The Personality Trait That Makes It Harder to Focus at Work

Woody Allen has never sent an email. He does not own a computer. (He admits to owning an iPhone, but only for making calls and listening to jazz while traveling.) After over 50 years in the film business, Allen’s daily routine hasn’t changed one iota: He still sketches out his script ideas in freehand on a yellow legal pad. And once the story starts to come together, he types it up on a 1957 edition Olympia SM-3 manual typewriter.

A recent study confirmed what Allen seems to know intuitively: In the modern workplace, neurotics can’t focus. Tracking the online activity of 40 information workers, an experiment conducted by researchers at UC Irvine, the MIT Media Lab, and Microsoft sought to understand how individual factors like personality and stress impacted a person’s ability to focus their attention.

The study honed in on two specific personality aspects, neuroticism and impulsivity. The academic definition of neuroticism, by the way, hews closely to the popular one, with some key distinctions. Neurotics do tend to be anxious, Woody Allen–like people; those who score high in this trait tend to be especially sensitive, and are likely to spend more time ruminating over their emotions than their non-neurotic counterparts. In the words of these researchers, neurotics are “prone to stress, report more daily problems, and tend to reanalyze prior events over and over in their minds.” The definition of impulsivity, as defined in this study, is simpler: It means, of course, that you lack self-restraint.

For two weeks, researchers tracked participants’ habits for all applications and online activity on their computers, logging both when they switched between applications (say, from email to Word), and when they switched activities within an application (such as opening up a new browser tab or switching between Word documents). It turned out that there was a strong correlation between neuroticism and a weakened ability to focus for sustained periods of time. The higher someone’s neuroticism, the lower their ability to focus for an extended period of time on a given task on their computer. This is because, or so the researchers theorized, focus comes with an opportunity cost: We all have limited attentional resources. And neurotics tend to spend a lot of time and attention focusing on the past — replaying conversations, worrying about that email they sent, wondering if they should have gotten the steak instead of the lobster.

It turns out that investing all of that mental energy in obsessing about everything but what is happening right in front of you can drain your attentional resources. With less energy and attention to spare, neurotics can have trouble filtering out all of the distractions that make it difficult to focus in the workplace. Perhaps less surprisingly, focus duration was also low for those people in the study who rated themselves as impulsive.

Past studies have also indicated that stress depletes our attentional resources. In keeping with this, the researchers found that how stressed out a person perceived themselves to be correlated strongly with a decreased ability to focus. This could be because being focused at work is itselfassociated with stress.

Of course, all the work we do at the office isn’t necessarily “focused.” Lots of the time we’re just on autopilot. In a separate study of 32 information workers, the same group of scientists (minus one) examined the rhythms of employees’ attention and online activity in the workplace. They looked at how frequently participants were in one of three states at work: focused, defined as highly engaged and highly challenged; rote, highly engaged but not challenged; and bored, not engaged or challenged. In a bit of good news, they found that participants reported being in the “focused” state most often. When people were focused, they most frequently reported being happy, but — in an unexpected twist — they also frequently reported being stressed.

Meanwhile, the participants also reported feeling happy while doing rote work, during which they very rarely reported feeling stressed. In other words, the participants experienced the greatest positive effect when doing rote work, rather than when doing focused work. The study authors theorized that this is because “when people are consumed by an activity, it can be either gratifying or stressful, depending on the context.”

Surprisingly, this finding questions the attainability of the much-touted “flow” state in the modern workplace. (Flow is a cornerstone concept of positive psychology, created by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi; it’s being fully immersed, energized, challenged, and absorbed by the task you’re doing.) As the researchers noted, “prior work in flow suggests that being in a state of flow causes people to be happy; however, our results did not find this to be the case.”

