Workplace Psychology features scholarly and engaging contents about leadership development, change management, organizational change and development, talent management, learning & development, and industrial and organizational psychology. I help make people & organizations more effective.
Note: I initially received the textbook in an ebook format, accessible via the VitalSource website or VitalSource Bookshelf software program that you download and install. The VitalSource Bookshelf ebook platform (website and software program) was so frustrating and clumsy to use that I almost didn’t review this book. Luckily, the program manager for psychology at Macmillan Learning (publisher of Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Understanding the Workplace [5th ed.]) sent me a hard/print copy. Indeed, there’s evidence supporting the use of print over digital textbooks (Alexander & Singer, 2017; Baron, 2016; Crum, 2015).
Book Review of the hard copy of Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Understanding the Workplace (5th ed.):
Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Understanding the Workplace (5th ed.) is the fifth edition of Dr. Paul E. Levy’s I/O psychology textbook. Professor Levy explained that the fifth edition is a “substantial revision with some major in-chapter structural changes and significant content-related updates, adjustments, and additions” (2017, p. xv).
Dr. Levy wrote that he “held fast to the same overriding principles in the design and writing of the fifth edition—to develop interesting, reader-friendly, current, research-based coverage of I/O psychology” (2017, p. xv).
I examined five topics: (1) training and development [Ch. 8]; (2) the 80 percent rule or four-fifths rule used to determine adverse impact in employee selection [Ch. 7]; (3) predictors used to make employee selections [Ch. 6]; (4) job analysis [Ch. 3], and (5) motivation [Ch. 9].
The first topic is training and development. Training and development is my passion and an area I’m always interested in, especially as it relates to I/O psychology and any evidence-based resources (journal articles, research studies, etc.). I really like Levy’s explanation of transfer of training: “Transfer of training is the extent to which the material, skills, or procedures learned in training are taken back to the job and used by the employee in some regular fashion. From the organization’s perspective, this principle is integral to the success of the training program” (Levy, 2017, p. 254). This is a fantastic explanation of a key component of training!
I was also pleased with the sections on training delivery and training evaluation. I was happy to see that professor Levy included a discussion about orientation training or onboarding in this chapter, under the training delivery section. “The socialization process for new employees can be very important in that it determines their first impression of the organization, supervisors, and coworkers. This is also the time when new employees learn the formal and informal rules, procedures, and expectations of the organization or work group” (Levy, 2017, p. 263).
I was delighted to find the topic of coaching also included. Levy explained that although “coaching is not considered as a training technique in many classic treatments of organizational training. [He is] discussing it in this chapter because its focus is on developing employees and helping them to get better at their jobs, which is, in large part, what training is all about. When [Levy] talk[s] to I/O practitioners about the really big issues in their organizations, [he] invariably find[s] that coaching is one of the first things they mention” (Levy, 2017, p. 264).
Another surprising gem was the mention of corporate universities. “As organizations continue to become more focused on continuous learning and the management of knowledge within the company, corporate universities should grow in importance” (Levy, 2017, p. 267).
The second topic is the 80 percent rule (or four-fifths rule) used to make an adverse impact determination in employee selection. Levy does an exceptional job explaining and covering the four-fifths rule:
“To appreciate the intricacies of employment law as it applies to I/O psychology, you need to understand adverse impact. This concept, defined in the Guidelines as the ‘80% rule of thumb,’ is the common practical operationalization of discrimination according to the courts. A selection procedure is said to exhibit adverse impact (i.e., to discriminate) against a group if the selection rate (i.e., the percentage of applicants hired) for that group is less than 80% of the selection rate for the group with the highest selection rate” (Levy, 2017, p. 223).
Professor Levy followed this great overview by explaining the 80% rule using a table showing two cases, one in which there is no adverse impact and one in which adverse impact is present. No other I/O psychology textbooks (I looked at five) provided as great an overview of adverse impact and explained the absence or presence of adverse impact using numbers and percentages in a table as well and as clearly and effectively as the Levy textbook! Only one of the textbooks, out of the five I looked at, used a table with two cases and numbers and percentages, but it was not as easy to comprehend as professor Levy’s textbook. Dr. Levy also outlined the role the four-fifths rule plays in an employment discrimination case.
At the end of Ch. 7, in a section called “Taking It to the Field,” Levy presents the readers with a scenario that requires them to recall what they’ve learned about the four-fifths rule in determining adverse impact in employee selection. This careful, and yet succinctly clear, treatment of such a critical topic in I/O psychology is to be applauded. Absolutely outstanding!
The third topic is predictors (Ch. 6) used to make employee selections. I love that Levy used the title “predictors” for the chapter. As he explained:
“Predictors are of great importance because we place so much trust in their ability to model criteria. Just as faulty criteria can result in bad organizational decisions such as firing or promoting the wrong employee, faulty predictors can result in hiring the wrong person or not hiring the right person” (Levy, 2017, p. 168).
I like that Dr. Levy divided the chapter into two major subheadings: Testing Formats (under which are Computer Adaptive Testing; Speed Versus Power Tests; Individual Versus Group Tests; Paper-and-Pencil Versus Performance Tests) and Predictors (under which are Cognitive Ability; Psychomotor Tests; Personality Tests; Integrity Tests; Work Samples; Assessment Centers).
Professor Levy did a great job discussing the importance of validity coefficient to employee selection. Validity coefficient (r) is an index of the relationship between a predictor and a criterion. Researchers and practitioners use it as evidence that a test is a good predictor of job performance (Levy, 2017).
In Table 6.5 on p. 195, Levy provides a fantastic table showing the validity coefficients for common predictors for employee selection. In that table, we can see how the different types of predictors (e.g., general cognitive ability, emotional intelligence, personality test, etc.) rank in predicting job performance. For instance, we can see right away that structured interviews are extremely effective (r=0.71) compared to unstructured interviews (r=0.20) and even cognitive ability (r=0.53 and r=0.48). We can also see that predictors such as work samples, personality tests, and emotional intelligence tests are better at predicting job performance than unstructured interviews.
The fourth topic is job analysis or “the process of defining a job in terms of its component tasks or duties and the knowledge or skills required to perform them” (Levy, 2017, p. 73).
“Although job analysis tends to receive little empirical attention, it is among the most important areas of I/O psychology, providing the foundation on which all other HR processes are built” (Levy, 2017, p. 95).
Professor Levy explained that job analysis experts categorize job analysis methods as either task-oriented or worker-oriented. “Task-oriented techniques focus on describing the various tasks that are performed on the job. Worker-oriented techniques examine broad human behaviors involved in work activities” (Levy, 2017, p. 74). Levy pointed out that “one approach is not necessarily better than the other; as a job analyst, you can choose a hybrid approach or any combination of pieces from different job-analytic techniques” (Levy, 2017, p. 74).
Levy did a nice job covering job analysis and I appreciated the outstanding figures and diagrams that provided a great visual and bird’s-eye view so readers can have a better understanding of the topic. For instance, in Figure 3.1 (p. 73), Levy provided a clear and easy-to-understand diagram showing that job analysis is comprised of job evaluation, job description, and job specifications, and how job analysis is related to other human resources functions (e.g., compensation, training, performance appraisal, selection, etc.). Another great diagram is the O*NET Content Model (Fig. 3.5, p. 79), which actually looks cleaner and better than the original O*NET Content Model found on the O*NET website!
The fifth (and final) topic is motivation, one of the most thoroughly explored topics in I/O psychology (Levy, 2017). I really like how Dr. Levy shares his own experience about what he tells companies or senior leaders when they ask him for tips to motivate their workers:
“As an I/O psychologist, I am often asked by organizational managers and executives about what can be done to improve the motivation of their workforce. One theme that I have emphasized throughout this book is the complexity of human behavior at work. This complexity explains why we need to use multiple tests (i.e., a selection battery) for employee selection and why we are fortunate if our battery accounts for 30% of the variance in performance. It also explains why even the most skilled and competent professionals are not always the best performers. Ability is an important predictor of individual performance, but so is motivation. The brightest and most skilled workers in the world will not be successful if they are not motivated to be successful” (Levy, 2017, p. 283).
Levy provided a great definition of work motivation: “A force that drives people to behave in a way that energizes, directs, and sustains their work behavior” (Levy, 2017, p. 283). I also like how professor Levy explained that motivation is an abstract concept: “Motivation is an abstract internal concept that cannot be seen, touched, or measured directly. We infer motivation from employees’ behaviors; we operationalize it by measuring behavior choice, intensity, and persistence” (Levy, 2017, p. 283). In the “Taking It to the Field” section for Ch. 9 [Motivation], Levy asks readers to apply what they’ve learned about theories of motivation in responding to an email inquiry from a client.
What I Really Like:
There are I/O Today boxes, one for each chapter in the book, that I really enjoy. The I/O Today boxes “present cutting-edge practices, current controversies, and developing theories that practitioners and researchers are grappling with now and that will continue to influence the field in the coming years” (Levy, 2017, p. xviii).
Here are the titles of all I/O Today boxes: Scientist/Practitioner Gap; Big Data; Future of Job Analysis; Performance & Disability; Technology, Performance Measurement, & Privacy; Remote Assessment for Selection; Religion in the Workplace; Gamification in Job Training; Results-Only Work Environment (ROWE); Relationship Between Unions & Job Satisfaction; PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] and STSD [secondary traumatic stress disorder]; Age Diversity in Teams; Romance of Leadership; and Holacracy.
I found these boxes/sections to be very refreshing since the general public and students don’t always see the connection between how psychology is applied in the workplace and/or what connection this has with the real workplace.
For instance, in the I/O Today box/section on Big Data, Levy wrote: “One of the most important developments in I/O psychology in the past decade has been the emergence of something known as ‘Big Data,’ which refers to massive data sets (potentially millions or even billions of data points) that are rapidly accumulated and contain information on a wide assortment of variables” (Levy, 2017, p. 65).
Another interesting I/O Today box/section is titled, “Gamification in Job Training.” Professor Levy wrote: “gamification refers to the use of gaming mechanics (such as virtual worlds, leaderboards, and unlocking achievements) to train employees, and it represents an exciting new trend within the training realm. Arguably, this technique appeals to computer savvy workers and can help to motivate employees to complete training and hone their skills. Gamification as a concept is not new; for decades, academic and military institutions have often found ways to incorporate game components such as badges, achievements, and points to encourage certain learning behaviors” (Levy, 2017, p. 260).
