Awesome English

If you get on with your colleagues, are you more likely to be distracted or does it make you work harder?

By Nadira Faber, University of Oxford From The Conversation
27 October 2017

Reference: bbc.com

We routinely work together with other people. Often, we try to achieve shared goals in groups, whether as a team of firefighters or in a scientific collaboration. When working together, many people – naturally – would prefer doing so with others who are their friends. But, as much as we like spending time with our friends, is working with them in a group really good for our performance?

People have different personal opinions about this question. Some think working in a group of friends makes you more productive, because knowing and liking each other makes you more efficient. Others think it makes you less productive, because you spend too much time recapping your adventures from last weekend rather than focusing on work. So who is right?

Over the last 35 years, several studies have investigated the performance of groups consisting of friends. The performance of these groups was directly compared to those consisting of acquaintances, that is people who – in contrast to friends – have no meaningful joint past, no intimate knowledge about each other, and are rather neutral in their feelings towards each other.

A recent meta-analysis, published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, combines the results of these studies. Although the number of integrated studies is comparatively low (26), and the effects found are mostly small in size, the overall message is clear.

Good news for those who like working with friends

The meta-analysis shows that groups of friends perform better than groups of acquaintances. They achieve more when they do physical work like moving heavy objects, but also when doing cognitive work like making joint decisions. This competitive advantage holds in situations where friends depend on each other to achieve high performance, like when sharing their knowledge is required.

Perhaps surprisingly, the positive effect of friendship groups also holds when people have to work relatively independently towards a joint goal, like when each team member tries to sell as many goods as possible to achieve an impressive sales score for the team. Even though all of these tasks can be achieved by working with acquaintances, it seems that working with friends has the edge.

Friends have a competitive advantage when working in a group, according to a recent analysis of several studies 

Why does being friends foster group performance?

While the new meta-analysis can only tell us that it helps, but not why, previously published individual studies give us some clues. Put simply, friends are better at coordinating their actions. And people are more motivated to perform when they work in a group of friends.

This motivation boost can explain why it depends on the specific task as to how much working with friends can help performance. Friendship groups are particularly successful when it comes to tasks where they need to be quick, or to get a lot done. In work of this kind – think, for example, of collecting as much money for charity as possible – being persistent matters a lot. In tasks that are less about motivation than about having the right skills – for example when a team has to come up with the solution for a mathematical puzzle – friendship does not help group performance. But it doesn’t hurt it either.

The take-home message

When we want to perform well as a group, working with friends helps in many cases and is harmless in others. So, this is one of the rewarding cases where scientific findings match personal experience: both as a group researcher and as someone whose favourite collaborators are also friends, I can give the same recommendation as many managers do. Given the benefits that being around your friends has for well-being – and as we now know also for performance – work in a group together with your friends if you can. Or perhaps, try to become friends with your colleagues.

Charismatic people have mastered a complex set of communication skills which give them considerable advantage in work and life.

By Tiffanie Wen
27 October 2017

Reference: bbc.com

What do Bill Clinton, Steve Jobs and Tony Blair have in common? Love ‘em or loathe ‘em, they all oozed charisma. Charismatic leaders can inspire followers to be more loyal and work harder. But are there different ways in which leaders can be charismatic?

While BBC Capital has previously examined how being charming can help influence people in the workplace, charisma involves a rather different set of skills. Researchers have shown that charisma involves communicating (whether verbally or in written text) using powerful metaphors and anecdotes, using expressions and body language that successfully convey emotions that back up your message while displaying confidence, among other traits. 

Charm involves making eye contact with individuals and flashing them a smile, getting people to talk about themselves, asking personal questions and making empathic statements, whereas charismatic leaders don’t necessarily have to interact directly with the people they influence at all – they can do it from afar. So, while charmers are popular, charismatic people don’t have to be. 

“You can be charismatic without being likeable,” says Olivia Fox Cabane, an executive coach and author of The Charisma Myth.  She uses Steve Jobs as an example, someone who was deeply disliked by some of his employees but still considered to be incredibly charismatic. 

Fox Cabane demarcates several types of charisma: difficult-to-acquire ‘star power’ charisma, exemplified by Marilyn Monroe, who loved performing for the camera; ‘focus’ charisma, which involves listening attentively; and ‘kindness’ charisma, displayed by the Dalai Lama, which can be learned. 

The charisma effect 

It turns out, there are a lot of quantifiable benefits to using charismatic behaviour. For instance, when the values a leader stands for overlap with those of the people he or she is trying to influence, a ‘charismatic effect’ can occur. “People will identify with you more, they will want to be more like you, they will be more willing to follow you,” says John Antonakis, professor of organisational behaviour at the University of Lausanne.

In one 2015 study, Antonakis and his colleague found that temporary workers at a fundraising campaign increased their output by 17% after watching a charismatic pre-recorded motivational speech versus a standard speech. 