Could it be that the sheer cacophony of technology burbling on our computer screens makes flow of any kind impossible? Or is it that we’re all just juggling so many tasks that even when we finally get into the zone, we still feel stressed? These remain open questions as the studies cited here are fairly small. More comprehensive research will be required before we can truly claim to understand the unpredictable attention span of the modern worker. But as an admitted neurotic myself, I can certainly understand why rote work is the happy place of the overanalytical mind. If neurotics tend to feel stressed out in general, and being focused is a task that could add to that stress — even if it’s rewarding — then rote work is definitely the safer bet. Perhaps this might even explain the massive trend in adult coloring books: staying in between the lines as a form of self-soothing.

Origin : http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/10/neurotics-have-trouble-staying-focused-at-work.html?mid=facebook_scienceofus

Work Is Our Religion And It’s Failing Us

Work. The modern fetish. No previous age has been so enthralled, or longed for more, rather than less, work to do. No other people have imagined nothing better for their posterity than the eternal creation of more work.

Work sits squarely at the center: the enduring economic imperative, political mandate, source of morality and social identity. Some have claimed that work has become the modern religion, answering what theologian Paul Tillich called the “existential questions” we all have as humans. Robert Hutchins, legendary president of the University of Chicago, called the faith “salvation by work.”

This can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. As Max Weberobserved, the Reformation sanctified work as a spiritual end in itself. Gradually this Protestant “hard work” ethic evolved into the spirit of capitalism, losing its traditional religious supports to become a purely secular faith. As traditional faiths lose followers, the religion of work swells to fill the void.

However, as a faith, work is transient, based on a specific set of historical circumstances. Work may seem to be an eternal given, but what we experience as work is only a few centuries old; an emerging product of history, not an unchanging truth.

Of course, activities necessary to sustain life are fundamental. People have always had to eat. But work as we now understand it, as something abstract — independent of its particular forms (such as plowing, building, trading) — has a modern origin. Hunter-gatherer people had no such general word.

For most of written history, jobs as we know them as a place to go to, away from home and separate from ordinary life, were rare; aspirations, success, meaning, purpose, and identity were found largely in traditions and faiths.

It is only with the coming of the Industrial Revolution that work as we now understand it emerged, defined by specific modern characteristics such as being hired and paid, resulting in clear, and now fundamental, divisions of work and life.

Not only is this work a recent accident of history, it is flimsy and fragile. Our belief in the everlasting creation of new work to sustain eternal full-time, full employment is one of history’s all-time, fantastic utopian dreams. Even the short-term looks increasingly bleak.

Capitalism is built on a contradiction. There is the need to propagandize work to ensure a pliant labor supply, but there is also the drive for maximum profit, which ultimately means replacing as much human work as possible by cheaper machines.

Robot arms weld cars on a factory line at Kia Motors Slovakia plant in Zilina, Slovakia.

Assurances that new work will automatically be created as economies grow are less and less convincing with the approach of a new wave of computers, robots, drones and self-driving vehicles, all threatening what The Atlantic called “a world without work.” Few doubt that the vast majority of current jobs that involve doing the same things over and over will soon be replaced by computer algorithms.

More important, work is failing as a faith. Millennials depend less and less on their jobs as the place to realize their dreams, having found the overblown promises of work empty. According to a 2014 Harris poll, nearly 70 percent of U.S. employees are not “involved in, enthusiastic about or committed to their work.”

It’s not just millennials. Many others feel “betrayed by work,” having made it the centerpiece of their lives and a key source of happiness only to realize how dispensable they are when things go wrong, for example if they are passed over for promotion, sidelined or laid off.

People are turning to other, non-earning sources of fulfillment: volunteering, spiritual explorations, relationships, and to alternative venues such as their homes, community spaces or clubs for social and even economic exchanges. Writing in The New York Times, columnist David Brooks describes a shift of values from consumerism and ownership to experiences, a process that is giving life to the burgeoning “experience economy.”

Research from McKinsey found that over the past few years spending on experiences — such as eating out and traveling — had grown nearly four times faster than spending on goods.

The Woodstock Festival in Poland. People are increasingly seeking out experiences over consumerism.

The prospect of any religion’s failure is an awful thing for its devotees. Unlike most human beings through history, most of us have no idea that there may be life beyond work. We are unable to imagine, much less believe in an alternative.

