Motivating Salespeople: What Really Works

Sales executives are always looking for ingenious ways to motivate their teams. They stage grand kickoff meetings to announce new bonus programs. They promise exotic trips to rainmakers. When business is slow, they hold sales contests. If sales targets are missed, they blame the sales compensation plan and start from square one.

The finance organization, meanwhile, views the comp plan as an expense to manage. That’s not surprising: Sales force compensation represents the single largest marketing investment for most B2B companies. In aggregate, U.S. companies alone spend more than $800 billion on it each year—three times more than they spend on advertising. So naturally finance tries to ensure that comp plans have cost-control measures designed into them. Some companies offer flat commission rates so that compensation costs rise and fall with revenues. Others cap compensation once salespeople hit certain performance targets. Still others use bonuses to control spending by pinning salespeople’s quotas to Wall Street revenue targets. (See the sidebar “When Finance Calls the Shots.”)

When Finance Calls the Shots

But a few progressive companies have been able to coax better performance from their teams by treating their sales force like a portfolio of investments that require different levels and kinds of attention. Some salespeople have greater ability and internal drive than others, and a growing body of research suggests that stars, laggards, and core performers are motivated by different facets of comp plans. Stars seem to knock down any target that stands in their way—but may stop working if a ceiling is imposed. Laggards need more guidance and prodding to make their numbers (carrots as well as sticks, in many cases). Core performers fall somewhere in the middle; they get the least attention, even though they’re the group most likely to move the needle—if they’re given the proper incentives.

A Performance Curve for the Sales Force

Accounting for individual differences raises the odds that a compensation plan will stimulate the performance of all types of salespeople. In this article we will discuss how companies can do this to deliver greater returns on investment and shift their sales-performance curve upward.

Motivating Core Performers

Ironically enough, many incentive plans come close to ignoring core performers. Why does this group tend to be off the radar screen? One reason is that sales managers don’t identify with them. At many companies the managers are former rainmakers, so they pay the current rainmakers an undue amount of attention. As a consequence, core performers are often passed over for promotion and neglected at annual sales meetings. But this is not in the best interest of the company. Core performers usually represent the largest part of the sales force, and companies cannot make their numbers if they’re not in the game. Here are some proven strategies for keeping them there.

Multi-tier targets. A project that Mike recently worked on with a national financial services company shows that such targets help motivate core performers. At the company a major proportion of the salespeople fell into this category. In bearish months they almost always found a way to hit their targets, but in bullish months they seldom exceeded their numbers substantially. In an effort to nudge them upward, the company experimented with tiered targets.

The first-tier target was set at a point that a majority of the company’s sales agents had historically attained, the second-tier target at a point reached by a smaller percentage of the sales force, and the third-tier target at a point hit only by the company’s elite. All the firm’s agents were divided into two groups: The first was given targets at tiers one and three, and the second group got targets at all three tiers. The hypothesis was that tiers would act as stepping stones to guide core performers up the curve.

The tiered structure indeed had a profound impact. Core performers striving to achieve triple-tier targets significantly outsold core performers given only two tiers. By contrast, multi-tier targets did not motivate stars and laggards as much: No significant differences in performance were found for those segments.

These results suggest that core performers exert more effort if given additional tiers. Stars are presumably unaffected by the extra stepping stone because they view the top tier as attainable regardless of the number of targets. And the inattentiveness that laggards show suggests that they typically aim for and are satisfied with achieving the first-tier target.

Prizes. A research project that we’re both currently working on investigates how prize structures in sales contests can engage core performers. The problem with contests is that stars usually win them. Knowing this, core performers don’t bump up their own efforts. You can handicap contestants on the basis of their prior performance, which alleviates the problem to a certain degree. But that creates its own problem: What’s fair about core performers’ and laggards’ taking home the top prizes, if stars are left with lesser prizes or no prize at all?

Ideally, sales executives would design contests so that both stars and core performers would go home satisfied. This isn’t easy to do, but if you keep in mind that people are hardwired to adapt to their position in a social hierarchy, it is possible. The key is to offer gifts (not cash) for the lower-level prizes that can be seen as equal, or even superior, to the top-level prizes on some dimension. Suppose a prestigious golf vacation is awarded as a top prize and a local family getaway is awarded as a lower prize. The family getaway has a lower market value than the golf vacation, but core performers can adapt to their central position on the performance curve by shifting their preferences. They can rationalize their prize by saying, “I’ve golfed plenty lately—what’s important to me is spending time with my family.” We consistently find that core performers work harder and perform better in contests of this kind than they do in contests with cash prizes. Furthermore, their increased effort does not come at the cost of decreased effort from stars or laggards.

However, this approach won’t work if the gifts offered at lower performance tiers are simply lower-grade versions of those at the top tier. Core performers will never perceive 18 holes at a run-of-the-mill golf course as more desirable than 18 holes at a prestigious course. The lower-level prize must have some quality that the higher-level one does not. In this example, it was the local getaway’s family appeal that allowed core performers to remain engaged in the contest.

We’ve also seen that core performers near the bottom of their cadre are motivated by incentives designed to improve the performance of laggards. This happens because they fear falling into the lower category. Now let’s take a look at the incentives that work for the salespeople in that group.

Motivating Laggards

The low-performing group in a sales force is usually heterogeneous: It may include new hires in need of training and senior salespeople who have become complacent, as well as people who are simply less talented and motivated than their colleagues. Most laggard groups we’ve observed have members whose performance can improve if the right incentives are in place. The following strategies (which include both carrots and sticks) effectively motivate the “good” laggards to move up the curve.

Pace-setting bonuses. A current study of Tom’s looks at the most common carrot: the bonus. This study, based on field data from a Fortune 500 company that sells durable office goods, separately models the behavior of stars, core performers, and laggards within a number of different compensation plans.

