People & Organisational Psychology News
1.0K views | +0 today
Follow
 
Rescooped by Barbara Lond from Genius
onto People & Organisational Psychology News
Scoop.it!

James Flynn: IQ may go up as well as down

James Flynn: IQ may go up as well as down | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
James Flynn, discoverer of the 'Flynn effect', explains why environment plays a major role in determining a social group's IQ levels...

Via Sandeep Gautam
more...
No comment yet.
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Barbara Lond from Psychology and Home
Scoop.it!

The Mind Does Not Belong in a Cubicle

The Mind Does Not Belong in a Cubicle | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
The Mind Does Not Belong in a Cubicle
8K Health : The Atlantic by Laura Smith  /  2d  //  keep unread  //  hide  //  preview
+Tag

A group of 16 people sits in front of large Mac desktops in clusters of three and four at a start-up in Brooklyn. Aside from the steady tapping away at keyboards, there is little noise. It’s six o’clock, and people just want to go home. With its open floor plan, casual dress code, and creative staff, this is considered a great place to work—but still there is something vaguely dissatisfying about the space, and it is not the only office like this.

In Cubed: A Secret History of the Workplace, released this week, Nikil Saval tries to put his finger on just where the office went wrong. Certainly an improvement on factory work and types of manual labor, the office remains “at once harmless and ominous.” Saval’s story centers on the question: “Why have the best intentions of planners and architects, designers and executives, fallen short of producing a happy environment for the American worker?”

Near the end of Cubed, Saval takes a tour with a Google representative who shows him Google’s juice bar and tells him that it is the Googlers’ favorite hangout spot. The rep asks Saval why he thinks this is so. “The juices?” Saval ventures. The rep points “to the floor-to-ceiling windows, letting in a glimpse of green and late afternoon California springtime sun. ‘It’s the proximity to nature,’ he said.”

Then, perhaps the reason office satisfaction proves elusive is because we don’t understand our primal biology. Ours is the age of the “knowledge worker,” in which people are paid to think. So what can we learn from the environments our brains evolved in—our original “workspaces”—the outdoors?

According to Cambridge’s Encyclopedia of Hunter Gatherers, “Hunting and gathering was humanity’s first and most successful adaptation, occupying at least 90 percent of human history.” The savannah was our original “workspace,” and though our world today hardly resembles our ancestral environment, our biological rules still apply. E.O. Wilson, the famed biologist who studies biophilia, said our inherent appreciation and longing for natural environments, explains that “beauty is our word for the qualities that have contributed most to human survival.” Waterfalls signify an abundant source of life, flowers signify bountiful land. We are wired to crave the natural world.

Stephen Kellert, a social ecologist at Yale, told me that our poor office design is a sign that we don’t see ourselves as animals, as having biological needs. “The measure of progress in our civilization,” he said, “is not embracing nature, but moving away from nature and transcending nature and becoming independent of our biology.” Kellert told me that he finds zoos ironic. We consider it “inhumane” to keep a gorilla in an indoor, concrete environment with no exposure to greenery or anything resembling its natural habitat, and yet we put ourselves in these environments all the time.

When humans were hunting kudu in the open savannahs, we worked in motion, engaging our whole bodies, reacting to changing scenery. In the 1960s, Robert Propst invented the Action Office. He conceived of it as a “liberation”: a desk nestled between three walls, which the worker could arrange to his pleasing. The worker could alternate between sitting and standing, foreshadowing today’s standing and walking desks. In Cubed, Saval writes, “[Propst] stress[ed] the danger to one’s mental and physical vitality, of sitting too long at one’s desk.” But Propst’s invention was not the liberation he intended. Executives saw the Action Office as an opportunity to cram as many workers into a hive-like formation as possible, eliminating opportunities for movement and making the spaces smaller. Today, we call the Action Office the cubicle.

Since the dawn of the office, people have been concerned with productivity and attention spans. William James, one of the fathers of modern psychology, posited that office workers would be faced with the enormous challenge of maintaining voluntary attention. He and others like him promoted work that fostered involuntary, or what they called “primitive,” attention. Today, a growing body of research suggests that nature promotes the kind of involuntary or primitive attention that James prescribed.

Eva Selhub and Alan Logan’s book Your Brain on Nature references a 2005 study in which people were shown photographs after performing a cognitively demanding task. Some were shown nature scenes, while others were shown urban scenes. Then the two groups were given another cognitively demanding task. Those who looked at nature scenes demonstrated faster reaction times and made fewer mistakes. Similarly, a study of over 100 schools in Michigan showed significant gains in academic performance on standardized tests in classrooms that had views of green vegetation. Most simply put, this research suggests that thinking is best suited to natural environments.

