Tag: Association of Corporate Executive Coaches

  • “The Anatomy of Trust” by Brené Brown

    Background

    Brené Brown is a professor and social scientist. This speech was originally delivered at UCLA’s Royce Hall in 2015.

    Speech Transcript

    Oh, it just feels like an incredible understatement to say how grateful I am to be here with all of you. I feel like I have a relationship with many of you on social media, and you were like, “T-minus two days.” I’m like, “It’s coming! We’re going to be together.” So I’m so grateful to be here with you.

    I’m going to talk about trust and I’m going to start by saying this: One of my favorite parts of my job is that I get to research topics that mean something to me. One of my least favorite parts of my job is I normally come up with findings that kicked me in the butt and make me change my entire life. That’s the hard part. But I get to dig into the stuff that I think matters in my life and the life of the people around me.

    And the topic of trust is something I think I probably would have eventually started to look at closely because I study shame and vulnerability. But there’s a very personal reason I jumped to trust early in my research career, and it was a personal experience.

    One day, my daughter, Ellen, came home from school. She was in third grade. And the minute we closed the front door, she literally just started sobbing and slid down the door until she was just kind of a heap of crying on the floor. And of course I was … It scared me, and I said, “What’s wrong Ellen? What happened? What happened?”

    And she pulled herself together enough to say, “Something really hard happened to me today at school, and I shared it with a couple of my friends during recess. And by the time we got back into the classroom, everyone in my class knew what had happened, and they were laughing and pointing at me and calling me names.” And it was so bad, and the kids were being so disruptive, that her teacher even had to take marbles out of this marble jar.

    And the marble jar in the classroom is a jar where if the kids are making great choices together, the teacher adds marbles. If they’re making not great choices, the teacher takes out marbles. And if the jar gets filled up, there’s a celebration for the class.

    And so, she said, “It was one of the worst moments in my life. They were laughing and pointing. And Miss Bacchum, my teacher, kept saying, ‘I’m going to take marbles out.’ And she didn’t know what was happening.”

    And she looked at me just with this face that is just seared my mind and said, “I will never trust anyone again.” And my first reaction, to be really honest with you, was, “Damn straight, you don’t tell anybody anything but your Mama.”

    Yeah, right? That’s it. I mean, that was my … “You just tell me. And when you grow up and you go off to school, Mama will go too. I’ll get a little apartment.” And the other thing I was thinking to be quite honest with you is, “I will find out who those kids were.” And while I’m not going to beat up a nine year old, I know their mamas.

    You know, that’s the place you go to. And I’m like, “How am I going to explain trust to this third grader in front of me?” So I took a deep breath and I said, “Ellen, trust is like a marble jar.” She said, “What do you mean?” And I said, “You share those hard stories and those hard things that are happening to you with friends, who, over time, you filled up their marble jar. They’ve done thing after thing after thing where you’re like, ‘I know I can share this with this person.’ Does that make sense?”

    Yes!

    And that’s what Ellen said, “Yes, that makes sense.” And I said, “Do you have any marble jar friends?” And she said, “Oh yeah. Totally. Hannah and Lorna are marble jar friends.” And I said … And then this is where things got interesting. I said, “Tell me what you mean. How do they earn marbles for you?”

    And she’s like, “Well, Lorna, if there’s not a seat for me at the lunch cafeteria, she’ll scoot over and give me half a heinie seat.” And I’m like, “She will?” She’s like, “Yeah. She’ll just sit like that, and so I can sit with her.” And I said, “That’s a big deal.” This is not what I was expecting to hear.

    And then she said, “And you know Hannah, on Sunday at my soccer game?” And I was waiting for this story where she said, “I got hit by a ball and I was laying on the field, and Hannah picked me up and ran me to first aid.” And I was like, “Yeah?” And she said, “Hannah looked over and she saw Oma and Opa,” my parents, her grandparents, “And she said, ‘Look, your Oma and Opa are here.’” And I was like …

    And I was like, “Boy, she got a marble for that?” And she goes, “Well, you know, not all my friends have eight grandparents.” Because my parents are divorced and remarried, my husband’s parents were divorced and remarried. And she said, “And it was so nice to me that she remembered their names.”

    And I was like, “Hmm.” And she said, “Do you have marble jar friends?” And I said, “Yeah, I do have a couple of marble jar friends.” And she said, “Well, what kind of things do they do to get marbles?” And this feeling came over me. And I thought … The first thing I could think of, because we were talking about the soccer game, was that same game. My good friend Eileen walked up to my parents and said, “Diane, David, good to see you.” And I remember what that felt like for me. And I was like, certainly, trust cannot be built by these small insignificant moments in our lives. It’s gotta be a grander gesture than that.

    So, as a researcher, I start looking into the data. I gather up the doctoral students who’ve worked with me. We start looking. And it is crystal clear. Trust is built in very small moments. And when we started looking at examples of when people talked about trust in the research, they said things like, “Yeah, I really trust my boss. She even asked me how my mom’s chemotherapy was going.” “I trust my neighbor because if something’s going on with my kid, it doesn’t matter what she’s doing, she’ll come over and help me figure it out.” You know, one of the number one things emerged around trust and small things? People who attend funerals. “This is someone who showed up at my sister’s funeral.”

    Another huge marble jar moment for people, “I trust him because he’ll ask for help when he needs it.” How many of you are better at giving help than asking for help? Right? So, asking for help is one of those moments.

    So, one of the ways I work as a grounded theory researcher, is I look at the data first, then I go in and see what other researchers are talking about and saying, because we believe the best theories are not built on other existing theories, but on our own lived experiences.

    So, after I had looked at this, I said, “Let me see what the research says.” And I went to John Gottman, who’s been studying relationship for 30 years. He has amazing work on trust and betrayal. And the first thing I read, “Trust is built in the smallest of moments.” And he calls them “Sliding door moments.”

    Sliding Doors is a movie with Gwyneth Paltrow from the 90s. Have you all seen this movie? So, it’s a really tough movie, because what happens is it follows her life to this seemingly unimportant moment where she’s trying to get on a train. And she makes the train, but the movie stops and splits into two parts where she makes a train and she doesn’t make the train, and it follows them to radically different endings. And he would argue that trust is a sliding door moment. And the example that he gives is so powerful.

    He said he was lying in bed one night, he had 10 pages left of his murder mystery, and he had us feeling he knew who the killer was, but he was dying to finish this book. So he said, “I don’t even want … I want to get up, brush my teeth, go to the bathroom, and get back in and not have to get up.” You know that feeling when you just want to get all situated and read the end of your book?

    So, he gets up and he walks past his wife in the bathroom, who’s brushing her hair and who looks really sad. And he said, “My first thought was just keep walking. Just keep walking.”

    And how many of you have had that moment you walk past someone and you’re like, “Oh, God. They look … Avert your eyes.” Or you look at caller ID or your cell phone, and you’re like, “Oh yeah, I know she’s in a big mess right now. I don’t have time to pick up the phone.” Right? Yes or no? This looks like guilty laughter to me.

    So, he said, “That’s a sliding door moment.” And here’s what struck me about his story, because he said, “There is the opportunity to build trust and there is the opportunity to betray.” Because as small as the moments of trust can be, those are the moments of betrayal as well. To choose to not connect when the opportunity is there is a betrayal. So he took the brush out of her hand and started brushing her hair and said, “What’s going on with you right now, babe?” That’s a moment of trust, right?

