Tencent eventually lost the battle and changed the name of the product from OICQ to QQ, as it is still known today.
With an increase in user numbers but unable to cash in on its huge user base, Pony and his co-founders nearly had to sell the company. A big early success was in attracting venture capital – in 2000, Pacific Century CyberWorks and IDG invested $4 million for a 40% stake, proving to be the kick-start that Tencent needed.
A big part of the success of WeChat has been down to the fact that, when other companies continued to develop for the desktop, founderPony Ma made a big bet on mobile. A CEO known for his understanding of and investment in long-term growth, a few years ago Pony made the smart move to shift more than half of its 20,000 employees to focus on mobile. Although Tencent’s mobile business has not been the source of its revenue (70% of its revenue is from user payments and the rest from commerce), Tencent expects that eventually “the real value is the connection of the phone with business offline.”
Pony is currently ranked third in Hurun Rich List and fifth in Forbes Chinese Rich List. Reflecting on the “copycat years”, he attributed his early success to a combination of copying and luck:
“When we were a small company, we needed to stand on the shoulders of giants to grow up.” Paraphrasing a quote attributed to Isaac Newton, he added, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
Pony is known to pay attention to details that most big companies ignore, drawing comparisons with the late Steve Jobs. Indeed, even Jobs owned up to a degree of copycat innovation in launching new products – when he unveiled the iBooks app at the launch of the iPad in 2010, he acknowledged that it bore similarities to Amazon’s Kindle: “Amazon’s done a great job of pioneering this functionality with the Kindle. We’re going to stand on their shoulders and go a little further.”
However, Pony didn’t want to stop with copying, adding:
But copying others can't make you great. So the key is how to localize a great idea and create domestic innovation.
A company veteran added: “it was entrepreneurship, concentration and passion that helped Pony succeed.”

WeGlobal?

Despite WeChat’s frightening domestic and overseas exponential growth rate, it doesn’t have it all its own way in the global market. Martin Lau, President of Tencent, acknowledges that the US remains something of a sticking point, commenting at a conference at Stanford University last month, “US is a very tough market. You have your free SMS which takes away the cost appeal of microchat. You have [Apple’s] iMessage… We will try to find ways to provide differentiated services.”
WeChat is also up against WhatsApp, a hypergrowth American startup that also almost doubled its monthly active users to 350m from 200m in April. Other competitors, such as Viber and Japan’s Line exist, but tellingly, they won’t reveal their monthly user figures.
So there’s an interesting global battleground setting up: both between Facebook, Tencent and WhatsApp in global social media and messaging, and Amazon, eBay and Alibaba in global e-commerce. LinkedIn is currently the leading professional social network and doesn't have a recognised global direct competitor: it will be interesting to see if one emerges from China or elsewhere.
I’m confident that Tencent will overtake Facebook, although partly because China’s population is bigger and partly because it has an unfair advantage over Western competitors blocked out of the Chinese market. This needs to change.
My overall prediction for the next few years is that Tencent will build a significant global business of great value: with products and brands we’ll increasingly come to know, interact with – and maybe even love.

