Last year I read about a teacher who asked all her students to write something they like about each of the other kids in class, collected the answers and then gave each kid “their” answers. Hearing what others liked about them, gave all the kids just such a huge confidence boost.

And not just kids need confidence boosts. We sometimes forget that wanting to be liked and be accepted into a group are very fundamental human needs. Again, in the old days out in the savannah, being by yourself was potentially lethal – so it makes evolutionary sense to be liked if you do not want to end as a lion snack.

I actually did a very similar exercise to the one of that teacher myself a few years ago. At the end of a week-long training I gave at work, I put up a flipchart for every participant, handed out markers and asked the participants to write down what they like about working with each of their colleagues. And it was amazing to see what a boost this gave to everyone and how empowered they felt.

Another variation (which a colleague of mine did for a meeting last year) is to put out an envelope per participant during a multi-day meeting. She then asked people to put notes into the respective envelopes during breaks etc. stating what they appreciate about the others.

So yes, even the most tough of us (supposedly) grown-ups appreciate to be told once in a while what they do well – without and ifs and buts. And my New Year’s resolution is to do and catalyse more of that this year.

Have you been part of such an exercise before? When is the last time you received unconditionally postive feedback about what you do well?

The claim above is often made in connotation with the claim that there are just no suitable women. But what if the measure of what’s suitable is skewed?

In a reserach paper, MIT professor Danielle Li found when studying a large North American retail chain, that despite on average women received higher performance ratings, they received 8.3% lower rating for potential than men and were on average 14% less likely promoted than their male peers.

So maybe the women just had less potential? The researchers also looked into this: relative to men with the same scores for potential, women outperformed their previous year’s score. Yet they were still given lower potential ratings heading into the next year.

The answer could be that women are just more likely to put up with being passed over: top performing men who were passed over for promotion were 40%-50% more likely to leave than female employees, while the likelihood of attrition of women with the highest performance rating who were not promoted only increased by 10%.

So two take-aways for me:
1️⃣ Scrutinize the way you assess potential for possible biases
2️⃣ If as a women you are not valued and being passed over for a promotion, it might be a good time to look for a professional opportunity where your worth is seen

Source: https://buff.ly/3JCgfgs

Ich hab diesen Satz letztens auf LinkedIn gelesen und während er einen wahren Kern enthält, find ich ihn zu sehr zugespitzt.

Natürlich ist es essentiell einen “supportive partner” zu haben, aber das heisst nicht dass der/ die andere bedingungslos alles mittragen und unterstützen muss.

Der/ die andere ist immer noch ein Mensch mit eigenen Bedürfnissen und da gibt es immer wieder fundamentale Zielkonflikte – z.B. der Traumjob am anderen Ende der Welt, während der andere Partner Familie vor Ort hat um die er/ sie sich kümmern muss.

Und da muss man dann halt Kompromisse machen – wenn man nicht auf immer alleine bleiben will. Wobei letzteres ja prinzipiell ja auch eine valide Option ist, aber halt auch nicht das richtige für jede(n))

The other day I received an email from someone higher up in an organization I worked with at the time. This email contained several incorrect assumptions and apparently was very urgent.

My feeling when I got this email was actually disappointment – I had expected more of the sender. I had even defended this person before, highlighting integrity and not shying away from saying & doing what needs to be said as key qualities.

And now, although the issue was clearly very urgent for the sender (and the person is usually not shy to give me a call), I received this email rather than a quick phone call – whereby the latter would have easily resolved the misconceptions and would have led to an immediate resolution of the matter.

As sending the email was clearly not faster than a call (especially given the golden rule of emailing: an email usually triggers more emails), the only explanation I can come up with is that it must have felt like the “easier” option for this person.

I guess we have all been there, faced with a (potentially) awkward conversation. And it might be tempting to just resolve it with an email – no need to look the other person in the eyes, no risk to have your own world view challenged, no need to be directly faced with the other’s reaction.

However, it is for a reason that leading communication experts advise against written conversation for everything but the most basic exchange of factual information – and especially to stay away from email for anything complicated, time critical or sensitive [1].

There is just too much room for misunderstanding and misinterpretation as the written word usually lacks nuance and the non-verbal cues that facilitate effective communication. Plus, if the matter require just a minimum of discussion, you will start the dreaded email pingpong.

And it’s not just the process, also the quality of the outcome suffers without space for subtle nuances, being able to build on each other’s thoughts in real time and the ability to spot & rectify misunderstandings.

So yes, it might be tempting to write a “quick” email. But I argue that as a leader you should have the integrity and strength of character to not take this (apparently) easy way out, especially as it will also do you a disservice in driving the best possible outcomes.

❓Do you agree? Do you have any experiences where written communication just went wrong? Or where you actually steeled yourself for an awkward conversation, just to find it to be really fruitful and constructive?