The study found that removing quarterly bonuses from laggards’ incentives—and keeping only an annual bonus—would decrease their overall performance (as measured by the revenues they generate) by approximately 10%. The same change would decrease the overall performance of core and star salespeople by 4% and 2%, respectively. There is no downside to including quarterly bonuses. They help laggards contribute to the bottom line without detracting from the performance of other groups.

Pace-setting goals have been found to change the behavior of low performers in other domains, too; education researchers see similar patterns among students. Weaker students need periodic quizzes throughout the semester to keep them on track. In the absence of such mechanisms, they perform poorly on comprehensive exams. By contrast, strong students—like star salespeople—make an effort independently and have less need for intermittent goals.

Natural social pressure. Managers often mention that having a high-quality pipeline of new sales talent naturally puts social pressure on lowperforming salespeople. This is commonly referred to as the “man on the bench” effect, because it is similar to the pressure that second-string quarterbacks, say, place on starters in football.

In a current study, we measure the impact of bench players on the performance of existing sales teams. Using advanced econometric techniques, we compare districts with and without bench players. We’ve observed that salespeople in districts with a bench player perform approximately 5% better than those without one. The greatest increase in performance takes place in the laggard group. In the long run the overall increase in revenue easily outweighs the additional costs associated with hiring bench players.

When a company has a disproportionate number of laggards, it’s usually the result of sales managers’ reluctance to face a difficult transition period. Often managers are forced to make a trade-off between retaining chronic low performers and enduring vacant sales territories. Hiring bench players can help ease this transition.

Program-induced social pressure. Programs that put social pressure on laggards should be implemented with care. Successful programs are born out of rigorous pilot testing and are sensitive to the culture of the firm. When designed well, programs heighten laggards’ sense of responsibility to the team and motivate stars to help laggards out. They avoid demoralizing people.

One company we’ve observed puts laggards’ performance under the microscope by occasionally posting sales numbers in ascending order from laggards to stars (rather than the more conventional reverse order). Another company publicly posts a sign in its sales bull pen that lists each of its salespeople in one of three categories: starters, benchwarmers, and the penalty box. While this type of public display is relatively extreme, it seems to work within this company’s competitive and transparent culture. Wins are celebrated with ostentatious prizes, such as courtside seats for sporting events and leases for Porsches. Losses are taken bitterly.

Motivating Stars

Since stars represent the most efficient portion of a company’s performance curve, incentive plans should favor them. Yet in many companies sales commission rates are capped and winner-take-all prize structures dominate the incentives. A primary reason is cost control, driven largely by the finance department.

But are these practices rational? The simple answer is no. Executives who impose these cost-control measures encourage the same form of irrational behavior that Colin Camerer and his colleagues discovered in their study of New York City cabdrivers.

Camerer researched whether cabdrivers worked longer hours when more people wanted a taxi (“law of supply”) or quit for the day once they reached a certain number (“income targeting”). It wasn’t even close: Overwhelmingly, cabdrivers quit for the day once they reached their target. By placing caps on commissions when salespeople are hot, executives encourage stars to quit selling—just as cabbies go home early on rainy days, when their hourly earnings are highest. Companies would be better off if stars worked more intensively during times of high demand.

No ceiling on commissions. A recent study by Sanjog Misra and Harikesh Nair examines the impact of capping salespeople’s pay. They looked at the compensation plan of a large U.S. contact-lens manufacturer. This company stopped paying commissions once salespeople’s performance reached a quota ceiling. In response, the salespeople always held sales under the ceiling. By eliminating it and making other changes to the compensation plan, the company kept its salespeople motivated and increased revenue by about 9%.

Overachievement commissions. These are higher rates that kick in after quotas are met. For example, salespeople may earn a penny on a dollar with their regular commission rate until quotas are reached, but earn two pennies on a dollar on all sales above quotas. Tom’s research at the office supply company, mentioned earlier, proves the effectiveness of overachievement incentives. Removing them from a compensation plan would reduce stars’ sales by approximately 17%, the research showed. An overachievement commission rate can help keep stars in the field during the fourth quarter—often the period in which customers are most ready to buy.

Multiple winners. A study of Mike’s reveals that contests with multiple winners boost sales effort and performance better than contests with winner-take-all prize structures. And Noah Lim, one of his coauthors on the study, has done further work demonstrating that more (rather than fewer) prizes should be awarded as the proportion of stars increases. This finding suggests that executives should offer at least as many prizes as there are stars in a sales force. The reason is intriguing. Increasing the number of prizes in a contest increases the chances that a laggard or a core performer will win a prize in place of a star, which motivates stars to work harder.

On the whole, these results show that frugality toward top salespeople is detrimental to firm performance.

Shift Your Performance Curve Upward

Together, we have more than 40 years’ experience working with companies on sales-related problems. When we first meet with executives, we always ask which decisions they sweat over the most. Deciding how to compensate salespeople is invariably at or near the top of the list. When we follow up by asking whether they have enough information to support their comp-related decisions, they nearly always say no.

It’s time for that to change. We’ve reported here on research that reveals that salespeople at different points on the performance curve will respond to different incentives, and we hope that managers will think about the implications for their firms—and follow that stream of research as it develops. But there’s no reason to rely just on studies being done by academics. We hope that companies will develop their own field experiments and learn what works best for their salespeople.