Case Study: The Costs and Benefits of a Strong Culture11-05

Case Study: The Costs and Benefits of a Strong Culture

“How long is this list of escapees?” Kumar Chandra asked as he pointed at the slide on the screen. He was the head of operations at Parivar, a midsize Chennai-based IT services company.
Everyone in the room chuckled, except for Indira Pandit, vice president of HR. Nearly 100 employees had given notice in recent weeks.
“We’re losing them faster than your people can bring them in,” she said, turning to Vikram Srinivasan, the head of recruiting. “Our turnover rate is up to 35%.”
(Editor’s Note: This fictionalized case study will appear in a forthcoming issue of Harvard Business Review, along with commentary from experts and readers. If you’d like your comment to be considered for publication, please be sure to include your full name, company or university affiliation, and e-mail address.)
Vikram shook his head. “This isn’t our problem. It’s the Indian labor market. And it may not even be a bad thing. Some studies show that the more frequently employees move around within an industry, the more innovative it becomes.”
Indira gave him a skeptical look.
“This is to be expected, Indira, especially now that we’re rising above the second tier,” he argued.
This time only Kumar laughed, and Indira knew why. Sure, Parivar was growing — in revenue, profitability, and reputation — but it was still much smaller than companies like Infosys, HCL, and other leading global providers of low- to midrange business-process outsourcing services. In the past decade, Parivar’s charismatic CEO Sudhir Gupta had saved the organization from bankruptcy and made it an industry success story — but it was hardly in the first tier.
“I need to present these numbers to Sudhir at the end of the week, and I can’t do that without a theory on what’s happening and a solution to propose. That’s why I called this meeting,” said Indira.
“What about the ‘People Support’ idea that came up in the Future Vision exercise?” Vikram asked. Parivar had just finished its annual innovation process. Employees from all over the company — particularly new and young ones — were encouraged to join senior leaders in brainstorming and design sessions focused on how the firm could reach its goals for the year. This event, a hallmark of Parivar’s inclusive culture, was meant to foster collaboration and an entrepreneurial spirit.
 One proposal that had garnered attention was the creation of a new function whose sole purpose would be to support Parivar’s employees by hearing their grievances and figuring out solutions.
“I, for one, love the ‘People Support’ idea,” Vikram added. “It emphasizes Sudhir’s philosophy of genuine caring for our people.”
“It sounds genuinely expensive to me,” said Kumar. Indira loved his pragmatism.
“Cost aside, I’m not sure that’s the direction we want to take.” She pointed at the screen. “These people have told us that Sudhir’s ‘love culture’ — our attentiveness to both personal and professional matters —  isn’t so alluring anymore. They don’t necessarily want to feel like part of a family at work.”
“Come on,” Vikram said. “That’s our biggest selling point. Recruits love that they won’t be just a cog in the machine, that our company and its managers — Sudhir included — will listen to them. That everyone at Parivar matters.”
“That expectation may attract them, but it’s not keeping them here, especially when competitors offer a 30% pay raise,” Indira countered. “It’s what we’re hearing in the exit interviews.”
Vikram was clearly not convinced: “We need to go bigger. We should put our money where our mouth is with the People Support function, show that we’re 100% committed to our culture of inclusion. That’s the best way to reverse the trend.”
Big Brotherly Love
