ou've gotta have friends,” as Bette Midler's song goes. And that goes for the workplace, too. Having a bosom buddy in the office can go a long way toward making that workday more satisfying – and productive. And workplace friends are all the more important in these times, experts say.
“We are social beings, we needs those connections. Friends provide social support that helps to buffer employees against stress. Friends help employees weather the stress that comes from the threat of downsizing and job insecurity, higher workloads and anxious bosses,” said Sandra Robinson, a professor of organizational behaviour at University of British Columbia's Sauder School of Business.
More than 38 per cent of American workers have colleagues they consider personal friends, 67 per cent believe that having workplace pals makes their job more fun and enjoyable, while 55 per cent say work friends make their job worthwhile and satisfying, according to a new poll of 1,017 employees by Ipsos Reid for staffing firm Randstad U.S.
Having a pal at work can boost employees' energy and enthusiasm, provide an ally and fulfill emotional needs so much that they look forward to going to work, Prof. Robinson said. “And they'll come in early and stay late if they find work more enjoyable.”
It's good for the employer, too: Workplace friendships boost teamwork, morale, communication, motivation, productivity and commitment to the company, and lower turnover, the Randstad survey found.
But as with any relationship, there are pitfalls to befriending your colleagues. If conflicts arise, you still have to work together, said Antoinette Blunt, president of Ironside Consulting Services Inc., a human resources consultancy in Sault Ste Marie, Ont.
Dealing with issues such as favouritism, gossip, conflicts of interest, blurring boundaries, oversocializing and cliques can make office friendships tricky, Ms. Blunt said. “And a falling out with a friend can have a huge negative impact.”
______
GOING STRONG
Sharing a tight office space could have been a disaster, but it was one of the best things that happened to Linsey Nogueira and Erin Manning, employees of Ketchum Public Relations Canada in Toronto.
“You get to know someone quite quickly when you can just turn your chair around and talk. We bonded. We have similar backgrounds, we're around the same age, went to the same PR school and have similar personalities. We became friends,” Ms. Manning said.
While the two had pals in common, they didn't know each other until Ms. Manning joined Ketchum about five years ago, a year after Ms. Nogueira started. The shared office space was a happy coincidence that lasted for about 18 months, until the company moved into new quarters and they got their own offices, but the friendship is still going strong.
The two regularly meet over lunch, and often check in with each other throughout the day on both work and non-work-related issues.
“It certainly makes it more enjoyable to come to work and have someone here who understands you and the office and the stresses of everyday life. Erin is honest and funny and supportive. And we trust each other,” Ms. Nogueira said.
There's also comfort in knowing that someone has your back, Ms. Manning added. “Who wouldn't want to work with someone who is also a close friend?”
The two agree that trust and respect are a big part of their friendship. And that makes for a safe environment in which they can confide in each other without worrying that it will end up feeding the office rumour mill, says Ms. Nogueira.
But the mates are careful not to let their friendship distract them from the work that needs to be done. “We're still professionals, we have clients and teams that rely on us. We realize we still have to do our jobs,” says Ms. Manning.
How would Ms. Manning feel if Ms. Nogueira left Ketchum? “I'd be devastated. I know that life goes on and the reality is we won't always work together, but it would be sad not to see Linsey's face here each day.”
______
HOW WORKERS SEE IT
The up side of workplace friendships
Creates a more supportive and friendly environment 70 per cent
Increases teamwork 69 per cent
Increases knowledge sharing and open communication 50 per cent
Higher job satisfaction 45 per cent
Makes employees more motivated 36 per cent
Reduces employee turnover 36 per cent
Creates a stronger commitment to the organization 32 per cent
Increases employee engagement 31 per cent
Increases productivity 30 per cent
The down side of workplace friendships
Feeds gossip 44 per cent
Create favouritism 37 per cent
Blurs professional boundaries 37 per cent
May cause others to feel uncomfortable 26 per cent
Reduces productivity 22 per cent
Reduces constructive feedback or openness 19 per cent
Source: Ipsos Reid/Randstad U.S., 2010 survey of 1,017 American workers
______
MANAGING OFFICE FRIENDSHIPS
1. Take it slowly. It takes time to develop trusting relationships with colleagues.
2. Set boundaries. Refrain from revealing characteristics and details about your personal life, which could haunt you later.
3. Be professional. Try to remain fair and objective in all your workplace activities and decisions. Remember your work has to triumph over friendship.
4. Keep a lid on workplace socializing. Don't turn a brief water-cooler chat into a marathon gab session. Limit cubicle banter that could distract and irritate others. Save those conversations for lunch or drinks after work.
5. Be inclusive . If you're going for coffee or lunch with a co-worker, consider inviting others to join you.
Source: Sandra Robinson, professor of organization behaviour at University of British Columbia's Sauder's School of Business, and Antoinette Blunt, president of Ironside Consulting Services Inc.