The first step for any company is to get a clear understanding of its own performance curve. Ideally, this would be done through sophisticated econometric methods, but an approximation can be obtained as follows: If you simply calculate each salesperson’s performance against sales targets and then create a histogram of those data, you’ll have a rough understanding of whether your company’s curve is normal (mostly core performers, with about equal numbers of laggards and stars), laggard-heavy, or star-heavy. The shape of the curve will suggest which incentives will give you the most leverage. (If you have a disproportionate number of laggards, you’ll want to focus first on pace-setting bonuses and natural social pressure, for example.)

But remember, the existing sales culture can’t be replaced all at once. Rather than set up a whole new comp structure, you should form a hypothesis about one element of the plan—that your laggards would perform better with more-frequent pace-setting bonuses, perhaps.

Sales compensation plans that take into account the different needs of different salespeople—and that are based on real evidence rather than assumptions—will ensure that your sales department gets a significantly higher return on its investments.

BY Thomas Steenburgh - Associate professor at the Darden School of Business 

How to (Finally) Quit Your Job

As you wait for the elevator to arrive after another mediocre day at the office, you give yourself an all-too-familiar pep talk. "I'm better than this, and I've completely had it with this job," you tell yourself. "I'm outta here for good."

As you ride the elevator to the lobby, you visualize your last day at the company. You fantasize about walking into your manager's office, tabling your resignation letter, and cleaning your forsaken cubicle for the final time. You flash your trapped colleagues a half-sympathetic smile, but you're barely able to contain your excitement at the new direction you're about to take. By the time you exit the elevator to the ground floor, the fantasy ends, and your once-slumped shoulders suddenly stiffen with resolve. You're actually going to resign tomorrow!

Does this sound familiar to you? If so, did you end up quitting like you knew you should have? Chances are, the answer is no. Since writing "Why You Won't Quit Your Job" earlier this year, I've been inundated with all kinds of public feedback, personal stories, and follow-up questions from people looking to overcome the psychological biases that trap them in unsatisfying roles and prevent them from doing work that matters. While these senior executives, 20-something bankers, and mid-career marketers, analysts, and lawyers all knew that they wanted to leave their current roles, executing their plan proved to be a perennially insurmountable challenge. In fact, the most common question I got was, "How can I overcome the hurdles to quitting and actually quit?"

Here's the cold truth: Deciding you want to quit is usually just the first move in a sometimes long and arduous cerebral chess match you'll play with yourself. The reasons that over 70% of Americansstay in jobs they hate might surprise you. I've found that people's inability to quit their current roles had little to do with the perceived riskiness of their new professions, their financial situation, or general economic conditions. The real barrier for most of us is not external. It's our own psychology: We overthink decisions, fear eventual failure, and prioritize near-term, visible rewards over long-range success.

So how are the smart and savvy ones able to break free? After conducting a series of follow-up interviews with my original research subjects — the late 20- and early 30-something professionals I studied while writing both Passion & Purpose and my previous post on this topic — three takeaways stood out that explained how those individuals were able to overcome the psychological barriers and finally quit with conviction.

Quit for a better long-term trajectory, not a quick win. The first step in making the leap is to recount your career goals and visualize a life-changing leap forward, not an incremental hop. One consultant said, "I don't want to be a serial quitter, so I'm very focused on the long-term goodness of fit." Why the emphasis on a long arc? Studies have shown that we overvalue near-term growth and are irrationally receptive to relative improvements in position. If you're looking to quit your job just so you can avoid that micromanaging boss or break free of a tedious daily task, you may be shooting too low. Quitting your job for minor improvements could leave you equally dissatisfied a year in. To avoid this potential cognitive dissonance, take a longer term (5+ year) view of the professional mountain you actually want to climb. Map out what the journey might look like, and make sure you'll value its rewards. You get an average of 10 chances to quit in your lifetime, and each career step should bring you significantly closer to your true passions.

Quit after hitting calendar milestones, not performance-based ones. Once you accept that you've been conditioned to work inside a system of variable reinforcement schedules, you'll understand the power of timing your resignation around calendar milestones, not performance-based ones. For example, one analyst quit on his one-year anniversary with the firm, which "created a clean break in my mind, and allowed me to position my time as a one-year stint." If you wait until you've been rewarded with a "pellet" — commendations, promotions, or other rewards — you'll risk catching a case of adaptive preference formation, the phrase psychologists use to describe how our preferences unconsciously shift with changes in context. Put simply, you'll look at your job with gentler eyes after receiving that big-time bonus ("Maybe this isn't so bad after all!"), and before you know it, you've talked yourself into staying until your boss drops the next pellet. How do you avoid this endless cycle? Commit beforehand to quit on a particular date, not after a reward.

Quit discreetly and avoid the Facebook fireworks. While it may feel gratifying to post a dramatic Facebook status update announcing your departure, hold back until you put proper roots down in your new role. Changing jobs or starting a company both contain different elements of risk, and if you falter or fail, word will spread fast (thanks, social media). Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, psychologists agree that social recognition is a crucial component of happiness, and you don't need your friends and connections gossiping behind your back at an already tense (but hopefully exciting!) time. One banker summed it up: "I don't want to rub it in people's faces. I'll keep it on the down-low until I know my new job fits." Offset the social pressure and quit quietly. Settle into your new role privately, and gradually update your friends in person, not over Facebook. If you don't share it, they can't spread it!

By Daniel Gulati

Tips to Extend a Job Offer and Handle Negotiations

Finding the right talent for an open position can evoke a sense of relief, but many managers may still have butterflies in their stomach until the candidate's decision to join is solidified.

Before the deal is set in stone, managers must extend an offer and handle salary negotiations. On the one hand, it's important to avoid overpaying for new talent; on the other, managers don't want to lose highly qualified candidates because of contentious salary negotiations.

Here are some steps that can help:

1. Research:

Today's job seekers take full advantage of the Internet to know their market value. Hiring managers need to be just as prepared by spending the time to research compensation trends to ensure their offers are competitive with similar positions at other firms. Salary surveys and professional association and government reports can be useful resources.