There are, however, plenty of alternatives to work that are both more realistic and reliable. I have spent a good deal of my life trying to write a history of labor’s century-long fight for progressively shorter work hours, and the accompanying dream of what Walt Whitman called the “higher progress.” This was once the confident expectation that economic progress was paving the way to humane and moral progress. After providing for the material necessities of life, technology would free us, increasingly, for better things. Eventually we would have plenty of time for family, friends, beauty, joy, creativity, God and nature.

It seems unlikely that the U.S. government will lead the way; legislation providing a guaranteed annual income or limiting work hours seems exceedingly unlikely. What is more likely is that ordinary people, finding better things to do with their lives, will shorten their work hours on their own when they are able to afford it, gradually choosing to “buy back” their lives.

The results of the return of progressively shorter hours would be dramatic. Economists such as Monsignor John Ryan reasoned that progressively shorter hours will act to redistribute wealth — value now in the form of capital will gradually flow back to ordinary people in the form of time.

We all might reclaim ownership over more of our lives instead of continuing in thrall, sacrificing our lives for the profit of the ultra-rich. In this opening realm of freedom, equality might also be within reach; we all have the same amount of hours to live each day.

It would be reckless to predict a world entirely without work, However, it is reasonable to expect that work will eventually return to its historical set-point as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Work can be tamed, and made more of an adornment to life rather than its center. And the forgotten American dream of “higher progress” may be be reawakened.

Origin : https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/post-work-world_us_5afbe686e4b0779345d43a20

Touching Co-workers

Friendly or creepy?

Researchers at DuPauw University investigated whether people can identify emotions from the experience of being touched by a stranger on the arm (without seeing the touch). They found that participants could decode anger, fear, disgust, love, gratitude, and sympathy via touch at much-better-than-chance levels. The authors also provide evidence that participants can accurately decode distinct emotions by merely watching others communicate via touch.

Emotions that are communicated by touch can go on to shape our behavior. Studies have found that even if we have no conscious memory of a touch, like a hand on the shoulder, after a slight touch, we may be more likely to agree to a request, respond more or less positively to a person or product, or form a closer bond with someone.

Touch, by nature, is somewhat ambiguous and easily misinterpreted. At work, some people choose to limit social relationships. On the other hand, many have close friendships with co-workers and some date and enter into romantic partnerships with people they work with. Co-workers that want to express interest in one another walk a fine line between showing affection and demonstrating inappropriate sexual interest. My blog on office romances covers this more in detail.

The diversity of ethnicity, religion, personality, workgroup culture, and other factors makes the medium of touch even more complicated. What might be considered as a friendly greeting in one culture might be regarded as offensive in another culture. A pat on the back may be seen as supportive by one person and condescending by someone else. In his research, J.D. Fisher observed that touch is essentially a positive stimulus for the recipient to the extent that it does not impose a greater amount of intimacy than the recipient desires or communicate a negative message.

In one observational study of conversations in outdoor cafes in London, Paris, and San Juan, Puerto Rico, the number of casual touches was counted. A total of 189 touches per hour were recorded in San Juan and 110 in Paris. In London, there were zero touches. One would expect to find touch counts that vary significantly between work groups and work professions as well. I have a client with offices in Washington, D.C., and Miami. In the D.C. office, the majority of employees are from the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast U.S. The Miami office is comprised of employees from primarily Latin American countries. Whenever I visit the D.C. office, I am greeted by a polite handshake. In Miami, it’s a big hug and a kiss on the cheek. Neither greeting seems unusual given the cultural context.

Very little research has been conducted on touch in the workplace. The use of touch in the workplace has often been associated with negative outcomes involving harassment complaints and lawsuits. Unfortunately, the incidence of harassment complaints has not decreased over the last 20 years. While laws protecting employees from unwanted touch and other forms of harassment are necessary, in response, some people develop what researchers call “touch anxiety,” a form of walking on eggshells. This fear of touch can create an unnatural state of human interaction that can have a negative impact on morale and normal conversations, not to mention a reduction in productivity. Could there be a much more positive side to workplace touch?