Additionally, viewing nature can alleviate workplace stress. The authors of Your Brain on Nature refer to viewing nature as “visual Valium” and cite some of the earliest examples of studies on nature’s chemical effect on us. By measuring cortisol levels of people who had walked in forests and comparing them with people who walked in urban environments, the Shinrin Yoku studies in Japan found that walking in forest environments reduced stress, hostility, and depression while improving sleep and vigor. Similar studies have found that even the presence of plants or natural images can have similar effects on stress levels. Additionally, nature has implications for office teamwork. A California study found that those who worked with desirable views of nature showed more activity in the opioid receptors, an area that when active, is known for causing people to be less likely to perceive themselves as stressed and more likely to form emotional bonds and focus less on negative memories.

The good news is that people are beginning to recognize the importance of incorporating elements of the natural world into the workspace. Stephen Kellert is currently retrofitting a 1.1 million-square-foot office tower in Midtown, Manhattan with plant life and gardens, natural ventilation, materials, shapes, and lighting. In another example of progressive office design, Patricia Fox, a London-based designer, premiered her outdoor office, which she dubbed “The Rooftop Garden of Tomorrow” at the Chelsea Garden Show. The rooftop office features lush greenery, WiFi, tablet charging stations, and a tea wall where office workers can pick their own fresh teas. She highlighted the rejuvenation that working in this kind of environment could provide and told me that she sees the model as scalable. Offices like hers could conceivably be built anywhere with a roof that could structurally support a garden.

At the end of Cubed, Saval visits “revolutionary offices” in places like Silicon Valley and Amsterdam that attempt to create a complete ecosystem, the suggestion being: Why would you leave? Everything you need is here. But when you wade through the workplace’s history, perhaps our most enduring desire for the office is to be there less. In Cubed, Saval references an 1880s pamphlet entitled “Blessed Be Drudgery” that argued that though office work was mundane, and though we might “crave an outdoor life,” culture and leisure could only be obtained through “our own plod … In one word, it depends upon our drudgery.”

Similarly, in Your Brain on Nature, Selhub and Logan point out that in 1965, a Time magazine cover proclaimed that in the future “the computer will allow man to return to the Hellenic concept of leisure”—an idea that is laughable today in a world where computers have blurred the distinction between leisure and work, creating a life punctuated by constant email-checking rather than a life spent reclining, eating grapes, and discussing philosophy.

Though there are many aspects not to be envied about the hunter gatherers’ lifestyle (hunger, increased vulnerability to weather, etc.), Ian Tattersall, the curator emeritus at New York’s American Museum of Natural History told me that early man’s work habits may have more closely resembled this Hellenic ideal of leisure than we typically imagine. A study of Kalahari hunter gatherers suggested that they only worked for four hours a day. Tattersall said that this certainly was not true for all hunter gatherers, but added, “There is no doubt that settled life was a Faustian bargain for humans and hasn't done the biosphere much good.”

I asked Nikil Saval if he thought cubes with a view were the answer to the office’s woes. “Design only does so much,” he said. The real answer, he explained, is moving to a shorter or more flexible workday, which would give workers the autonomy to pursue outdoor activities on their own terms. It is the endless workday confined to a single space that is so damning to white-collar well-being.

I posed this idea to Kellert, who acknowledged that we likely do spend too much time in our offices but explained that that is all the more reason to make that environment as naturally appealing as possible. “I’m a great believer that you have to work with the world you have.”




Via Technical Dr. Inc., Barbara Lond
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

The Gap Between Women and Men in STEM and What You Can Do About It [INFOGRAPHIC]

The Gap Between Women and Men in STEM and What You Can Do About It [INFOGRAPHIC] | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
When Google released its workplace diversity report in 2014, this was an
eye-opening moment for many (and I am sure a “doh” one for the women in
this industry).
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

Levels of Organizational Development Infographic

Levels of Organizational Development Infographic | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
Get the 6 levels of organisational development
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Barbara Lond from People & Organisational Psychology News
Scoop.it!