[1] https://buff.ly/2u7L9cu

An interesting study by Dell wit some pretty shocking numbers
– 56% of respondents said that they do not always have the energy/ motivation to put the digital transformation into action at work
– 69% of respondents are worried that they do not have the necessary competencies for a digital transformation
– 60% said that corporate culture limits employee-driven innovation
– 53% were worried that their company will be cut off from the developing digital world due to a lack of employees with the right authority/ vision

BUT 69% are looking forward to learning new competencies and technologies and/ or optimizing their role through more automatisation

👉 So it’s not a “will” problem but rather a “skill” one – which is good news as those can be (easier) solved but leaders have their work cut out.

👉 What are your best practices with regard to upskilling, motivating and shifting corporate cultures?

Link: https://buff.ly/3ROMRYw

🚣 These are the old boathouses of the Cambridge University crews in Ely, where we went pretty much every day for our water training sessions. On the right in blue, the boathouse of the men (2 crews), on the right NOT the boathouse of the women (3 crews – as the women’s club also included the lightweights, which on the men’s side was a separate club). The women’s boathouse was actually the small annex of the white boathouse on the left – with a tiny changing room in the back where up to 30 girls hardly fit, a toilet outside and no showers or a room for a break between training sessions. We were sitting on the concrete floor in the boat bay eating our sandwiches. In 2 years, I think I went into the men’s boathouse once – the water or heating was broken in our boathouse and the boys were training elsewhere. So we were allowed to warm up a bit in their lounge area. However, the women were not the worst off. At least we had a boathouse. The lightweight men meanwhile had a boat rack under some bridge.

🏠 The boathouse situation was symptomatic for the overall situation back then. The clubs were completely separate. I don’t think I talked even once to a member of the men’s squad. The men had the income from the tv sponsorship, which paid for professional coaches and minibuses. We had to pay subscriptions to the club to pay for the expenses of running the club incl out volunteer coaches and buy our own train tickets. We were allowed to use the men’s beautiful Goldie boathouse in Cambridge for our ergo sessions – but we weren’t allowed to touch anything, including the music system, and had to get changed and showered at home. And when someone asked the question why the women couldn’t also row their Boat Races on the Thames (we were rowing a much shorter race in a completely different location one week earlier), the answer was “there is not enough depth in the club, this would be embarrassing” 🤔

👵🏻 If you now think “you don’t look that old” – thanks 😊 I am not. All of this was merely 12 years ago.

☝🏻However, the point of this story is not to share a rant/ sob story how terribly unfair we were treated – but rather that nowadays when Cambridge races Oxford, it’s a different world.

🏅A few years ago, the 3 Cambridge University rowing clubs merged into one: men & women, lightweights & open weights actually talk to each other, train together and race on the same stretch of water. There is a new boathouse in Ely which everyone is allowed to use and the boathouse in Cambridge now has a women’s changing room. The women (and lightweights) have proven everyone wrong by putting up high quality, gutsy rows on the Thames.

🏆 And from what I hear from the squad, they all like being part of a bigger team. So nobody really lost out and everybody won – the years since forming one club have been some of the most successful ones for Cambridge rowing!

Stress ist erstmal ein physiologische, also eine körperliche Reaktion darauf dass etwas das dir wichtig ist auf dem Spiel steht. Und diese Reaktion verstärkt einfach deinen bestehenden Mindset – der kann Bedrohung/ Ueberforderung sein (schlechter Stress) oder eben auch Herausforderung (guter Stress).

Wenn dir die Geburtstagsparty von Tante Käthe eh egal ist weil du sie noch nie so wirklich mochtest und alle Familienmitglieder die dir wichtig sind auch nicht kommen, dann wirst du auch keinen Stress (guten oder schlechten) haben wenn du es vielleicht nicht schaffst (pünktlich) zu kommen.

Es gibt auch Studien die zeigen dass z.B. die Uebersterblichkeit die mit Stress gerne verknüpft wird verschwindent wenn die Leute Stress als etwas nicht per se schädliches sehen:

People who reported high levels of stress but who did not view their stress as harmful were not more likely to die. In fact, they had the lowest risk of death of anyone in the study, even lower than those who reported experiencing very little stress. (The Upside of Stress, Kelly McGonigal)

Der Unterschied zwischen gutem Stress (eine Herausforderung die dich aus deiner Komfortzone katapulitert) und schlechtem Stress (dem du dich hilflos ausgeliefert fühlst) ist dein Mindset – konkret ob du denkst du hast was es braucht um die Situation meistern zu können. Also
👍 Ressourcen > Anforderungen = positiver Stress
👎 Ressourcen < Anforderungen = schlechter Stress

Guter Stress ist das Lampenfieber vor einem wichtigen Vortrag (den du nicht verhauen willst) oder das neue Herzesprojekt (solange du das Gefühl hast dass du die Unterstützung hast die du brauchst). 😊