“Gamification holds many potential benefits for employers and employees by making learning and practicing fun, but trainers must be thoughtful about when gamification is appropriate and how best to implement it” (Levy, 2017, p. 260).
Levy poses two or three thought-provoking discussion questions to engage students/learners at the bottom of each I/O Today section. He also provides references and suggestions for additional readings on the topic. These I/O Today sections are relevant, practical, and bring I/O psychology to life. Well done!
Another feature I really like is the Taking It to the Field section which follows the Summary section at the end of each chapter. These are detailed scenarios or consulting situations that require the reader/learner to analyze, evaluate, and solve a realistic I/O problem. For instance, the Taking It to the Field section for Ch. 3 is on job analysis. Levy provided some great tips for writing effective worker-oriented job descriptions and for designing possible interview questions. In the Taking It to the Field section for Ch. 7, Levy asked readers to imagine that they are responding to an email inquiry about the legality of a hiring process. More specifically, in composing their email response, they would need to recall what they had learned about the use of the four-fifths rule to determine adverse impact in employee selection. In another Taking It to the Field section for Ch. 13, readers are asked to address gender and leadership in an email inquiry from a female founder of a company which is experiencing a higher level of turnover as well as complaints from exit interviews about the lack of leadership. These scenarios are a wonderful way to engage students and get them to imagine a real-world application!
Summary: The print copy of Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Understanding the Workplace (5th ed.) by Paul E. Levy is a terrific I/O psychology textbook. The fifth edition lives up to Dr. Levy’s goal of producing a textbook that engages, excites, and instructs. The student-friendly writing style combined with fantastic charts and graphics make this book accessible and engaging. The I/O Today and Taking It to the Field sections are outstanding. They present cutting-edge practices (I/O Today) and really engage readers in analyzing, evaluating, and problem-solving realistic I/O scenarios (Taking It to the Field), helping to bring I/O psychology to real life! Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Understanding the Workplace (5th ed.) is an excellent and important resource in the field of I/O psychology and I highly recommend it.
Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor
NOTE: For this book review, I intentionally and excessively quoted the authors throughout the post. I do this for two reasons: (1) I prefer to have the authors’ words speak for themselves rather than me interpreting, generalizing, or inadvertently misinterpreting their intent, and (2) It helps you, the readers, see the quality of the authors’ work/writing.
In Straight Talk for Startups, venture capitalist Randy Komisar and finance executive Jantoon Reigersman shared the “secrets” they’ve gathered “from decades of being on both sides of the table—originally as entrepreneurs looking for advice and more recently as mentors” (p. xix). As they caution, “You must be fluent in all issues facing entrepreneurs if you hope to win” (p. xx).
From the publisher’s website for the book: Komisar and Reigersman walk budding entrepreneurs through 100 essential rules—from pitching your idea to selecting investors to managing your board to deciding how and when to achieve liquidity. Culled from their own decades of experience, as well as the experiences of their many successful colleagues and friends, the rules are organized under broad topics, from “Mastering the Fundamentals” and “Selecting the Right Investors,” to “The Ideal Fundraise,” “Building and Managing Effective Boards,” and “Achieving Liquidity.”
“From the outside, starting a company looks easy. Just wake up with an idea, tell your friends, and convince one or two people to partner up; take your pick of top-tier venture capital investors, build a product, get swarmed by offers, and sell to the highest bidder. But we know it isn’t really like that” (Komisar & Reigersman, 2018, p. 269-270).
The Review: It’s actually the last sentence describing the book (for those “curious about what makes high-potential ventures tick”) that got my attention and piqued my interest. You see, I do not run, work for or have any plans for creating a startup. The closest I’ve ever come to a startup is watching entrepreneurs on TV’s Shark Tank, a reality TV show about entrepreneurship in America; the “Sharks” – tough, self-made, multi-millionaire and billionaire tycoons – invest in the best businesses and products that America has to offer.
I’m writing this review from the perspective of someone who’s simply curious about how startups work.
Investopedia.com (2018) has succint and clear definitions for entrepreneur and startup.
Here’s the verbatim definition of startup from Investopedia.com: A startup is a company that is in the first stage of its operations. These companies are often initially bankrolled by their entrepreneurial founders as they attempt to capitalize on developing a product or service for which they believe there is a demand. Due to limited revenue or high costs, most of these small-scale operations are not sustainable in the long term without additional funding from venture capitalists.
Because Straight Talk for Startups is written as a list, it doesn’t “flow” like when reading a standard/usual business book. And since it uses a list (100 insider rules), it’s only fitting that I select a handful (one or two from each of the five parts that the book is divided into), and quote and talk about them below.
Part 1: Mastering the Fundamentals Rule #5 (p. 13): Most failures result from poor execution, not unsuccessful innovation.
“Timimg is critical. If you are right about the market but wrong about the timing, you will fail just the same” (Komisar & Reigersman, 2018, p. 13).
Komisar and Reigersman said that Steve Jobs’ underappreciated strength was his “unnancy ability to never ship a product before its time” (p. 14). They talked about how Jobs killed off the Newton project (which had been struggling for years), but kept the talented people working in the area and redirected them to target digital music, eventually leading to the iPod.
“It was a decade later that Apple introduced the iPhone, a quantum leap from the Newton. The technology and batteries were finally cost-effective, the market had been primed to carry [Apple’s] entertainment in their pocket, and, by adding a cellular radio and a clever touch interface, Jobs finally had what he needed to deliver on the promise of a connected online communicator” (Komisar & Reigersman, 2018, p. 14).
Rule #18 (p. 45): Know your financial numbers and their interdependencies by heart. You might think that these rules are generic advice, but you would be wrong. Rule #18 offers a prime example of the detail-oriented wisdom shared. The authors offered a quick primer on how the financial numbers (e.g., income statement, cash flow statement, balance sheet, working capital schedule, debt & cash schedule) work together.
Komisar and Reigersman (2018) said that as an entrepreneur, you need “to be able to drill down into the components of each element [in the financial numbers] so you understand, for instance, why revenues have increased rapidly (more customers) but your operating margins have shrunk (discounts to accelerate sales, customers not as profitable as expected, etc.)” (p. 49).
Part 2: Selecting the Right Investors Rule #31 (p. 80): Avoid venture capital unless you absolutely need it.
“Remember: venture capital comes at a price, in the form of a meaningful percentage of your company. . . So you have to be prepared to part with a significant portion of your company to even attract a good venture capitalist” (Komisar & Reigersman, 2018, p. 80).
“Venture capitalists will impose certain controls on what you can and cannot do without their approval, such as sell the company or issue new shares” (Komisar & Reigersman, 2018, p. 81).
Part 3: The Ideal Fundraise Rule #42 (p. 110): Raise capital in stages as you remove risk.
Raise money in stages because “if you raise more money than you need in an attempt to remove the leap-of-faith risks too early, you will pay a big price. Given everything that you still have to prove and accomplish, on a risk-adjusted basis, your valuation will be too low to provide you and your team with a compelling upside after you absorb all the dilution a ‘one-and-done’ round would entail. Simply stated, you are too risky at the start to raise all the capital you need at an attractive price” (Komisar & Reigersman, 2018, p. 110).
Part 4: Building & Managing Effective Boards Rule #65 (p. 175): Your board should be operational rather than administrative.
“You want businesspeople, not bureaucrats. You want a board of strategic thinkers with strong operating backgrounds, who are willing to work hard to make your venture a success. . . They need to be informed, available, knowledgeable, and engaged” (Komisar & Reigersman, 2018, p. 175).
Part 5: Achieving Liquidity Rule #87 (p. 231): Investors’ and management’s interests in liquidity often conflict.
“Investors may argue against the sale of a venture below a certain price—even when it would provide a resctable outcome for all. They [the investors] expect a larger multiple and return on their investment and are willing to roll the dice to get more” (Komisar & Reigersman, 2018, p. 231).
At the end of the book, in the Epilogue, Komisar and Reigersman shared their “Cardinal Rule” which is “Always Ask Why?”
“Know why this venture is important to you. Why it should be important to others. And, given the low probability of success for any venture, why it is nevertheless worth failing at. Of course you don’t want to fail; success is always preferable to failure. But if you fail, will you feel you wasted your time, or that you fought the good fight?” (Komisar & Reigersman, 2018, p. 271-272).
I love this part:
“You don’t just dream up a company; you sweat the details and manage operations. You watch every nickel and are strategic about whom you raise it from. You lead through good times and bad. You assemble trusted advisers, coaches, and boards to keep you on track. You don’t dream it; you work it—hard” (Komisar & Reigersman, 2018, p. 270).
Summary: Reading about what it takes to start and run a company, in particular the know-how and experience needed to get the job done, and gleaning from the sage advice distilled in the 100 rules, was an extraordinarily informative experience. Based on the wisdom shared by Komisar and Reigersman, anyone—not only entrepreneurs—can benefit from the tips and guidance in the rules from Straight Talk for Startups. Even if you’re not an entrepreneur or know anything about startups, if you’re just curious about what makes a startup venture work, then I think you’ll find Straight Talk for Startups to be a fascinating read.
Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor
Many of us miss a key point about the importance of followership. Indeed, most people hold a negative view of followership (Kelley, 2008). They can’t imagine anything good or positive that might come from the role of a follower.
However, conversations about leadership must include followership “because leaders neither exist nor act in a vacuum without followers” (Kelley, 2008, p. 5). To me, there can be no leader if there are no followers, and people will not follow you if you lack the ability to influence them to work toward a goal.
Robert E. Kelley (2008), who is credited with pioneering the concept of followership, describes five styles of followership:
1) The sheep: they’re passive and look to the leader to guide & motivate them. 2) The yes-people: they’re positive and always on the leader’s side; but also look to the leader for direction & vision. 3) The alienated: they think for themselves, but are negative; skeptical/cynical; they view themselves as mavericks. 4) The pragmatics: they’re fence straddlers; they take a wait-and-see approach; they will go where the momentum is heading. 5) The star followers: they think independently; are active & positive. They do not accept the leader’s decision without evaluating it for themselves first. If they agree with the leader, the star followers will throw their full support behind the decision. If they disagree with the leader, star followers will offer constructive options/alternatives. They are often referred to as the go-to person or the leader’s right-hand person.
Kelley (2008) wrote that one question he asks of executives is, “If you could have an ideal mix of the five followership styles in your organization, what percentage of each style would you prefer?” He’s often amazed at how leaders say they want all yes-people.