Amal, an associate in his twenties, had clearly prepared for his exit interview with Indira. He was checking off items on a handwritten list.
“Everyone says I’ll hate it at Wipro, that it’s too rigid there. But it’s Wipro! How can I refuse?”
“Yes, I’ve heard they have the same high expectations we do, but it’s more process-driven, far less personal. Here you get more attention from the top.”
Amal smirked. “Yes, if you’re one of Sudhir’s clan.”
“What do you mean?” Indira asked.
“Don’t get me wrong. Parivar promised access to senior executives, and I got it. But Sudhir doesn’t swing by the office, put his legs up, and chat with just anyone. There’s an ‘in’ crowd. Only his favorites get that family-like attention. I guess it’s understandable — one man can only do so much. But if I’m not seeing him or other top people, I’m just stuck at a company that wants to be overinvolved in my life.”
“This People Support idea, for instance,” he said, pointing to the last item on his list. He seemed to be on a roll, so Indira just listened. “I heard about it from my friend who was in that Future Vision group. You have to admit it feels a bit like Big Brother. A whole group of managers dedicated to walking around and asking about our problems? We don’t need more people to talk to. We need more money.” He sat back in his chair, satisfied.
“Thank you for being so candid,” Indira said. “This really is helpful, and we wish you the best of luck.”
A few minutes later, Amal’s manager poked his head into Indira’s office. “Did you get an earful?” he asked.
“I sure did,” Indira said, gesturing for him to come in. “I think he’ll be happy at Wipro — it seems more his speed.”
“You should know that Amal is an outlier. Most people on my team are not like him. They love our company culture.”
Thinking about her long list of “escapees,” Indira wondered whether that was really true.
A New Best Practice?
Sudhir’s office, where he regularly held big meetings, was crowded with inviting, comfortable couches. Indira scanned the room as people settled in. It was a typical gathering: most of Parivar’s senior leaders, including Vikram and Kumar, and a handful of younger employees.
“I’ve asked Nisha to tell us more about the People Support idea,” Sudhir announced. “It’s the brainchild of her Future Vision team. Ready, Nisha?”
Nisha, who looked to be fresh out of business school, began her slide presentation, describing how the new function would work. She included a scenario: An employee is worried about his future with the company because he has been given a time-consuming project that will involve working late, compromising his ability to look after a sick mother in the evening. Aware of the People Support function, he seeks out one of its designated “listeners,” as they would be called, and explains his dilemma. The listener helps him negotiate an arrangement with his boss that allows him not to stay late every night. In Nisha’s last slide, all the characters — the employee, the boss, the listener, and the sick mother — are smiling.
Everyone in the audience clapped, and Sudhir congratulated Nisha.  “This is what I love about coming to work every day: Fresh ideas from smart, young people.”
Not surprisingly, Kumar was the first with questions: How much would the function cost? How would it scale up as the company grew? Who would manage it? Nisha attempted to provide answers, but Sudhir interrupted before she got very far. “We must still work some things out, of course, and those all are legitimate concerns. But I think this would be money well spent.”
Kumar wasn’t satisfied. “OK, so we won’t discuss specifics today, but what about our broader plans for growth? Will all this family stuff be appropriate outside India, when we expand to the UK and the U.S.?”
