--J’me Overstreet

JCO completed another training of correctional supervisors in leadership skills in Oklahoma County in April. The participants learned concepts including changing under stress, writing measurable performance objectives, transitioning from staff to management/leader, delegating effectively, communicating effectively, and managing conflict through their own specific personal management style. Evaluation after program completion found all elements of the training valuable to very valuable to extremely valuable. Elements rating 90%-100% very to extremely valuable included changing under stress, writing measurable performance objectives, learning the emotional role of leaders, understanding how work engagement has changed, and learning the participant’s personal style of managing conflict.

Comments about the training were positive, such as:

• Enlightening,
• the training spoke to me,
• should be taught to all supervisors,
• very influential and helpful to motivate me to be better, training was organized and informative,
• I know so much more about myself and what I need to build on,
• loved the whole program, now I have to apply what I learned.

JCO’s next leadership training is scheduled for OK County later this May.

 

--Mike Connelly

The Aging Inmate series set us off a day getting you your Management news this week, so we apologize for any heebie-jeebies that may have set in. We’ve got enough here to calm them, we believe. The first article is again the one we really want to headline. It’s one of the very best pieces you’ll find on the future of state and local funding/spending, and with a little inference, it demonstrates why all these “savings” hailed by Corr Sent Reform 1.0 efforts have essentially been bushwa and should have been seen as such from the beginning., much less the “implementation” likelihoods in the future. Add in the effects of The Perfect Storm, only touched on in the article, which multiplies all the effects he discusses, and you’ll get why 1.0 is so inadequate, why more funding of it as it is is not just wasteful but diverting resources from truly necessary efforts, and why efforts to defend 1.0 (as we discuss in the News today) are so poorly spent. The funders and defenders treat what this article details and explains so well as if these conditions don’t apply, as if we’re still partying like it’s 1999. It’s not. The longer we act as if it is, the harder, more expensive, and less successful we will be in dealing with The Storm. At some point this will be apparent to all but the most devoted deniers. Right now, it’s apparent well to the writer of this article. Here’s just a bit to make it apparent to you, too:

What does all of this mean for the future? In the past, many actions taken by state and local governments to cope with recessions could be viewed as temporary, likely to be reversed when things returned to normal. However, state budget officials are now talking about a "new normal" in which revenue (and therefore expenditure) growth continues to be slower than in the past and where the federal government no longer can be counted on to moderate the effects of future economic downturns. The across-the-board cuts known as sequestration and the more general need to reduce the federal deficit make help from Washington increasingly unlikely.

In this context, elected officials and managers at the state and local level face substantial challenges in planning for this uncertainty. If past is prologue, they are likely to respond to this uncertainty by taking such steps as delaying hiring, not filling vacant positions, freezing salaries, imposing furloughs, or deferring maintenance or equipment purchases.

These strategies may be useful in addressing short-term problems, but they are less effective in combating continuing budgetary stagnation. These sorts of cuts may leave many programs' capacity to deliver effective services so diminished that they end up looking like (to borrow a phrase heard from one manager) the "walking wounded." Moreover, because many of these strategies were already employed in the recent recession, there may be practical constraints to their further use now. . . .

In the end, governments cannot pretend that they can just continue to do everything they have before, only with fewer resources. The effective functioning of government will require not just doing the same with less, but also actually doing less. The only way to address this will be to make choices, which is what budgeting is supposed to be about. The more informed these choices, the better.

Say amen, brothers and sisters.

“Managing Through Endless Fiscal Uncertainty”
“Feeling Powerful Will Make You Smarter”
“What Do Your Eyes Tell About Your Leadership and Status?”
“You’ve Become the Office’s Alpha Mean Girl—Now What?” (don’t you get to make a movie about it??)
“8 Habits That Are Making Your Work Life Harder”
“How to Stay Productive If You’re Terrible at Waking Up Early”
“How to Manage Conflict at Work”
“How to Be More Effective at Work” (had enough “how” articles yet?)
“Your Brain Thrives on Complexity When You’re Solving Tough Problems” (no matter what you think . . . so to speak)
“The Worst Job Interview Questions Employers Can Ask” (“my biggest weakness? I guess, just working so many dadgum hours and not being satisfied with having success after success. That, and the cocaine.” Favorite article this week. “If you could be a tree, what kind . . . ?”)
“Training the Brain to Improve on New Tasks”
“How Out-of-Office Replies Can Put Workers at Risk” (did you really tell every burglar in town you’re out-of-town on vacation for the next two weeks?)
“The Most Unusual Excuses for Arriving Late to the Office” (lots of good ones, like the angry wife, the glass of water, the husband’s car keys, and the freezer; pay no attention to those tips to avoid being late)
“8 Psychological Pitfalls That Will Thwart Your Success”
“Bad Decisions Arise from Faulty Information, Not Faulty Brain Circuits” (so I’m not really forgetting where my pajama bottoms are?)
“10 Business Cliches to Avoid Like the Plague” (lot of good ones but actually only 9, leaving the 10th to us? How about “pull up your big [whatever] panties”?)
“A Quiet Person’s Guide to Effective Public Speaking”

