An interesting article in Psychology and Aging describes research that identifies a difference in the hearing of musicians and non-musicians.
It turns out that if you have musical training you cannot hear quiet sounds better than those with no musical training can hear, but on other measures you score more highly.
If you have had musical training (in the research they used people with at least six years) you will be better at discerning speech against background noise, spotting badly tuned music and breaks in a continuous tone.
These are all to do with the way your brain processes the sound you hear. So if you want to be able to hear conversations in a crowded restaurant as you get older, start learning to play an instrument.
Your brain can always be improved. By learning new skills you make new connections in your brain. You can even grow new brain cells (neurons). If you want to grow more, get some aerobic exercise. This increases the release of neurotropic factors. These help you to grow new neurons.
Getting some musical training is just one way to do it. Go here for more ideas on improving your brain.
Friday, 30 September 2011
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
Which experts should you trust?
Taking advice from experts
Do you believe experts who are confident in their predictions? Philip Tetlock says this might be a mistake.Take weather forecasters. You won’t be surprised to learn that the UK weather forecasters do not have a very good reputation for the accuracy of their forecasts. But wait; there are forecasters who do. Apparently those in the US have a better track record.
It turns out that there are two reasons for this. The first is that the US forecasters tend to give their predictions (which is what a forecast is) in terms of percentages; “60% chance of rain tomorrow” Where as ours predict with more certainty; “It will rain tomorrow.”
The other reason he says, for the better track record, is that the US forecasters take more effort to get feedback and learn from it. Feedback is essential for learning. You cannot improve if you don’t get feedback.
It turns out that from his research there are two types of expert. Those who are not even as good at predicting as tossing a coin would be, and those who are better than chance. This does not just apply to weather forecasters.
Unfortunately Philip Tetlock discovered that there is an inverse correlation between ‘fame’ and ‘accuracy’.
This turns out to be because the media likes those who seem to be certain, not those who say they’ don’t know’ sometimes. Which in turn means that we, the views, are forcing the issue.
We like certainty
The irony is that the more certain experts are, the less reliable they are but the more we believe them.It seems we just don’t like uncertainty.
Two lessons
Be more ready to trust experts who are not certain and are willing to say they don’t know.Make sure you get feedback so that you can improve any predictions you make.
A simple experiment to try
One of the key skills in time management is being able to estimate how long tasks will take accurately. This is something that many people are very bad at and for some reason, seem to make no effort to improve.Here’s a very easy way to improve your estimation skills in anything. It will often take less than a week to see really drastic improvements.
Choose your of task
It could be doing your emails, phoning a customer or updating your expenses.Make your estimate
Write down how long you think it will take (I usually put this straight into my schedule).Check your estimate against your prediction (feedback)
This is pretty easy. If you estimated 10 minutes and it took 20 you are 100% out.Make your next estimate, and correct it based on your previous estimate
In my example you need to double the time you estimate for that task next time.
Very soon you will be able to estimate times quickly and accurately.
Lastly
Do not dismiss people who are cautious with their predictions or who say they don’t know. They probably know more than the people who tell you they are certain.Thursday, 8 September 2011
Why are women still paid so much less?
According to the Chartered Management Institute (CMI), the Holy Grail of truly equal pay in the UK is still 100 years away.
The good news is that if you are in a junior management position then your pay is likely to be equal to that of your colleagues. However, for more senior roles the CMI found a gap of £10,546 between men and women.
Why is this? I can’t believe that men are better at these jobs than women. But what I can believe is that women’s behaviour is often perceived as less authoritative and powerful and then it is assumed that they don’t contribute as much or don’t do such a good job.
How do you feel when you discover that seriously incompetent people are paid far more than skilled people who are doing a better job?
It doesn’t matter if they are male or female. We have all known people who are very skilled, who achieve excellent results but who are not recognised.
This is a key aspect of performance management.
What we need is to have fair and open ways of measuring performance. This means what people have achieved, how they have done it and the value that has been added by an individual (or, on the other side, the cost that must be paid as the result of their actions).
Unless you do this, it’s very hard to take any action to improve performance. Getting this right is one of the foundations of performance management.
These measurements also need to be linked to pay. It’s far too easy to judge people by all kinds of criteria that are completely irrelevant. It’s also very hard for anyone to be completely objective when it comes to this which is why we need open systems that make it clear what is valued and why.
Of course it helps if you have clear objectives in the first place and set up measures right at the beginning.
When I had a large production department many years ago, I checked the output and quality of the work the individuals in my team did over a year. To my horror I discovered that Margit, the person who had produced the most (by far) and with no quality problems at all, was paid almost the least in the whole department.