The Mind Does Not Belong in a Cubicle

The Mind Does Not Belong in a Cubicle | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
The Mind Does Not Belong in a Cubicle
8K Health : The Atlantic by Laura Smith  /  2d  //  keep unread  //  hide  //  preview
+Tag

A group of 16 people sits in front of large Mac desktops in clusters of three and four at a start-up in Brooklyn. Aside from the steady tapping away at keyboards, there is little noise. It’s six o’clock, and people just want to go home. With its open floor plan, casual dress code, and creative staff, this is considered a great place to work—but still there is something vaguely dissatisfying about the space, and it is not the only office like this.

In Cubed: A Secret History of the Workplace, released this week, Nikil Saval tries to put his finger on just where the office went wrong. Certainly an improvement on factory work and types of manual labor, the office remains “at once harmless and ominous.” Saval’s story centers on the question: “Why have the best intentions of planners and architects, designers and executives, fallen short of producing a happy environment for the American worker?”

Near the end of Cubed, Saval takes a tour with a Google representative who shows him Google’s juice bar and tells him that it is the Googlers’ favorite hangout spot. The rep asks Saval why he thinks this is so. “The juices?” Saval ventures. The rep points “to the floor-to-ceiling windows, letting in a glimpse of green and late afternoon California springtime sun. ‘It’s the proximity to nature,’ he said.”

Then, perhaps the reason office satisfaction proves elusive is because we don’t understand our primal biology. Ours is the age of the “knowledge worker,” in which people are paid to think. So what can we learn from the environments our brains evolved in—our original “workspaces”—the outdoors?

According to Cambridge’s Encyclopedia of Hunter Gatherers, “Hunting and gathering was humanity’s first and most successful adaptation, occupying at least 90 percent of human history.” The savannah was our original “workspace,” and though our world today hardly resembles our ancestral environment, our biological rules still apply. E.O. Wilson, the famed biologist who studies biophilia, said our inherent appreciation and longing for natural environments, explains that “beauty is our word for the qualities that have contributed most to human survival.” Waterfalls signify an abundant source of life, flowers signify bountiful land. We are wired to crave the natural world.

Stephen Kellert, a social ecologist at Yale, told me that our poor office design is a sign that we don’t see ourselves as animals, as having biological needs. “The measure of progress in our civilization,” he said, “is not embracing nature, but moving away from nature and transcending nature and becoming independent of our biology.” Kellert told me that he finds zoos ironic. We consider it “inhumane” to keep a gorilla in an indoor, concrete environment with no exposure to greenery or anything resembling its natural habitat, and yet we put ourselves in these environments all the time.

When humans were hunting kudu in the open savannahs, we worked in motion, engaging our whole bodies, reacting to changing scenery. In the 1960s, Robert Propst invented the Action Office. He conceived of it as a “liberation”: a desk nestled between three walls, which the worker could arrange to his pleasing. The worker could alternate between sitting and standing, foreshadowing today’s standing and walking desks. In Cubed, Saval writes, “[Propst] stress[ed] the danger to one’s mental and physical vitality, of sitting too long at one’s desk.” But Propst’s invention was not the liberation he intended. Executives saw the Action Office as an opportunity to cram as many workers into a hive-like formation as possible, eliminating opportunities for movement and making the spaces smaller. Today, we call the Action Office the cubicle.

Since the dawn of the office, people have been concerned with productivity and attention spans. William James, one of the fathers of modern psychology, posited that office workers would be faced with the enormous challenge of maintaining voluntary attention. He and others like him promoted work that fostered involuntary, or what they called “primitive,” attention. Today, a growing body of research suggests that nature promotes the kind of involuntary or primitive attention that James prescribed.

Eva Selhub and Alan Logan’s book Your Brain on Nature references a 2005 study in which people were shown photographs after performing a cognitively demanding task. Some were shown nature scenes, while others were shown urban scenes. Then the two groups were given another cognitively demanding task. Those who looked at nature scenes demonstrated faster reaction times and made fewer mistakes. Similarly, a study of over 100 schools in Michigan showed significant gains in academic performance on standardized tests in classrooms that had views of green vegetation. Most simply put, this research suggests that thinking is best suited to natural environments.

Additionally, viewing nature can alleviate workplace stress. The authors of Your Brain on Nature refer to viewing nature as “visual Valium” and cite some of the earliest examples of studies on nature’s chemical effect on us. By measuring cortisol levels of people who had walked in forests and comparing them with people who walked in urban environments, the Shinrin Yoku studies in Japan found that walking in forest environments reduced stress, hostility, and depression while improving sleep and vigor. Similar studies have found that even the presence of plants or natural images can have similar effects on stress levels. Additionally, nature has implications for office teamwork. A California study found that those who worked with desirable views of nature showed more activity in the opioid receptors, an area that when active, is known for causing people to be less likely to perceive themselves as stressed and more likely to form emotional bonds and focus less on negative memories.