One of the first major studies to examine workplace touch studied teams in the National Basketball Association. After reviewing broadcasts of games from the 2008 to 2009 season, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, concluded that good teams tend to be much more hands-on than bad ones. In the study, it was found that teams whose players touched the most often (slaps, hugs, taps, or bumps) were more cooperative, played better, and won more games.

In their book The One Minute Manager, Blanchard and Johnson suggested that managers are likely to gain a variety of benefits if they use touch to show employees that they care about them and are concerned about their success. They theorized that through touch, people communicate support and caring for each other, and thus feel safer and closer to one another.

There are workplace cultures where touch has been used so abusively that the social fabric of the organization has become toxic. In some of those organizations, it has been necessary to establish rules that forbid any type of touch. Some schools don’t allow teachers to touch students, and some workplaces forbid or discourage any type of touch between managers or employees. While these rules may be needed to protect people, they do nothing to change the culture, and in fact may be making it worse overall.

• Understanding that touch is powerful and complex, it is imperative to use it mindfully. To use touch wisely and positively at work, here are some thoughts to consider:

• Social context, relationship, gender, culture, status, and many other factors determine the appropriateness of touch. Each individual’s response to touch is unique. One person may appreciate a hug, while another will cringe with horror at the same behavior.

• Be mindful. Increase your ability to observe subtle reactions to a touch. If you hug someone as a greeting, and they tense up, pull away, or show a facial expression of surprise or fear, you know that person doesn’t want to be hugged by you. Even before you touch a person, if you observe deeply, you will pick up behavioral cues as to whether you should touch them or not. You might ask permission before a large tactile approach with someone you don’t know well.

• Never use touch to show dominance or intimidation. Certain handshakes or tight arm grasps are often the culprits here. This is likely to damage your relationship with the person to whom you are communicating.

• Separate your intention from the impact of your behavior. Your intention in touching someone may be to treat the recipient how you would like to be treated, or your intention may be to show support. The impact on the receiver may be very different. Notice the impact, and don’t get hung up on your positive intention if the person perceived the touch as negative.

• Apologize if you think you offended someone.

• If you are in a hierarchical position at work — for example, a person’s manager — recognize that your touch conveys a more powerful message, and be very mindful of your use of touch. Use it wisely to communicate support, encouragement, a celebration of success, and concern. Remember that other employees are watching how you treat others.

• When in doubt, play it safe. If you are not sure if touch is appropriate with someone at work, don’t do it. There are plenty of safe alternatives to making a warm connection. Use a genuine smile, give verbal praise, use an empathetic tone of voice, send a compliment in writing, or celebrate a success in a meeting.

What has your experience been with touch in the workplace, both positive and negative?

Origin : https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/threat-management/201709/touching-co-workers?utm_source=FacebookPost&utm_medium=FBPost&utm_campaign=FBPost

Can You Convince Your Boss To Pay You A Bigger Salary

Most of us would dearly love some more money in our bank account every month.

In fact, in a survey of US employees, one in three said they would look for a new job if they didn’t get a pay increase in the next 12 months, according to Glassdoor.com.

But pay rises are elusive and hard won. And, they're usually not as generous as we'd like. Of the 35% of UK employees who are expecting an increase in salary in the next 12 months, about half expect it to be 2% or less, according to Glassdoor research. In Australia, pay in 2015 is projected to grow by 1.65% on average, according to recruitment consultancy firm Robert Walters. “Pay rises exist, but they are modest,” said Kate Southam, a career coach in Australia.

“Since the global financial crash, there has been a change to the workplace regarding employment generally and pay specifically,” said Simon North, a UK career expert with career consulting firm Position Ignition. He points to organisations that are more uncertain about the future, the fact that there have been significant layoffs, and a bigger use of contract workers. “These elements have made getting raises at work less common,” North said. “Until recent months, wage increases have been between zero and very low. It is starting to shift upwards, however.”

