[ad_1]
Myth 1: Competitive Systems and Bonuses Are Practical
To boost the productivity and performance of their employees, companies often rely on sophisticated motivation strategies, such as bonus systems. Or they stimulate the competition of ideas and reward more creative and efficient employees with opportunities for advancement or additional pay. This money influences employee motivation but only secondary, could be proven with countless psychological studies. But an atmosphere of constant competition also has a negative impact on the work ethic.
The study
Constant competition not only exhausts employees and spoils their work pleasure, it also leads to employee complaints preventing the other from progressing. This is revealed by a new study conducted by labor scientists at Kühne Logistics University in Hamburg. To this end, researchers around Susan Reh have investigated what so-called social disparagement in business, so subtle negative behavior towards colleagues. It starts with casual slogans, with "forgetting" to convey important information and go so far as to sabotage a career. The PhD student examined the comparative processes in the companies and the resulting behavior. For their study, they conducted various behavioral experiments involving more than 100 subjects and field studies involving nearly 300 people.
It begins with casual slogans and lasts up to the sabotage of a career.
Result: If the work climate is too competitive, competition between employees begins. In doing so, they sabotage not only bosses and employees with a higher reputation and status, but they also hinder the career advancement of colleagues who might overtake them in the future. According to scientists, sabotage attempts are particularly frequent in companies where there is strong competition among employees. Myth 2: Open Offices Promote Cooperation
The trend towards open and transparent offices rather than closed or at least clearly subdivided jobs is often supported by the argument that this is the case Encourage communication between employees and increase collaboration and ultimately productivity. It is quite possible that such a business architecture will save companies money, but the positive effects on communication with employees are a myth.
In trend: the employees of the landscape office. Photo: iStock
The Study
Economists at Harvard Business School showed in two experiments that the direct interaction between employees in an open structure decreases considerably. The researchers led by Ethan Bernstein and Stephen Turban followed 52 employees at the head office of a large company before and after the transformation of their workplace into an open structure for three weeks with a "sociometric badge" and a microphone and analyzed their electronic exchange. Thanks to the badge, the scientists were able to measure the direct conversations between the eyes. He showed that direct conversations have dropped by 70%, while their email usage has jumped 67% and their SMS activity by 75%. The employees worked in sales, development and human resources. Apparently, many employees prefer not to communicate directly in an open work structure. While countless studies have shown the negative effects of an open office on satisfaction and communication, Bernstein and Turban were able to objectively measure the nature of the exchange changed for the first time
Myth 3: Brainstorming in the Team is Creative
Have several ideas with better ideas than one is not just prevalent among companies. But in the business world, brainstorming is often stylized into a business model. Creative and less creative employees are integrated into the room, hoping to use them with the help of mind maps or other sophisticated methods to express a brilliant idea of the project, for the department, for the whole group. Indeed, while employees benefit from feedback and mutual learning, brainstorming in the group can produce more and better ideas that an individual is a myth.
Group work is at a disadvantage: brainstorming colleagues. Photo: iStock
The Study
American psychologists and creativity researchers Nicholas Kohn and Steven Smith of Texas A & M University explored the effects of brainstorming in 2012 and found that focus groups focus too quickly on an essentially suboptimal idea instead of opening up all the bandwidth. Three cognitive and group dynamic mechanisms are responsible for this. First, the so-called anchoring of the previous idea plays a role, a cognitive bias that prevents the emergence of other potentially better ideas. This effect is reinforced by conscious or unconscious group dynamics, which means that not all parties put their ideas on the table. Perhaps hesitant employees or subordinates hold back, adding that it is easier to search a group. And finally, the pressure to express ideas in plenary directly dampens the creativity of each employee. Older studies with students have shown that there are twice as many solutions to a specific problem when students work for themselves rather than in a group.
Myth 4: Your boss is intrinsically better
Expressed explicitly or thought only: The performance principle is the leitmotif in our business world. Above all, it also means that the employees with the best performance also have the best career opportunities and should therefore become the boss. Unfortunately, this is not the case. And it's not even about so-called soft factors such as the ability to network or even exchange and nepotism. Scientific research shows that even insignificant factors such as birth month and name have an influence on who can turn to the boss and who does not.
The actor Steve Carell aka Michael Scott is the boss of the successful American series The Office. (Video: YouTube)
The Study
Economists around the Canadian Maurice Levi showed in 2012 that even the month of birth affects the selection of CEOs of large American companies. The study showed that people born in June and July are disproportionate leaders. According to the researchers, this could have something to do with the fact that they were younger than their peers as children in their year. The names have a similar effect. Researchers led by US marketing professor Adam Alter also showed in 2012 that employees with simple names in law firms are reaching higher average positions than those with more difficult names. The Hypothesis: According to the researchers, people with more easily pronounceable names are assessed more positively. And finally, another study has shown that even in the rational world of the economy, irrationality influences careers: Researchers around Liran Einav, of the prestigious Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, showed that economists had a name earlier in the alphabet. have been more successful in their field, measured by their academic standing or the prices they have received.
(Tagesanzeiger.ch/Newsnet)
Date created: 09.07.2018, 11:43
Source link