“The Next Step in Introvert World Domination” (you schmoozers had your day and look where we are so we’re taking over, get used to it . . . and stop touching me)

“Marissa Mayer Defends Her Work from Home Ban” (speaking of introverts and having no clue about them, the Yahoo CEO again proves she manages by inaccurate instinct rather than solid research finding, claiming “people are more productive alone” but more “innovative” together. Uh, no, that’s not what the research says, particularly for introverts, but why let Reality get in the way of your useful stereotypes and algorithms?? Just don’t copy her, okay? “People” are not one-size-fits-all)
“People Crave Autonomy More Than Any Perk” (uh . . . Marissa???)
“Why Daydreams Are Good for You” (bookmark this and have it on your screen to point out to your supervisor whenever necessary)

--Mike Connelly

So many articles, so little space today, so we’re breaking them into two parts this week. First was yesterday, and you missed the monkey article if this is the first you’ve heard of this. But you’ve got raises and “no crying in Corrections Sentencing!!” today so don’t skip here, too.

“Big Data, Better Workforce” (we know “big data” is the “big thing” now and don’t downplay it, not completely anyway, just wary as someone who knows the shakiness of so many of the decisions what to count, of the data entering and manipulation, of the uses that decision-makers want it for that really are scary and/or unfounded, of being held accountable for results based on what was often more smoke than fire, knowing there are going to be a lot of hindquarters ending up bitten)
“Belief in ‘Belief in a Just World’ Theory” (not sure this is really “management” but it does talk about perspectives on Reality and how they play out in behavior that you might find helpful when dealing with staff . . . or sweetie . . . or yourself . . . . Which ties in well to the next story.)
“26 Tips on How to Read People”
“Office Parties Have Unintended Consequences for Company Culture”
“Few People Understand the Difference Between Risk and Genuine Uncertainty”
“2 Essential Rules You Should Keep in Mind When Resigning”
“16 Secrets to Creating Breakthrough Ideas”
“The Hunt for the Creative Individual” (check off all the characteristics that you share with such persons to see if you are one, or at least read the final paragraph because it got iced tea on my keyboard)
“13 Ways to Score a Big Raise” (we know, probably should have put this one first . . . but we like for you to read all the way through)
“The Dos and Don’ts of Crying at Work” (we’re betting this isn’t one of the 13 Ways just discussed above)
“Stanford MBA School Professor Explains How to Get Promotions and Raises”
“I Know More Than My New Boss” (on second thought, maybe read this one before you act on the raises articles above)
“Why Hiring Only Young People Is a Mistake”
“Worrying Can Make You a Better Friend and Employee” (keeps you alert . . . unless you end up on drugs for it)
“How to Make Better Decisions: Pretend You’re Giving Advice to a Friend”
“18 Tips on Making Smarter Decisions”
“Women Make Better Decisions Than Men, Study Suggests” (to which we men have decided that we don’t agree)

--Mike Connelly

A bunch of good stuff this week, especially the first article, which is why we put it first. It deals with how innovation requires an implementation structure (no point inventing motor oil if there aren’t any cars), which kills off a lot of great possibilities which may or may not come back around when that infrastructure is there. As we deal with The Perfect Storm now and well into the future, a lot of great ideas will be available but only those that fit available structures will be do-able. That’s why our projections for changes in Corr Sent by 2020 only address those clearly on the radar, whether implemented well yet or not. It’s why so much of Corr Sent Reform 1.0 flounders when judges as a group (not the few who might participate in the changes) turn out uninterested in pre-sentence assessments, or not enough trained assessors are available or retainable, or the number of treatment beds supposedly to take the diverted offenders doesn’t “and then a miracle happens.” It’s why changing fuels for our cars depends on hydrogen (or whatever) stations that don’t turn up or electrical plug-ins that recharge car batteries in less than 5 minutes so we can keep on our trip. You can add your own examples, we’re sure. So the first article’s dealing with these sorts of questions, from a business perspective but applicable to us, too, is definitely one you should check out. But remember: these are all work-related!!! So no shame or sudden clicking to that spreadsheet when you hear your supervisor’s familiar shuffle of his/her shoes.