The woman who was paid the most was an attractive, young, chatty individual who excelled at letting senior managers know how hard she worked and how skilled she was. Her output was average as was her quality.
Margit was not pretty, she was overweight and her English could best be described as basic. But these things should not have had any impact on how we measured her performance.
You should not be swayed by people whose main skill is telling you how great they are.
What criteria do you use when assessing performance?
The good news is that if you are in a junior management position then your pay is likely to be equal to that of your colleagues. However, for more senior roles the CMI found a gap of £10,546 between men and women.
Are men better at these jobs?
Why is this? I can’t believe that men are better at these jobs than women. But what I can believe is that women’s behaviour is often perceived as less authoritative and powerful and then it is assumed that they don’t contribute as much or don’t do such a good job.
How do you feel when you discover that seriously incompetent people are paid far more than skilled people who are doing a better job?
It doesn’t matter if they are male or female. We have all known people who are very skilled, who achieve excellent results but who are not recognised.
This is a key aspect of performance management.
Better measures
What we need is to have fair and open ways of measuring performance. This means what people have achieved, how they have done it and the value that has been added by an individual (or, on the other side, the cost that must be paid as the result of their actions).
Unless you do this, it’s very hard to take any action to improve performance. Getting this right is one of the foundations of performance management.
These measurements also need to be linked to pay. It’s far too easy to judge people by all kinds of criteria that are completely irrelevant. It’s also very hard for anyone to be completely objective when it comes to this which is why we need open systems that make it clear what is valued and why.
Of course it helps if you have clear objectives in the first place and set up measures right at the beginning.
An easy performance management mistake
When I had a large production department many years ago, I checked the output and quality of the work the individuals in my team did over a year. To my horror I discovered that Margit, the person who had produced the most (by far) and with no quality problems at all, was paid almost the least in the whole department.
The woman who was paid the most was an attractive, young, chatty individual who excelled at letting senior managers know how hard she worked and how skilled she was. Her output was average as was her quality.
Margit was not pretty, she was overweight and her English could best be described as basic. But these things should not have had any impact on how we measured her performance.
You should not be swayed by people whose main skill is telling you how great they are.
What criteria do you use when assessing performance?
Friday, 2 September 2011
Are you mistaking rudeness for leadership skills?
I recently read an article suggesting that managers who behave fairly and treat their team members with respect can lose out to those who don’t.
The sad thing is we all know that this happens a great deal. It tied in with another interesting article about how we often mistake rudeness in people for power in the Scientific American. about how rude people can be perceived as powerful
I think it’s a disgrace that we still make these mistakes. Or perhaps it’s a reflection on some of the leaders we see who often behave rudely. What we need to remember is that we are the people who give them a license to behave like this.
How many people watch Alan Sugar and enjoy it? To me his behaviour is often appalling. I would like to think that he treats people badly just because it makes good TV, but I have been informed by people who have know some of his employees that it’s not an act.
It’s time we made it clear that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable, both in young people and also in senior managers.
We need to set higher standards of behaviour for our leaders. There is no need to be rude in order to lead.
Behaving fairly results in having better and more effective companies and teams which results in achieving more for the benefit of all.
That’s what good performance management is all about. Rudeness is a lazy way of behaving when you either don’t know any better or can’t be bothered to behave more respectfully towards your fellow human beings.
For more information, the article is “Why Fair Bosses Fall Behind” by Batia M. Wiesenfeld, Naomi B. Rothman, Sara L. Wheeler-Smith, and Adam D. Galinsky
The sad thing is we all know that this happens a great deal. It tied in with another interesting article about how we often mistake rudeness in people for power in the Scientific American. about how rude people can be perceived as powerful
Rude Leaders
I think it’s a disgrace that we still make these mistakes. Or perhaps it’s a reflection on some of the leaders we see who often behave rudely. What we need to remember is that we are the people who give them a license to behave like this.
You're Fired
How many people watch Alan Sugar and enjoy it? To me his behaviour is often appalling. I would like to think that he treats people badly just because it makes good TV, but I have been informed by people who have know some of his employees that it’s not an act.
It’s time we made it clear that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable, both in young people and also in senior managers.
Standards for Leaders
We need to set higher standards of behaviour for our leaders. There is no need to be rude in order to lead.
Behaving fairly results in having better and more effective companies and teams which results in achieving more for the benefit of all.
That’s what good performance management is all about. Rudeness is a lazy way of behaving when you either don’t know any better or can’t be bothered to behave more respectfully towards your fellow human beings.
For more information, the article is “Why Fair Bosses Fall Behind” by Batia M. Wiesenfeld, Naomi B. Rothman, Sara L. Wheeler-Smith, and Adam D. Galinsky
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)