If you think you’ve been doing outstanding work and you deserve better compensation, there are steps to take before you walk into your boss’s office. Here’s how it works.

What it will take: Be prepared to talk about why you deserve a raise, why you should get it now and how much you should receive. And, timing is important. You should also research and quantify how valuable you are to your company by looking at the market. “Don’t wing it,” said Lindsey Pollak, a US workplace expert and author of Becoming the Boss.

How long you need to prepare: Experts suggest preparing several months before you ask. “Getting a raise starts six months before, when you start standing out and adding extra value to your organisation,” said Alan Kearns, a career coach in Canada and founder of CareerJoy.com.

Do it now: Get your timing right. If your company is struggling or reorganising, it’s probably not the right moment to make a play for more cash. However, just ahead of your regular pay review, when your supervisors are starting to think about compensation, may be a good time. If there is no annual review, it will depend on your individual situation. “For example, if someone within your team leaves, you may take on more responsibility,” North said. “The projects you are working on may have a higher profile and be seen by the organisation to have greater visibility and value.” That’s a good time to broach the topic.

Don’t use your colleague as a crowbar. Salaries are more transparent than they used to be, and you might be aware that your colleague with the same job title makes more money than you. That doesn’t mean you should bring it up. Instead, refer to market rates for your job description and experience in your city. “Quoting that salary of a colleague as justification for your pay rise request?” Southam said. “So, so, so bad for your career.”

Research geographically. But, use caution when comparing your job with market rates, because salaries vary dramatically by location. “Salary sites can be helpful, but it’s often very hard to pinpoint by region or by company,” Pollak said. “Salaries in New York and San Francisco [in the US] would be very different from other places.” Local professional associations may provide information on salary benchmarking. As a starting point, however, you can check sites such as Salary.com in the US and Payscale.com and Glassdoor.com for salaries in a variety of countries.

Make your case. You must make a business case to back your pitch. “Where have you shown yourself to be of great value and a real asset to the organisation?” North said. “Use as many objective measures as possible. Show how your actions and initiative have saved the business money and drawn in extra revenue.” Have you taken on more duties since a colleague left? Did you lead the team that landed that lucrative client? Be able to point to your accomplishments and quantify them.

If possible, avoid complaining or using negative language. Times may have been hard for everyone. Maybe no one has been given a pay rise for three years. Stick to the good things you’ve done to deserve more money — and leave any personal reasons or negativity out of it.

Focus on the big picture. An improvement to your working life doesn’t have to be about the money in your bank account. “What about things like working from home?” Kearns said. “What about a title change? What about being sponsored on courses? There are all kinds of things you can negotiate that can actually have longer term benefits for you.” If your organisation is strapped for cash or you just don’t think more money is likely, consider asking for more vacation time or a more flexible work schedule instead.

Don’t bully. Maybe you’re prepared to leave a job if you don’t get more money, but there’s probably no utility in telling your boss that. “Never announce it ahead of time,” Southam said. “No one likes being threatened, including your manager.”

Be prepared for ‘No.’ If your boss turns you down, that doesn’t have to be the end of your discussion. Ask if your boss would be willing to reassess in six months. “And if I come back to you in six months, what would I have to have accomplished in that time to make you answer ‘yes?’” Pollak said.

Do it later: Keep building your brand. If you're not successful— or even if you are — keep excelling. “Do great work, because if you can’t get rewarded where you are, then you’re going to create opportunities for you for other options,” Kearns said. “And when you have other options, you have far more negotiating power.”

Do it smarter: Get yourself a mentor. One of the most helpful resources for your future career is someone in your industry with more experience than you. “This is usually not your boss, but someone in your organisation, perhaps of a different generation, a little bit older than you, who’s knows the ropes and who knows what’s appropriate,” Pollak said. A mentor can help you determine whether it’s a good time to bring up a pay rise — and how much to go for. “That can be very valuable,” he said.

Origin : http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20150710-how-to-ask-for-more-money