    So fast-forward five years, and I’m clear about trust, and I talk about trust as the marble jar. We’ve got to really share our stories and our hard stuff with people whose jars are full, people who’ve, over time, really done those small things that have helped us believe that they’re worth our story.

    But the new question for me was this: What are those marbles? What is trust? What do we talk about when we talk about trust? Trust is a big word, right? To hear, “I trust you,” or “I don’t trust you.” I don’t even know what that means. So, I wanted to know, what is the anatomy of trust? What does that mean?

    So, I started looking in the research and I found a definition from Charles Feldman that I think is the most beautiful definition I’ve ever heard. And it’s simply this: “Trust is choosing to make something important to you vulnerable to the actions of someone else.” “Choosing to make something important to you vulnerable to the actions of someone else.” Feldman says that distrust is what I have shared with you that is important to me is not safe with you.

    So, I thought, “That’s true.” And Feldman really calls for this, let’s understand what trust is. So, we went back into all the data to find out, can I figure out what trust is? Do I know what trust is from the data? And I think I do know what trust is.

    And I put together an acronym, BRAVING, B-R-A-V-I-N-G. BRAVING. Because when we trust, we are braving connection with someone. So what are the parts of trust? B, boundaries. I trust you. If you are about your boundaries and you hold them, and you’re clear about my boundaries and you respect them. There is no trust without boundaries.

    R, reliability. I can only trust you if you do what you say you’re going to do. And not once. Reliability … Let me tell you what reliability is in research terms. We’re always looking for things that are valid and reliable. Any researchers here or research kind of geeks? There’s 10 of us.

    Okay. So we would say a scale that you weigh yourself on is valid if you get on it and it’s an accurate weight. 120. Okay. So that would be a very valid scale. I would pay a lot of money for that scale. So, that’s actually not a valid scale, but we’ll pretend for the sake of this. That’s a valid scale.

    A reliable scale is a scale that if I got on it a hundred times, it’s gonna say the same thing every time. So, what reliability is, is you do what you say you’re going to do over and over and over again. You cannot gain and earn my trust if you’re reliable once, because that’s not the definition of reliability.

    In our working lives, reliability means that we have to be very clear on our limitations so we don’t take on so much that we come up short and don’t deliver on our commitments. In our personal life, it means the same thing. So, when we say to someone, “Oh God, it was so great seeing you. I’m going to give you a call and we can have lunch. Yes or no?” “No. It was really great seeing you.” Moment of discomfort. Goodbye. Right? But honest.

    So B, Boundaries. R, Reliability. A … Huge. Accountability. I can only trust you if, when you make a mistake, you are willing to own it, apologize for it, and make amends. I can only trust you if when I make a mistake, I am allowed to own it, apologize, and make amends. No accountability? No trust.

    V, and this one shook me to the core. Vault. The Vault. What I share with you, you will hold in confidence. What you share with me, I will hold in confidence. But you know what we don’t understand? And this came up over and over again in the research. We don’t understand the other side of the vault. That’s only one door on the vault. Here’s where we lose trust with people.

    If a good friend comes up to me and says, “Oh my God, did you hear about Caroline? They’re getting a divorce and it is ugly. I’m pretty sure her partner’s cheating.” You have just shared something with me that was not yours to share, and now, my trust for you, even though you’re gossiping and giving me the juice, now my trust for you is completely diminished.

    Does that make sense? So the Vault is not just about the fact that you hold my confidences, it’s that, in our relationship, I see that you acknowledge confidentiality. Here’s the tricky thing about the Vault. A lot of times, we share things that are not ours to share as a way to hot wire connection with a friend, right? If you don’t have anything nice to say, come sit next to me. You know? Yes or no? Our closeness is built on talking bad about other people. You know what I call that? Common enemy intimacy.

    What we have is not real. The intimacy we have is built on hating the same people, and that’s counterfeit. That’s counterfeit trust. That’s not real. So, the Vault means you respect my story, but you respect other people’s story.

    I, Integrity. I cannot trust you and be in a trusting relationship with you if you do not act from a place of integrity and encourage me to do the same. So, what is integrity?

    I came up with this definition because I didn’t like any of the ones out there, and that’s what I do when I don’t like them. I do. I look in the data, and I say, “What’s integrity?” Here’s what I think integrity is. Three pieces. It’s choosing courage over comfort, choosing what’s right over what’s fun, fast, or easy, and practicing your values, not just professing your values, right? I mean, that’s integrity.

    N, Non-judgment. I can fall apart, ask for help, and be in struggle without being judged by you. And you can fall apart, and be in struggle, and ask for help without being judged by me, which is really hard because we’re better at helping than we are asking for help.

    And we think that we’ve set up trusting relationships with people who really trust us because we’re always there to help them. But let me tell you this, if you can’t ask for help and they cannot reciprocate that, that is not a trusting relationship. Period. And when we assign value to needing help, when I think less of myself for needing help, whether you’re conscious of it or not, when you offer help to someone, you think less of them too.

    You cannot judge yourself for needing help but not judge others for needing your help. And somewhere in there, if you’re like me, you’re getting value from being the helper in relationship. You think that’s your worth. But real trust doesn’t exist unless help is reciprocal and non-judgment.

    The last one is G, Generosity. Our relationship is only a trusting relationship if you can assume the most generous thing about my words, intentions, and behaviors, and then check in with me. So, if I screw up, say something, forget something, you will make a generous assumption and say, “Yesterday was my mom’s one year anniversary of her death, and it was really tough for me, and I talked to you about it last month. And I really was hoping that you would’ve called, but I know you care about me. I know you think it’s a big deal. So I wanted to let you know that I’ve been thinking about that.” As opposed to not returning calls, not returning emails, and waiting for the moment where you can spring, “Well, you forgot to call on this important …” You know? You’ll make a generous assumption about me and check it out.

    Does that make sense? So we’ve got boundaries, reliability, accountability, the vault, integrity, non-judgment, and generosity. These, this is the anatomy of trust, and it’s complex.

    Why do we need to break it down? For a very simple reason. How many of you in here have ever struggled with trust in a relationship, professional or personal? It should be everybody, statistically, right? And so, what you end up saying to someone is, “I don’t trust you.” “What do you mean you don’t trust me? I love you. I’m so dependable. What do you mean you don’t trust me?”

    How do we talk about trust if we can’t break it down? What understanding trust gives us is words to say, “Here’s my struggle. You’re not reliable with me. You say you’re going to do something, I count on it, you don’t do it.” Or maybe the issue is non-judgment. But we can break it down and talk about it and ask for what we need, very specifically. Instead of using this huge word that has tons of weight and value around it, we can say, “Here’s specifically what’s not working. What’s not working is we’ve got a boundaries issue.”

    So, one of the things that’s interesting, I think, is one of the biggest casualties with heartbreak and disappointment and failure and our struggle, is not just the loss of trust with other people, but the loss of self trust. When something hard happens in our lives, the first thing we say is “I can’t trust myself. I was so stupid. I was so naive.”

    So, this BRAVING acronym works with self-trust too. So, when something happens … I just recently went through a really tough failure, and I had to ask myself, “Did I honor my own boundaries? Was I reliable? Can I count on myself? Did I hold myself accountable? Was I really protective of my stories? Did I stay in my integrity? Was I judgmental toward myself? And I give myself the benefit of the doubt? Was I generous toward myself?”