“Their reasons are that (1) yes-people are “doers” who are willing to do the grunt work and who get the job done with little fuss; (2) yes-people have limited aspirations and will neither pressure the leader for promotions nor quit for better jobs elsewhere; and (3) yes-people are loyal and dependable” (Kelley, 2008, p. 13).
Kelley said it is rare to find leaders who prefer all “star followers.”
“Most executives fear that they can neither keep star followers challenged by the job nor satisfied with their role in the organization. They believe that star followers will grow bored and disillusioned, seeking greener pastures and leading to high turnover” (Kelley, 2008, p. 13).
Ironically, it is the star followers who help the organization perform better and more efficiently. In fact, we can make a very strong case that, “organizations with more star followers perform better because the star followers need not depend on the leader for direction or motivation. This reduces the transaction costs that hinder organizational success” (Kelley, 2008, p. 13).
Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor
Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking Followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership (pp. 5-15). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
One of the most popular coaching models in the world is the G.R.O.W. Model (Whitmore, 2017). GROW is one of the earliest (perhaps even the original) business coaching models.
THE INNER GAME and THE BIRTH OF MODERN COACHING
Tim Gallwey and his Inner Game method are credited for giving birth to modern-day coaching (Whitmore, 2017). Gallwey’s Inner Game approach was extremely influential to the developers of the GROW Model. In fact, according to the late Sir John Whitmore, “All the leading exponents of business coaching today graduated from this [Tim Gallwey’s Inner Game business (tennis & skiing training)] and have been profoundly influenced by the Gallwey school of coaching” (Whitmore, 2017, p. 15).
The Inner Game approach is simple (Gallwey, 2018): By quieting self-interference, we are more able to tap into our natural abilities with greater ease. It is about overcoming the self-imposed obstacles that prevent us from accessing our full potential.
Gallwey (2008) said we don’t reach peak performance because our Self 1 (the teller/the ego-mind) is constantly thinking, judging, worrying, fearing, regretting, and being distracted and this interferes with the natural capabilities of our Self 2 (the doer/the physical body, including brain, memory bank & nervous system). “It is the constant ‘thinking’ activity of Self 1, the ego-mind, which causes interference with the natural capabilities of Self 2. Harmony between the two selves exists when this mind is quiet and focused. Only then can peak performance be reached” (Gallwey, 2008, p. 14).
The Inner Game is “the game that takes place in the mind of the player, and it is played against such obstacles as lapses in concentration, nervousness, self-doubt and self-condemnation. In short, it is played to overcome all habits of mind which inhibit excellence in performance” (Gallwey, 2008, p. xvii).
“The Inner Game approach suggests that humans can not only achieve the outcomes they commit themselves to but can do so in a way that is fulfilling to them, and learn in the process. I [Tim Gallwey] call this capacity Mobility. The coach’s role is to facilitate the mobility of the client, whether individual or in a team, by increasing awareness, choice and trust. In short, this enables the client to be more conscious in thought and action while being hampered less by unconscious habits that interfere.” (https://www.coaching-at-work.com/2010/04/26/inside-out/)
JOHN WHITMORE, THE INNER GAME, and “COACHING”
John Whitmore provided some context to his relationship with Tim Gallwey, Inner Game, and the decision to use the word “coaching” rather than “Inner Game” in their coaching:
“I trained with Tim and, under license, I started the Inner Game organization in England, which in the first instance was not a business at all, it was a ski school and a tennis school, and that was all I was interested in. Very quickly, business people who came on our ski courses recognized how valuable this could be for business . . .” (Mura, 2003, p. 108).
“[Q]uite early on we recognized that there was a problem with the name, the Inner Game, because it sounded like some sort of American cult, something limited. So we wanted to use a generic term that described it more broadly, and that’s why we chose the word ‘coaching’” (Mura, 2003, p. 108).
In fact, when Whitmore and his colleagues “introduced coaching into business four decades ago, the word [coaching] was new in that context. . .” (Whitmore, 2017, p. 15-16).
THE 3 CO-DEVELOPERS OF THE ORIGINAL GROW MODEL
Many people don’t realize that three people were involved in developing the GROW model in the mid- to late-1980s: John Whitmore, Graham Alexander, and Alan Fine (Fine, 2018).
According to the InsideOut Development [Alan Fine’s company] website (2018) and email communications between the CEO of InsideOut Development [Fine’s company] and Sir John Whitmore, Whitmore, Alexander, and Fine co-created the original G.R.O.W. Model (A. Fine, personal communication, March 26, 2018).
As Whitmore recalled, they were already using the GROW sequence, just not giving it a name: “Some early UK coaches, including me [John Whitmore], had been using the GROW chronological sequence for some time before it was given that name. A staff member at a client site where Graham Alexander and I [Whitmore] were working wanted a metaphorical word to represent that sequence. The staff member suggested ‘GROW’, and we adopted it” (Whitmore, Kauffman, David, 2013, p. 245).
In the foreword to the book, Best Practice in Performance Coaching (Wilson, 2007), Whitmore explained: “I was just the first person to publish it [the GROW Model], in my book Coaching for Performance. It [The GROW Model] originally emerged in a discussion between several coaches with whom I was working at the time, including Graham Alexander, in the McKinsey office in London . . .” (p. xi).
I asked Alan Fine via email, “Were you one of the coaches that Whitmore was talking about when he said that the GROW Model originally emerged in a discussion between himself and several coaches?”
Here is Alan Fine’s response (A. Fine, personal communication, March 26, 2018): “I would think I was I can’t imagine who else he might be referring to. I would also make a distinction between the four-step model and the labels of the steps. My memory of it is that the four-step model emerged over time during our work at McKinsey and the labels of GROW were first devised by one of McKinsey’s communication specialists.”
The Performance Consultants website, co-founded by the late Sir John Whitmore, recounted the history of the GROW Model and how McKinsey, the renowned management consultancy, played a key role in asking Whitmore and his colleagues to come up with a coaching framework — which they did (Performance Consultants, 2015):
“In 1986 the management consulting firm McKinsey became their client. Many of the programmes they ran for McKinsey included experiential coaching work on tennis courts. The coaching was so successful at improving performance and unlocking potential that McKinsey asked them to come up with an underpinning framework of coaching – a model on which to hang what was happening on the courts and elsewhere in the programmes.
“So they videoed themselves and their colleagues coaching, they invited neurolinguistic programming (NLP) experts to look at what they did, they debriefed to try to discover what was happening and whether there was a model that played out in their unconscious competence. And yes, there was – whether on the tennis court or in a business setting.
“The acronym GROW came out of the four key stages they identified: Goal, Reality, Options, Will. They bounced it and a few other ideas off an internal communications person at McKinsey who said GROW would fly well, and liked it because it was simple and because it was actions and outcome focused.”
FYI: This story also appears in the 5th edition of Whitmore’s Coaching for Performance (2017) book on pages 97-98.
VARIATIONS OF THE GROW MODEL
According to Fine, shortly after he, Whitmore, and Alexander developed the GROW Model, they all went their separate ways, each utilizing his own approach to the GROW Model. For all major iterations of the G.R.O.W. Model, the first three letters are the same: “G” is the “Goal” the individual seeks to achieve; “R” is the “Realities” a person should consider in the context of the decision process; and “O” is the “Options” open to the decision maker (Fine, 2018). Only the last letter, “W”, is interpreted differently. John Whitmore defined it as “Will” (Whitmore, 2017), Graham Alexander defined it as “Wrap-up” (Alexander & Renshaw, 2005), although he also used “Wrap-up/way forward” (Alexander, 2006), and Alan Fine defined it as “Way Forward” (Fine, 2010).
As explained on the InsideOut Development (Fine’s company) website: “The Way Forward makes the decision process something tangible and actionable, where it becomes very clear to the person making the decision what should happen next,” Fine says. “In the absence of motivating clarity,” he argues, “people simply don’t take action.”
OUT OF THE STRUGGLE CAME “GROW”
Who would have thought that the backstory of the GROW Model included McKinsey, the management consulting firm? Just as interesting was that Whitmore and his colleagues tried to fit their model into McKinsey’s 7S Framework and, initially, called their early work the “7S Coaching Model” (Whitmore, 2017, p. 97). But this proved “tortuous” (Whitmore, 2017, p. 97). “In the end, [they] came up with the acronym GROW for the four key stages [they] identified” (Whitmore, 2017, p. 97).
CONFIRMING THE 3 CO-DEVELOPERS of GROW
Alan Fine, on his website, wrote that the GROW Model “was the result of the collaborative efforts of all three individuals,” meaning Fine, Whitmore, and Alexander. After contacting Alan Fine via email, I was able to confirm this after he forwarded me email communication in 2009 between John Whitmore and the InsideOut Development CEO acknowledging that the G.R.O.W. Model was, indeed, jointly developed by John Whitmore, Graham Alexander, and Alan Fine (A. Fine, personal communication, March 26, 2018).
Whereas Alan Fine credited and mentioned both John Whitmore and Graham Alexander in his book (You Already Know How to Be Great) and on his website, neither John Whitmore nor Graham Alexander mentioned Alan Fine in any of their writings or interviews (that I could find). Whitmore and Alexander acknowledged one another as co-developers but, curiously, they never mentioned Alan Fine, even though, according to Fine, the three of them worked together for three years. As Fine explained, “The three [Whitmore, Alexander, and Fine] worked together for three years in the early 1980s before co-developing the G.R.O.W. Model.”
It was challenging to investigate the backstory of how the GROW Model came to be developed. I was very curious after reading about the history of the GROW Model on Alan Fine company’s website and learning about Fine’s claim of being one of the three co-developers. But I could not find anything from either Whitmore or Alexander to confirm this. So I reached out to Alan Fine via email and received his response about two weeks later (which included email messages from the CEO of Fine’s company to the CEO of John Whitmore’s company, and John Whitmore’s reply). In his email response (dated July 14, 2009) to Kim Capps, CEO of InsideOut Development, Sir John Whitmore wrote (A. Fine, personal communication, March 26, 2018):
“I have no disagreement with the historical circumstances as now described in the first two paragraphs [of InsideOut Development’s History and Intellectual Property Rights (Related to the G.R.O.W. Model)”*].