“The Innovator’s Blind Spot”
“13.4 Million Reasons NOT to Ban Telework” (mentioned this one in our News earlier this week but don’t want it missed since so much transition in The Perfect Storm relates to this and those “innovators” in the first article will make a fortune if they can figure out the best way to make it go)
“What 6 Rules Should Be Guiding Your Career?”
“How to Manage Your Enemies”
“Simple Steps to Shorter, Saner Meetings” (uh . . . don’t have them???)
“Uncovering Your Professional Blind Spots”
“People Prefer Confidence over Actual Expertise” (which, again, is why talented introverts, as we’ve noted over and over, are passed over for back-slapping blowhar . . . uh, less talented extroverts, who can play the “let’s build the culture” game well while the agency/company loses the contributions of the talented introverts)
“Warts and All” (about “natural” leadership and why leaders [sic] who don’t model the culture they want but instead just talk it and institute artificial “insert tab A into slot B” recipe items (while building their newborn a nursery in their CEO office and telling other moms to give up their at-home work) are just going to be lucky if the company does turn around, especially since those leaders tend to stress the back-slapping blow . . . uh, non-introverts also . . . but we’re not going to say the name “Yahoo”)
“IT Departments Have Become Completely Useless” (wow . . . but makes a good case that, had Chief Info Officers done their jobs integrating data into their orgs rather than just seeing themselves as purchasing czars, we wouldn’t need the Chief Digital Officers now replacing their functions)
“Chewing Gum Helps You Concentrate for Longer, Study Suggests” (don’t say you never learn anything here)
“How to Stop Your Brain from Making Big Mistakes” (sounds like you start with a pack of Juicy Fruit)
“I Learned Every Secret of Leadership by Playing in a Rock Band” (so, start one, and then . . . )
“Harvard Lecturer Explains How to Get Employees to Think Like Entrepreneurs”
“How to Create a Positive Inner Work Life”
“15 Psychology Experts Share Their Best Productivity Tips” (wanna bet if one of them is “chew gum” . . . and walk . . . .)
“The Future of Work” (hint: very little like “The Past of Work”)
“12 Certainties That Will Transform Every Career and Create New Ones” (along the same line as the last one above, but while you might think we’re most intrigued with the “Big Data and Real-Time Analytics” one, we’re actually fantasizing about the “3D Printing” one and madly going through my Salma Hayek collection that I have filed on the family computer as “DOC concepts”)
“Why Success Makes Us Risk Averse” (uh . . . you don’t want to lose it . . . ?)
“How to Get People to Do Stuff” (the trick, of course, is to have the “stuff” be things that need doing)

“Job Burnout Worse for Your Heart Than Smoking” (and about that “doing both at the same time” thing you’re trying, thinking they might cancel each other out . . . .)

--Mike Connelly

Not a boffo week for management articles, but there are some generally useful ones below and some that might be more specific to particular readers. The last one on “value-cost” leveraging may at least give you something to talk about over that pitcher or keg this evening. You know how your friends love it when you bring up academic articles from your line of work. Or substitute the “super password” one for Pictionary!! (Or if your eye gets captured by someone special at the bar this evening, bring up the question of the first article. The response will be memorable. Beyond words. We promise.)

“Evaluation or Research? Is the Distinction Important?” (hint: yes.)
“Slow Down, You Think Too Fast”
“How Good Are You at Ditching Distractions?”
“How to Lead Effectively: 6 Strategies”
“Managing the Mess: Go Directly to C” (good idea of Corrections Sentencing reform)
“Why Employee Development Is Important but Neglected”
“Meet the New Boss, Meaner Than the Old Boss?” (please do not shoot this messenger)
“Three Rules for Finding a Career That Makes You Happy”
“Be Prepared to Answer These Questions During an Interview”
“How to Get Your Way”
“How to Say ‘No’ to Your Boss” (we’re not responsible for anything that results from this)
“A Simple Way to Create a Super Strong Password”
“Finding the Sweet Spot of Value and Cost”

Have a good weekend. Remember your Guinness. It’s Good For You!

--J’me Overstreet

 

“My dear, you’ve had the power all along…” –Glenda (the good witch)  The Wizard of Oz

 

Are you focusing too much on recruitment and not enough on retention?  I will answer that for you, the answer is definitely “Yes!”