    Because if braving relationships with other people is braving connection, self-trust is braving self-love. Self-respect, the wildest adventure we’ll ever take in our whole lives. And so, what I would invite you to think about when you think about trust is if your own marble jar is not full, if you can’t count on yourself, you can’t ask other people to give you what you don’t have. So we have to start with self-trust.

    There’s a great quote from Maya Angelou that says, “I don’t trust people who don’t love themselves, but say I love you.” Right?

    She quotes an African proverb when she said that, and she said, “Be wary of the naked man offering you a shirt.” And so, a lot of times if you find yourself in struggle with trust, the thing to examine first is your own marble jar, how you treat yourself. Because we can’t ask people to give to us something that we do not believe we’re worthy of receiving. And you will know you’re worthy of receiving it when you trust yourself above everyone else. So, thank y’all so much. I’m so honored to be here. Thank you. Thank y’all.

  • EMPLOYMENT ENGLISH LAW UPDATE – CORONA VIRUS

    Introduction

    The government has recently announced financial support for employers/employees and selfemployed individuals whose businesses are unable to operate during the coronavirus lockdown subject to certain conditions. This update sets out the main details of each scheme.

    Employers/Employees

    Corona Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) – furlough leave
    The CJRS provides support to employers whose employees are unable to work because the business is unable to operate due to the coronavirus lockdown. For example, restaurants, retail and leisure which were closed by government order.

    The CJRS enables employers to be reimbursed for 80% of employees’ wages subject to a
    maximum cap of £2,500 per month (plus employers’ national insurance and minimum auto enrolment pension contribution) provided employees were employed before 19 March 2020 (previously 1 March but changed on 15 April 2020).

    Employers can choose to pay the additional 20% of wages (which will not be reimbursed) but there is no obligation to do so

    How do Employers apply?

    To qualify, employers have to put employees on ‘furlough leave’, i.e leave of absence due to
    the (temporary) shutdown of the business. Employees cannot do any work for their employer while they are on furlough leave, so employees on reduced or shortened hours would not qualify.

    Employees have to agree to furlough leave but, as the alternative could be redundancy,
    employees will most likely agree. Under the CJRS, the furlough leave agreement must be in writing and also as the 20% wages reduction and absence leave is a variation to the employee’s contract. The minimum period of furlough leave is 3 weeks and it is possible to rotate staff if some work is available.

    Once the employees are on furlough leave then the employer pays their 80% wages in the
    normal payroll with the tax and NI deductions (on 80%) and then applies for reimbursement from the government through an online portal system due to be available by the end of April.

    The government has suggested that if employers cannot afford to pay the employees, they will be able to do so through the Government Loan Scheme.

    The online portal is administered by HMRC using existing PAYE records. Claims can be
    backdated to 1 March provided employees were unable to work during this period.
    © Grower Freeman 2020

    Does it apply to all employees?

    Yes, all employees are covered including full-time, part-time and zero hours workers provided they are on PAYE. Agency staff on PAYE can be furloughed by their agency. Employees who were made redundant in February 2020 and now before 19 March due to the corona virus can be reinstated and claims backdated to 1 March.

    From the latest HMRC guidance, employees on sick leave can be furloughed and vice versa. However, this should not be abused by using furlough pay to top up small amounts of SSP for short term absences

    Employees on maternity leave do not qualify but are still entitled to Statutory Maternity Pay.

    What happens at the end of the three-month scheme?

    Depending on the state of the business, employers can either retain the employees, putting them back on full wages or make them redundant. It is also possible to make employees redundant while on furlough leave. However, the furlough scheme is intended to avoid redundancies during the lockdown period and hopefully save jobs.

    Can employees do any other work whilst on Furlough Leave?

    Employees cannot do any paid work either for their employer or any other employer unless
    there is an existing agreement. They can do voluntary work (unpaid) and, if the employe
    requires them to do training during furlough leave, then they are entitled to be paid the
    national minimum/ living wage.

    Statutory Sick Pay For anyone suffering from Covid-19 or who are self-isolating or shielding others, SSP will be paid on the first day of absence rather than the fourth day. Small to medium sized employers will also be reimbursed for the full amount of SSP rather than having to pay it themselves.

    SSP is minimal – £95.85 per week from 6th April. There is, however, now the option to furlough staff instead, if appropriate

    SSP only applies to employees but self-employed people can also make a claim for universal credit or contributory employment and support allowance.

    Holiday Leave

    The Working Time Regulations have been amended to allow employees/ workers to carry over four weeks of holiday leave to the next two leave years if it was not reasonably practicable to use holiday leave due to the coronavirus pandemic.

    Self-employed

    The government rescue package for the self-employed (individuals and members of a
    partnership) comprises the following:

    • A new self-employed income support scheme will pay self-employed people a taxable grant worth 80% of average monthly income, capped at £2,500 per month © Grower Freeman 2020
    • Income will be calculated by taking the average of income over the last three years from HMRC records.
    • Self-employed people can claim these grants and continue to work in their business (so it is not the same as furlough leave where employees are unable to work for their employer).
    • The scheme is only open to those with trading profits of up to £50k and who make the majority of their income from self-employment.
    • It only applies to those who have submitted a Tax Return for 2019 (this is to minimise fraud).
    • However, those who have only just set up a business or who did not submit their Tax Return by 31.01.2020 can still submit a Tax Return for 2019 for a further four weeks from 26th March 2020.

    How do Self-Employed people apply for this?

    The scheme will not be up and running until the end of June. Unlike the CJRS no application is required. Instead, HMRC will contact eligible self-employed people directly inviting them to fill out an online form and, if approved, will then pay the grant direct into their bank account. Similar to the CJRS, the scheme will only be open for three months from 1st March to end of June but, as it will not be in operation until the end of June, it is not going to provide immediate support

    Other help for the self-employed

    Tax payments due on 31st July 2020 can be put back to 31st January 2021 and VAT Returns can be deferred to 31st March 2021.

    Comment

    The government’s financial support packages during the coronavirus lockdown and the speed with which they have been introduced is unprecedented but these are unprecedented times. It remains to be seen how the schemes will work in practice. Various legal issues have already been addressed in the government’s latest guidance updates and doubtless, more will follow

    Website links:

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-a-grant-through-the-coronavirus-covid-19-self-employment-income-support-scheme

    Contact details:

    This update was produced by Tessa Fry, Head of Employment at Grower Freeman. For further information or advice, please contact Tessa Fry at tessa@growerfreeman.co.uk -or- 020 7563 5477.

    Disclaimer – This update is intended to provide readers with information on recent legal developments. It should not be construed as legal advice or guidance on a particular matter.

    Publisher/Author Info:

    Grower Freeman
    Ivor House
    25-26 Ivor Place
    London NW1 6HR
    T: +44 (0)20 7723 30
    E: tessa@growerfreeman.co.uk
    W: www.growerfreeman.co.uk

    To View Original Published PDF by Tessa Fry of Grower Freeman, Click HERE

  • Tessa Fry On The Radio Again

    Tessa Fry, our employment law specialist was recently interviewed on Resonance FM discussing furlough leave and other government support for employers, employees and the self-employed due to the corona virus lockdown.  The interview starts 35 minutes in.

    Do tune in.