“That’s also an important issue to explore. But people everywhere want their company to care about them and their lives,” Sudhir said, indicating with a glance at Kumar that the interrogation should cease. “Indira, do you have any questions? This obviously falls into your arena.”
Indira shared Kumar’s concerns and more. But she wanted to ask something new. “Nisha, thank you for this thoughtful presentation. I was wondering if you’ve considered how the listeners will be evaluated. How will we know if they’re performing well?”
“Retention numbers,” Nisha said. “The lower our turnover rate, the better the listeners are doing.”
Indira contemplated the complexity of evaluating anyone on the basis of turnover, given the volatility in the labor market. She felt queasy thinking about it and dreaded delivering the most recent attrition numbers to Sudhir.
Vikram piped up to ask whether any other companies in India or elsewhere had tried a similar program or if Parivar would lead the way.
“As far as we know — and Nisha has researched it — no other company has done this before. Sure, HCL has its employee-first culture, but this is about truly understanding and meeting our people’s needs. Nisha and I were talking earlier about how someday this might become a best practice for all of India, perhaps beyond.”
Later, as everyone was filing out, Sudhir pulled Indira aside. “Thank you for going easy on Nisha. We want to encourage young people like her to put forward bold ideas. But of course I want your honest opinion. We’re meeting on Friday, yes? You had something for me?”
Honest Skepticism
Indira took the elevator to the fourth floor. She hoped her colleague and business school friend, Amrita, would be in her office.
“Thank God you’re not busy,” she joked, finding Amrita with her head down at her desk. The two women were always busy, but they had an open-door policy for each other.
Indira explained about the meeting in Sudhir’s office, the People Support function, the exit interview with Amal, and the horrible turnover numbers.
“So I’m skeptical of this People Support idea because I’m not sure we can really nurture Sudhir’s love culture across an organization that’s growing so fast. It’s one thing as a philosophy of how he interacts with people, but building processes and formal management structures around it is a whole different story.”
“That’s a tough message to deliver to someone who has turned the company around, tripled revenue, and quintupled profits with that culture at the center,” Amrita acknowledged. “I’m sure he thinks this is solving the problem of his limited capacity.”
“But can you formalize a culture as distinctive as ours into processes and roles?” Indira wondered honestly. “Will this People Support function even work? And if it does, won’t it alienate more employees like Amal? What if it worsens our turnover problem instead of fixing it? If we want to expand to Europe and the U.S., don’t we need to be less like a cult?”
Amrita laughed. “You know what Sudhir likes to say: ‘Cult is part of culture.’ But it’s not your style to just say what he wants to hear, Indira. If you think People Support is a bad idea, tell him. He’ll take your advice seriously.”
Indira knew she had more power than most HR heads. Sudhir wanted to run a humane company, and that meant giving her a say on big issues.
“I plan to be honest with him,” Indira replied. “But another thing Sudhir always says is, ‘Don’t come to me with a problem; come with a solution.’ If Vikram and Nisha are right, People Support could be just the edge we need against the likes of Wipro and Infosys, a way to retain our people and win new recruits. What if this helps us break into the top tier?”
“Do you really think it will, Indira?”
“I’m not sure, and I don’t have any better ideas right now.”
Question: Should Indira endorse the new People Support function?

