Beitrag von Antoinette Weibel

Next time you plan on exclusive talent management remember the GOLEM EFFECT: “The Golem Effect is a psychological phenomenon where low expectations placed on individuals lead to poorer performance. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy where negative beliefs about someone’s potential hinder their actual achievement.” This becomes particularly important if we consider how difficult if not impossible it is to judge potential. And this has also been validated in numerous field experiments. 😊 #hr #flourishing #performancemanifesto

Thx Donna Okell for pointing this out. My answer would be that now social and economic science need to get their act together. We have to swear off the Friedman dogma, accept embeddedness and explore how we can contribute to the needed social and business change. Also to lay better foundations for politicians to find better narratives and better ways to align and lead the coalition of the willing 😌🫵

LISTEN - DO NOT TELL This is one of my most favorite stories from Academia ever - the then leading #feedback scholar Avi Kluger decided in the new millenia to turn from telling to listening. With eyes wide open on the problems with feedback - for instance with the glaring lack of our ability to really rate, let alone rank others' performance - he unlike most scholars who cling to their paradigm took all his courage and started to look at listening instead. Listening he showed us many times is producing great benefits for the listend-to as well as for the listener: more learning on both sides, better relationship quality, more reflectivity and as he shows in this new meta-analysis also better performance. I have only one caveat to this great read - the effect on organisational performance will be clearly even higher. If we understand organisational performance as an emergent phenomenon then clearly all the advantages of listening will show up - recognized humans, better human- and social capital and probably a higher "Ba" as Nonaka called it in the knowledge creating company. Read yourself 👇🏻 and "The quality of listening in interpersonal contexts was hypothesized to improve a variety of work outcomes. However, research of this general hypothesis is dispersed across multiple disciplines and mostly atheoretical. We propose that perceived listening improves job performance through its effects on affect, cognition, and relationship quality. To test our theory, we conducted a registered systematic review and multiple meta-analyses, using three-level meta-analysis models, based on 664 effect sizes and 400,020 observations. Our results suggest a strong positive correlation between perceived listening and work outcomes, r = .39, 95%CI = [.36, .43],  = .44, with the effect on relationship quality, r =.51, being stronger than the effect on performance, r =.36. These findings partially support our theory, indicating that perceived listening may enhance job performance by improving relationship quality. However, 75% of the literature relied on self-reports raising concerns about discriminant validity. Despite this limitation, removing data solely based on self-reports still produced substantial estimates of the association between listening and work outcomes (e.g., listening and job performance, r = .21, 95%CI = [.13, .29],  = .23). Our meta-analyses suggest further research into (a) the relationship between listening and job knowledge, (b) measures assessing poor listening behaviors, (c) the incremental validity of listening in predicting listeners’ and speakers’ job performance, and (d) listening as a means to improve relationships at work." #freedomtoflourish Herman Aguinis Jeni Brown Jon Ingham Josh Bersin

Why don't you join us tommorrow to listen and discuss with Neel Doshi. Agile - so are we also arguing - alone is not enough. On the contrary if agile is used to instrumentalize humans, to create even more work intensification for the sake of profit, it will go awry as Neel argues in this short article: "Agile processes go awry, because as companies strive for high performance, they either become too tactical (focusing too much on process and micromanagement) or too adaptive (avoiding long-term goals, timelines, or cross-functional collaboration). The key is balancing both tactical and adaptive performance. Whether you’re an engineer or product manager, here are a few changes to consider to find this balance, so you can improve your engineering (or any) team’s motivation and performance." For those of you who want to learn more about total motivation join us tommorrow (details in the comment 👇🏻) Lindsay McGregor (first author) Jeni Brown Michele Zanini Enrique Rubio (he/him) https://lnkd.in/dax7r4GJ

NO MORE FEEDBACK …is the title of a great book of Carol Sanford I can recommend wholeheartedly! When i read it the first time I loved the way how she described how feedback invariably undermines our idiosyncratic powers to develop and grow (yes also to perform). It raisonated well with findings in the field of cognitive learning and with non behaviorist motivation theories. But it took me some time to understand the epistemic basis - and so it comes almost as an ironic support that even positivistic evidence suggests: no more ratings; they do hardly produce truth. But please get her book or read this article as a teaser: https://lnkd.in/dTmgeQAM And join us #freedomtoflourish M. Tamra Chandler The HR Congress Otti Vogt #manifesto

IT IS A TEAM PRODUCTION STUPID Why the heck did it take 25 years till we came back to this much better model of corporate governance? Why did we cling to Principal-Agent Theory and Milton Friedman despite its flawed assumptions and obvious negative real world effects? Well...but in either case lets go back to what Joseph Mahoney in his recent article explored with great insights (see in the comments): "Corporate personhood safeguards the going-concern value of the corporation to serve the joint interests of all stakeholders and not just shareholders. Under the team production approach, corporate board members are conceived neither as shareholders’ agents nor as agents of any other stakeholder, but rather as disinterested trustees for the entire corporate personhood. The interests of the corporation itself and its shareholders can be understood as a joint welfare function of all those making firm-specific investments and agreeing to participate and commit to this internal mediation process within the corporation." This is clearly a much better starting point!

A must also for those who ask for a more radical transformation: how far can his concept carry us?

Can purpose-in-law save capitalism, and will it find the necessary support? "We are encountering growing crises that derive from a misconception of the nature of business. A revised understanding of profit should lie at the heart of the purpose of the corporation, namely, that it derives from producing solutions not problems for others. Firms should not profit from producing problems for others. There is a limit to the extent to which either competitive markets or regulation can ensure that. Instead, it must be intrinsic to the purpose of the business and, in the absence of this, both markets and regulation fail. Furthermore, public policy in the form of corporate taxation and public expenditure can be used to promote problem-solving common purposes around shared prosperity. This has significant implications for business practice as well as policy." https://lnkd.in/d8C4gjbQ

WHAT PROBLEMS DO WE CONSIDER PROBLEMATIC? I am still preparing for our interview with Colin Mayer and ponder about his moral law which he translates for companies as: "we should only profit from producing solutions to problems of others and not profit from imposing detriment on others". On which he then, among other things, builds dashboard and metrics so that unjust profits become transparent and board of directors duty to navigate such a process becomes manageable. However, there is a general problem, which is not really explained (or I have not found it yet). What do we mean by problems and detriments? How can we make sure that we are not going on producing solutions for problems we just persuade people to have? And how can we ever agree on how to weigh the different detriments? In a paper of Dr. Katharina Lima de Miranda and Dennis J. Snower I found the following formidable challenge for such an excercise 👇🏻 - and I believe we have all witnessed this. It even becomes more hairy if we ask citizens and consumers to pay the prize for less detriments...or to avoid buying stuff they never needed but someone find out they should have needed.