The good news is that people are beginning to recognize the importance of incorporating elements of the natural world into the workspace. Stephen Kellert is currently retrofitting a 1.1 million-square-foot office tower in Midtown, Manhattan with plant life and gardens, natural ventilation, materials, shapes, and lighting. In another example of progressive office design, Patricia Fox, a London-based designer, premiered her outdoor office, which she dubbed “The Rooftop Garden of Tomorrow” at the Chelsea Garden Show. The rooftop office features lush greenery, WiFi, tablet charging stations, and a tea wall where office workers can pick their own fresh teas. She highlighted the rejuvenation that working in this kind of environment could provide and told me that she sees the model as scalable. Offices like hers could conceivably be built anywhere with a roof that could structurally support a garden.

At the end of Cubed, Saval visits “revolutionary offices” in places like Silicon Valley and Amsterdam that attempt to create a complete ecosystem, the suggestion being: Why would you leave? Everything you need is here. But when you wade through the workplace’s history, perhaps our most enduring desire for the office is to be there less. In Cubed, Saval references an 1880s pamphlet entitled “Blessed Be Drudgery” that argued that though office work was mundane, and though we might “crave an outdoor life,” culture and leisure could only be obtained through “our own plod … In one word, it depends upon our drudgery.”

Similarly, in Your Brain on Nature, Selhub and Logan point out that in 1965, a Time magazine cover proclaimed that in the future “the computer will allow man to return to the Hellenic concept of leisure”—an idea that is laughable today in a world where computers have blurred the distinction between leisure and work, creating a life punctuated by constant email-checking rather than a life spent reclining, eating grapes, and discussing philosophy.

Though there are many aspects not to be envied about the hunter gatherers’ lifestyle (hunger, increased vulnerability to weather, etc.), Ian Tattersall, the curator emeritus at New York’s American Museum of Natural History told me that early man’s work habits may have more closely resembled this Hellenic ideal of leisure than we typically imagine. A study of Kalahari hunter gatherers suggested that they only worked for four hours a day. Tattersall said that this certainly was not true for all hunter gatherers, but added, “There is no doubt that settled life was a Faustian bargain for humans and hasn't done the biosphere much good.”

I asked Nikil Saval if he thought cubes with a view were the answer to the office’s woes. “Design only does so much,” he said. The real answer, he explained, is moving to a shorter or more flexible workday, which would give workers the autonomy to pursue outdoor activities on their own terms. It is the endless workday confined to a single space that is so damning to white-collar well-being.

I posed this idea to Kellert, who acknowledged that we likely do spend too much time in our offices but explained that that is all the more reason to make that environment as naturally appealing as possible. “I’m a great believer that you have to work with the world you have.”




Via Technical Dr. Inc., Barbara Lond
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Barbara Lond from Psychology and Home
Scoop.it!

The Mind Does Not Belong in a Cubicle

The Mind Does Not Belong in a Cubicle | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
The Mind Does Not Belong in a Cubicle
8K Health : The Atlantic by Laura Smith  /  2d  //  keep unread  //  hide  //  preview
+Tag

A group of 16 people sits in front of large Mac desktops in clusters of three and four at a start-up in Brooklyn. Aside from the steady tapping away at keyboards, there is little noise. It’s six o’clock, and people just want to go home. With its open floor plan, casual dress code, and creative staff, this is considered a great place to work—but still there is something vaguely dissatisfying about the space, and it is not the only office like this.

In Cubed: A Secret History of the Workplace, released this week, Nikil Saval tries to put his finger on just where the office went wrong. Certainly an improvement on factory work and types of manual labor, the office remains “at once harmless and ominous.” Saval’s story centers on the question: “Why have the best intentions of planners and architects, designers and executives, fallen short of producing a happy environment for the American worker?”

Near the end of Cubed, Saval takes a tour with a Google representative who shows him Google’s juice bar and tells him that it is the Googlers’ favorite hangout spot. The rep asks Saval why he thinks this is so. “The juices?” Saval ventures. The rep points “to the floor-to-ceiling windows, letting in a glimpse of green and late afternoon California springtime sun. ‘It’s the proximity to nature,’ he said.”

Then, perhaps the reason office satisfaction proves elusive is because we don’t understand our primal biology. Ours is the age of the “knowledge worker,” in which people are paid to think. So what can we learn from the environments our brains evolved in—our original “workspaces”—the outdoors?