______
THE NUMBERS
38
Percentage of employees who say they have colleagues they consider personal friends with whom they interact inside and outside of work
32
Percentage of workers who describe their socializing with co-workers as strictly workplace friendships
17
Percentage of workers who say their work friendships are a matter of necessity or convenience
67
Percentage of workers who say having friends at work makes their job more fun and enjoyable
55
Percentage of employees who say friends at work make their job more worthwhile and satisfying.
49
Percentage of managers who say they encourage the development of workplace friendships
29
Percentage of workers who feel their workplace supports workplace friendships
11
Percentage of workers who say they would sweep a friend's mistake at work under the rug
6
Percentage who said that if a friend at work were laid off, it would affect their decision to stay with the company.
57
Percentage of managers who said productivity improves when co-workers are friends outside of the office.
Sources: Ipsos Reid/Randstad U.S., 2010 survey of 1,017 American workers; Accountemps, 2007 survey of 150 U.S. senior managers
______
HOW COMPANIES CAN HELP SPARK WORKPLACE FRIENDSHIPS
1. Provide opportunities for employees to connect with each other formally and informally by hosting interdepartmental activities, for example, or offering mentoring opportunities and social functions.
2. Create an environment that encourages socializing; set up conversation areas where staff can chat.
3. Don't automatically squelch cubicle chit-chat. As long as employees get the work done, give them a little leeway for fraternizing.
4. Encourage playfulness. Let employees decorate their cubicles, play the occasional foosball game and otherwise joke, laugh and have fun. Social play often leads to stronger friendships among staff.
Source: Sandra Robinson, professor of organization behaviour at UBC's Sauder's School of Business Special to The Globe and Mail
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Reading people is the real competitive advantage - Avner Mandelman
Before I switched to investing I used to be an engineer, so for a long while I had the engineer’s bias for data: The more of it I had, the better investments I’d find. So I collected documents, numbers, graphs, filings, and created my own databases and also subscribed to commercial ones – all of which I browsed happily. It went well. But one day something happened that made me realize an important part of business couldn’t be captured in text and numbers. This was when Steve Jobs recruited John Sculley to Apple.
Because then-small Apple was growing fast, Steve Jobs saw that he needed seasoned management. So he went straight to the top – John Sculley, president of PepsiCo, a Fortune 500 company – and tried to recruit him. At first Mr. Sculley scoffed, but Mr. Jobs was persistent; little by little Mr. Sculley wavered, but still wouldn’t decide. Finally, Mr. Jobs asked him, disdainfully, “Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world?” Within a day Mr. Sculley came over, and Silicon Valley was amazed: How did Mr. Jobs manage it?
It was then that I realized there’ll always be a crucial part of business my databases will miss: The ability of the magician-in-chief (aka the CEO) to “walk boldly into men’s hearts” (in Akira Kurosawa’s words from his film Kagemusha) and rev them up.
I recalled that in the good companies I followed, employees’ hearts were usually revving and sparkling, while in the mediocre ones, they were idling and sputtering. The real engine of business, it seemed, was not just the human brain but also the human heart. Choosing the best brains may have been all the rage, but what about setting the attendant hearts aflame? If the first was science, the second was magic. So, by default, picking magic stocks was partly picking magicians.
Now, let’s pause here, because you might rightly object that, as a value investor, if the price-to-book value, the price-to-earnings ratio, the enterprise value to EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization), and the debt-to-equity ratio are all low, why should I waste time on how employees feel?
Simply because databases are open to every investor to see, and act on, so my competitive advantage using data alone is low; whereas if I can develop an eye for corporate magicians, I can get an extra edge in picking those who can light fires in people’s hearts, which would generate even stronger numbers in the future.
How can such people-picking be learned? Two ways: First, try to meet as many truly gifted corporate leaders as you can – in annual meetings, in informal settings, in corporate gatherings – and study them. Not merely with your brain; try to develop a gut sense of their emotional impact. This way, when you do due diligence on fresh companies, look for those with a similar impact, on both others and on you.
But second, since the number of great leaders you can meet face-to-face is small, read also about great men and women of the past, so as to develop the same gut feeling of what made them different.
Why, before Harvard and Stanford ever used the case method, Plutarch’s Parallel Lives (aka the “pasturage of great souls”) was used in studying what was then called wisdom (the Greek term for management). Or read Thucydides’s histories, or Xenophon’s, or any of the other recorders of greatness, and study how past leaders solved problems and how they got others to follow them, then learn to identify both the opportunities and risks of great leadership.
Oh, yes, there are risks.