2. Be Personal:

Managers should schedule a face-to-face meeting to present the offer. This gives the opportunity to discuss the finer points and to answer questions from candidates. It also allows leaders to sell applicants on the benefits of joining the company. For instance, they can talk about unique perks or the employee-friendly work environment.

3. Have a flexible mindset:

Even if managers do their research and make a competitive offer, in some cases candidates may still ask for a higher amount. If the company isn't able to match a promising contender's salary expectations, there is still a chance of finalizing a deal.

Often, if a company can't meet the salary needs of a job seeker, there are ways to bolster other aspects of the compensation package. For instance, the offer might be improved by providing additional time off, a performance-based bonus after a specific period of time or flexible work hours. Many applicants will overlook a lower salary if concessions are made in other areas.

4. Know when it won't work out:

While managers should have a flexible mindset entering negotiations, they need to be careful not to go overboard attempting to secure top candidates. One point to bear in mind: if they exceed already established pay ranges, current employees might find out and the morale of others may be damaged if they learn a new hire is earning more than they are.

If applicants are hesitant to accept an offer, managers should inquire about the source of the problem and make reasonable adjustments. If candidates truly are reluctant to join the team, however, it's better to move on.

5. Put it in writing:

If a successful negotiation is achieved, the details should be finalized in a formal agreement. This document should include the position title, responsibilities, compensation and any special arrangements, such as a six-month bonus or flex hours. This will ensure everyone is in agreement with the employment deal.

6. Provide ongoing support:

Next, managers should make an extra effort to welcome new employees into the group via an effective on-boarding process. On-boarding goes beyond traditional orientation programs and focuses not only on helping recent hires assimilate into the organization, but also ensures their success in the initial weeks and months. On-boarding is typically related to training, scheduled milestones, mentoring programs and interactive meetings where people can ask questions about key priorities.

Managers shouldn't wait until the first day of work to start on-boarding new hires; instead, they should send out as much information as they can about the company and its culture. It's also a good idea to call people prior to their starting date to be sure they have any additional details they need before joining the team. This will help ensure the hiring process runs smoothly from start to finish.

By Robert Hosking- executive director of OfficeTeam, a staffing service specializing in the temporary placement of highly skilled administrative and office support professionals.

Why Recognition Matters: Delivering More Than Retention & Engagement

HR pros know the standard rationale for employee recognition programs – increased engagement, productivity, retention and incremental revenue.

But as this has become the recognition mantra over the past decade, isn’t it time we call on recognition programs to do more?

Executives know (and buy into) all the aforementioned benefits, but given today’s economic realities where there is still a call to do more with less, funding for non-cash compensation is attracting higher levels of scrutiny.

HR needs to turbo charge the recognition business case and demonstrate that programs set the stage for continued optimization of the organization’s number one resource (and in many cases expense) – its people.

Recognition planners today must show how their programs are:

1. Promoting employee cooperation and collaboration;
2. Igniting personal innovation; and,
3. Uncovering best practices that can be shared and duplicated for economic gain across the enterprise.

An information-sharing corporate culture

The austere economic conditions stoked during the Great Recession and now integral to today’s “new normal,” have negatively influenced some corporate cultures and will continue to influence knowledge worker behaviors unless proactive action is taken.

Constructive corporate cultures encourage employee idea creation and idea sharing and align corporate strategy with behavioral expectations. It gives employees clarity and purpose and provides a framework for their contributions.

In these positive environments workers are more likely to trust their managers and coworkers and are more prone to share information and ideas freely and contribute discretionary effort toward shared outcomes more willingly. They work together and collaborate for the betterment of the organization.

It is key for HR to take the pulse of their organization’s culture to determine if there are negative residual impacts from the recession. For example, have employees stopped sharing information as readily? Have they stopped willingly volunteering their time and talents for discretionary projects?

Promoting virtual, cross-functional collaboration

It is critical to correct these issues with programs that integrate silos and recognize and reward working as a seamless and coordinated group. Recognition programs can be used to motivate team members to share insights, information and experiences; to keep others informed on project progress; and to help others overcome difficulties – all critical to overall business outcomes.

Today’s knowledge-driven businesses are highly virtual, integrated and characterized by teams of cross-functional and, often times, geographically-dispersed workers. While enterprises have invested significantly in technology to help teams work together more efficiently, it is not enough to overcome the social limitations of this modern day work structure.

The cross-matrixed approach can blur conventional reporting hierarchies. Managers are often leading teams toward a unified goal but in many cases have no real say-so over the individual workers. However, studies show that leaders who acknowledge workers – even for the smallest contributions – get better results than those that do not. They provide a psychological safety net for new ideas and that feeling of trust, cultivated through the manager’s encouragement, has been proven to promote deeper participation and greater enthusiasm among knowledge workers.

Recognition programs can help make this part of collaboration easy. With intuitive and seamless recognition solutions, managers can easily encourage and reward contributions across collaborative teams. This approach results in better outcomes, higher levels of participation and workers are more giving of their time and talents.

Uncover and leverage “personal patents”

Traditionally innovation has been the purview of research and development departments and measured by patent filings and the subsequent commercialization of new products. But innovation does not need to be that radical to have value.

Engaged knowledge workers’ solutions to everyday challenges are an actionable potential source of competitive advantage. These “personal patents” oftentimes define the finest, newest – but often unshared – best practices emerging from within today’s enterprises.