According to Cambridge’s Encyclopedia of Hunter Gatherers, “Hunting and gathering was humanity’s first and most successful adaptation, occupying at least 90 percent of human history.” The savannah was our original “workspace,” and though our world today hardly resembles our ancestral environment, our biological rules still apply. E.O. Wilson, the famed biologist who studies biophilia, said our inherent appreciation and longing for natural environments, explains that “beauty is our word for the qualities that have contributed most to human survival.” Waterfalls signify an abundant source of life, flowers signify bountiful land. We are wired to crave the natural world.

Stephen Kellert, a social ecologist at Yale, told me that our poor office design is a sign that we don’t see ourselves as animals, as having biological needs. “The measure of progress in our civilization,” he said, “is not embracing nature, but moving away from nature and transcending nature and becoming independent of our biology.” Kellert told me that he finds zoos ironic. We consider it “inhumane” to keep a gorilla in an indoor, concrete environment with no exposure to greenery or anything resembling its natural habitat, and yet we put ourselves in these environments all the time.

When humans were hunting kudu in the open savannahs, we worked in motion, engaging our whole bodies, reacting to changing scenery. In the 1960s, Robert Propst invented the Action Office. He conceived of it as a “liberation”: a desk nestled between three walls, which the worker could arrange to his pleasing. The worker could alternate between sitting and standing, foreshadowing today’s standing and walking desks. In Cubed, Saval writes, “[Propst] stress[ed] the danger to one’s mental and physical vitality, of sitting too long at one’s desk.” But Propst’s invention was not the liberation he intended. Executives saw the Action Office as an opportunity to cram as many workers into a hive-like formation as possible, eliminating opportunities for movement and making the spaces smaller. Today, we call the Action Office the cubicle.

Since the dawn of the office, people have been concerned with productivity and attention spans. William James, one of the fathers of modern psychology, posited that office workers would be faced with the enormous challenge of maintaining voluntary attention. He and others like him promoted work that fostered involuntary, or what they called “primitive,” attention. Today, a growing body of research suggests that nature promotes the kind of involuntary or primitive attention that James prescribed.

Eva Selhub and Alan Logan’s book Your Brain on Nature references a 2005 study in which people were shown photographs after performing a cognitively demanding task. Some were shown nature scenes, while others were shown urban scenes. Then the two groups were given another cognitively demanding task. Those who looked at nature scenes demonstrated faster reaction times and made fewer mistakes. Similarly, a study of over 100 schools in Michigan showed significant gains in academic performance on standardized tests in classrooms that had views of green vegetation. Most simply put, this research suggests that thinking is best suited to natural environments.

Additionally, viewing nature can alleviate workplace stress. The authors of Your Brain on Nature refer to viewing nature as “visual Valium” and cite some of the earliest examples of studies on nature’s chemical effect on us. By measuring cortisol levels of people who had walked in forests and comparing them with people who walked in urban environments, the Shinrin Yoku studies in Japan found that walking in forest environments reduced stress, hostility, and depression while improving sleep and vigor. Similar studies have found that even the presence of plants or natural images can have similar effects on stress levels. Additionally, nature has implications for office teamwork. A California study found that those who worked with desirable views of nature showed more activity in the opioid receptors, an area that when active, is known for causing people to be less likely to perceive themselves as stressed and more likely to form emotional bonds and focus less on negative memories.

The good news is that people are beginning to recognize the importance of incorporating elements of the natural world into the workspace. Stephen Kellert is currently retrofitting a 1.1 million-square-foot office tower in Midtown, Manhattan with plant life and gardens, natural ventilation, materials, shapes, and lighting. In another example of progressive office design, Patricia Fox, a London-based designer, premiered her outdoor office, which she dubbed “The Rooftop Garden of Tomorrow” at the Chelsea Garden Show. The rooftop office features lush greenery, WiFi, tablet charging stations, and a tea wall where office workers can pick their own fresh teas. She highlighted the rejuvenation that working in this kind of environment could provide and told me that she sees the model as scalable. Offices like hers could conceivably be built anywhere with a roof that could structurally support a garden.

At the end of Cubed, Saval visits “revolutionary offices” in places like Silicon Valley and Amsterdam that attempt to create a complete ecosystem, the suggestion being: Why would you leave? Everything you need is here. But when you wade through the workplace’s history, perhaps our most enduring desire for the office is to be there less. In Cubed, Saval references an 1880s pamphlet entitled “Blessed Be Drudgery” that argued that though office work was mundane, and though we might “crave an outdoor life,” culture and leisure could only be obtained through “our own plod … In one word, it depends upon our drudgery.”