 

How often do we put our energy into the things we have very little or no control over rather than the things we do?  If we are honest when we answer this question, the answer will most likely be “Most of the time.”

 

 For as long as I can remember, correctional organizations have struggled with recruitment and retention, particularly for the entry level, low paying jobs.  Depending on the political climate and the resources at hand, organizations have typically thrown money into recruitment efforts by establishing special units, investing in trinkets for recruitment fairs, and fighting a “ lose-lose” battle to secure resources for higher entry salaries.  Why did I refer to this as a” lose-lose battle”?  Stay with me….

 

I won’t argue with you that these are not all noble efforts, at least the continuing effort to secure competitive compensation packages.   However, if we look at the outcomes produced over time, most of the energy put into these efforts was really just about “making ourselves and others feel better about the problem.”  This is a frequently used problem solving strategy, but it never works.  It only delays the inevitable.  What’s the inevitable?  Continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the inevitable . . . yes, you know the quote . . . it's insanity!

 

As Glenda the good witch told Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, when Dorothy asked her how she could return home, Glenda replied, “My dear, you’ve had the power all along.”  So today I am Glenda, and corrections organizations struggling with recruitment and retention are Dorothy.  Yes my dears, you all have had the power all along . . . at least when we talk about retention.

 

We’ve all read or been exposed to retention strategies.  Do exit surveys, treat your employees fairly, give them have a voice . . . blah blah blah.  Right?  Well, it’s only blah, blah, blah because we are not doing these things very well.  When was the last time you actually reviewed your recruitment statistics over the past five years and then compared that to your retention stats?  If your organization uses an exit tool, have you really investigated its effectiveness?  How is it really being used in the field?

 

Surveys over the last 50+ years continue to show that salaries are not the number 1 issue for retention.  It’s how the employee is treated by the boss.  So, get up out of your chair and do something about this.  See, you have had the power all along.  If you are not holding your managers accountable for their retention rates, you are not using one of the most powerful tools you have.

 

When leaders of the organization decide to make this personal and do something about it, they decide to develop their managers and hold them accountable for this.

 

Ask these questions:

            Do I have some managers that “everyone knows” don’t play well with others?  Am I allowing this mold to grow?

            How is my organization using the employee performance evaluation tool?  Is it effective or just a joke?

            What strategies and activities has the organization deployed to emphasize retention, if any?  Have they been effective?

            Does my organization need assistance in developing and holding managers accountable for retention, more effectively utilizing the employee performance evaluation tool, and determining what steps to take for succession planning?

 

Tip:                

What if all you did was require all of your wardens to meet personally with each new correctional officer hired and during that meeting they asked them to meet with them prior to making a decision to leave the organization?  This idea, as you are already smirking about, will not be popular.  However, I think you might be surprised at the results you might get!

 

Oh yeah…earlier I referred to a “lose-lose” battle and asked that you stay with me.  The battle is a “lose-lose” because if you look at the data, you will see the when salary packages are slightly improved, the recruitment/retention data may show improvement, but the momentum doesn’t continue.  This is a “lose-lose” because the organization and the public are now investing more money in hiring and training employees that are still leaving.

--Mike Connelly
Got some high quality stuff for you this week. Your job is to figure out which ones we’re talking about. We do dare you to send the last one around to others in your office. Particularly your supervisor/boss.

“Talent Executive Says Annual Performance Reviews Are Huge Morale Killers” (file under “duh”)
“A Question of Accountability: What Happens When Employees Are Left in the Dark?”
“Stop Thinking That Hard Work Will Get You a Raise” (performance not well linked to success, but you didn’t need to be told that, right? Look at Microsoft. And the Kardashians.)
“The Exact Words to Use When Negotiating Salary”
“The Best Bosses Don’t Have to Work on the Weekends”
“Top 6 Reasons Why People Hate Their Bosses” (Because bosses read the article just above???)
“Snore More, You’re Probably Sleep Deprived”
“Interrupt Me for Five Seconds?—Fuhgeddaboudit!”
“The Fairness Flaw: Why ‘Fair’ Managers Often Falter”
“The Best Mentors Are the Ones Who Scare You a Little”
“It’s Off to Work We Go” (relationship between home location and work)
“18 Ways Your Office Job Is Destroying Your Body” (and you thought it was age . . . or is that just me?)
“How Modern Technology Is Destroying Your Posture at Work” (I’m now down to 4’8” . . . )
“Wanted: A Life Outside the Workplace”
“New Data Shows Depth of Employee Discontent”
“Ask These Questions During the Job Interview to Identify the Right Hires”
“Narcissism and Leadership”
“Working with a Narcissist”
“How to Get the Job Done When You Just Want to Crawl Back into Bed”
“Why Employees Quit Their Jobs”
“Do You Have the Leadership ‘X Factor’?”
“Catfight? Workplace Conflicts Between Women Get Bad Rap”
“Why Focus Makes Us Smarter—and 8 Ways to Sharpen Yours”
“Meditation Is the New Yoga: Bringing Mindfulness into the Workplace” (like we said, we dare you . . . .)