Big Chairs Create Big Cheats 11-05


Big Chairs Create Big Cheats

by Andy Yap



The research: In a series of experiments, Andy Yap and his colleagues examined the impact that people’s ergonomic environments had on their ethics. The studies tested whether being put into an expansive or a contracted posture would affect people’s honesty. The results showed that subjects in larger workspaces and seats, which encouraged expansive postures, were more likely than other subjects to pocket, rather than return, an overpayment for participating in the study, to cheat on a test, and to break the rules in a driving simulation game.
The challenge: Is the boss a jerk because of the size of his chair? Is that guy running a red light because he’s in a giant SUV? Professor Yap, defend your research.
Yap: The effect of large spaces, which allow people to expand their postures, was clear. In our first study, in which we deliberately overpaid people to see whether they would point out our error, 78% of the participants who were put into expansive postures kept the overpayment, while only 38% of those who were put into contractive postures did. And in a follow-up field study, in which we observed illegally parked cars in New York, we saw that when the size of a driver’s seat increased by one standard deviation from the mean, the probability that a car would be double-parked increased from 51% to 71%.
HBR: Why would big seats and spaces affect people’s behavior?
Our bodies are perpetually constrained by our physical spaces. When these spaces are large, we incidentally adopt expansive postures. Such postures—open, widespread limbs that fill the space up—often project high power. Contractive, closed postures—in which limbs are pulled in close to the torso and the body collapses inward to minimize space—tend to project low power. It’s not having something big that makes you feel more powerful; these spaces allow you to have an expansive posture, and that’s what makes you feel more powerful. And the feelings of power are what alter your behavior.
Bigness is relative. To see this effect, do you need to change the driver’s seat or chair for someone who is 6'6" much more than for someone who is 5'4"?
We randomly assigned subjects to large and small spaces or postures, so we had an equal number of short people and tall people in each group. We looked at whether height influenced their poses, but we found that it had no effect.
So you’re saying that, regardless of my height, if I push back the driver’s seat in my car, I’ll be more likely to double-park?
It’s not clear that you’re automatically going to double-park. But there’s a higher likelihood that you will give in to a desire to double-park. Of course, there are many other things to consider, like whether you’re in a part of the city where spaces are scarce and the temptation to double-park is greater.
Isn’t it possible you’ve got this backward—that people likely to become bosses are dishonest, materialistic types who prefer big offices and big cars?
Yes, definitely. In our experiments, there certainly were people who were already more “corrupt” than others. However, since we randomly assigned participants to expansive or contractive postures, each group should have had an equal number of corrupt individuals. And the posture was the only variable that differed between the two groups. In any case, newer studies have shown that power has an intensifying effect on personality. So if you’re already corrupt, power brings out an even more corrupt persona. When people are very honest and ethical, though, power makes them more ethical.
So if I’m an honest person, a big space might make me more honest?
We don’t know that for sure. In our studies, we measured only cheating—we wanted to see if the increased sense of power would make people more likely to engage in it. But power itself is not always bad. Power is something like nuclear energy; it can be used for good or bad. Power can actually help you battle stress; power makes you more confident; power makes you feel more focused on your goals. And if you’re channeling it in the right way, you get very positive outcomes.
Do people who work at smaller desks or drive Priuses feel less powerful?
I think that, in general, if you have a smaller space, you feel powerless, especially in comparison with someone in a bigger space. But as I was running the study, I wondered, is there a limit to how powerless a contracted environment makes you feel? If your space is extremely, extremely small, will you feel so frustrated that you’re more likely to cheat? We didn’t measure this, but I think small spaces can change you only so much psychologically.
How do you know that the connection between power and large spaces isn’t just part of an American mind-set in which everything bigger is considered better?
We didn’t measure or test this effect across cultures, but size is so fundamentally related to power and powerlessness. This connection has been found in both animals and humans. However, a recently published study did find that certain poses, such as having your feet on a desk and your hands behind your head, don’t create a sense of power in East Asian cultures, because they’re inconsistent with East Asian norms of modesty and humility. In general the effect of expansive postures can be found across several cultures, but it will be attenuated for specific cultures.
What about other environments like rooms? How would this interview go if we were in a gigantic conference room with huge chairs?
Obviously, with a more expansive space, you feel you can spread out more, but I don’t know if bigger versus smaller rooms could actually lead to the things that the study found. You may feel very small and intimidated if only two of us are in a large conference room and all the chairs are very big. Then the size of the space might make you feel powerless.
If we can’t change how our posture adapts to our space, are we destined to be cheats and liars when we sit in big chairs?
I think it’s important to look at how ordinary, seemingly innocuous things in your life, like the spaces you sit in, can influence thoughts, feelings, and behavior. It’s also important to think about how to reduce corrupt behavior among the powerful. But we need to approach situations case by case.
In my study, we didn’t want the people in expansive poses to feel more comfortable than the people in contractive ones, so as I mentioned, we didn’t test what happens when space constraints are extreme. They might encourage cheating behavior, too. I wouldn’t take the findings literally and say that everyone should have a small desk. The psychology of power is intricate, and what reduces corrupt behavior among ordinary people might not work for powerful people.
How big is your desk?
My desk is about average—I don’t think I take up an expansive pose too often. I’m not usually in a contractive pose, but I do a little bit of both, depending on when I want to be expansive or when I want to be contractive.