*Note: InsideOut had emailed a GROW Model description to Whitmore’s company which stated that “The original G.R.O.W. model was created over twenty years ago in the UK by three individuals–John Whitmore, and Graham Alexander, and Alan Fine . . . The model was the result of the collaborative efforts of all three individuals, resulting in each having joint interest in the work . . . There was an informal understanding between the three of them that each would have equal ability to work with the original model but that no single person would claim any more credit or ownership of the basic original model than the others.”
“The three [Whitmore, Alexander, and Fine] parted ways with an understanding between them that each would have equal ability to work with the original model, but that no one would claim any more credit or ownership of the original model than the others. Because of that understanding, the three individuals were less aggressive, individually and collectively, than they could have been in protecting their early work.”
John Whitmore’s book, Coaching for Performance (where he outlined the GROW Model) has now been published five times [1st ed. 1992; 2nd ed. 1996; 3rd ed. 2002; 4th ed. 2009; 5th ed. 2017]. However, he never mentioned Graham Alexander or Alan Fine as co-developers of the GROW Model. On the Acknowledgement page in the first, second, and third editions of the book, Whitmore did mention them, but by name only, never crediting them as co-developers of the GROW Model. And, in the fourth and fifth editions, there is no mention whatsoever of either Graham Alexander or Alan Fine.
THE MCKINSEY COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST
The most interesting piece of information I discovered in my research on the history of the GROW Model was that although Whitmore, Alexander, and Fine had been using their four-step sequence for some time, the actual label (“GROW”) to their model came about through their work with McKinsey, and more precisely, a McKinsey communications specialist (A. Fine, personal communication, March 26, 2018; Performance Consultants, 2015; Whitmore, Kauffman, David, 2013).
“Some early UK coaches, including me [John Whitmore], had been using the GROW chronological sequence for some time before it was given that name. A staff member at a client site [McKinsey] where Graham Alexander and I [Whitmore] were working wanted a metaphorical word to represent that sequence. The staff member suggested ‘GROW’, and we adopted it” (Whitmore, Kauffman, David, 2013, p. 245).
“[T]he labels of GROW were first devised by one of McKinsey’s communication specialists” (A. Fine, personal communication, March 26, 2018).
Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor
Alexander, G. (2006). Behavioural coaching — the GROW model. In J. Passmore (Ed.), Excellence in coaching: The industry guide (2nd ed., pp. 83-93). London: Kogan Page.
Alexander, G., & Renshaw, B. (2005). SuperCoaching: The Missing Ingredient for High Performance. London, UK: Random House.
Fine, A. (2010). You Already Know How to Be Great: A Simple Way to Remove Interference and Unlock Your Greatest Potential. New York: Penguin Group.
Whitmore, J. (2017). Coaching for Performance: The Principles and Practice of Coaching and Leadership (5th ed.). London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Whitmore, J., Kauffman, C., & David, S. A. (2013). GROW Grows Up: From Winning the Game to Pursuing Transpersonal Goals. In S. David, D. Clutterbuck, and D. Megginson (Eds.), Beyond Goals: Effective Strategies for Coaching and Mentoring (pp. 245-260). Farnham, Surrey: Gower Publishing.
Wilson, C. (2007). Best Practice in Performance Coaching: A Handbook for Leaders, Coaches, HR Professionals and Organizations. London: Kogan Page.
Business coaching is enhancing a client’s (person in a business) awareness and behavior in order to achieve business objectives for both client and organization (WABC, Business Coaching Definition). In my quest for a capable business coaching model (business coaching includes leadership coaching and executive coaching), I have spent several years looking at many coaching models. Some models are overly complex while others are very basic.
Sir John Whitmore wrote (2009): “Coaching is unlocking people’s potential to maximize their own performance. It is helping them to learn rather than teaching them” (p. 10).
“[T]here are no quick fixes in business, and good coaching is a skill, an art perhaps, that requires a depth of understanding and plenty of practice if it is to deliver its astonishing potential” (Whitmore, 2009, p. 2).
I began looking at coaching models during my industrial and organizational psychology doctoral program and came across many books on coaching. After years of searching and seeing what made sense, I eventually returned (very much to my surprise) to the original, wildly popular and widely used, G.R.O.W. coaching model.
John Whitmore, Graham Alexander, and Alan Fine all worked together and, in the mid- to late-1980, they co-developed the G.R.O.W. Model (Fine, 2018). Shortly after, the three went their separate ways, each one using his own approach to/version of the G.R.O.W. Model.
For all major iterations of the G.R.O.W. Model, the first three letters are the same: “G” is the “Goal” the individual seeks to achieve; “R” is the “Realities” a person should consider in the context of the decision process; and “O” is the “Options” open to the decision maker (Fine, 2018). It is only the last letter, “W”, that has been interpreted differently. John Whitmore defined it as “Will” (Whitmore, 2009), Graham Alexander defined it as “Wrap-up” (Alexander & Renshaw, 2005), although he also used “Wrap-up/way forward” (Alexander, 2006), and Alan Fine defined it as “Way Forward” (Fine, 2010).
G.R.O.W. (Goal, Reality, Options, Way Forward) is a simple 4-step process. The coach helps the coachee (person being coached) articulate a concise goal (Goal). Next, the coachee describes his current situation (Reality). This is followed by brainstorming options (Options) and next steps. Finally, the coachee identifies and selects one or more options to use in an action plan (Way Forward).
Throughout my years-long coaching model vetting process, two questions I asked were: (1) Will this model be easy enough for me to use when coaching clients? (2) Will I be able to use this model to teach leaders so they can use it to coach their employees?
For me, the desire to address both question #1 (Is this model easy enough to use when coaching clients?) and question #2 (Can I use this model to teach leaders, so they can use it to coach their employees?) were paramount in my decision. Many coaching models sufficiently answer question #1. That is, most of the models are easy enough to use to coach others, whether the model uses a 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, or 7-step process. However, where many coaching models disappoint is in trying to answer question #2. When I pose the question — Can I use this model to teach leaders a simple process so they can use it to coach their employees? — many models could not deliver.
I also considered a third question: Does the coaching model follow a traditional coaching process that takes 6 – 12 sessions to complete or a rapid process that can be done in one or two coaching sessions? Indeed, it is the answer to this third question that made me completely rethink “coaching.” In order to adapt to the demands of an increasingly busy workplace and workforce, I needed a coaching model and process that could be delivered on-the-spot — in one or two conversations or meetings.
John Whitmore’s G.R.O.W. (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) contains 8 to 13 questions for each of the step in the model (Whitmore, 2012). But I prefer Alan Fine’s G.R.O.W. Model [covered in his book, You Already Know How to Be Great (2010)], which has 3 to 6 questions for each step. I also like the questions assigned to each of the G.R.O.W. steps in the Fine version.
I used Alan Fine’s G.R.O.W. Model to coach a new leader in two sessions (1 hour the first session, 1.5 hours the second session), plus one debriefing session (30 minutes). The coaching experience with this leader confirmed several things. First, Fine’s G.R.O.W. model is very easy to use. Second, Fine’s G.R.O.W. model can be used to teach a leader, so s/he can turn around and use it to coach his/her employees. Third, the entire process is surprisingly brief, lasting just 2.5 sessions.
Within that time frame, I was able to work with the leader to: clarify his goal for the session (Goal); describe his current situation (Reality); explore potential actions and next steps (Options); and identify a specific action as his next step (Way Forward) — demonstrating that, as a business coaching model and process, the GROW Model is very simple to use and understand (for both coach & coachee), effective yet brief, practical, and able to be delivered on demand and even as a self-coaching process (coaching yourself).
Clients answer a group of questions for each of the steps of the G.R.O.W. Model. Step #1 is Goal, Step #2 is Reality, Step #3 is Options, and Step #4 is Way Forward. The coach and coachee go through the steps and the questions that fall under each step in order, starting with Step #1. It’s important to not introduce clients to all the GROW questions at once because it can cause them to answer the questions in a cursory manner, rushing through their responses instead of really thinking about the question and allowing themselves time to process each question and formulate a response.
Although it’s recommended that you follow each of the GROW steps sequentially, starting with Step 1: Goal and ending with Step 4: Way Forward, in practice, there may be times where you have to adjust. John Whitmore explained this in his book, Coaching for Performance (2009): “[O]ne may only be able to define a vague goal until one has examined the reality in some detail. It will then be necessary to go back and define the goal much more precisely before moving forward again. Even a sharply defined initial goal may be recognized to be wrong or inappropriate once the reality is clear” (pp. 56-57).
For example, for my client, the overall goal for the session (Step #1 Goal) finally solidified in the middle of Step #2 (Reality). For this client, the topic did not become clear until after he’s had a chance to talk about what was currently happening at work and what he had tried so far. So, even though he responded to a question in Step 2, it actually made more sense to place his response in Step 1, to a question about the topic/goal of the discussion. Remember, it’s okay to be flexible and make adjustments to help clients make sense of the GROW framework. To verify, I asked my client if there was anything that did not make sense or that did not match up with what he wanted to say.
A unique question in Fine’s G.R.O.W. Model that stands out and one that I like is a question in Step #3 Options phase (“Would you like suggestions from me?”). A word of caution: If this question is not handled properly, the coach can very easily end up doling out advice and completely derail the purpose of coaching. What I like about this question is that it allows the coach an opportunity to share some suggestions and then check in to see if any of the suggestions seems interesting enough to explore further. This can be invaluable, especially when clients are at their wits’ end and no amount of open-ended questions will help to stimulate their creative ideas. In my coaching session, because of my rapport with this new leader and thanks to a previously administered personality assessment, I knew that my real contribution to him would be to offer some practical suggestions. The client told me that my suggestions were “all spot on” and that he agreed with them.
In our debriefing session, this leader stated that he likes that the GROW process is compact, simple, and straightforward and that these characteristics of GROW will help when he introduces his team to it. He especially appreciated my explanation of the GROW Model as a decision framework and said, “decision framework feels very liberating,” unlike the term “goal setting” which is becoming stale.
Takeaway: Overall, the G.R.O.W. Model (in particular, Alan Fine’s version) is a very capable business coaching model. From my own vetting process, it meets all three of the criteria on my list: (1) The G.R.O.W. Model is very easy to use to coach others; (2) The G.R.O.W. Model is remarkably simple and can be effectively used to teach a leader so s/he can use it to coach his/her own employees; and (3) The G.R.O.W. Model is powerful, yet concise enough that it can be completed in one or two coaching sessions.
Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor
Alexander, G. (2006). Behavioural coaching — the GROW model. In J. Passmore (Ed.), Excellence in coaching: The industry guide (2nd ed., pp. 83-93). London: Kogan Page.
Alexander, G., & Renshaw, B. (2005). SuperCoaching: The Missing Ingredient for High Performance. London, UK: Random House.
Fine, A. (2010). You Already Know How to Be Great: A Simple Way to Remove Interference and Unlock Your Greatest Potential. New York: Penguin Group.
Servant Leadership in Action is a collection of 42 essays (ranging from 2.5 pages to 8 pages) from servant leadership experts and practitioners, co-edited by Ken Blanchard and Renee Broadwell. The book is organized into six parts. Part One, “Fundamentals of Servant Leadership,” describes basic aspects of servant leadership. Part Two, “Elements of Servant Leadership,” highlights some of the different points of view of servant leaders. Part Three, “Lessons in Servant Leadership,” focuses on what people have learned on a personal level from observing servant leadership in action. Part Four, “Exemplars of Servant Leadership,” features people who have been identified as classic servant leaders. Part Five, “Putting Servant Leadership to Work,” offers firsthand accounts of people who have made servant leadership come alive in their organizations. Part Six, “Servant Leadership Turnarounds,” illustrates how servant leadership can dramatically impact both results and human satisfaction in organizations.
I wasn’t sure if this would be the kind of book I would enjoy or find value in because it’s a collection of essays. But the topic of servant leadership has been top of mind for me for the past few years, so I thought I’d give this book a chance and hopefully glean some useful information about servant leadership and its application to the workplace.
Even though Robert Greenleaf (1904–1990) is credited with launching the modern servant leadership movement in 1970, the idea behind servant leadership is very old. Valeri (2007), in his doctoral dissertation, wrote that the origins of servant leadership can be traced back at least 2500 years ago, starting in ancient Greece and Rome. Robert Greenleaf was the person who coined the term “servant leadership” and articulated it for modern time (Greenleaf.org, 2016; Keith, 2018; Spears, 1998).
Greenleaf’s thinking was inspired by and made clear in the 1960s thanks to a short novel called Journey to the East by Herman Hesse. It’s a story about Leo, a servant who accompanied a group of people on a spiritual quest. Everything was fine until Leo disappears, which then led to the group falling apart and the journey abandoned. The people in the group learned that they couldn’t make it without the servant. After years of searching, the story’s narrator finally locates Leo and finds out that Leo, whom everyone had thought to be a servant, was, in fact, the head of the religious order that sponsored the original journey (Spears, 1998).
“After reading this story, Greenleaf concluded that the central meaning of it was that the great leader is first experienced as a servant to others, and that this simple fact is central to his or her greatness. True leadership emerges from those whose primary motivation is a deep desire to help others” (Spears, 1998, p. 4).
I thought a background explanation about servant leadership from Blanchard in the first essay (“What Is Servant Leadership?”) is important:
“When people hear the phrase servant leadership, they are often confused . . . The problem is that these folks don’t understand leadership—much less servant leadership. They think you can’t lead and serve at the same time. Yet you can, if you understand that there are two parts to servant leadership: a visionary/direction, or strategic, role—the leadership aspect of servant leadership; and an implementation, or operational, role—the servant aspect of servant leadership.” (Blanchard & Broadwell, 2018, p. 7).
“Once people are clear on where they are going, the leader’s role shifts to a service mindset for the task of implementation—the second aspect of servant leadership. The question now is: How do we live according to the vision and accomplish the established goals? Implementation is where the servant aspect of servant leadership comes into play” (Blanchard & Broadwell, 2018, p. 9-10).
I am not a huge fan of edited books because the ones I’ve come across do not gel well together. Edited books can be messy and difficult to read when different authors and writing styles are thrown together with no editorial oversight to ensure consistency in tone and/or message. I was pleased to see that this didn’t happen with Servant Leadership in Action. The editing was well done and reading the chapters, written by different authors, felt seamless, almost as if written by the same person. This is no easy feat to achieve and I commend Blanchard and Broadwell for the great job co-editing this book.
The essays by Colleen Barrett (president emeritus, Southwest Airlines), Cheryl Bachelder (former CEO, Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen), Dave Ramsey (a money management expert & author), Phyllis Hennecy Hendry (CEO, Lead Like Jesus), and Jon Gordon (author) were all enjoyable and instructive. I also liked and found great value in Rico Maranto’s essay (“Waste Connections: A Servant Leadership Success Story”) about how top leaders can make servant leadership come alive.
In her essay, “Treat Your People as Family,” Colleen Barrett wrote about the incredible impact that servant leadership had on the 40+ years of success at Southwest Airlines. Admittedly, she shared that they didn’t know until much later on that it was called that. “But while our recognition of the term Servant Leadership might have come late, for over four decades Herb and I have said that our purpose in life as Senior Leaders with Southwest Airlines is to support our People. To us, that means treating People as family” (Blanchard & Broadwell, 2018, p. 183).
Colleen recalled a fabulous story that one of Southwest’s new leaders told her about his best example of a servant’s heart, which he saw Herb Kelleher (founder of Southwest Airlines) model.
“He watched Herb talk to a Mechanic in worker’s clothes for at least fifteen minutes—even though there were literally hundreds of People circling Herb for his attention. Herb never looked over the guy’s shoulder to see who else might be there, and never diverted his eyes from this man while they were talking. Herb was courteous to everyone who was trying to shove the guy out of his space so that they could fill it, but he gave this man his time. It was clear to this new Leader that Herb had no hierarchical concerns—he was completely interested in what the Mechanic was trying to tell him. That had a profound impact on this Leader, and he remembers it to this day. He has been with us more than twenty years now” (Blanchard & Broadwell, 2018, p. 187).
In Cheryl Bachelder’s “Serve the People” essay, she shared about the transformation at Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, from a struggling brand and company to a prosperous enterprise. I really like what Cheryl wrote:
“When this story began, we didn’t know it would be servant leadership that drove success. We didn’t have a plaque in the office that stated our purpose and principles. What we did have was a team of leaders who were willing to focus their passion and ambition on the success of the people and the enterprise before their own interests” (Blanchard & Broadwell, 2018, p. 230).
From 2007 to 2016, under Bachelder’s leadership, Popeyes flourished, “with restaurant sales, profits, and unit growth rates that were the envy of its competitors” (Blanchard & Broadwell, 2018, p. 230).
In his essay (“Leading is Serving”), Dave Ramsey shared the lesson he taught his teenage son about the heavy responsibility of being a servant leader. Ramsey explained to his son (as they were walking toward Dave Ramsey’s company’s picnic) that as president and CEO of the company, he bears the responsibility to not just the employees of his company (the adults) but also to those employees’ children (the 97 kids seen running around the picnic): “Those kids’ parents make a living, have a future, and those kids have a future partly because of how I act. If I misbehave in my personal life, if I fail in areas of integrity, if I screw up, it will mess up a ton of lives. As a servant leader, I understand that I am at least partially responsible for those little kids” (Blanchard & Broadwell, 2018, p. 197).
Ramsey took it a step further. He told his son that, even as a teenager, the son also bore the responsibility of being a servant leader, that “if he went out and acted crazy, he could impact those kids’ lives” (Blanchard & Broadwell, 2018, p. 197) too. For instance, if the son were to get drunk, drive, and kill someone, the family would get sued and some of the employees working for his dad’s company might have to be let go. “As my son, he gets to enjoy the benefits of our success, but he also shares in the responsibility of servant leadership. He needed to know, even as a teenager, that the decisions he makes and the actions he takes have an impact” (Blanchard & Broadwell, 2018, p. 197).
Some of the essays really touched me. One such essay was by Phyllis Hennecy Hendry (“A Lesson From My Father”) about how her father, a pastor, taught her, when she was eight years old, “the simple act of caring for someone and how serving people changes everything—literally” (Blanchard & Broadwell, 2018, p. 117). She recounted the many Saturday morning visits to the home of “a crotchety old man” (Blanchard & Broadwell, 2018, p. 116) whose “wrinkles met in odd places around his face” (Blanchard & Broadwell, 2018, p. 116) and how you can serve and meet people where they’re at. The simple and consistent act of visiting this grumpy old man every Saturday morning eventually led him to change his crabby ways — smiling a lot more and hugging them, and eventually introducing both Phyllis and her father to others as his “good friends.” The essay was about how this old man came to accept Jesus, but the way Hendry told the story, through the eyes and experience of herself as an 8-year-old girl, made it very powerful and its servant leadership lesson applicable in many areas.
Jon Gordon shared an emotional story in his essay (“Little Things and Big Things”) about his late mom making a sandwich for him even though she was tired and, unbeknownst to him, was battling cancer:
“Looking back, I realize she wasn’t just making me a sandwich. She was showing me what selfless love and servant leadership were all about. At her funeral, many of her real estate clients and colleagues came up to me and shared countless stories of all the selfless acts of love my mom did for them as well . . . We often think that great leadership is about big visions, big goals, big actions, and big success. But I learned from my mom that real leadership is about serving others by doing the little things with a big dose of selfless love” (Blanchard & Broadwell, 2018, p. 134).
Finally, in his essay (“Waste Connections: A Servant Leadership Success Story”), Rico Maranto (Servant Leadership Evangelist at Waste Connections) wrote about how senior leaders at Waste Connections made servant leadership come alive by: (1) introducing a vision, purpose, and values, (2) conducting servant leadership training, (3) distributing a servant leader newsletter, (4) distributing a servant leader survey, (5) creating a Servant Leader Playbook, (6) creating servant leadership awards, (7) getting self-serving leaders off the bus, and (8) hiring for character.
Rico shared a great story and perfect example of what it is to live a servant leadership mentality and culture:
“One of the company’s division vice presidents (DVPs) had been recognized two consecutive years at the annual managers’ meeting and seemed to build good relationships with his employees. He achieved impressive results and spoke like a servant leader when talking with senior leadership. Everyone thought he was a good servant leader—everyone but his employees. In their servant leader surveys, they described a very different manager—one who was egotistical and hypocritical” (Blanchard & Broadwell, 2018, p. 236).
When that division vice president’s true character came to light, Rico recounted that Ron Mittelstaedt, CEO and Founder of Waste Connections, said this:
“Servant leadership isn’t about worrying up; it’s about worrying down. It’s not about what your boss thinks of you; it’s about what your people think of their boss. If we have a cancer in our culture, we have to cut it out” (Blanchard & Broadwell, 2018, p. 236).