--Mike Connelly

If you’ve gotten much out of these weekly management pieces before, imagine what you’ll get from articles on Iron Man, “The Office,” and knowing how to tell if your boss is a narcissist. The latter one might not be as interesting to him/her if s/he wanders by your computer screen, though, so use your own judgment.

“Having a Tony Stark in the Office Is Fine as Long as You Hire a Pepper Potts” (she doesn’t have to look like Gwyneth, though . . . and I really did have to look up how to spell that name)

“Mediocre Managers as Damaging as the David Brents of the Workplace, According to New Study” (but not the Dwights??)
“Does Your Boss Sign Off with a Flourish?”
“12 Ways to Be a More Innovative Boss”
“20 Signs That You Are a Psychopath”
“Respect, Not Friendship, Is What a Manager Needs”
“The Heart of Engagement” (employee engagement, not you and your sweetie’s)
“6 Powerful Ways to Stand Out at Work” (GOOD ways)
“How to Feel More in Control of Your Time” (like by reading blogs)
“Stress at Work Very Unlikely to Cause Cancer” (good to know, but there goes that excuse)
“3 Ways to Keep Dominant Personalities from Ruining Meetings”
“Young Adults Need to Face the Harsh Truths about Their Careers” (basically, grow the h*ll up . . . or that may just be our interpretation)
“When Office Enthusiasm Gets Out of Control?” (anyone got any idea what these people are talking about . . . can’t conceptualize . . . .)

 

--Mike Connelly

Not sure if these variations on scholarly and pop, well-thought and barely thought, really help you, but no one’s complained yet. So here’s another week’s worth of work-related articles that you may or may not want to open at work (see item 3, for example, or the last one).

“Monday Morning Leadership Lessons from Super Bowl XLVII”
“3 Areas You Need to Focus On to Get ‘Executive Presence’”
“Is Your Boss a Bold Leader or a Flaky Bureaucrat?”
“Why Companies Fail at Sustainability, in Three Charts”
“There’s One Huge Myth about ‘Flattened’ Companies”
“5 Secrets to Using Your Time Wisely”
“Gain the Confidence of Your Boss”
“How to Sell a Great Idea Internally”
“Why Good Writing Matters”
“How to Recognize Future Leaders Without Alienating Everyone Else”
“5 Easy Ways to Feel More Intelligent”
“9 Subtle Traits of the Most Talented Leaders”
“You Are Not Your Job” (!!!)
“How to Answer Interview Questions about Your Weaknesses”
“Social Media Has Changed What It Means to Be a Leader”
“Take Care of Your People and They’ll Take Care of You”
“How Entrepreneurs’ Brains Are Different from Managers’” (Actually show up on MRIs differently when processing scenario questions)
“Targets of Bully Bosses Aren’t the Only Victims”

--Mike Connelly

A veritable potpourri (or any cliché of your choice meaning “bunch of stuff”) of useful material this week. Pick and choose but have as one of those tabs at the bottom of your monitor screen so you can hit it fast if you hear your supervisor coming by. Then look very serious and contemplative as s/he passes by.

You’re welcome.

“A Solid Foundation of Sound Management? Clear Objectives”
“5 Ways You’re Killing Your Chance at a Promotion”
“Forget about Fair: It’s Better When Bosses Pick Favorites”
“When You’re Driven, It’s Normal for People Not to Like You”
“4 Good Ways to Get Great Ideas”
“Heresy of the Week: Cutting Waste in Public Services Could Be an Expensive Mistake”
“4 Tools That Make Your Life Easier and More Productive”
“Power’s Punishing Impact: Power Linked to Tendency to Punish Harshly”
“Powerful People Better at Shaking Off Rebuffs, Bonding with Others”
“The Simplest Way for Leaders to Gain Lasting Loyalty”
“Small Things Make a Big Difference in Employee Engagement”
“The 10 Best Tools for Workplace Violence Prevention”
“Your Social Identity in High School Predicts How Successful You’ll Be As an Adult” (Which character in “The Breakfast Club” were you?)
“4 Lessons on Managing Gen Y Employees” (. . . or you could say, “just be thankful you’ve got a job . . . for now.)

