"The Little Engine That Could" Could be You

"I think I can, I think I can," puffed the little "Engine That Could," struggling against all odds to pull a stranded train up a steep hill. And, because it believed that it could, guess what? It actually did!

And, guess what else? Psychological research indicates a scientific basis for this inspirational little tale.

According to research done by social psychologist Albert Bandura in the 1990's, a psychological construct known as perceived self-efficacy is a key determinant in, among many other things, the level of success a professional achieves in their work.

Bandura found that, when people believe in their capabilities to exercise control over their own functioning, and over the events that affect their lives, they perceive themselves to be self-effective. On the assumption that a measurement of the strength of this belief would yield a measurement of the related trait of perceived self-efficacy, psychologist Dr. Ralf Schwarzer developed a simple 10-item test to measure it:

Answer:

1 = Not at all true, 2 = Hardly true, 3 = Moderately true, 4 = Exactly true

to each of the following questions:

1. I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.
2. If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want.
3. It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.
4. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events.
5. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations.
6. I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort.
7. I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities.
8. When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions.
9. If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution.
10. I can usually handle whatever comes my way.

(You can learn more about this instrument, its validity, what it measures, and how it's been used in years of global research, here.)

Bandura identified four factors that reinforce a person's perceived sense of self-efficacy (listed in no particular order; they're each equally significant):

• Mastery experiences - the innate positive sense of satisfaction and accomplishment one gets from having done something well
• Observing people similar to oneself managing task demands successfully - learning to be effective by watching others who are effective
• Social persuasion that one has the capabilities to succeed in given activities  - being told by coworkers and superiors that you have what it takes
• Inferences from somatic and emotional states indicative of personal strengths and vulnerabilities - the positive physical, emotional, and cognitive "feedback" one senses while successfully doing a job

Bottom Line: To overcome the impediments, adversities, setbacks, frustrations and inequities of professional life, people need a robust sense of efficacy to sustain the perseverant effort needed to succeed. Research has shown that people with a high degree of perceived self-efficacy, as measured by instruments like Dr. Schwarzer's (see above), tend to perform well in their professions.

Discussion Questions:
Is Self-Efficacy always a valid Perception, or sometimes an Illusion?

The application of Bandura's research to understanding IT task performance, with its uniquely abstract work products, begs several fundamental questions. This post's discussion questions are based on a more skeptical look at Bandura's four foundations of perceived self-efficacy:

• Mastery experiences - do IT professionals pat themselves on the back too much, especially for doing off-point technical jobs that they were never actually tasked with?
• Observing people similar to oneself managing task demands successfully - what effect does "stealing credit" for something somebody else did have on an individual? More importantly, what effect does it have on colleagues who observed the theft?
• Social persuasion that one has the capabilities to succeed in given activities - Really? Is that all it takes? Doesn't such persuasion need to have some basis in fact?
• Inferences from somatic and emotional states indicative of personal strengths and vulnerabilities - In the abstract world of IT, how do we differentiate "real" positive work experiences from delusions?

Thanks to my good friend, and avid blog reader, Joe, for pointing me to this humorous example of stolen credit:

How to Be Your Own Worst Enemy

Thinking back to all those classic Star Trek TV episodes and movies I enjoyed so much as a kid, I realize now that the Mr. Spock character I secretly idolized was, actually, two very different Vulcans.

The "Smart Spock" could always be counted on to perform dizzyingly complex calculations in his head, even under the most dire of circumstances. Bright guy! He always kept his emotions under control, yet he understood and worked very well alongside his chronically overwrought and comparatively slow human colleagues. This Spock was a compassionate and gifted problem-solver.

On the other hand, the "Stupid Spock," for all his obvious cognitive skills, consistently miscalculated the feelings of others and had a great deal of difficulty understanding and controlling even the simplest of his own long-repressed emotions. Dense dork! At his best, this Stupid Spock seemed comical alongside his wise and well-rounded human buddies. At his worst, he was a dysfunctional mess who often inadvertently put the human crew members on the Enterprise at risk.

 What does Smart Spock have that Stupid Spock doesn't? Emotional Intelligence.

Emotional Intelligence is a psychological construct that explains the variable ability of people, functioning in social and professional contexts, to understand and manage their own emotions while recognizing and adapting to the emotions of others.

Emotionally intelligent people, like Smart Spock, can overcome, and perhaps sometimes even harness, their own feelings and the feelings of others to function effectively in social and professional situations. Because emotionally intelligent people can make others feel valued and understood, people enjoy working with them and enthusiastically help them to get things done.

Emotionally unintelligent people, like Stupid Spock, fall prey to their emotions, which can hamper or even disable them. Insensitive or even scornful of the feelings of those around them, emotionally unintelligent people are often left to work alone.

Referring to those who are manifestly most deficient in Emotional Intelligence, Alexithymia is a common risk factor for a variety of personal and social problems. For example, people with alexithymia:

• can't identify feelings, and often confuse their emotions with the physical sensations (e.g., headaches, nausea) of emotional arousal
• can't describe their own feelings to other people, or put into words the emotions they observe in others
• have difficulty imagining alternatives (as evidenced by a paucity of fantasies) in solving practical problems.
  
  
  
  
  

Was Stupid Spock's problem on Star Trek that he couldn't understand, control, or adapt to emotions? Or, was that he didn't care enough to try?

Maybe that's what made a Smart guy like Spock so maddeningly Stupid sometimes.

Questions:

• Do you think there's a difference between ordinary empathy and Emotional Intelligence? What do you think it is?
• In practical terms, how do you think Emotional Intelligence (or a lack thereof) might affect the performance of a technical task, or the outcome of an Information Technology project?
• What do you imagine would be the first step toward increasing your own Emotional Intelligence?
• How might you begin to coach an EI-challenged colleague?
• When working with someone who may have Alexithymia, what kind of professional behavior should you avoid?

Chickens, Pigs, and Superpigs

Q: What's the difference between a chicken and a pig?

A: In a bacon and egg breakfast, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.

Following up on this blog's last post about Belbin's inventory of team roles, when it comes to any given role that might be played on an Information Technology project team, there are those who calculate, track, and complain about the length of the critical path, and those who take action to shorten it. 

In psychological terms, involved team members observe failures, such as missed deadlines and unrealized goals, in a cerebral and detached way, as if from the outside. These folks offer great comments at post mortem meetings.

On the other hand, committed team members feel such failures as emotionally painful, and this spurs them to act pre mortem, often heroically, to prevent failures.

Various theories of psychodynamics postulate a mechanism, cathexis, to explain the committed individual's investment of their mental and emotional energy in playing an activist role in making their team successful.

A growing school of management theory, Servant-Leadership, suggests that, by persistently demonstrating selfless service to their colleagues in joint pursuit of the goals of their team, committed members can trigger cathexis in their merely involved co-workers. In other words, there are some Pigs who, magically, seem to be able to turn the Chickens around them into more Pigs. Let's call these inspirational players Superpigs, and, when it comes to getting things done, and done properly, theirs is, indeed, a very handy superpower.

So, on IT teams, there are always Chickens, sometimes Pigs, and, every now and then, Superpigs. Which begs these important questions:

• What can C-Suite executives and line managers do to support the Pigs in their organizations, and foster the emergence of Superpigs?
• What common managers' mistakes (inadvertent, of course) tend to demotivate Pigs and turn them into mere Chickens?
• What factors motivate the Pigs? How are a Superpig's motivations different?