Similarly, in Your Brain on Nature, Selhub and Logan point out that in 1965, a Time magazine cover proclaimed that in the future “the computer will allow man to return to the Hellenic concept of leisure”—an idea that is laughable today in a world where computers have blurred the distinction between leisure and work, creating a life punctuated by constant email-checking rather than a life spent reclining, eating grapes, and discussing philosophy.

Though there are many aspects not to be envied about the hunter gatherers’ lifestyle (hunger, increased vulnerability to weather, etc.), Ian Tattersall, the curator emeritus at New York’s American Museum of Natural History told me that early man’s work habits may have more closely resembled this Hellenic ideal of leisure than we typically imagine. A study of Kalahari hunter gatherers suggested that they only worked for four hours a day. Tattersall said that this certainly was not true for all hunter gatherers, but added, “There is no doubt that settled life was a Faustian bargain for humans and hasn't done the biosphere much good.”

I asked Nikil Saval if he thought cubes with a view were the answer to the office’s woes. “Design only does so much,” he said. The real answer, he explained, is moving to a shorter or more flexible workday, which would give workers the autonomy to pursue outdoor activities on their own terms. It is the endless workday confined to a single space that is so damning to white-collar well-being.

I posed this idea to Kellert, who acknowledged that we likely do spend too much time in our offices but explained that that is all the more reason to make that environment as naturally appealing as possible. “I’m a great believer that you have to work with the world you have.”




Via Technical Dr. Inc., Barbara Lond
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Barbara Lond from Economic Inequality: Daily News
Scoop.it!

The trials of a 2016 job: why so many of us are unhappy at work | Peter Fleming

The trials of a 2016 job: why so many of us are unhappy at work | Peter Fleming | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
Job satisfaction is suffering, and company short-termism is at the root of it. How can that be turned around?
Via Bruce Judson
Barbara Lond's insight:
Share your insight
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

Is a Repeatable Process a Bad Thing? (via Passle)

Is a Repeatable Process a Bad Thing? (via Passle) | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
Humans want to make things easy for themselvesI hope that I'm not alone when I say that as humans, we like to make things eas
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

Research, Innovation and the 'Ideas Boom': Pathways to Collaboration | UTS News Room

Research, Innovation and the 'Ideas Boom': Pathways to Collaboration | UTS News Room | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
As part of Vivid Ideas 2016, UTS will host a talk with Australia's leading industry, government and university representatives, designed to challenge and spark vibrant discussion around new ideas and embracing technological and business innovation.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

Innovative Companies Get Their Best Ideas from Academic Research — Here’s How They Do It

Innovative Companies Get Their Best Ideas from Academic Research — Here’s How They Do It | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
Government-funded research is behind any significant new product.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

Baba Shiv: Failure is the Mother of Innovation

Baba Shiv: Failure is the Mother of Innovation | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
Startups may embrace the “fail-fast” mantra, but many leaders are risk-adverse.
Barbara Lond's insight:
I completely agree.  I would  like to write more but I can't see the original post on my mobile version! Suffice to say the image I have in my mind is very afraid and stuck  leaders in organisations too afraid to do anything, with the new techie start-ups trying to climb the barbed wire fences that these organisations erect. 
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

Good communication is essential to successful integration of health and social care

Good communication is essential to successful integration of health and social care | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
Integration will only become a reality if staff, service users and the public are fully informed and engaged with the proposed reformsMost people involved in delivering health and social care are committed to making integration happen.
Barbara Lond's insight:

Yes we know.  So, on just seeing a notice at the tube station about 5.10pm, it's advertising a local 'NHS commissioning group'.  What would the public know about that?  Not a lot.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

How to Bring Your Spiritual Side to Work Every Day

How to Bring Your Spiritual Side to Work Every Day | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
Many successful business people integrate religion into their careers.
Barbara Lond's insight:

Well, bringing your spiritual side to work is fine.  But saying 'many successful ... integrate religion into their careers' doesn't really chime with being 'spiritual'.  What the article does talk about is 'quiet reflection' and 'meditation'.  Well, that's good for anyone, as research shows.  There are lots of benefits with 'mindfulness' meditation, and I believe that there is not enough 'mindfulness' (awareness, etc.) leading to poor decision-making in organisations.  But it's not really to do with religion.  Mindfulness is really just a practice - a good and beneficial.  I would highly recommend it and  you can do this at work at any time - 5 minutes has clear benefits.  I should know, I practice myself!