What I Did Not Like: In a few of the essays, I was unconvinced that the authors effectively or at least cogently tied their thoughts and previous work to servant leadership in their essays. When authors toss their writings in without fully thinking through and making a strong case for how their work connects or is related to servant leadership, then their essays came across as disorganized ramblings.
Takeaway: I found Servant Leadership in Action to be an enjoyable collection of essays that kept me interested in the subject of servant leadership regardless of where I was in the book. Blanchard and Broadwell did a nice job setting up the book’s structure and dividing the essays into six parts/sections, starting with describing the basic aspects of servant leadership and ending with showing the readers how servant leadership can dramatically impact both results and human satisfaction in organizations. The essays are interesting and varied enough that you can skip around, reading what interests you, and still learn about servant leadership. If you like reading about servant leadership and do not mind a sprinkle of religious stories, then I think you will really enjoy this book.
Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor
Blanchard, K., & Broadwell, R. (2018). Servant Leadership in Action: How You Can Achieve Great Relationships and Results. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
When you work in close proximity to other people in an organization, it’s inevitable that friendships begin to develop. Morrison and Terry (2007) wrote that “people are motivated to make friends for the rewards they provide, be they social or more tangible and functional. Thus within the workplace too, it is reasonable to assume that some people make friends so as to enhance their own working conditions” (p. 39).
Workplace friendship involves a workplace/organizational peer that we believe we’d be friends with even if we didn’t work together, that we consider the person more than just a coworker, and that we feel that we know each other really well (Morrison & Terry, 2007).
Reich & Hershcovis (2011) wrote that workplace friendships are voluntary relationships where people interact as unique individuals rather than as occupants of organizational roles (coworker or supervisor). We form and maintain workplace friendships to enhance our social support and our job success. But most of all, we make friends at work to help us satisfy our need to belong (Reich & Hershcovis, 2011).
Workplace friendships are linked to increased job satisfaction, job involvement, job performance, team cohesion, organizational commitment, and decreased intentions to turnover (Reich & Hershcovis, 2011).
Interestingly, Morrison (2009) discovered that while women are more likely to see workplace friendships in terms of the social and emotional support in times of stress, men tend to view workplace friendships in terms of the benefits to their own career or in helping them complete a task or the job duties.
Workplace Friendships: The Challenges
Although the benefits of workplace friendships are many, there are also difficulties or challenges, including blurring of boundaries, having to devote time to the friendship, and distraction from work — all of which can cause distraction and anxiety, ultimately resulting in reduced work outputs (Morrison & Terry, 2007).
Workplace friendships fail for five main reasons (Sias, Heath, Perry, Silva, & Fix, 2004):
distracting life events
Personality and life events can end a workplace friendship when they distract employees from their work. Betrayal can certainly destroy a workplace friendship. It makes sense that after a betrayal, it can be very difficult to regain trust. In the case of promotion, it becomes much harder to maintain an equal relationship balance because now one person (the promoted individual) has formal authority over the other.
Workplace Friendships: Tricky but Worth It
Seppala and King (2017) explained there’s always the potential of workplace friendship fallout and there are “real entanglements that can arise when the boundaries between work and friendship become blurred.” However, given that belonging is a fundamental human need and that we spend a large part of our time at work, the workplace “is an ideal place to foster the positive connections we all need — not just for our well-being but also for our productivity and health.”
Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor
Morrison, R. L. (2009). Are Women Tending and Befriending in the Workplace? Gender Differences in the Relationship Between Workplace Friendships and Organizational Outcomes. Sex roles, 60(1),
Morrison, R. L., & Terry, N. (2007). Too Much of a Good Thing?: Difficulties with Workplace Friendships. University of Auckland Business Review, 9(2), 33-41.
Reich, T. C., & Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). Interpersonal relationships at work. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 223-248). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Awaken, Align, Accelerate (2011) is a leadership development and coaching guide from MDA Leadership Consulting. The book harnesses “the art and science of developing leaders into a unique collection of self-assessments, development suggestions, case studies, sample leadership development plans, coaching recommendations, and cross-cultural coaching tips” (Nelson & Ortmeier, 2011, p. 1).
MDA Leadership’s Awaken, Align, Accelerate is a big book. But once you flip through its brawny pages and are able to easily spot valuable information on each page (thanks to the great use of colors, bullets, and charts), I think you’ll agree that the book’s hefty size is an advantage. I actually appreciate its large size.
The overall layout (i.e., visuals, colors, graphics, tables, and charts), especially the use of colors to call out specific sections/areas on each page, is praiseworthy as it really helps to visually direct your eyes to important or interesting areas. For example, the tabs are nicely colored in blue so you can easily tell which competency you’re on and, on the back page (of each blue tab/competency), you’ll notice a gray tab which is the leadership factor that encompasses the competency.
“This guide focuses attention on what it takes to develop senior leaders, those who have responsibility for multiple teams inside a function (e.g., sales, marketing, finance) or an entire business within an organization. Additionally, we’ve designed this guide to be used by managers aspiring upward or even more senior executives facing similar challenges.” -Introduction of Awaken, Align, Accelerate
According to MDA Leadership, the book is the collaborative effort of 21 authors, most with over 25 years of leadership development experience, and was reviewed by over 60 colleagues who provided valuable insight. It includes almost 2,000 development and coaching suggestions, real-life case studies, and pragmatic development tools.
The Awaken, Align, Accelerate book is divided into six sections to match the six leadership factors of MDA’s Leadership Competency Model (Leading People, Thinking and Deciding, Achieving, Relating to People, Managing Work, and Managing Self). Each section (or factor) is further divided into a set of competencies that correspond to that particular factor. The core of the Awaken, Align, Accelerate book is divided into 16 chapters, one chapter for each of the 16 competencies in MDA’s Leadership Competency Model. Each chapter includes a self-assessment, development suggestions, and coaching suggestions.
LEADING PEOPLE (leadership factor #1)
1. Leading Courageously (competency)
2. Creating Alignment (competency)
3. Team Leadership (competency)
4. Developing Leaders (competency)
THINKING AND DECIDING (leadership factor #2)
5. Strategic Thinking (competency)
6. Business Acumen (competency)
7. Critical Thinking and Judgment (competency)
ACHIEVING (leadership factor #3)
8. Drive for Results (competency)
9. Innovation and Risk-Taking (competency)
RELATING TO PEOPLE (leadership factor #4)
10. Interpersonal Effectiveness (competency)
11. Building Collaboration (competency)
MANAGING WORK (leadership factor #5)
12. Planning and Organizing (competency)
13. Managing Execution (competency)
For each of the 16 competencies, there’s a nice description of each competency, a graphic indicating which of the 6 leadership factors covers that specific competency, and the 5 core practices that are contained within that particular competency.
Here’s how the Leading Courageously competency looks:
Leading Courageously [definition]: Successful organizations need courageous leaders at every level who display confidence and skill in the use of leadership, power, and authority. They assume responsibility for tackling tough assignments and pursue difficult challenges. Courageous leaders are assertive and appropriately tough-minded without being insensitive. They take initiative, act with independence, and demonstrate strength of conviction in pursuing their leadership agendas. They shape the thinking of others and actively influence upwards and across the organization.
FACTOR: Leading People COMPETENCY: Leading Courageously CORE PRACTICE: Authority, Courage, Assertiveness, Independence, Influence
In my opinion, what makes Awaken, Align, Accelerate stand head and shoulders above the rest are the following features:
* Leadership Levels Matrix – it illustrates how leaders (front-line managers, function leaders, and senior executives) at different levels vary by core practice.
* Self-Assessment – evaluates individual development needs, strengths or excessively used core practice behaviors.
* Development Suggestions – development tips for each core practice and sub-grouped by Awaken potential, Align goals, and Accelerate development framework. After completing the self-assessment, leaders are encouraged to focus on suggestions that correspond to the core practice s/he identified as a development need or excessive use.
* Coaching Suggestions – coaching tips for two different behaviors under each core practice grouped by Awaken, Align, Accelerate framework.
* Case Study / Development Plan / Coaching Plan – a real-life case study leading to a sample development plan and coaching plan.
Leadership Levels Matrix for the Business Acumen competency.
The first thing I like in Awaken, Align, Accelerate is the use of a Leadership Levels Matrix (shown above) “a chart that shows how key leadership skills play out at the manager, function leader, and senior executive levels of the pipeline” (Nelson & Ortmeier, 2011, p. 7). This chart/matrix illustrates how leaders at different levels (managers, function leaders, senior executives) vary by core practice. Let’s take a closer look.
For the Business Acumen competency and the Operating Models core practice, we can see “How Leaders at Different Levels Use Business Acumen” (see figure above). For front-line managers, it’s about recognizing how their areas of responsibility contribute to the bottom line. For function leaders, it’s about knowing the organization’s business model and how it operates. And for the senior executives, it’s about enhancing and evolving business models that fuel profitable growth.
As MDA Leadership explains: “Success looks different at different leadership levels [and] successful transitions to a new level [of leadership] involves developing the right skills and behaviors. . . . To successfully navigate from one level to the next, leaders need to understand the behavior differences and develop strategies for closing the gap” (Nelson & Ortmeier, 2011, p. 6).
Development Suggestions (Part 1) for the Empowerment core practice of the Team Leadership competency
Development Suggestions (Part 2) for the Empowerment core practice of the Team Leadership competency
Similar to Korn/Ferry’s FYI book, MDA Leadership’s Awaken, Align, Accelerate book features “Development Suggestions” (shown above) which are development tips. Development Suggestions are provided for each core practice and sub-grouped by Awaken potential, Align goals, and Accelerate development framework. After completing the self-assessment, leaders are encouraged to focus on suggestions that correspond to the core practice s/he identified as a development need or excessive use. In the example shown above, we see Development Suggestions for the Empowerment core practice of the Team Leadership competency.
Coaching Suggestions for the Utilization core practice in the Team Leadership competency
Another thing I like is the Coaching Others section for each competency. Here, the Awaken, Align, Accelerate book really shines as it demonstrates how to coach others. Indeed, the Introduction page of the book states: “Developing yourself and coaching others are the central themes of this guide” (Nelson & Ortmeier, 2011, p. 1). In the example shown above, we see Coaching Suggestions for the Utilization core practice of the Team Leadership competency.