At the time Mr. Jobs got Mr. Sculley to join Apple, I chatted about it with a business school classmate, an ex-psychologist who used her people-reading ability to put together winning venture capital teams, and to advise Silicon Valley corporate boards. When I marvelled at Mr. Jobs’s feat, she warned me that the way he prodded Mr. Scully into joining Apple also carried a future cost. Which cost? I asked. Well, said my classmate, Mr. Sculley just upturned his life to change Mr. Jobs’s disdain into approval; but he must also resent it, though he may not know it yet. So in future he must strive to get even with Mr. Jobs. And when he does, sell the stock.
I laughed at this offbeat prediction. But indeed within a few years, Mr. Sculley deposed Mr. Jobs in a Shakespearean boardroom drama; Apple almost disintegrated, and the stock plunged precipitously. None of this was readable in the databases. Mr. Jobs was then called back – at which point employees’ hearts revved again, and the company (and the stock) blossomed. This was not in the databases, either. I then understood that if I could ever read people like that, I could get a clear advantage – and so can you.
Thus, besides The Globe and Mail, The Wall Street Journal, annual and brokerage reports, and databases, you should also start reading the classics, take notes, then let your gut be your CEO-picking guide.
Because then-small Apple was growing fast, Steve Jobs saw that he needed seasoned management. So he went straight to the top – John Sculley, president of PepsiCo, a Fortune 500 company – and tried to recruit him. At first Mr. Sculley scoffed, but Mr. Jobs was persistent; little by little Mr. Sculley wavered, but still wouldn’t decide. Finally, Mr. Jobs asked him, disdainfully, “Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world?” Within a day Mr. Sculley came over, and Silicon Valley was amazed: How did Mr. Jobs manage it?
It was then that I realized there’ll always be a crucial part of business my databases will miss: The ability of the magician-in-chief (aka the CEO) to “walk boldly into men’s hearts” (in Akira Kurosawa’s words from his film Kagemusha) and rev them up.
I recalled that in the good companies I followed, employees’ hearts were usually revving and sparkling, while in the mediocre ones, they were idling and sputtering. The real engine of business, it seemed, was not just the human brain but also the human heart. Choosing the best brains may have been all the rage, but what about setting the attendant hearts aflame? If the first was science, the second was magic. So, by default, picking magic stocks was partly picking magicians.
Now, let’s pause here, because you might rightly object that, as a value investor, if the price-to-book value, the price-to-earnings ratio, the enterprise value to EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization), and the debt-to-equity ratio are all low, why should I waste time on how employees feel?
Simply because databases are open to every investor to see, and act on, so my competitive advantage using data alone is low; whereas if I can develop an eye for corporate magicians, I can get an extra edge in picking those who can light fires in people’s hearts, which would generate even stronger numbers in the future.
How can such people-picking be learned? Two ways: First, try to meet as many truly gifted corporate leaders as you can – in annual meetings, in informal settings, in corporate gatherings – and study them. Not merely with your brain; try to develop a gut sense of their emotional impact. This way, when you do due diligence on fresh companies, look for those with a similar impact, on both others and on you.
But second, since the number of great leaders you can meet face-to-face is small, read also about great men and women of the past, so as to develop the same gut feeling of what made them different.
Why, before Harvard and Stanford ever used the case method, Plutarch’s Parallel Lives (aka the “pasturage of great souls”) was used in studying what was then called wisdom (the Greek term for management). Or read Thucydides’s histories, or Xenophon’s, or any of the other recorders of greatness, and study how past leaders solved problems and how they got others to follow them, then learn to identify both the opportunities and risks of great leadership.
Oh, yes, there are risks.
At the time Mr. Jobs got Mr. Sculley to join Apple, I chatted about it with a business school classmate, an ex-psychologist who used her people-reading ability to put together winning venture capital teams, and to advise Silicon Valley corporate boards. When I marvelled at Mr. Jobs’s feat, she warned me that the way he prodded Mr. Scully into joining Apple also carried a future cost. Which cost? I asked. Well, said my classmate, Mr. Sculley just upturned his life to change Mr. Jobs’s disdain into approval; but he must also resent it, though he may not know it yet. So in future he must strive to get even with Mr. Jobs. And when he does, sell the stock.
I laughed at this offbeat prediction. But indeed within a few years, Mr. Sculley deposed Mr. Jobs in a Shakespearean boardroom drama; Apple almost disintegrated, and the stock plunged precipitously. None of this was readable in the databases. Mr. Jobs was then called back – at which point employees’ hearts revved again, and the company (and the stock) blossomed. This was not in the databases, either. I then understood that if I could ever read people like that, I could get a clear advantage – and so can you.
Thus, besides The Globe and Mail, The Wall Street Journal, annual and brokerage reports, and databases, you should also start reading the classics, take notes, then let your gut be your CEO-picking guide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