“Independent of how attractive you are, if you’re more charismatic in a short clip competing for venture capital funding, you’re more likely to get backed,” Antonakis says. “For people who give TED Talks, you’ll get more views and your talks will be considered more inspiring if you deliver the talk in a more charismatic manner.” 

Charisma can even increase people’s willingness to cooperate. Antonakis did an experiment where participants were shown a video of an actor trying to persuade them in a charismatic way to cooperate in a game that mimics financial decisions. Players were more likely to contribute to the collective benefit rather than enjoy a ‘free ride’. “Charisma can help people by not only affecting their preferences but their beliefs about what they think other people will do,” Antonakis says. 

Why do these effects occur? Research suggests it comes down to trust. A study from 2016 found charismatic leaders were more likely to be trusted by their employees, who in turn were more willing to help colleagues, show concern about the future of the team or display commitment to the company beyond their contractual obligations in other ways. 

Bjorn Michaelis, a professor of management and organisation at Kühne Logistics University in Germany and one of the authors of the study, says charismatic leaders show employees they have high ability by generating new ideas and integrity by taking personal risks for the good of the organisation. Think of CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg, who famously makes a salary of $1 and Elon Musk, who has never accepted a salary from Tesla.

Can you train yourself to be more charismatic? 

For those wanting to be more charismatic, there is evidence that it is not such a magical, or imperceptible quality as it might first seem. 

Most of it stems from the way we use words and how points are conveyed. For example, in one set of studies, Antonakis trained middle managers at a German company and MBA students to be perceived as more charismatic by using what he calls charismatic leadership tactics.

These are made up of nine core verbal tactics including metaphors, stories and anecdotes, contrasts, lists and rhetorical questions. Speakers should demonstrate moral conviction, share the sentiments of the audience they are targeting, set high expectations for themselves, and communicate confidence. Managers trained to use these tactics were rated as more competent, more trusted and able to influence others. MBA students who analysed recordings of themselves giving speeches, with these tactics in mind, ultimately gave new speeches that were rated as more charismatic. 

“Margaret Thatcher was unbelievably charismatic because of her rhetoric and use of these tactics,” Antonakis says. Analysis of a speech the UK Prime Minister delivered to the Conservative Party Conference in 1980, known as ‘The lady’s not for turning’, highlighted her extensive use of many of these verbal tricks. Her speech was packed with metaphors, rhetorical questions, stories, contrasts, lists, and references to ambitious goals.

But it’s not just how you use words that is important. Body language, gestures, facial expressions and tone of voice contribute to emotional signaling too and should match the message you want to convey. “What you need to convey [is] the appropriate emotion to what you’re saying. You need to look credible so people will trust you, ” says Antonakis. 

This is likely one of the factors that makes Hillary Clinton less charismatic than Bill, he adds. “In comparison to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton came across as a tad cold [during her run for the Presidency]; she did not convey a warm and folksy sort of image like her husband did.” He adds that her gestures, facial expressions and tones didn’t emotionally reinforce her message, making her “sound scripted.” 

Fox Cabane, who trains executives to be charismatic, especially when dealing with the public via speeches or interviews, says the strategy you use to increase the trait depends on what kind of charisma you want to exude. 

“Authority charisma is useful when the house is on fire and you need to get everyone out,” says Fox Cabane. “While you don’t care much about how much people like you, you do care about being obeyed.” She says the best way to improve authority charisma is to improve your self-confidence. She often sends clients to martial arts classes and emphasizes the benefits of taking up physical space, pointing to Amy Cuddy’s research on power poses. 

“Standing as if you are a big gorilla intimating a rival off the territory really does work,” she says. 

Fox Cabane describes Steve Jobs as a quintessential example of someone who learned what she calls “visionary charisma” over the course of his career. She has analysed clips of his speeches over the years. 

“In his first presentation in 1984, you can see he’s a nerd,” she says. “He’s depending on the product to sell itself. He displays no power nor presence, and certainly no warmth. “But what you see gradually through the early 2000s, is Jobs gaining the elements of charisma. He displays presence first – he looks at his audience and focuses on them rather than the product. He learns power second, gradually taking up more of the stage, and projecting his voice.”

There's another tried and tested way in which well-known figures will ultimately increase their charisma. Research suggests we often romanticise people after their death and perceive them to have been more charismatic. In a study from 2016, participants read a story about the career of an American scientist who created a vaccination for a specific bacterium. When the article emphasised that the scientist had died from a disease originating from the bacterium in question, people rated him as more connected to America, and more charismatic. 

The study also looked at newspaper references to heads of state who died in office between 2000 and 2013, and found leaders were more likely to be regarded as charismatic post-mortem. 

This last one may be an effective method, but we don’t recommend it.

Reference: ted.com

My Philosophy for a Happy Life

1. Be OK with what you ultimately can't do, 

   because there is so much you CAN do.

2. Surround yourself with people you want to be around.

3. Keep moving forward.

4. Never miss a party if you can help it.

-- Sam Berns