When professionals don't practice what they preach 11-05


When professionals don't practice what they preach


We've all heard the stories of prosecutors who break the law and spiritual leaders who preach modest living while amassing fortunes, but there's more to take away from this tendency than just irony.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis
131104110031-lying-lies-deceipt-620xa
FORTUNE -- When Carlos Greene worked in retirement planning for a major mutual fund company, none of his colleagues knew that he was carrying nearly $40,000 on five different credit cards.
The debt built up quickly after a few key decisions Carlos, now 49, and his wife Katherine made when they moved to Cincinnati for Carlos's new job: deciding Katherine would stay home with their young boys without crunching the budget numbers, then buying a big house and a nice new car. Pretty soon, Carlos was on a strict budget, unable to drive anywhere but work or home because of the cost of gas, limiting family entertainment to movie night at home, and juggling bills at the end of every month to get them all paid. The low point came when he covered the holes in his dress shoes with cardboard when it rained, since he couldn't afford to replace them.
"It became extremely stressful, and I was thinking, 'I'm in the financial services industry, I should know this. I should have planned this out better,' " he recalls. "It's hard for a man to swallow. I felt so frustrated and upset with myself."
MORE: A longtime euro-fan turns negative on the region
He's not alone in his failure to follow his own professional advice. We've all heard the stories of prosecuting attorneys who break the law, spiritual leaders who preach modest living while amassing fortunes, headhunting firms with disastrous CEOs, and primary care doctors who are overweight and smoke. But is there a lesson to be learned beyond appreciating the irony (and perhaps a bit of schadenfreude when a moralizing politician is caught with a prostitute)?
It's first important to understand what may drive a person who built a career following one philosophy to personally indulge in the exact opposite. It could be that he chose a profession in an area of temptation as a defense mechanism in an attempt to protect himself from an inner flaw, says Ben Dattner, an organizational psychologist and executive coach based in New York.
"There can be deep psychological reasons for that," Dattner says. "The areas that fascinate you can also be your areas of weakness."
For instance, someone with a strong rebellious streak may choose a law-and-order profession to try to curb that flaw, or an anorectic may become a gourmet cook who enjoys watching others eat. But in times of stress, a person is prone to succumbing to the suppressed trait that led to his career choice, whether breaking the law or binge eating.
These individuals may be trying to compensate for a weak spot by developing strategies in work life that help combat it. Someone who's chronically disorganized may become a professional organizer to find solutions to her chaos. Even if she can't consistently apply those strategies in her own life, she can easily understand her clients' struggles and give them useful advice. "We're often best at doing for others what we're worst at for ourselves," Dattner says.
Peter Schweitzer, 60, rabbi of The City Congregation for Humanistic Judaism in New York City, grew interested in Judaic studies in college and decided to become a rabbi in the Reform movement, despite the fact that he had never really given his beliefs in God much consideration. But later, as a young rabbi officiating at funerals, where the 23rd Psalm was standard fare, he found he could no longer bear to tell mourners to find comfort in a God that was anything but caring in those moments.
"There is pain. We do need to moan. We are upset right now. This is a tragedy," Schweitzer recalls. "It was getting too hypocritical for me to be me. I said, 'I have to be honest; I can't do this any more.' I have to find a new path."
He worked in publishing for a while and became a social worker before finding his way to Humanistic Judaism, in which many different beliefs are accepted and a premium is put on honesty. He volunteered as a rabbi in his current congregation before it grew large enough to offer him a paid position. Schweitzer says he feels he's a more compassionate and effective rabbi to members of his congregation who question their beliefs because of the path he took.
"I'm clearly an atheist. I don't wave it around," he says. "It's not what we don't believe, it's what we do believe that matters ... I believe in human ability to face things. I believe in resilience. I believe in humor, courage, thinking. I believe in the strength of community. It's very, very powerful and it transcends lots of things."
As for Carlos Greene, after hitting bottom with soggy cardboard in his shoes, he and his wife overhauled their lives to reduce expenses, pay down their debt, and avoid filing for bankruptcy. They sold their five-bedroom dream home with a finished basement and moved into a small two-bedroom townhouse where their two sons shared a room and the dog slept wherever she could. It took nearly three years of scrimping and saving to pay down the credit cards, and both Greenes vowed never to fall back into that hole. The next time they moved, they spent less on a house than they could afford. And he began taking the free seminars and educational opportunities that his firm provided, to improve his budgeting and personal finance skills.
More than a decade later, Greene says he feels that the experience has helped him in his work as a financial services professional. "I see our clients and our customers as real people. I have a lot more compassion for where they are," he says. "It gives me greater perspective on asking the next-level questions to make sure they're in a good space to truly be able to save for retirement."
Indeed, Dattner says that when evaluating a professional who doesn't practice what he preaches, the key question is to ask whether he slips up once or twice, or if he perennially violates the rules he says you must follow -- with no sign of reforming. The latter individual is a hypocrite who should be avoided, but the former might actually have more insight and wisdom to offer. After all, would you want a dietician telling you how to lose weight if that person had never struggled to stick to an eating plan?
"I'd rather have somebody who has the issue themselves; that makes them much more credible," Dattner says.