Today’s recognition programs can help spotlight and promote some of these ideas internally to not only acknowledge the individual’s idea but help others adopt the new methods and motivate more employees to pursue and share new ideas of their own. Recognizing a good idea helps other employees benefit from it and can fast track it into the firm’s formal work processes. In fact, aBabson Executive Education poll revealed that employees working at companies whose leadership overtly rewards new ideas are 250 percent more likely to propose and develop business improvements on a regular basis.

HR executives who seek new ways to influence the efficiency and effectiveness of their talent with advanced recognition methods are well positioned to add greater value to the enterprise. At the core, recognition must have stronger alignment with the organization’s growth goals and to help increase the information flow, collaboration and innovation of today’s workers.

Those outcomes should be at the heart of any recognition business case.

By Mike Ryan - senior vice president of marketing and strategy for Madison Performance Group,

About DISC Profiling

DISC is about how a person behaves and prefers to give and receive information. It does not offer information on how intelligent people are, their background or experience. There are no good or bad styles, and people can be a blend of more than one.

The DISC Assessment is known for these communication and behavior types: D (Dominance), I (Influence), S (Steadiness) and C (Compliance):

• D: How a person responds to problems and challenges. This style is a bottom-line organizer, forward-looking, challenge-oriented, initiates projects and is innovative.
• I: How a person influences people and contacts. This style is optimistic, enthusiastic, creative at problem solving, team oriented and can negotiate conflict.
• S: How a person responds to pace and consistency. This style is dependable, team oriented, patient, empathic, logical, loyal and will support a leader and a cause.
• C: How a person responds to procedures and compliance. This style maintains high standards, is conscientious, clarifies information and tests out directives, asks the right questions and focuses on task completion.

DISC is a group of psychological inventories developed by John Geier, and others, and based on the 1928 work of psychologist William Moulton Marston and the original behavioralist Walter V. Clarke and others

DISC proponents believe that characteristics of behavior can be grouped into these four major "behavior styles" and they tend to exhibit specific characteristics common to that particular style. All individuals possess all four, but what differs from one to another is the extent of each.

The assessments classify four aspects of behavior by testing a person's preferences in word associations. DISC is an acronym for:

• Dominance – relating to control, power and assertiveness

(Note: Sometimes the word Drive is used in place of Dominance)

• Inducement – relating to social situations and communication

(Note: Sometimes the word Influence is used in place of Inducement)

• Submission – relating to patience, persistence, and thoughtfulness

(Note: Sometimes the word Steadiness is used in place of Submission)

• Compliance – relating to structure and organization(Note: Sometimes the words Caution or Conscientiousness are used in place of Compliance)

These four dimensions can be grouped in a grid with "D" and "I" sharing the top row and representing extroverted aspects of the personality, and "C" and "S" below representing introverted aspects. "D" and "C" then share the left column and represent task-focused aspects, and "I" and "S" share the right column and represent social aspects. In this matrix, the vertical dimension represents a factor of "Assertive" or "Passive", while the horizontal dimension represents "Open" vs. "Guarded".

• Drive: People who score high in the intensity of the "D" styles factor are very active in dealing with problems and challenges, while low "D" scores are people who want to do more research before committing to a decision. High "D" people are described as demanding, forceful, egocentric, strong willed, driving, determined, ambitious, aggressive, and pioneering. Low D scores describe those who are conservative, low keyed, cooperative, calculating, undemanding, cautious, mild, agreeable, modest and peaceful.
• Influence: People with high "I" scores influence others through talking and activity and tend to be emotional. They are described as convincing, magnetic, political, enthusiastic, persuasive, warm, demonstrative, trusting, and optimistic. Those with low "I" scores influence more by data and facts, and not with feelings. They are described as reflective, factual, calculating, skeptical, logical, suspicious, matter of fact, pessimistic, and critical.
• Steadiness: People with high "S" styles scores want a steady pace, security, and do not like sudden change. High "S" individuals are calm, relaxed, patient, possessive, predictable, deliberate, stable, consistent, and tend to be unemotional and poker faced. Low "S" intensity scores are those who like change and variety. People with low "S" scores are described as restless, demonstrative, impatient, eager, or even impulsive.
• Compliance: People with high "C" styles adhere to rules, regulations, and structure. They like to do quality work and do it right the first time. High "C" people are careful, cautious, exacting, neat, systematic, diplomatic, accurate, and tactful. Those with low "C" scores challenge the rules and want independence and are described as self-willed, stubborn, opinionated, unsystematic, arbitrary, and unconcerned with details.

Learning Trend: Going Back to the Future

After more than 10 years of studying the learning industry in great detail, it's hard not to see patterns. This year, as Bersin & Associates finishes its third biannual High-Impact Learning Organization research study, I see some trends that go back to the future.

First, as we all know, the learning industry has changed dramatically in the last few years. Companies are flooded with content, video and tools for sharing information. This has dramatically changed the nature of learning programs, making them less formal, more continuous, more social and more mobile. Our research shows organizations that spend time understanding new media are developing learning programs faster, delivering more impact and creating more compelling learning experiences. But we also see several important retro trends emerging. These include:

1. Increasing centralization:

Years ago companies built corporate universities, and then e-learning started to take hold and small learning groups proliferated throughout the organization. These small groups got big - customer education, sales training, manufacturing, compliance. But in the last few years, driven by the recession and the need to re-skill and on-board workers, these groups are getting stitched back together. Companies such as Citibank, Pfizer, Merck, Deloitte, Accenture and Xerox are building more centralized learning teams again, focused on creating alignment, reducing costs and creating an integrated development experience for all employees.

2. A refocus on leadership development:

Leadership development has been the first or second learning program in companies for years, and now it is on the front burner. Why? The very definition of leadership has changed. Today's high-performing leader is more of a coach, expert and inspiring team builder. AT&T's new leadership development program trains 80,000 professionals around the organization, reflecting the fact that in today's business environment, we are all leaders in some way.