  • COVID-19 Crisis: How to help leaders and teams ‘decide how to decide’ their priorities

    We are thrilled to be supporting you with our guest bloggers.
    We’ve had many posts recently about working through the pandemic, check them out here.
    This week we learn how to decide priorities.

    This week’s guest blogger, Dr. Laura Hauser, MCC, helps us in the COVID -19 Crisis by helping leaders and teams ‘decide how to decide’ their priorities

    Here’s what she had to say…

    decide priorities

    When Luke Skywalker questions his ability to use the Force to lift his ship out of the swamp, Yoda tells him ”Do or do not. There is no try,” advising the young Jedi to use the power of giving something his all, not just a try.

    This is wise counsel during today’s novel coronavirus crisis where it may feel like you’ve been dropped into a swamp with no way out.

    Now, more than ever, it’s critical to quickly help leaders and their teams focus, assign resources, and take action.

    I continually hear concerns that some of the most visible and valuable casualties of this crisis are the cancellation of team development initiatives, strategic off-sites, and team meetings.

    They’re asking “Now, what?” How do we decide which team development interventions including off-sites and leadership coaching courses should we focus on now, later, or not at all?

    Jedi Triage – How To Decide How To Decide

    Think triage, like medical professionals during a time of crisis. They use degrees of urgency to decide how to treat large numbers of casualties. Quick assessment is critical to get the patient to the right resources at the right time and place.

    During the COVID-19 crisis, team leaders, coaches, and business partners (learning and development, human resources, talent managers) need to become triage experts.

    It’s a critical time for you to summon your Jedi superpowers to quickly assess and focus on your team’s work and development.

    Developing a simple, effective way to define criteria will help you decide how to decide while bringing your Jedi skills of timeliness, compassion, calmness, wisdom, and resources to bear.

    People want to focus on the right priorities, particularly during a time of crisis. They need compassion amid their personal circumstances and clarity about their work priorities.

    The Power of Urgency and Importance

    Like medical first-responders, your job is to help leaders and their teams quickly assess and prioritize using two core elements: Urgency and Importance.

    Urgent matters require immediate action

    Think customer or technology firestorms that could severely affect the business, NOW. They require us to stop what we are doing and attend to the current situation. Ask how critical is it to run the business? What is the level of impact on strategy, people, customers, etc.?

    Important matters require time for thoughtful planning and delivery

    These activities have the potential to profoundly affect the well-being and success of the business but don’t need to be done now. They require thoughtful time, energy and resources.

    Even though a team cannot meet f2f during this COVID-19 crisis, we can use technology like videoconferencing to bring us together and address urgent and important matters.

    Jedi Triage Matrix

    decide priorities

    To help you quickly decide how to decide priorities, I developed a simple matrix. Adapt it in any way that works best for you. The elements of urgency and importance to prioritize decisions originally came from Dwight D. Eisenhower during World War II, and later was popularized by Stephen Covey and others.

    Do Now = Emergencies

    Important and urgent (top left): Critical to do now. Unexpected hard-to-plan-for emergencies, like consequences of the COVID-19 virus:

    • employees need computers at home to do their work and stay connected
    • customer complaints, unanticipated bottlenecks in customer supply chain and fulfillment processes
    • team members contracting the virus and families need help

    Jedi tip: Too much time in this quadrant can lead to burn-out when stress levels are already off the charts. Minimize time spent here by ensuring that the issue at hand truly belongs in Q1–not just being reactive. Plan ahead–don’t wait until the last minute to address issues so that they won’t become a Q1 issue.

    Do Soon = Essential

    Important but not urgent (top right): These are critical activities that are not as time-sensitive and requires more time for collaboration compared to Emergencies:

    • expand team member’s capabilities to contribute to current and future business needs by learning how to coach each other, and coach their teams through crisis
    • innovate strategic initiatives for growth of the company, teams, and individuals
    • solve problems and innovate new opportunities such as how to shore up our supply chain or cybersecurity during and subsequent crisis

    Jedi tip: Don’t assume that projects and tasks before the COVID-19 crisis retain the same level of importance. Help your leaders and teams assess what’s critical amidst the wicked challenges posed by the crisis. Ask what previous projects can we move to other quadrants? What new projects and tasks do we need to add?

    Wait = Distractions

    Low importance and urgent (bottom left): Not critical but appear important.
    These activities are productivity killers that interrupt a team member’s performance:

    • non-time sensitive requests for information
    • checking emails frequently to see if a teammate needs your help but then gets distracted clearing out unnecessary emails, checking social media posts, newsfeeds, etc.

    These types of interruptions take attention away from Emergency and Essential actions and cause missed deadlines and poor quality work. Minimize time spent on distractions as much as possible.

    Jedi Tip: Intentionally reduce unnecessary interruptions and distractions. Calendar specific time slots during each day for team members to check and respond to emails, texts, and phone calls so that members can concentrate on important and critical items for longer periods of time. Delegate tasks when appropriate.

    Eliminate or Hold = Time Wasters

    Low importance and not urgent (bottom right): don’t require focus right now, and potential long-term risks and opportunities at some future point.

    • activities and meetings no longer relevant to the team’s goals and new work environment
    • long-term future tasks, but not needed in the near future

    Jedi tip: For activities still on your list, help your team assess if it’s still a priority. If it doesn’t fit into one of the other three boxes, or if it isn’t an idea to capture for future opportunities, let it go!

    Stay Focused

    During this time of crisis use your Jedi superpowers to triage and help yourself and others focus and decide on the right level of learning and development for the right people at the right time. Help leaders and their teams use some method of prioritization. When coaching, ask:

    • how urgent and important is this (project, task, opportunity, challenge)?
    • where can we best spend precious time and energy to support the development of individuals, leaders, and their teams that fosters enterprise-wide success?

    This will help you create a reality that’s manageable and moves you and your team forward in this time of crisis.

    And most importantly, remember to breathe. May the Force be with you.


    Tell us what you’ve learned about how to decide priorities or what you can add to the conversation by commenting on this blog or by connecting with your colleagues on our Facebook page.

    Here is some information about the author:

    laura hauser

    Dr. Laura Hauser, MCC, MCEC, works with corporate leaders (and professionals who develop leaders and teams), to help them build their capacity and courage to build healthy workplace cultures. She is an internationally-recognized thought leader and researcher in the highly specialized space of team coaching. Using the art of science, she teaches, coaches, supervises and consults in a way that expands people’s mindsets needed to excel during complex times. Laura is the developer of the Team Coaching Operating System®, an ACSTH coaching school accredited by the International Coach Federation. Contact Laura at engage@leadership-strategies.com or via her LinkedIn profile

  • Should non-disclosure agreements be confidential or not?

    With new rules reducing the scope of confidentiality provisions in NDAs, Tessa Fry weighs up the arguments for and against their use

    Nobody can be forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) – or, more accurately in the employment context, nobody can be forced to sign the confidentiality and non-disparaging provisions of a settlement agreement. The key requirement for a valid settlement agreement is for the employee to have independent legal advice before they sign. The employer usually contributes towards legal fees for this purpose.

    Settlement agreements provide certainty and finality for both businesses and employees. They can be used to settle existing or potential tribunal claims, but are commonly used on termination where there is no particular dispute. Under the standard terms, employers do not admit liability and employees receive compensation in exchange for giving up their employment rights, and are then unable to bring any claims against the company. 