--Mike Connelly

We started the week with some helpful items that can make you look at work during the week. Should real work have interrupted that, you have now undoubtedly gotten that done and are sitting at your desk trying to still appear busy. Well, here you go!! More management pieces for your perusal. And your supervisors’.

“The End of Management As We Have Known It?”
“5 Secrets to Boosting Your Efficiency”
“How to Make Employee Reviews Constructive, Not Demotivating”
“10 Lessons on Leadership for Gen Y”
“Characteristics of Good Work Team Members”
“The 4 Types of Executives Who Use Their Time Badly”
“Why Are So Many Employees Disengaged?”
“6 Questions That Reveal What a Company’s Culture Is Really Like”
“Born to Lead? Leadership Can Be an Inherited Trait, Study Finds”
“3 Ways to Trick Yourself into Finishing What You Started”

Did you finish all these articles you started?

--Mike Connelly

It being Monday morning, you might not feel yet like you are ready for the usual work flow, yet to sit there just sipping your Guinn . . . coffee and staring pensively into the distance might draw unwanted attention. Therefore, direct that attention to these links to pieces on administration and management that you won’t have to think to hard to see the relevancy of to Corrections Sentencing. At least have one of them up on the screen so when your boss comes by and says “what the . . . ?!!” at your pensive staring, you can point to the material and say, “I’ve just been pondering the implications of the implementation of the essential points discussed in this interesting article here, sir.” Promotions can be credited to us. (But don’t let the piece be the one on why bosses are out to get you. Or the one about when it’s time to leave your job. Your boss might have ideas about that, too.)

“Nobel Laureate Says There’s a Better Way to Make Hiring Decisions”
“Hiring Perfectionists Creates Big Hidden Risks”
“Why Leaders Underperform: Their Default Is to Find Fault”
“When the Boss Is Out to Get You”
“5 Ways to Think Differently at Work”
“How to Ace Performance Review”
“10 Traits That Make an Ideal Manager”
“The Extra Value of Mentors”
“Your Productivity Is Directly Related to Mood”
“Four Steps to Harvest Winning Ideas”
“Even Brief Interruptions Spawn Errors
“5 Signs It’s Time to Leave Your Job”
“Good Managers Fake It”

Uh . . . might not want to have that last one be the one your boss sees on the screen either.

--Mike Connelly

Technically, not sure if these links are better from a management perspective or just one of those “friendly bartender” ones. You can decide. If your supervisor wanders over, the answer, though, is “management.” If your bartender wanders over, see if s/he gives the same answers. Just a little test. They’ll appreciate it.

“10 Reasons Why Some People Love What They Do”
“8 Signs You’re a Control Freak”
“Oliver Burkeman’s ‘The Antidote’ Rethinks Positive Thinking”
“The 5 Biggest Regrets We Have about Our Careers”
“Five Trust Building Dos”
“7 Easy Ways to Be More Innovative”
“10 Simple Behaviors That Diminish Trust”
“Intel Futurist Says We Must Master Two Human Skills in the Next 50 Years"
“10 Dumb Things I’ve Learned from Brilliant People”
“The Difference Between Smart and Clever Is the Difference Between Winning and Losing”

--Mike Connelly

Haven’t reiterated our emphasis here lately on the value of failure compared to constant success. Not in a “you fail every time you do something” sort of way but in the sense that James Dyson (that accented guy hawking his vacuum on your tv) acclaims it in this piece, praising what he calls “educative failure.” The importance of accepting that you’re going to fail in at some decisions and actions comes when you’re thrown into unfamiliar and/or fluxing situations, much like The Perfect Storm. When things are stable and your old standby ways of doing things still work, then failing isn’t a good thing. But when you don’t know exactly how you’re going to get where you want to be, or if you even will at all, then you can’t marshal the necessary resilience and flexibility to deal with this with “one way” or “way we’ve always done it here” approaches. You have to test, evaluate, get feedback, experiment some more, especially since what works at one moment of fluxing environment might not down the road as the environment changes again and again.

Dyson describes it in connection with his business decisions in that changing environment, particularly something called a “Contrarorator Washing Machine” which I count myself fortunate that I have no clue what he’s talking about. But I do get this part:

“You don’t always get everything right. You make decisions quite early on, and then you push it through. You have to. You can’t keep changing your mind. You decide to do something, you fix it, and you do it. If it works, it works. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. At a certain point there’s only so much you can do to change it. That’s why they’re all such hard decisions.