3. Fixing the learning technology infrastructure:

Unfortunately, after almost 15 years of research and development in the corporate LMS market, the industry is a mess again. Two of the biggest LMS vendors were recently acquired by ERP providers - SAP and Oracle - another of the biggest went private - SumTotal - and most of the remaining LMS vendors are small or have been gobbled up by talent management companies. Saba and Cornerstone are the only remaining public LMS vendors that have not completely lost focus on innovation in this market, and now there are dozens of exciting start-ups. These new companies have social learning platforms, collaboration systems, self-authoring tools and exciting mobile products. So, most corporate learning departments are once again forced to rethink their learning platform and how to stitch it together.

4. Figuring out how to measure impact:

I've always been amazed at how hard companies work to quantify the impact of their L&D programs. Our High-Impact Learning Organization study this year showed that CLOs' top challenge is measuring the impact of their programs. In most cases we find this is the wrong question. We want to measure the impact of training, but we need to go further and measure the effectiveness of everything HR does so we can focus our energies in the right direction.

5. Gaining top-level support:

This year's research shows that once again L&D teams feel a lot of pressure to gain more high-level support. The expectations for learning are greater than ever now - Lloyd's of London recently surveyed 500 CEOs, and they cited lack of skills as their No. 2 risk, higher than risk of sovereign credit, floods, earthquakes and cyber-terrorism. So L&D is taking on more importance than ever, yet L&D leaders feel unsupported. This is always going to be true to some degree, since many business leaders still don't understand the importance of building a learning culture.

The good news is we have made a lot of progress. Many companies are now heavily focused on building a complete learning culture and integrating L&D programs into development planning, leadership culture and end-to-end talent management. And today's training programs are more fun, engaging and complete than they were 10 years ago.

By Josh Bersin | Chief Learning Officer - Bersin & Associates

The Role of Followers in Leadership Development

One of the most important things for leaders to possess is the belief that their strategy sets them up to win in the marketplace. Common sense would ask: How can leaders who don't believe in their own strategy possibly get their employees on board? How can leaders create active, engaged, committed followers if they, themselves, don't believe in the strategies?

Traditionally, leaders tend to fall back on the ways they were managed as they rose through the ranks - often centering around three F's; facts, fears and force:

a) Convey the facts that should motivate people to change.
b) Instill fear as a motivation tactic, which often sounds like ''get on board, or else.''
c) Flat out force people to do what needs doing.

People don't resist change, but they do resist being changed by someone else. In Alan Deutschman's book Change or Die, he poses the question, ''Could you change when your life depends on it?'' Deutschman illustrates how even people in the United States who undergo coronary bypass graft or angioplasty surgery fail to change their lifestyles afterwards. There are few crises as threatening as heart disease and few fears as intense as the fear of death, but even those things can fail to motivate people to change. According to Deutschman, people won't change because of facts, fear or force, even in the case of their own life. So, why would they at work?

Simply put, leadership means charting a course and people voluntarily deciding it's an adventure they want to go on. It's motivating and inspiring people to want to be part of something bigger than themselves, go on a journey, make a significant impact and feel a sense of belonging. Are we all so focused on leadership that we have forgotten about followership?

A New Hope

In today's fast-paced global economy, the onus is on leaders to adjust traditional tactics and focus on creating motivated, involved, fulfilled followers who can help them drive change and achieve company goals. If they don't, they risk higher turnover, lower productivity, limited or nonexistent growth and a general malaise across the organization.

Relating to how people feel is vital to inspiring change. Hope for followers lies with the realization that leaders care enough, are insightful enough and are connected enough to know what it's like to be the follower. A new sense of hope and power among followers begins with leaders listening to and showing respect for their people's opinions and feelings. This requires that leaders:

a) Empathize first; share that you know what it's like to be a follower.

b) Inspire confidence in people that they can change.

c) Create an organizational expectation that we will change.

d) Build a belief that we all have the ability to determine our own fate.

There are several ways to create effective followership in organizations. One is the use of visual sketches to achieve understanding and connection between leaders and followers. Visually presenting issues that lie at the center of what must be addressed for the organization to move forward can be groundbreaking for people at every level of the organization.

By creating a common mental model of an organization's existing state of affairs and its desired future state of affairs, managers and individual contributors alike can understand the big picture, their role in that picture, and how their work can impact the move forward. With this, people may more readily form an emotional relationship with leaders they see as having taken the time to create a new view of the organization, empowering them to see how they can contribute to that.

In the end, what employees want is basic. It's what we all want in life. And, it's what makes for the best followers, which, in return, makes the best leaders. People want to be part of something bigger than themselves; to feel a sense of belonging; to go on a meaningful journey; and to know they are making a significant impact and difference in the life of another person.

The end result of focusing on followers is that everyone is in the game and knows exactly what they have to do to win. And when leaders look in the rearview mirror, they will see dedication and enthusiasm as their team voluntarily charges on. 

By Jim Haudan | Chief Learning Officer [About the Author: Jim Haudan is CEO and chairman of consultancy Root Learning.]

Six Keys to Being Excellent at Anything

Six keys to achieving excellence are:

1. Pursue what you love. Passion is an incredible motivator. It fuels focus,
resilience, and perseverance.

2. Do the hardest work first. We all move instinctively toward pleasure and
away from pain. Most great performers, Ericsson and others have found,
delay gratification and take on the difficult work of practice in the mornings,
before they do anything else. That's when most of us have the most energy
and the fewest distractions.

3. Practice intensely, without interruption for short periods of no longer than
90 minutes and then take a break. Ninety minutes appears to be the
maximum amount of time that we can bring the highest level of focus to any
given activity. The evidence is equally strong that great performers practice
no more than 4 ½ hours a day.