    Over the years, settlement agreements have become more complex, with detailed provisions on confidentiality and non-disparagement (the NDAs). Standard provisions include both parties agreeing to keep the settlement figure and background details confidential, together with an agreed reference and mutual ‘no bad-mouthing’. This protects both parties. 

    Until recently, these NDAs were generally accepted. However, since the #MeToo movement, the various disclosures made regarding NDAs in sexual harassment cases have led to consideration by the Women and Equalities Committee and the Court of Appeal. The committee was concerned in particular with a settlement agreement with Zelda Perkins, Harvey Weinstein’s (pictured) former PA who worked for him 20 years ago. The agreement prohibited disclosure to the police and medical practitioners, and even prevented the employee having a copy of the agreement (it had to be viewed in the presence of a solicitor). 

    Although most NDAs do not contain these prohibitions, the committee concluded that cases of workplace sexual harassment and discrimination were being covered up by the use of these agreements, and in particular their confidentiality clauses. It proposed that employees signing such agreements should get specific advice on the limitations of confidentiality clauses. 

    By contrast, in the Philip Green/Arcadia injunction application, the Court of Appeal considered settlement agreements with five former employees and noted their legal fees were paid in full, they were not pressurised to sign the agreements and there was no restriction on reporting to the police or whistleblowing. So the disclosure of the allegations by two former employees to the Daily Telegraph was in breach of the NDAs. Accordingly, the injunction was granted to protect the employer’s confidentiality – confidentiality that the employees had agreed to in exchange for very high compensation. It was noted that the allegations were denied and two other ex-employees supported the injunction application.

    In responding to the committee’s report, the government has stated it will introduce new legislation to ensure confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements cannot prevent individuals from making disclosures to the police, regulated health and care professionals or regulators. There will be new requirements for the mandatory independent legal advice on a settlement agreement to include the limitations of any confidentiality clause. Confidentiality clauses that do not comply with the new legal requirements will be void. 

    It is not known when the legislation will be introduced. However, some aspects have already taken effect because of regulatory pressures on solicitors. Under new SRA guidance, if a solicitor is drafting clauses that are unenforceable, such as clauses preventing reports to the police, this may lead to disciplinary action.

    The standard precedent now takes this guidance and government proposals into account and there are long lists of categories to whom disclosure may be made – in particular, the police, regulated health and care professionals and any professional regulator.

    If employers are no longer able to rely on confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements then they may be less inclined to settle disputes. This may leave the employee with applying to a tribunal as the only other remedy available to them – with the risks and costs involved. 

    Author: Tessa Fry

  • Productivity Is Not Working

    My generation learned that relentless self-optimization was a way to cope—but in this crisis, everything looks different.

    SOME QUESTIONS ARE infinitely more interesting than their answers. One such question started to echo around the internet in the early days of the Covid-19 lockdowns and has become increasingly frantic in the febrile weeks that have followed. The question was this: How shall we stay productive when the world is going to hell?

    Productivity, or the lack of it, has become the individual metric of choice for coping with the international econo-pathological clusterfuck of the Corona Crisis. How should we self-optimize when we’re suddenly having to meet our deadlines with our roommates, kids, and inner critics screaming in the background? If we’re lucky enough to be able to shelter in place and we’re not using that time to launch podcasts and personal projects and life-hack our way to some cargo-cult pastiche of normality, are we somehow letting the side down?

    These are not practical questions. They are moral and philosophical questions. Yes, there are plenty of practical reasons why so many people are panicking about work. If we’ve been furloughed or lost our jobs, we’re scrambling to make up the shortfall. If we’re still employed, we’re worried about the long term, and if we’re relatively secure, we’re wrestling with survivor’s guilt. But the drive to stay productive is about so much more than making rent. It is a moral discipline. When I check in with friends and family far away, I usually get an update on how productive they have or have not managed to be since we last spoke. “Productivity” is not a synonym for health, or for safety, or for sanity. But as a precarious millennial who for the past 10 years has answered every cautious inquiry about my well-being with a rundown of how much work I got done that day, I do understand the confusion.

    It’s hardly surprising that so many of us are processing this immense, unknowable collective catastrophe by escaping into smaller, everyday emergencies. A crisis you create for yourself, after all, is a crisis you might be able to control. Frantic productivity is a fear response. It’s a fear response for 21st-century humans in general and millennial humans in particular, as we’ve collectively awoken from the American dream with a strange headache and a stacks of bills to pay. My whole generation learned relentless work was the way to cope with the rolling crisis, with the mood of imminent collapse and economic insecurity that was the elevator music of our entire youth—the relentless tension between trying to save yourself and trying to save the world, between desperate aspiration and actual hope.

    Right through the white-knuckle ride of my twenties and beyond, I clung to work as a way of protecting myself when I was scared, when I was hurt, when the future seemed to collapse on itself like a stack of marked cards. No matter how many marches I go to, there is some part of me that believes that if I can only self-optimize a bit harder then the world will right itself, no one I love will suffer, and death will have no dominion. So when the coronavirus crisis began, I started writing myself ambitious to-do lists on giant sticky notes—because when every cultural certainty starts collapsing in my hands like wet cake, writing ambitious to-do lists is how I calm down.

    I would exercise in the mornings and write in the evenings. I would cook. I would sort out my finances. By week three, I would finally finish my book. I would organize my time so I had no time to feel any emotion other than manageable, everyday anxiety about my workload, with occasional breaks for feeling appropriately grateful that I still have a job I can do from home. Unfortunately, somewhere between writing those to-do lists and watching overpromoted incompetents invite their voters to kindly die to keep the economy going in the manner to which it has become accustomed, the entire concept of linear time seemed to disintegrate, which really played havoc with my calendar.Most Popular

    These days, I have a new, surprisingly packed schedule of cooking, washing up, video-conferencing with everyone I’ve ever met, and hiding in bed hoping that history can’t hear me breathing. The giant sticky notes are proliferating around the house, and my roommates tolerate them so long as I don’t start linking them together with red thread and pictures of my enemies. Despite being various flavors of neurotic workaholic, my roommates and I have discovered that right now, while our personal productivity matters, what matters more immediately is that we all manage to live in the same house without killing each other. The human race as a whole seems to be coming to a similar realization.

    There has always been something a little obscene about the cult of the hustle, the treadmill of alienated insecurity that tells you that if you stop running for even an instant, you’ll be flung flat on your face—but the treadmill is familiar. The treadmill feels normal. And right now, when the world economy has jerked to a sudden, shuddering stop, most of us are desperate to feel normal. This column is happening because I lost one of my three jobs to the Covid-19 crisis right around the time when I realized I had no idea when I was going to see my mum again, and after a few hours of crying and tidying, I emailed my kind editor in a panic and told him to please give me deadlines, I don’t know who I am without them. Why don’t I know?

    The way most of us have been conditioned to think about work in the modern economy has all the hallmarks of hypervigilance. It’s what happens to people when they are trapped in abusive circumstances they cannot escape. Psychologist Judith Herman observed that “the ultimate effect of [psychological domination] is to convince the victim that the perpetrator is omnipotent, that resistance is futile, and that her life depends upon winning his indulgence through absolute compliance.” The body responds to relentless insecurity and threat with agitated alertness, looking for ways to protect itself from harm. This is how most of my peers have experienced the modern economy. We were told that if we worked hard, we would be safe, and well, and looked after, and the less this was true, the harder we worked.