Finally, MDA Leadership uses an IMPACT Coaching Steps process (shown above) that is mapped to their Awaken, Align, Accelerate framework. Using a pneumonic in the word IMPACT (Increase INSIGHT, MOTIVATE change, PLAN goals, ALIGN expectations, CREATE teachable moments, TRACK progress), MDA Leadership paired two coaching steps for each phase of their Awaken, Align, Accelerate framework.
Mapping the IMPACT Coaching Steps onto each phase of the Awaken, Align, Accelerate framework is a brilliant move as it ties the coaching process with MDA Leadership’s three-phase (Awaken, Align, Accelerate) model. It shows that there’s been a great deal of thought behind both the overall framework/model as well as the tactical tools and tips shared throughout the book.
MDA Leadership’s approach to leadership development is built on the interaction of three concepts (Nelson & Ortmeier, 2011):
1. Talent Pipeline – an overarching context to understanding the leadership requirement at different levels within an organization. A talent pipeline illustrates the skills, knowledge, and values needed in leadership across levels of any organizations. To successfully navigate from one level to the next, leaders need to understand the behavior differences and develop strategies for closing the gap (Nelson & Ortmeier, 2011).
2. Leadership Competency Model – a model for defining the knowledge, skills, and behaviors required across different levels of leadership. Although many organizations have defined cascading leadership models, few have integrated their models with the pipeline context in as much detail as MDA Leadership presented in the Awaken, Align, Accelerate book (Nelson & Ortmeier, 2011).
There are four types of people who destroy and neutralize a conversation dead in its track. These types can be distinct but often I find that they tend to blend together. For instance, a person who interrupts or monopolizes a conversation may also minimize or discount what the other person is saying. Or someone who enjoys arguing may also not be listening to much of the conversation since this person focuses on only one point or phrase to argue about while ignoring everything else.
1) Interrupting and/or Monopolizing
“A conversation requires a balance between talking and listening, and somewhere along the way, we lost that balance.” -Celeste Headlee, 10 Ways to Have a Better Conversation [TED Talk]
Another way to describe an individual who monopolizes a conversation is what’s called conversational narcissism. Conversational narcissism is a pattern of talking in which people find polite ways to shift the focus of the conversation to themselves.
Example of conversational narcissism:
A supervisor tells you she was very ill from meningitis and almost died in the hospital. You respond with: “Oh I had meningitis when I was younger and I thought I was going to die.” You shifted the attention of the conversation about the supervisor almost dying from meningitis to yourself and your story (i.e., I had meningitis too).
“If they’re talking about the trouble they’re having at work, don’t tell them about how much you hate your job. It’s not the same. It is never the same. All experiences are individual. And, more importantly, it is not about you. You don’t need to take that moment to prove how amazing you are or how much you’ve suffered. . . . Conversations are not a promotional opportunity.” -Celeste Headlee, 10 Ways to Have a Better Conversation [TED Talk]
2) Minimizing and/or Discounting
Back when I worked as a therapist, I learned about not minimizing or discounting the feelings and thoughts of my clients. Minimizing or discounting another person sounds something like this, “Oh, don’t worry about it. It’s nothing. You’ll get over it.”
In the workplace, I sometimes hear one person minimizing, discounting, or dismissing what another person is saying. The person doing the minimizing, discounting, or dismissing might be the boss, a co-worker, or even a subordinate. And, when I’m not careful, I am as just as guilty as anyone else of falling into one of these conversation-killer traps.
Example of Minimizing and/or Discounting:
A woman shared that she had just been laid off. A friend, uncomfortable with seeing her friend in distress and wanting to help her feel better, replied: “You know it could have been so much worse. At least the company gave you a 4-week severance package. Many people don’t even get that. You get paid for a whole month while looking for a job. So cheer up! It’ll be fine.”
Regardless of the level or position in an organization, the outcome is that the person on the receiving end of the invalidation is left feeling unheard and frustrated.
Validation is a critical tool used often in counseling sessions. While this quote about validation was written to help guide therapists, I’ve included it here because I believe it’s instructive for everyone to understand just how important validation is: “Validation . . . simply means communicating to the [person] that his or her responses make sense, are understood, or are in a sense reasonable” (Robins & Rosenthal, 2011, p. 171).
3) Opposing and/or Arguing
This person will disagree and argue with you, usually just for the sake of arguing. He will reject or oppose anything that someone else is saying or suggesting, and no amount of evidence or data will convince him to change his mind. This type of individual will only give up reluctantly and often do so by blaming the unreliable source of where he got his information.
Adam McHugh (in his list of the 12 usual suspects of bad listening, “How to Be a Bad Listener”) describes one type of bad listener who is keen on disagreeing. These individuals listen for a word, phrase, or topic that they want to argue about. And even if they do agree with most of what someone else is saying, they will nitpick over that word, phrase, or topic that they do not agree with.
4) Not Paying Attention
One of the most egregious mistakes in a conversation is not paying attention. For instance, when you talk to someone and he’s looking around or at something else, it’s quite obvious that this person is much more interested in anything else but listening to you. It’s ironic because often I don’t think the person making this mistake (i.e., not paying attention) realizes he’s doing it (i.e., clueless to the fact that he’s not paying attention). But here’s the reality: Human beings, even children, can tell when you are not paying attention to them while they are talking.
Not paying attention includes something experts call “pseudolistening” or pretending to listen. Pseudolistening is when we pretend to listen but we’re thinking about something else. We pseudolisten when we’re not interested in what is being said or when we’re familiar with the information and so don’t need to give our undivided attention (Wood, 2016).
When you pseudolisten, you risk missing important information because you weren’t actually paying attention.
“Pseudolisteners often give themselves away when their responses reveal that they weren’t paying attention. Common indicators of pseudolistening are responses that are tangential or irrelevant to what was said” (Wood, 2016, p. 173).
Why We Need To Listen
“To be listened to is a striking experience, partly because it is so rare. When another person is totally with you—leaning in, interested in every word, eager to empathize—you feel known and understood. People open up when they know they’re really being listened to; they expand; they have more presence. They feel safer and more secure as well, and trust grows. This is why listening is so important . . .” (Whitworth, Kimsey-House, Kimsey-House, & Sandahl, 2007, p. 31).
In the book, A Manager’s Guide to Coaching: Simple and Effective Ways to Get the Best Out of Your Employees we’re reminded that:
“Often, when we listen to someone, we’re only partially listening, because we’re thinking of our reply or judging their comments. We often miss what’s in between their words, or even a key idea” (Emerson & Loehr, 2008, p. 103).
“The key to successful listening is to remove all distractions, sit back, and focus 100% on [their] words, emotions, and body language” (Emerson & Loehr, 2008, p. 105).
“By listening and allowing [people] to feel heard, you’re giving them the confidence that their words and ideas have merit and that they can figure things out for themselves” (Emerson & Loehr, 2008, p. 105).
“Listening is more than hearing, and it is definitely more than waiting for the other person to take a breath so that you can speak again. It is the ability to temporarily forget the future and the past, and collapse your focus to a single point, a single person—here and now” (Burnison, 2013, p. 174).
Why People Interrupt/Monopolize, Minimize/Discount, Oppose/Argue or Not Pay Attention
People Interrupt/Monopolize, Minimize/Discount, Oppose/Argue or Not Pay Attention for several reasons: (1) Not caring – There are some people who simply do not care (or care very much) about other people, (2) Is impatient or in a hurry – These folks are in a rush to solve problems or to get to solutions. Impatient people provide answers, conclusions, and solutions too early in the process. (3) Monopolizing the conversation – Shifting the conversation to their own topic or what’s called “conversational narcissism.” (4) Misguided compassion – Unlike those who don’t care, people who do care may try to “help” others feel better so they skip over the validation part, thereby discounting or invalidating feelings, and go straight to offering solutions or words of consolation. (5) Fear of or discomfort with emotions or conflicts – These individuals do not know how to deal with strong emotions or conflicts and will try to avoid strong emotions and conflict when in conversation or interaction with others.
Suggestions For Improvement & Development:
In FYI: For Your Improvement (a guide for coaching and development), Lombardo and Eichinger (2009) shared a great tip in helping us to better understand others: Avoid early solution statements and extreme positions. While the answer might be obvious to you, and might make perfect sense to someone in your field, it may either mean nothing or will be jarring to people in another function. Lay out your thinking, explain the alternatives, and keep them as maybes. Then invite them to apply their perspective to it. If you fire out solutions, you’ll encourage them to reply in your terms. You’ll never learn to understand them.
Another useful advice Lombardo and Eichinger (2009) discussed is what to do when you’re viewed by others as being insensitive: Seek to understand before you seek a solution. You might be seen as someone who jumps to conclusions and solutions before others have had a chance to finish their statement of the problem. Take the time to really define the problem. Let people finish. Try not to interrupt. Don’t finish other’s sentences. Ask clarifying questions. Restate the problem in your own words to everyone’s satisfaction.
If you are struggling with being interpersonally savvy (relating to others; building & maintaining rapport), Lombardo and Eichinger (2009) offered this: Tailor your approach to fit others’ needs. Too busy to pay attention? Too quick to get into the agenda? Do you devalue others and dismiss their contributions, resulting in people feeling diminished, rejected and angry? Do you offer answers, solutions, conclusions, statements, or dictates early in the transaction? That’s the staple of people with a non-savvy style. Not listening. Instant output. Sharp reactions. Read your audience. Always select your interpersonal approach from the other person in, not from you out. Your best choice of approach will always be determined by the other person or group, not you.
A useful resource similar to Lombardo and Eichinger’s FYI book is Awaken, Align, Accelerate (2011), a leadership development and coaching guide from MDA Leadership. According to the Awaken, Align, Accelerate book, if you talk over or interrupt others or if you spend more time talking than listening and you fail to draw others out or ask ineffective or too few questions, then this is a problem that will need to be remedied (Nelson & Ortmeier, 2011).
Takeaway: If you do not listen in a conversation, it is very easy to derail and wreck it. The first and most obvious way is by interrupting or monopolizing the conversation. A second, more subtle but just as harmful, way to kill a conversation is by minimizing, discounting, or dismissing what another person is sharing. The third way to end a conversation or turn it into a heated exchange is by arguing with or outright opposing what another person is saying. The fourth way to wreck a conversation is failure to pay attention to what the other person is saying. These conversation killers negatively affect your ability to understand another person and can also weaken or cause irreparable damage to your relationship with them.
Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor
Burnison, G. (2013). Lead. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Emerson, B., & Loehr, A. (2008). A Manager’s Guide to Coaching: Simple and Effective Ways to Get the Best Out of Your Employees. New York: AMACOM.
Nelson, S. E., & Ortmeier, J. G. (2011). Awaken, Align, Accelerate: A Guide to Great Leadership. Edina, MN: Beaver’s Pond Press, Inc.
Robins, C. J., & Rosenthal, M. Z. (2011). Dialectical Behavior Therapy. In J. D. Herbert, & E. M. Forman (Eds.), Acceptance and Mindfulness in Cognitive Behavior Therapy: Understanding and Applying the New Therapies (pp. 164-192). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Whitworth, L., Kimsey-House, K., Kimsey-House, H., & Sandahl, P. (2007). Co-active coaching: New skills for coaching people toward success in work and life (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Wood, J. T. (2016). Interpersonal Communication: Everyday Encounters (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
NOTE: I am reviewing this I/O psychology textbook from a reader’s perspective (i.e., the student’s/learner’s point of view) and not from an instructor’s perspective.
Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology (7th ed.) by Ronald E. Riggio is a solid update to a growing list of Industrial/Organizational Psychology textbooks. According to Routledge’s website (publisher of the book), the seventh edition has been updated to include expanded coverage of international issues, job engagement, and emerging topics such as workplace bullying, virtual teams and organizations, agile organization structures, and web-based training and assessment.
In the preface, Dr. Riggio shared that he wrote the book because his students were complaining the textbooks he had been using were too technical and not student friendly. “So, when I wrote this book (and subsequent editions), I have tried to keep my students in mind every step of the way. I have tried to keep the book current, readable, and relevant to students’ current and future working lives” (Riggio, 2018, p. xix).
I like that professor Riggio explained the importance of in-text citations: “Although some students may find it distracting to have points referenced with “(Author, year)” throughout, these references will be extremely useful in finding starting points for term papers or future exploration” (Riggio, 2018, p. xix). This simple gesture can help ease the anxiety of college students trying to figure out how to read textbooks with APA style references.
I examined five topics: (1) training and development; (2) the four-fifths rule (or 80% rule) used to determine adverse impact in employee selection; (3) use of cognitive ability tests in personnel selection; (4) job analysis; and (5) motivation.
The first topic is training and development. I really like Riggio’s explanation of what’s needed to ensure the success of training programs (in Ch. 7), pointing out that critical aspects to consider are transfer of training, the trainee’s readiness, and the structure of the training program.
Under the section titled, “A Model for Successful Training Programs,” Riggio outlined a step-by-step model for a successful training program (pp. 190-191):
STEP 1: A successful training program should begin by assessing training needs. In other words, the organization must first have some idea of what workers need to know to perform their jobs.
STEP 2: The next step is establishing training objectives—goals for what the training is supposed to accomplish. Training objectives need to be specific and related to measurable outcomes because training objectives are used both to set a course for the training program and to help later in determining if the training was indeed successful.
STEP 3: The next step in the training program involves the development and testing of training materials. A variety of factors must be taken into account in developing training materials, such as the trainees’ educational and skill levels, whether the training material focuses on the areas that are directly related to successful job performance, and what training methods will provide the best cost-benefit trade-off.
STEP 4: The actual implementation of the training program is the next step in the training model. Important considerations in implementing the training program include when and how often the training will take place, who will conduct the training, the assignment of trainees to sessions, and where the training will be conducted.
STEP 5: The final step is the evaluation of the training program to determine if the training was effective. This step involves a detailed analysis of whether training objectives were met and whether the training translates into trainees using the newly learned behaviors on the job.
The second topic is well-covered in many I/O psychology textbooks: the four-fifths rule (or 80% rule) used to make an adverse impact determination in employee selection. In Riggio’s Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology (7th ed.), I found the coverage of the four-fifths rule (or 80% rule) to be a bit too short:
“The guidelines led to the establishment of the four-fifths rule, which states that a hiring procedure has adverse impact when the selection rate for any protected group is 4/5, or 80%, of the group with the highest hiring rate. If the four-fifths rule demonstrates adverse impact, the employer must show that the hiring procedures used are valid” (Riggio, 2018, pp. 105-106).
This is an important area for I/O Psychology students to grasp. In several other I/O Psychology textbooks, the four-fifths rule is explained with charts, tables, or written formulas to describe what the four-fifths rule looks like in practice. I would have liked to see a longer and clearer description of the four-fifths rule.
The third topic is cognitive ability tests in personnel selection. I like Riggio’s coverage here: “One criticism of using general intelligence tests for employee selection is that they measure cognitive abilities that are too general to be effective predictors of specific job-related cognitive skills. However, research indicates that such general tests are reasonably good predictors of job performance. In fact, it has been argued that general intelligence is the most consistent predictor of performance across all types and categories of jobs” (Riggio, 2018, p. 123). Riggio (2018) wrote, “a series of meta-analyses concluded that cognitive abilities tests are valid for employment screening, that they are predictive of job performance, and that they do not underpredict the job performance of minority group members” (p. 124).
The fourth topic is job analysis or “the systematic study of the tasks, duties, and responsibilities of a job and the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform it” (Riggio, 2018, p. 65). I appreciate Riggio’s clear writing style and definition of job analysis. When I looked up the definition of job analysis in four other I/O Psychology textbooks, I found those definitions to be unclear and even confusing. In one textbook, I had such a difficult time finding the actual definition of job analysis in the job analysis chapter that I gave up and looked in the glossary in the back.
In contrast, after defining job analysis, Riggio then outlined the different methods to conducting a job analysis (e.g., observations, participation, interviews, surveys, job diaries), specific job analysis techniques (e.g., job element method, critical incidents technique, Position Analysis Questionnaire, and Functional job analysis). I applaud Dr. Riggio for devoting a section titled, “Job Analysis and the ADA,” (p. 81) in which he wrote: “Although the ADA does not require employers to conduct formal job analyses, you might imagine the difficulties involved in trying to adapt or alter a job for a disabled employee without having conducted a thorough analysis of it. . . . Only through job analysis can essential job elements and job requirements be determined. It is these elements and requirements that need to be considered when interviewing, hiring, and training workers with disabilities” (Riggio, 2018, p. 82).
The fifth and final topic is motivation, one of the most widely researched topics in I/O psychology. I compared the motivation chapter (Chapter 8) in Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology (7th ed.) with the motivation chapter in several other I/O psychology textbooks and came away very impressed with Riggio’s treatment of this topic.
Riggio (2018) provided a great definition of motivation — “the force that energizes, directs, and sustains behavior” (p. 216). He then clearly explained:
“Because motivation cannot be observed directly, it is difficult to study. We can only infer motives either by observing goal-directed behavior or by using some psychological measurement technique” (Riggio, 2018, p. 217).
I love that! We need to communicate with students (and readers) that motivation is one of those concepts that is abstract and can be very tricky to measure. Other I/O psychology textbooks jumped right in and assumed students already know this or provided scant information to explain just how complex and elusive motivation is, even if it is interesting to researchers and the public.
Also in the motivation chapter, I particularly appreciated that Riggio devoted a section (“The Relationship Between Motivation and Performance”, p. 242) discussing how work motivation relates to work performance and he did so in his characteristically clean and clear writing style:
“Motivation is central to any discussion of work behavior because it is believed that it has a direct link to good work performance. In other words, it is assumed that the motivated worker is the productive worker” (Riggio, 2018, p. 242).
“Yet this may not always be true because many other factors can affect productivity independent of the effects of worker motivation. Furthermore, having highly motivated workers does not automatically lead to high levels of productivity. The work world is much more complex than that” (Riggio, 2018, p. 242).
Industrial/Organizational Psychology Today and in the Future
One part of the book I especially like is the “Industrial/Organizational Psychology Today and in the Future” section (p. 13) in Chapter 1. In this section, Riggio talked about four key trends in the world of work that are important today and in the future of I/O psychology.
Trend #1: The Changing Nature of Work
“Organizations are becoming flatter, with fewer levels in the hierarchy, and they are being broken up into smaller subunits with greater emphasis on work teams. With telecommuting, advanced communication systems, and sophisticated networking, people can work in almost any location, with team members who are quite remote. This will have important implications for how work is done, and I/O psychologists will be very involved in helping workers adapt to technological and structural changes” (Riggio, 2018, p. 14).
Trend #2: Expanding Focus on Human Resources
“Organizations have become more and more concerned about and responsive to the needs of workers. At the same time, organizations are realizing that skilled and creative workers are the keys to success. The term “talent management” is a frequent buzzword heard in organizations—important because it reflects the emphasis on the value of the worker and the need to select, care for, and develop workers’ talents” (Riggio, 2018, p. 15).
Trend #3: Increasing Diversity And Globalization Of The Workforce
“Women and ethnic minorities—who have been targets of employment discrimination—now make up the majority of the U.S. workforce, and there are similar trends worldwide. Moreover, the diversity of cultures in workplaces will also increase as workers become more internationally mobile . . . Workforces will continue to consist of members from a greater number and variety of cultures” (Riggio, 2018, p. 17).
“Industrial/organizational psychologists will have to assist organizations in dealing with the challenges increasing diversity will bring. Although diversity has benefits, demographic and cultural differences can, if not carefully managed, create great difficulties in the functioning of work teams—increasing destructive conflict, inhibiting team cooperation, and impeding performance” (Riggio, 2018, p. 18).
Trend #4: Increasing Relevance of I/O Psychology in Policy and Practice
“Although I/O psychology has had an important impact in how we select, train, develop, and motivate employees, there is huge potential for I/O psychology to play an even bigger part in helping to improve work performance and make the conditions for workers better, more rewarding, and more “healthy”” (Riggio, 2018, p. 19).
Summary: I really enjoyed and appreciated Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology (7th ed.) by Ronald E. Riggio. I found the book easy to navigate and the writing style to be extremely readable and not long-winded, making it very student friendly. The book is solid and packed with information, but it does not feel overwhelming. With the seventh edition, Riggio demonstrates that he’s able to keep the book fresh, reader-friendly, and relevant. I highly and enthusiastically recommend this book. Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology (7th ed.) by Ronald E. Riggio has become one of my most trusted, go-to Industrial/Organizational psychology resources!
Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor
Riggio, R. E. (2018). Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology (7th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Disclosure: I received Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology (7th ed.) as a complimentary gift, but my book review was written as though I had purchased it.