“. . . A huge amount of what we do is wasted because it doesn’t work or it’s the wrong direction or whatever. That’s the nature of being an engineer. That’s the nature of R&D. We spend two and a half million dollars a week on R&D, and a lot of it is failure. But you learn a lot from all that failure. Making this washing machine was the most wonderful educative failure. Success is not always as enjoyable as you might think. When something’s a success, the results are clear. Failure is an enigma. You worry about it, and it teaches you something.”

Does it matter who’s the one doing the learning? Turns out that the responses might be different depending on gender. This piece cites a small sample survey across several professions, followed up with interviews, that found that men and women treated and viewed their mistakes differently, which actually wasn’t the intent of the study but became the most notable finding. Here’s what the study found:

"Throughout the data, men told 'tidy' stories; generally they found mistakes difficult to recall and were certainly brief and more concise in their responses. Through their stories they were able to rewrite their biographies to show themselves in a better light. However, the women told 'messy' stories in which they continued to blame themselves and to speak emotionally about their mistakes."

Not true across the board and might not be as significant in a larger sample sized study, but worth considering, nevertheless. Especially in light of other research the piece author cited:

Other research, this time by American academics, focused on how men and women differ in responding to feedback, which provides another way to gain insight into this area. If we fear negative feedback, we'll fear making mistakes -- or likewise, if we only want positive feedback, we'll avoid blunders at all costs.

Some of the findings? While there were no gender difference in happiness after receiving positive feedback, women were unhappier and less confident than men when they got the negative feedback. But, interestingly enough, there was no evidence that women perceived the feedback as more accurate than the men did.

Nonetheless, women tend to be more dejected by negative feedback than buoyed up by positive responses.

The piece’s author comes to this conclusion:

. . . But the reality is, that, much as we would like to think otherwise, neither sex has a monopoly on the "right" way to cope with mistakes. Rather we could each learn from each other. Women can spend less energy beating themselves up and more energy learning from the mistake. I'm not advocating blaming "the system," but being able to depersonalize the mistake helps us to view it more objectively and learn whatever lessons can be learned from it.

Men, on the other hand, rather than leaving the error hastily behind, need to realistically look at how the problem occurred and what can be done to prevent it in the future.

And maybe, ultimately, we can all be more accepting of our own - and each other's - imperfection. After all, that's one thing each and every one of us has in common.

I’ve been fortunate to work Corrections Sentencing with some truly remarkable female managers, including my business partner (and usually remarkable in a good way), although some have been determined to show they can be just as blunderbuss and destructive as some of the guys I’ve worked for and with. My subjective perspective of our field, completely without any supporting documentation, is that it provides and will provide more balance (not actual balance, just “more”) than most management ratios in other fields I’ve observed. (This article in yesterday’s “management” news pieces argues that the balance might best be tipped the opposite way of its current state.) To the extent I’ve actually seen things correctly, the two pieces above indicate that we’ll have more diversity and perspectives in dealing with The Perfect Storm than other organizations. Whether that turns our badly or well will likely depend largely on the mechanisms we develop often on the fly within our constricted resources to channel more or less of those perspectives into play and then how we merge their preferences into coherent action. Sounds formidable, yes, but all management in The Storm is going to be formidable, and which would you rather have, diversity or “one way”?

We’ve let our opinion be known.

--Mike Connelly

Need some inspiration, affirmation, review, or new learning on management? These pieces should fill the bill. The first one was sent in by a kind reader, so that shows it can be done. You read anything you think could be helpful, let us know, send us the title or the link. We and your fellow readers will appreciate it.

“Five Low-Paying, High-Stress Jobs” (check #4)
“Top Ten Fastest Growing Occupations” (3 require college work)
“Seven Myths of Performance Management” (7 in all, concludes “Rather than spending months designing the perfect system that can produce objective, accurate and precise data, efforts should be put in communicating to all employees the reasons and benefits of such systems, and connecting strategy, measurement and decision-making.”)
“Why Women May Be Better Leaders Than Men” (“May”?)
“Here’s Why Every Woman Should Have a Mentor at Work”
“The 3 Types of Mentors Everyone Should Have”

“15 Ways That a Simpler Approach to Life Leads to Greater Success” (Minimalism is your friend, here’s how to do it)

“Gen Y May Be Delusional about How to Have a Successful Career” (“May”? Should have stopped with“Delusional”)

“3 Myths about Older Job Seekers” (Who employers turn to after finding out the headline just above)
“The Skills an Innovation Team Really Needs” (Sort of administrative SWAT teams, swooping in to resolve specific problems, part of a foundation project, seems amenable to your internal adjustments for your purposes)

“5 Must-Read Books on Psychology, Motivation, and Behavior” (The first one is really the only one you need, a classic and fun actually to read.  The cynical among us can use it to learn how to con people.  Or keep from being conned.)