4. Seek expert feedback, in intermittent doses. The simpler and more
precise the feedback, the more equipped you are to make adjustments. Too
much feedback, too continuously can create cognitive overload, increase
anxiety, and interfere with learning.

5. Take regular renewal breaks. Relaxing after intense effort not only
provides an opportunity to rejuvenate, but also to metabolize and embed
learning. It's also during rest that the right hemisphere becomes more
dominant, which can lead to creative breakthroughs.

6. Ritualize practice. Will and discipline are wildly overrated. As the
researcher Roy Baumeister has found, none of us have very much of it. The
best way to insure you'll take on difficult tasks is to build rituals — specific,
inviolable times at which you do them, so that over time you do them
without having to squander energy thinking about them.


by Tony Schwartz

Less-Confident People Are More Successful

There is no bigger cliché in business psychology than the idea that high self-confidence is key to career success. It is time to debunk this myth. In fact, low self-confidence is more likely to make you successful.

After many years of researching and consulting on talent, I've come to the conclusion that self-confidence is only helpful when it's low. Sure, extremely low confidence is not helpful: it inhibits performance by inducing fear, worry, and stress, which may drive people to give up sooner or later. But just-low-enough confidence can help you recalibrate your goals so they are (a) more realistic and (b) attainable. Is that really a problem? Not everyone can be CEO of Coca Cola or the next Steve Jobs.

If your confidence is low, rather than extremely low, you stand a better chance of succeeding than if you have high self-confidence. There are three main reasons for this:

1. Lower self-confidence makes you pay attention to negative feedback and be self-critical:Most people get trapped in their optimistic biases, so they tend to listen to positive feedback and ignore negative feedback. Although this may help them come across as confident to others, in any area of competence (e.g., education, business, sports or performing arts) achievement is 10% performance and 90% preparation. Thus, the more aware you are of your soft spots and weaknesses, the better prepared you will be.
   Low self-confidence may turn you into a pessimist, but when pessimism teams-up with ambition it often produces outstanding performance. To be the very best at anything, you will need to be your harshest critic, and that is almost impossible when your starting point is high self-confidence. Exceptional achievers always experience low levels of confidence and self-confidence, but they train hard and practice continually until they reach an acceptable level of competence. Indeed, success is the best medicine for your insecurities.
2. Lower self-confidence can motivate you to work harder and prepare more: If you are serious about your goals, you will have more incentive to work hard when you lack confidence in your abilities. In fact, low confidence is only demotivating when you are not serious about your goals.
   Most people like the idea of being exceptional, but not enough to do what it takes to achieve it. Most people want to be slim, healthy, attractive and successful, but few people are willing to do what it takes to achieve it — which suggests that they don't really want these things as much as they think. As the legendary Paul Arden (ex creative director at Saatchi & Saatchi) noted: "I wantmeans: if I want it enough I will get it. Getting what you want means making the decisions you need to make to get what you want.". If you really want what you say you want, then, your low confidence will only make you work harder to achieve it — because it will indicate a discrepancy between your desired goal and your current state.
3. Lower self-confidence reduces the chances of coming across as arrogant or being deluded. Although we live in a world that worships those who worship themselves — from Donald Trump to Lady Gaga to the latest reality TV "star" — the consequences of hubris are now beyond debate. According to Gallup, over 60% of employees either dislike or hate their jobs, and the most common reason is that they have narcissistic bosses. If managers were less arrogant, fewer employees would be spending their working hours on Facebook, productivity rates would go up, and turnover rates would go down.
   Lower self-confidence reduces not only the chances of coming across as arrogant, but also of being deluded. Indeed, people with low self-confidence are more likely to admit their mistakes — instead of blaming others — and rarely take credit for others' accomplishments. This is arguably the most important benefit of low self-confidence because it points to the fact that low self-confidence can bring success, not just to individuals but also to organizations and society.

In brief, if you are serious about your goals, low self-confidence can be your biggest ally to accomplish them. It will motivate you to work hard, help you work on your limitations, and stop you from being a jerk, deluded, or both. It is therefore time debunk the myth: High self-confidence isn't a blessing, and low self-confidence is not a curse — in fact, it is the other way around.

By  Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

11 Essential Habits for Success

1. Identify your core values

What is important to you? Finding your core values may seem a bit off-topic when it comes to success, but creating goals that are in line with your values is key to creating intrinsic motivation. Sit and reflect on what you value most. Pick a handful of things and actually write them down. Remind yourself of your values every day, and reflect on whether you are honoring those values through your work.

2. Pick a goal (Focus)

Choose one goal to start. Something large enough that will give you a sense of accomplishment, while aligning well with your core values. Focus is key here. The more focused you are on one goal, the higher chance you have of success. If you spread yourself too thin, you might never complete your projects because they will take far too long. Believe me, multitasking isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

3. Set a deadline for success

Set a date for success. Identify when your hope to achieve your goal. Keep it realistic, while not giving yourself too much time. By setting a time limit, you are making the process more real. You also now have something to visualize in the next point.

4. Build the right mindset

Believe fully in your ability to achieve your goal. Visualize yourself having completed your goal in the exact time-frame you have chosen, although finishing early is also acceptable. You don’t need to consider the failures that will happen along the way. Success is inevitable. Others may think you will fail, don’t let yourself be one of them! (If you have trouble visualizing success, perhaps a fear of success is limiting you)

“Whether you think that you can, or that you can’t, you are usually right.” - Henry Ford

5. Consequences for missing your deadline

Set up negative consequences for missing the deadline. Necessity is the mother of all invention. If you can manage to keep yourself intrinsically motivated, that’s great. If not, this will help kick you into gear and keep your eye on the prize.