    The idea that hustling can save you from calamity is an article of faith, not fact—and the Covid-19 pandemic is starting to shake the collective faith in individual striving. The doctrine of “workism” places the blame for global catastrophe squarely on the individual: If you can’t get a job because jobs aren’t there, you must be lazy, or not hustling hard enough. That’s the story that young and young-ish people tell themselves, even as we’ve spent the whole of our brief, broke working lives paying for the mistakes of the old, rich, and stupid. We internalized the collective failures of the ruling class as personal failings that could be fixed by working smarter, or harder, or both—because that, at least, meant that we might be able to fix them ourselves.

    The cult of productivity doesn’t have an answer for this crisis. Self-optimizing will not save us this time, although saying so feels surprisingly blasphemous. This isn’t happening because you didn’t work hard enough, and it won’t be fixed by optimizing your morning routines and adopting a can-do attitude. After the quarantine, after we count the lives lost or ruined, recession is coming. A big one. For millennials, it’s the second devastating economic calamity in our short working lives, and we’re still carrying the trauma of the first. This time, though, we know it’s not our fault. This time it’s abundantly clear that we didn’t deserve it. And this is exactly the sort of crisis that gives people ideas about overturning the social order.Most Popular

    The Great Plagues of the 14th century famously shattered the feudal system by wiping out half of Europe and giving the few remaining workers a lot more bargaining power—but the Black Death also undermined the power of religion. As broken communities surveyed the mounds of corpses, wondering what sins could possibly be proportional to this sort of punishment, they started to lose faith in God—and the Medieval Church began to lose power as an organizing force in everyday life. If the economic dogma of work under modern capitalism fulfills the same functions as the church of the 1400s—defining human value and justifying our place in society—the emotions of watching that dogma fail are akin to a loss of faith. If frantic productivity is a fear response, the opposite urge—to tear it all up and declare deadline bankruptcy—feels like blasphemy. Laziness is the only sin out of the seven big ones that seems to count in the moral metric of the modern economy, and what other word is there for that edge-panic impulse to simply delete your email address and spend time doing small, gentle things that make being alive hurt a little less?

    “When we have no memory or little imagination of an alternative to a life centered on work,” writes theorist Kathi Weeks, “there are few incentives to reflect on why we work as we do and what we might wish to do instead.” In fact, as Europe and America remain in enforced lockdown, many people are working harder than ever—but the work they’re doing more of is not “productive” in the traditional sense. That does not mean it isn’t work. Childcare is work, as anyone who is suddenly having to do twice as much of it on top of their normal job can tell you. Cooking, cleaning, emotional and community management, all of which most of us are doing more intensely as we’re living together in lockdown, are work—they just don’t count on the ledger of human worth because the economy refuses to value them in its reckoning of what does, because most of it has been done in private, by women, for free. Making breakfast, making the beds, making sure your friends and family aren’t losing their absolute minds is work that matters more than ever and will continue to matter in the coming decades as crisis follows crisis. It is not “productive,” in the way that most of us have learned to understand what that word means, but it is work, and it is worthwhile.

    There is nothing counterrevolutionary about keeping busy. But right now, we have a finite opportunity to rethink how we value ourselves, to re-examine our metric for measuring the worth of human lives. Right now, the entire species is trying to work out how to live in the same house without killing each other—and that may well turn out to be the work that matters most.

  • Managerial Competencies and Organizational Levels

    I was talking recently with a very smart psychologist about IBM; I noted that IBM’s stock has gone down steadily for the past six years, and he said: “IBM is well managed but poorly led.” This perceptive observation assumes that managers’ jobs change as they move from supervisor to manager to executive. I have always thought that leadership is the same at any level, but many people believe that the roles of managers, and the competencies needed to perform in those roles, change as they advance in organizations. I know little about this, so I asked Rob Kaiser and, as usual, he was helpful—in part because he organized an entire issue of The Psychologist-Manager Journal (2011, Volume 14) on this subject.

    The particular strength of the articles in Kaiser’s issue of the journal is that they present real data, based on good measures and a comprehensive set of competencies, data that show clearly how the requirements of management jobs change with changes in organizational status. The published literature on this topic is quite large and somewhat complex. I believe I can summarize the major lessons of the literature in terms of four points.

    The first point is that management levels can be usefully conceptualized in terms of three categories:  (1) Supervisors, who are responsible for organizing employees’ work, assigning tasks, and holding people accountable for their performance; (2) Managers, who coordinate the efforts of work teams with the requests of top management; (3) Executives, who set the direction for the organization. Even with these simple definitions it is apparent that people do different things at different levels of management.

    The second point is that De Meuse, et al. (2011) show that certain prominent competencies (e.g., Humor, Personal Disclosure, and Compassion), are irrelevant. Specifically, ratings for sense of humor, willingness to disclose, and showing compassion are uncorrelated with managerial performance at any level. Consider Personal Disclosure. It is defined as “…willing to share thoughts about personal strengths, weaknesses, and limitations; admits mistakes and shortcomings; is open about personal beliefs and feelings; is easy to get to know for those who interact with him/her regularly.” Personal Disclosure is the core of Authentic Leadership theory and these data indicate that it is irrelevant for managerial performance.

    The third point is that certain competencies are in fact important at any level. These include Customer Focus, Functional/Technical Skills, Decision Quality, and Ethics and Values. I can’t resist noting that these competencies are at the core of the “Hogan Leadership Model.” The data provided by Kaiser, et al. (2011) contain two interesting findings. The first concerns the importance of being decisive versus being participative when making decisions. Effective Managers are rated as high decisive, low participative, whereas effective Executives are rated as low decisive, high participative. Second, Kaiser’s data indicate that “learning agility” is needed at every managerial level, and that “abrasiveness” is undesirable at any level. These data are consistent with Kaiser’s claim that adaptability (i.e., learning agility) is the “g” factor in managerial performance.

    The last point is that certain competencies are important for Supervisors, even more important for Managers, and crucial for Executives. These competencies are Managerial Courage, Command Skills, Business Acumen, and Perspective. This is also consistent with our leadership model.

    These four points summarize what we know in a data-based way about how managers’ jobs change as they move up organizational hierarchies. I would like to close with two observations, the first concerns the practical consequences of these data, the second concerns a shortcoming in these analyses. Regarding the practical consequences, executive coaches all know that many managers fail after being promoted. A common cause of failure concerns being unable to adapt to the promotion. We distinguish between working in the business and working on the business. Working in the business involves assigning tasks, giving clear instructions, and holding people accountable. Working on the business means putting problems in perspective, evaluating past decisions based on present evidence, and anticipating problems based on potential changes in customer demands. This involves the distinction between tactical and strategic thinking. Tactical thinking concerns implementation issues, budget allocation, and short-term deadlines; strategic thinking concerns innovation, profit generation, and longer-term opportunities. Smart, hardworking, honest executives often fail because they focus on tactical issues at the expense of strategic opportunities.

    The second problem with discussions of leadership based on competency models concerns the problem of derailment. The data show that 65% to 75% of existing managers struggle to perform well at any level. Competency models focus on strengths, but as Rob Kaiser tells us, strengths become problems when they are overused; thus, more of any competency is not always better. Conversely, more versatility (or learning agility) is always better. In addition, Kaiser’s data also show that unpleasant tendencies (e.g., abrasiveness) can co-exist with important strengths, and the unpleasant tendencies can cancel the benefits of important strengths. All of this suggests that competency-based analyses of leadership need to be qualified by considerations of versatility and the dark side of personality.