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Barbara Lond from Psychology in Business & Organisations
Scoop.it!

» 7 Things Mindful People Do Differently Every Day and How to Begin Now! - Mindfulness and Psychotherapy

» 7 Things Mindful People Do Differently Every Day and How to Begin Now! - Mindfulness and Psychotherapy | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
t just In my experience there a number of things people who practice mindfulness do differently, here are 7 of them.
Via Sandra - Onlinevents, Kelly McManus, Barbara Lond
more...
Barbara Lond's curator insight, April 8, 2015 3:02 PM
Mindfulness is brilliant.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

You Are Not As Rational As You Think

As humans, we never fail to think that we are highly intelligent beings, and that we are mentally superior than any other creatures found on Earth. Well, that.…
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

Making Politics Work for Development: Harnessing Transparency and Citizen Engagement

Making Politics Work for Development: Harnessing Transparency and Citizen Engagement | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
This report draws on the best research on the interface between politics and economics, and focuses in particular on the role of transparency and citizen engagement.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

Health Engagement %26 Communications - General Applications - REGISTER YOUR INTEREST!

Click the link provided to see the complete job description.
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Barbara Lond from Safety Risk
Scoop.it!

Spud Head Safety Diagnostics - SafetyRisk dot net

Spud Head Safety Diagnostics - SafetyRisk dot net | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
    Spud Head Safety Diagnostics What is a Spud Head? FIND OUT HERE I was at a conference last week where people were presented with supposed diagnostics that could determine in someone was a risk taker. The general idea was to run people through the diagnostic tool, and weed out the risk takers. Or, use the diagnostic in the selection process to keep risk takers out of the business. Everyone one around was taking note, how could they get their hands on this excellent tool. I looked around and I seemed to be the only one cringing at this spud head message. I have written about this before http://www.safetyrisk.net/safety-eugenics-and-the-engineering-of-risk-aversion/ http://www.safetyrisk.net/risk-psychometrics-spin-and-snake-oil/ But there seems no shortage of people who don’t think about the trajectory of this kind of thinking. I turned to the person beside me who seemed pretty keen on the idea and asked them, would Richard Branson get a job in this company, clearly no. You see, there are always by-products for goals and trade offs for absolutes, if we take risk takers out of organisations what are we left with? No imagination, no play, no learning, no creativity and what could be best described as a ‘spud head’ workforce. Safety eugenics is dangerous stuff and potato heads everywhere should smell it, name it and reject it. Dumbing down the workforce is no solution for managing risk. The sign below was sent to me recently from a building site, someone thought the cause of accidents and incidents was stupidity. This is simplistic spud head thinking. Intelligence has little to do with how we make decisions. Otherwise people with high IQs would have less accidents. Until one develops a potato head understanding of fallibility and stops speaking spud head perfectionist language, this kind of attribution and projection of cause will simply get worse. Helped along by the perfectionism of zero that floods the workplace. When the person who puts up the sign makes their next mistake, does that mean they are stupid? Of course when you don’t understand safety, have been dumbed down to ‘real risk’ so that people don’t think, they can’t discern risk because risk has been made evil. There is no learning without risk. Spud heads think anyone who takes a risk or makes a mistake is an idiot or stupid. This is all orthodox spud heads have left, they don’t understand human decision making, they don’t understand social psychology, they don’t understand human fallibility and think anyone who does something wrong or makes a mistake is simply an idiot. Wow, that will make a change culture, now everyone will be safe because we have kept the idiots off site. Unfortunately, such thinking is anti-human and delusional. If mistakes are the results of a lack of intelligence then just increase the training regime and mistakes will stop. This too is spud head ideology, this is not how fallible people make decisions. Spud Head Safety Diagnostics was last modified: June 24th, 2014 by Dr Rob Long   …

Via Dave Collins
Barbara Lond's insight:

There are several psychometric tools which measure all sorts of brain (psycho) measures (metrics).  Psychometrics are used by many organisations including personality assessments, emotional intelligence, social intelligence, leadership behaviours, verbal and numerical ability, cognitive and thousands more.  Skills are all very well, but how people behave has a major impact on how these skills are used.  Consider for example a poor manager for example, who bullies staff and it is not addressed.  Imagine that this organisation uses the prolific method of selecting people, in a simple example:   'he looks nice, he went to my school, he's a guy so he will be good at sales, ah he plays rugby too so is probably a good team player'.  This is the 'people-like-me' method of selection which has very little to no link with performance.  What it would be predict is that you might get on with this person. But imagine when things get tough?  Suddenly you don't like him any more, and you don't even see the skills he has.  The pressure is put on (by manager), but the guy doesn't want to/can't leave the job.  The manager (because he was chosen on the same basis) rallies his people around him to bully the guy further.  This vignette happens.  I am often surprised by the lack of sophisticated tools we have for selection people for jobs to include a wide range of abilities, behaviours, etc.  These tools are around.  Firstly of course, we need to know what is involved in the job (job analysis).  If this is not done adequately, and neither is the selection process, the result is going to be downhill.  

A good selection process will include a range of methods which 'predict' performance (but we need to know what that 'performance' looks like).  So many stories of (still) poorly performing organisations in this regard.  So easy to fix.  

What is at work is heuristics, ie. the theory/idea (rooted in research) that we are very poor at making decisions.  Particularly complex decisions like selecting people for a job.  Yet we are so sure that we can do this.  Egocentric managers and recruiters will be convinced of their ability to do this though.  Often the poor person selected will be the worse off either by suffering from stress, but the organisation also loses from the loss of productivity as all the palaver by the poor manager trying to rally his team and get rid of the person selected!!

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Barbara Lond from Economic Inequality: Daily News
Scoop.it!

Corporate Inequality Is the Defining Fact of Business Today

Corporate Inequality Is the Defining Fact of Business Today | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
And it’s shaping how we all get paid.
Via Bruce Judson
Barbara Lond's insight:
I'll be having a close look at this!
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

How cognitive mobility can transform operations analytics

How cognitive mobility can transform operations analytics | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
Here's an overview on how emerging new technologies, like cognitive mobility, can streamline analytics processes.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

Eight technologies that could change healthcare beyond recognition

Eight technologies that could change healthcare beyond recognition | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
Smartphones, genome sequencing and wearable technology will bring benefits but also challenges to health and social care
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

Using Discussion Questions Effectively | CRLT

Using Discussion Questions Effectively | CRLT | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
Using Discussion Questions Effectively via Univ. of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and Teaching https://t.co/BjdJTG0ZrZ
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

There's a long list of NHS inquiries, but what have they actually changed?

There's a long list of NHS inquiries, but what have they actually changed? | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
From Mid Staffs to Morecambe Bay, inquiries into poor care are cathartic. But too often they have unintended consequences, or are ignored
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Barbara Lond
Scoop.it!

How to Unleash Innovation in the Enterprise

How to Unleash Innovation in the Enterprise | People & Organisational Psychology News | Scoop.it
I constantly hear how enterprises are poor at innovation, bad at product development and unresponsive to business change. So it begs the question, why do so many organizations get it wrong?
Barbara Lond's insight:

Well, as someone who works at improving organisations, I'd say it's because of recruiting the wrong people, not assessing people, 'groupthink' (not assessed at selection, not assessed at development), poor culture (because of above).  If there's one word (of a few) drives me up the wall is 'unleashed'.  Organisations really do do the daftest things in my observation and experience.  I note the 'con' above in the term 'hire and retain the best available talent'.  For me, if recruitment is not done effectively, you've had it.  The con says above 'how to identify talent, how to reward'.  Well, how about doing a job analysis first.  Most organisations think recruitment is easy.  But they fail to think about what sort of people do you need to be able to 'unleash' in the first place.  What sort of development activities do we give our managers and leaders?  Then reward people for delivering on those behaviours.  It's actually not that difficult.  The starting point is the hard bit, but there's often too many people who don't listen to others who have the good ideas.  Cultures are often poor as a result, things don't work so you get 'learned helplessness' in organisations (no point in trying, so we will just carry on).  Leadership, recruitment, selection, development, reward.  This is all takes knowledge, expert knowledge.  I of course would say psychological knowledge.  We have the human capital to do this work.  But lots of information is hidden behind 'titles' and assumptions about those titles.  And lack of really knowing the work involved, and behaviours to create a culture which would foster, let alone 'unleash' anything.   So I say (well I would wouldn't I), get in a psychologist).  But then of course, you need to be able to listen.  And that's hard for some who like to think they know everything.  So then you have all this information, and most people, many people, are caught up in cognitive overload, biases, they get more 'arsey', listen less, they know best, don't need a psychologist, let alone an HR person.  And so it goes on ...

more...
No comment yet.