6. Weekly and Daily Goals (Plan)

Break down goals by week and by day, setting up a plan to reach your overall objective. Keep the number of tasks per day as low as you can, and focus on completing only your planned tasks for each day. If you find yourself done, pick the next thing from your weekly list. Do the hardest things during your peak energy level, which usually means doing them first!

7. Prioritize

Prioritize the tasks you have in front of you. Don’t always do the most urgent thing first. Pick the task that’s the most important. Sometimes these overlap, which is nice. By always accomplishing what’s most important, you are making clear progress toward your goal.

Also keep in mind that completing the hardest task first is a sure-fire way of increasing your productivity. If you put it off until later in the day, your energy level is bound to drop, and finishing the hard task will seem daunting and maybe even impossible. But, if you start off with the hardest task, when your energy level is high, you will have the focus and energy required to finish it off.

8. Take risks

Push yourself. Go out of your comfort zone. This is the best way to learn, and the best way to make progress quickly. If you’re looking for new ideas, being risk averse will not help. This takes a lot of self-awareness. Try and be conscious of when you are holding yourself back out of fear. Push yourself to be courageous, and take that next step.

9. Perseverance

Failure is inevitable when you take risks, which is what you’ll be doing if you want to succeed. By its very definition, the desire to succeed at something means you are risking failure. Many people tend to give up far too early. Don’t fall into this trap! Remember your mindset earlier, and visualize your success. Know it will happen. A failure is merely you working out the details, and learning what works and what doesn’t. Use failure. Treat it as a good thing, and march on!

10. Reflect

Take time every day to sit quietly and reflect on your values, goals, and progress made so far. Where have you excelled, and where can you do better. Is everything you are doing still lining up with your core values? Always look for ways to improve.

11. Learn

Never stop learning. Know what everyone else is doing, and what everyone else has done, and how they did it. Search wide for knowledge that might help you, and any inspiration that may do the same. Never think you have nothing to learn from others.


By Ramesh A Aditya - Director, Corporate Relations at NEHRU GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS

When Remote Workers Behave Badly

Interventions to overcome these behaviors become more challenging when employees are not physically present. The following five considerations can help manage difficult behaviors in remote employees.

1. Behavioral expectations must be clearly defined.
When face-to-face interactions are rare, visual cues and reinforcements such as rolling eyes or shared glances are lost. Visual communication technology can help, but it likely won't provide the nuances of physical reactions to inappropriate behavior.

Tip:
Provide remote employees with clear, direct information on acceptable and unacceptable behavior in writing, through video training and verbal feedback. Many organizations, including the Veterans Administration, provide online materials that detail appropriate workplace behavior.

2. Remote communication may be misinterpreted.
With today's brief text messages, emails and phone calls, a sender's intentions may be unclear or misunderstood. An abrupt email may seem arrogant rather than decisive. A long list of options may seem indecisive rather than seeking team input. Humor may seem rude rather than funny.

Tip:
Provide formal training and ongoing feedback on perceptions from written and verbal comments. Teach employees to start emails with brief, explanatory introductions - "I'm preparing my expense report and need clarification on one item" - rather than just sending a question: "What is the current mileage reimbursement?" Ending the email with a friendly phrase, such as, "thanks for your help," "I appreciate your feedback," or a simple "thanks" helps the reader's mood and prevents the reader from feeling like a servant.

Help employees effectively and purposefully use voice cues - inflection, pauses, pacing, volume - and carefully select phrases. One can alter tone or pitch to match intent while balancing volume or pace. For example, urgency can be relayed with a slightly higher pitch balanced with a slower pace to retain calmness and enhance the listener's understanding. Avoid relaying intense anger, such as a loud voice or nasty tone, as the listener may become defensive and stop listening. Nurture effective writing skills with constructive feedback; recommend wording: "Your part of the project includes getting details from the customer by the end of business on Thursday," works better than "you need to get numbers from the customer now."

3. Remote employees benefit from clear, direct feedback.
Employees in independent environments are somewhat isolated. They lack direction available in onsite environments surrounded by fellow employees.

Tip:
Be direct. The voice should convey understanding, but words should be direct. Telling an employee that he or she comes across as rude and aggressive may sound rude and aggressive, but the message is clear. Describe how difficult behavior interferes with work goals; offer motivation for change. Listen. Be a role model. Use techniques that promote sharing, such as open-ended questions, reflective wording and acknowledging phrases like, "I hear you."

4. Remote employees have to get used to increased flexibility.
An open work environment can be a blessing but also overwhelming. Difficult behavior may manifest due to a lack of constraints and grow if left unchecked. For example, if occasional angry outbursts are tolerated and not addressed, the frequency and intensity can increase and alienate customers and co-workers.

Tip:
Establish required actions as part of a job. Provide clear direction about required times to be available based upon customer needs, not as convenience to a supervisor. Appreciate and acknowledge flexibility but add rigor and structure to give balance. A more stringent approach than was used in-person is needed when behaviors disrupt accomplishing the organization's goals. For example, an employee interrupting telephonic team meetings with negative comments about the client and excuses for not providing an anticipated service needs immediate feedback from the team leader during the meeting, verbal follow-up after the meeting and written follow-up with descriptions of inappropriate and correct behavior.

5. Formal assistance can be beneficial.
At times, an employee needs more guidance than is available from a supervisor or colleagues.

Tip:
Verbally and in writing, remind remote employees of available resources, such as wellness programs, employee assistance programs, professional associations and interactions with colleagues through virtual or in-person meetings.

Managing difficult behaviors in virtual employees doesn't necessarily require special treatment - only special consideration.


By Barbara DeGray