    Author: Robert Hogan

  • How Being Bullied Affects Your Adulthood

    One researcher who has interviewed hundreds of adults who were bullied as teens posits an interesting theory.

    In American schools, bullying is like the dark cousin to prom, student elections, or football practice: Maybe you weren’t involved, but you knew that someone, somewhere was. Five years ago, President Obama spoke against this inevitability at the White House Conference on Bullying Prevention. “With big ears and the name that I have, I wasn’t immune. I didn’t emerge unscathed,” he said. “But because it’s something that happens a lot, and it’s something that’s always been around, sometimes we’ve turned a blind eye to the problem.”

    We know that we shouldn’t turn a blind eye: Research shows that bullying is corrosive to children’s mental health and well-being, with consequences ranging from trouble sleeping and skipping school to psychiatric problems, such as depression or psychosis, self-harm, and suicide.

    But the damage doesn’t stop there. You can’t just close the door on these experiences, says Ellen Walser deLara, a family therapist and professor of social work at Syracuse University, who has interviewed more than 800 people age 18 to 65 about the lasting effects of bullying. Over the years, deLara has seen a distinctive pattern emerge in adults who were intensely bullied. In her new book, Bullying Scars, she introduces a name for the set of symptoms she often encounters: adult post-bullying syndrome, or APBS.

    DeLara estimates that more than a third of the adults she’s spoken to who were bullied have this syndrome. She stresses that APBS is a description, not a diagnosis—she isn’t seeking to have APBS classified as a psychiatric disorder. “It needs considerably more research and other researchers to look at it to make sure that this is what we’re seeing,” deLara says.

    Roughly 1 in 3 students in the United States are bullied at school (figures on cyberbullying are less certain, because it is newer than other forms of bullying and the technology kids use to carry it out is constantly in flux). This abuse can span exclusion, rumors, name-calling, or physical harm. Some victims are isolated loners while others are bedeviled by their own friends or social rivals.

    Years after being mistreated, people with adult post-bullying syndrome commonly struggle with trust and self-esteem, and develop psychiatric problems, deLara’s research found. Some become people-pleasers, or rely on food, alcohol, or drugs to cope.

    In some respects, APBS is similar to post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, in which people who have had terrifying experiences develop an impaired fight-or-flight response. Both APBS and PTSD can lead to lasting anger or anxiety, substance abuse, battered self-esteem, and relationship problems. One difference, though, is that people with APBS seem less prone to sudden flares of rage.

    “Those with PTSD have internalized their trauma such that it has affected their nervous system,” deLara says. “People with PTSD react immediately because their triggers are basically telling them they need to protect themselves against harm.” Those with APBS seem to have a longer fuse; the damage comes not in an outsized reaction but instead because they ruminate on what happened.

    DeLara observed another distinction between sufferers of PTSD and those with APBS: Sometimes, having been bullied seems to have positive outcomes.

    About 47 percent of deLara’s interviewees said they had mined something beneficial, like a sense of inner strength or self-reliance, from the experience. Others cultivated empathy or consciously decided to treat others well or make something of their lives. Everyone with APBS had at least one or more of these boons, deLara says.

    It’s unclear how much of this silver lining can be traced to genetics, and how much to a supportive family or community. “We don’t know the answer as to why some people who are bullied as children have what they consider to be a beneficial outcome as adults,” deLara says.

    She is planning to compare the recovery rates for people with PTSD and with APBS. One difference she saw in people with APBS is that they don’t see the world as a menacing place, as people with PTSD often do.

    Some people have an inborn sense of optimism, or ability to focus on how lucky they are to have left bullying behind them. These people might have a head start in bouncing back, but resilience can also be learned. For people with APBS, deLara recommends family and cognitive behavioral therapies, particularly those focused on trauma.

    Of course, the damage wrought by bullying handily outweighs any benefits. “Because people can make lemonade out of lemons, it doesn’t mean that bullying is a good thing,” deLara says. Even those who are able to see the positive side of having been bullied often had other negative ramifications.

    DeLara hopes that giving a name to these experiences will make it easier for people to find effective treatment. “In order to help someone you have to be able to clearly name what’s going on,” she says. Moreover, people who live with the symptoms of adult post-bullying syndrome don’t realize that they’re not the only ones to respond this way. One man told deLara that the idea of APBS helped him realize his reaction was normal and not another personality flaw.

    DeLara plans to continue studying the long-term consequences of bullying and which therapies can help people overcome them.

    Dieter Wolke, who has studied the psychiatric impacts of bullying in adults at the University of Warwick in Coventry, England, agrees that bullying can leave devastating, long-lasting psychological damage. He’s hesitant, however, about using a new term for these symptoms based on their cause. “I see not much value in inventing a new name,” he says. It’s more important, he says, for doctors to be trained to broach the subject of bullying with their patients.

    What is clear is that while some adults have overcome the bullying they endured as kids, others continue to suffer. The research on what forms this suffering takes is still preliminary. Whether or not the label of APBS sticks around, people who live with its symptoms will benefit from any research into how to resolve them.

    Author: Kate Baggaley

  • The Best Alternatives to Zoom for Remote Meetings

    Zoom is getting a lot more use these days now that people need to hold meetings remotely and carry on other events that require face-to-face interaction without the current risks posed by physical proximity. Zoom lets you create and host meetings, but it isn’t the only online video conferencing solution out there. With anecdotal reports of slow connections and dropped calls, some might be looking for a secondary option. Thankfully, there are plenty of paid and free options to pick from, depending on your needs.

    Paid alternatives

    Google Hangouts (Enterprise)

    This is probably the most obvious pick, especially since you can use Hangouts on a vast array of devices and web browsers. However, Google’s enterprise-level G-Suite service includes a version of Hangouts that is perfect for companies that need to find a new video conferencing app. It can be used for text, voice, and video chats, it lets you connect with up to 250 other users per call, and it has robust moderation and presentation features. You can even record meetings.

    The free version of Hangouts is a viable choice, too, supporting up to 150 users, but it requires users to connect using their personal Google accounts, which may exclude those who don’t have one. The free version also lacks the presentation options, nor can you record calls, but that 150-user limit is hard to beat compared to other freebies out there. (Android, iOS, web)

    Zoho Meetings

    If you don’t want to go with Google’s G-Suite service, the open-source alternative Zoho One includes online conferencing software that should appeal to anyone familiar with Zoom or Hangouts.

    Zoho Meetings lets you host end-to-end encrypted video meetings, conference calls, and webinars, all of which can be accessed through dial-ins and email links—you don’t need to force anyone to sign up or download an app in order to join in. There are also desktop, web, and mobile versions of the app.

    You can record your meetings, and the hosting options include moderation and organization tools. The software also integrates with Zoho’s Office app suite, so you can pull in spreadsheets, text documents, and other files easily during your presentation. Zoho even has a handy comparison sheet showing how it compares to Zoom.

    Zencastr

    Zencastr is technically a web-based podcasting service and doesn’t do video calls, but it’s excellent for conference calls. Amid the COVID-19 outbreak, Zencastr is lifting its restrictions on group size and recording limits. Free users can now host calls with unlimited users and unlimited recording time (normally only three users per call and 8 hours of recording time per month, though unrecorded calls don’t count).

    Paid users ($20/month) get a special live editing dashboard and post-production tools. Only the host needs to have a Zencastr account, as they can invite users through simple shareable links (like you can with Zoom). There’s also a “hand raise” button that can help keep things running smoothly when you’re hosting a large conference call and want to make sure everyone can chime in.

    Free alternatives

    Discord

    Discord is a gaming-focused app, but it has a broader appeal than just gaming thanks to its encrypted chats and flexible organization features. Discord chats take place on dedicated “servers” that users can set up and organize themselves, each chat rooms—think Slack, but with video and voice calls in addition to text chat.

    Video calls only support nine users in total, but the app includes simple screen-sharing tools and other handy features if you’re using it to hold meetings. Considering it’s a free app, there’s a lot of flexibility here and it’s a great option if you want a permanent conferencing solution, but the other free options on this list will be easier to get up and running. Discord is available on Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS, and most web browsers.

    WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger

    While Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp are separate apps (for now), Facebook owns both and each one runs on the same backend technology—and will eventually fuse into the same cross-platform service along with Instagram DMs—just in case you were wondering why we grouped them here.

    Both WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger support group voice/video calls, but since these are tailored more for basic calls over mobile or the web, you won’t find enterprise-level conferencing features here. If all you need to do is hold a quick check-in with a few colleagues, both apps will work well.

    FaceTime

    Facetime is iOS-only, which limits its use as a universal solution, but since it’s included on just about every Apple device many folks will likely have access to it. The app supports up to 32 people in a single call, so as long as everyone’s got an iPhone, iPad, or Mac handy, it can be a solid way to hold remote meetings.

    Skype

    Skype is another video chat service most people are likely familiar with. It supports up to 50 users on a single video call and is available on Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, and as a web app, but like most of the other free apps here, all participants will need to have an account—in this case, you’ll need a Microsoft account. That said, if everyone in your group is already signed up and using the service, it’ll do the job just fine.

    Author: Brendan Hesse

  • AI Is Changing Work — and Leaders Need to Adapt

    As AI is increasingly incorporated into our workplaces and daily lives, it is poised to fundamentally upend the way we live and work. Concern over this looming shift is widespread. A recent survey of 5,700 Harvard Business School alumni found that 52% of even this elite group believe the typical company will employ fewer workers three years from now.

    The advent of AI poses new and unique challenges for business leaders. They must continue to deliver financial performance, while simultaneously making significant investments in hiring, workforce training, and new technologies that support productivity and growth. These seemingly competing business objectives can make for difficult, often agonizing, leadership decisions.

    Against this backdrop, recent empirical research by our team at the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab provides new insight into how work is changing in the face of AI. By examining these findings, we can create a roadmap for leaders intent on adapting their workforces and reallocating capital, while also delivering profitability.

    The stakes are high. AI is an entirely new kind of technology, one that has the ability to anticipate future needs and provide recommendations to its users. For business leaders, that unique capability has the potential to increase employee productivity — by taking on administrative tasks, providing better pricing recommendations to sellers, and streamlining recruitment, to name a few examples.

    For business leaders navigating the AI workforce transition, the key to unlocking the productivity potential while delivering on business objectives lies in three key strategies: rebalancing resources, investing in workforce reskilling and, on a larger scale, advancing new models of education and lifelong learning.

    Solution #1: Reallocate Capital Resources

    Our research report, offers a window into how AI will change workplaces through the rebalancing and restructuring of occupations. Using AI and machine learning techniques, our MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab team analyzed 170 million online job posts between 2010 and 2017. The study’s first implication: While occupations change slowly — over years and even decades — tasks become reorganized at a much faster pace.

    Jobs are a collection of tasks. As workers take on jobs in various professions and industries, it is the tasks they perform that create value. With the advancement of technology, some existing tasks will be replaced by AI and machine learning. But our research shows that only 2.5% of jobs include a high proportion of tasks suitable for machine learning. These include positions like usher, lobby attendant, and ticket taker, where the main tasks involve verifying credentials and allowing only authorized people to enter a restricted space.

    Most tasks will still be best performed by humans — whether craft workers like plumbers, electricians and carpenters, or those who do design or analysis requiring industry knowledge. And new tasks will emerge that require workers to exercise new skills.

    As this shift occurs, business leaders will need to reallocate capital accordingly. Broad adoption of AI may require additional research and development spending. Training and reskilling employees will very likely require temporarily removing workers from revenue-generating activities.

    More broadly, salaries and other forms of employee compensation will need to reflect the shifting value of tasks all along the organization chart. Our research shows that as technology reduces the cost of some tasks because they can be done in part by AI, the value workers bring to the remaining tasks increases. Those tasks tend to require grounding in intellectual skill and insight—something AI isn’t as good at as people.

    In high-wage business and finance occupations, for example, compensation for tasks requiring industry knowledge increased by more than $6,000, on average, between 2010 and 2017. By contrast, average compensation for manufacturing and production tasks fell by more than $5,000 during that period. As AI continues to reshape the workplace, business leaders who are mindful of this shifting calculus will come out ahead.

    Solution # 2: Invest in Workforce Training

    Companies today are held accountable not only for delivering shareholder value, but for positively impacting stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, communities and employees. Moreover, investment in talent and other stakeholders is increasingly considered essential to delivering long-term financial results. These new expectations are reflected in the Business Roundtable’s recently revised statement on corporate governance, which underscores corporations’ obligation to support employees through training and education “that help develop new skills for a rapidly changing world.”

    Millions of workers will need to be retrained or reskilled as a result of AI over the next three years, according to a recent IBM Institute for Business Value study. Technical training will certainly be a necessary component. As tasks requiring intellectual skill, insight and other uniquely human attributes rise in value, executives and managers will also need to focus on preparing workers for the future by fostering and growing “people skills” such as judgement, creativity and the ability to communicate effectively. Through such efforts, leaders can help their employees make the shift to partnering with intelligent machines as tasks transform and change in value.

    Solution #3: Educate for the Future Today

    As AI continues to scale within businesses and across industries, it is incumbent upon innovators and business leaders to understand not only the business process implications, but also the societal impact. Beyond the need for investment in reskilling within organizations today, executives should work alongside policymakers and other public and private stakeholders to provide support for education and job training, encouraging investment in training and reskilling programs for all workers.

    Our research shows that technology can disproportionately impact the demand and earning potential for mid-wage workers, causing a squeeze on the middle class. For every five tasks that shifted out of mid-wage jobs, we found, four tasks moved to low-wage jobs and one moved to a high-wage job. As a result, wages are rising faster in the low- and high-wage tiers than in the mid-wage tier.

    New models of education and pathways to continuous learning can help address the growing skills gap, providing members of the middle class, as well as students and a broad array of mid-career professionals, with opportunities to build in-demand skills. Investment in all forms of education is key: community college, online learning, apprenticeships, or programs like P-TECH, a public-private partnership designed to prepare high school students for “new collar” technical jobs like cloud computing and cybersecurity.

    Whether it is workers who are asked to transform their skills and ways of working, or leaders who must rethink everything from resource allocation to workforce training, fundamental economic shifts are never easy. But if AI is to fulfill its promise of improving our work lives and raising living standards, senior leaders must be ready to embrace the challenges ahead.

    Article appears in Harvard Business Review

    Author: Martin Fleming, who is IBM’s Chief Economist and Vice-President.