Feel free to click all of these at your desk. It’s work-related!!!

--Mike Connelly

 

This article advises how to make good decisions even when you feel like a box of rocks knows more about what’s going on than you do.  Okay, not the exact words, but the “essence” (or some such twaddle).  Anyway, the piece gives you hope about what to do in those clueless situations, and it sounds a LOT like what the people who discuss “resilience” say about how to get a canoe down those white water rapids you’ve never had to deal with before:

 

1. Stop looking for guarantees. — There are no guarantees in life. The proof you’re looking for doesn’t exist. That “won’t fail” journey you want to walk is just a fantasy in your head. Figuring out the right move starts with a shift in your philosophy. To make the best decision you need to believe that there’s a possibility that whatever your decision, it will be wrong. Chances are you’re going to make a mistake.
2. Be more honest about your weaknesses. — Stop pretending like you don’t make mistakes. You do. Sometimes you make big mistakes that have long term consequences. Denial just impedes forward progress. By acknowledging mistakes (and apologizing when necessary) you teach your brain and your employees to adapt to realistic benchmarks for success.

 

Hear that here before?  The author also says decisions in these contexts requires the “skill” of being curious and doing a good job interpreting clues.  So while you may have no clues of your own (and thus be “less”), the ability to look at the reality around you clearly and interpret effectively what is going on, not just what other clueless types say, will stand you in good stead (someone please look up how that cliché got started and get back to us, okay?). 

 

In the end, here’s his conclusion (but you still need all the good stuff leading up to it so click that link!): 

If you want to know, you should probably start looking for answers. That’s where great decision start. With you looking to do the right thing.

The evidence you need to make a good decision is all around you.

Look for answers. Interpret clues honestly. Take steps toward where you want to be.

The only guarantee in life is that if you keep moving in the right direction, you are getting closer to being successful.

Needless to say, this kind of decision-making is the hallmark of a non-status quo world and will be even more vital in coming years than now.  What we’ve done in the past may still be useful but it is increasingly insufficient.  As good as our data, designs, and research have become, our cluelessness still is a major factor in our confrontations with reality.   Doing simple (but possibly dramatic—think using a sword to cut through your policy Gordian Knot) things that change the dynamics of the “stuck” contexts, with an eye to monitoring, getting accurate feedback, and then possibly acting again may be challenging and seem less certain that a “one way” “ism” that doesn’t permit necessary change.  Status quos stultify without regular readjustment.  Ours hasn’t been readjusting, it’s been calcifying for decades.  We may not have the exact plan about what to do, but we have to do something different.  These sorts of encouragements and good advice make that easier.

 

 

 

--Mike Connelly

A tad too many stories to be pungent about, but with some relevancy (good and bad) to what we do in managing and organizing our Corrections Sentencing operations. (Just remember. If you end up using the one on what to do if you’re caught job hunting, if it goes well, we’ll take full credit for tipping you what to do/say. If not, never heard of you and erasing all contacts.)

“Why Awkwardness Is One of the Most Valuable Leadership Traits”
“Harvard Lecturer Explains How to Achieve Extreme Productivity at Work”
“Employers Often More Interested in Hiring Potential Friends Than the Very Best Candidates”
“8 Things You Need to Know to Build a Fantastic Team”
“What Your Word Choice Reveals About Your Personality”
“Telecommuting Increases Work Hours and Blurs Boundary Between Work and Home, New Study Shows”
“6 Habits That Produce Creative Genius”
“What to Do When Your Boss Finds Out You’re Job Hunting”
“The Do’s and Don’ts of Asking for a Raise”
“7 Ways to Boost Employee Morale”
“What Makes a Good Mentor and Mentee?”
“Everyone Should Use Google’s Original ’70-20-10’ to Map Out Their Career”
“6 Things Hiring Managers Don’t Want in a Candidate”
“How to Write the Perfect Resume”
“There’s Another Half to Your Job”
“Why Too Much Data Disables Your Decision Making”

--Mike Connelly

A LOT of good stuff already set up for this weekend’s wild research review, but we decided to pull out as a separate and earlier post the NCJRS abstracts from the latest issue of Journal of Crime and Justice. That issue focuses on effective probation and parole and recent research on how to make that happen. We aren’t including them all so click the link and check out the ones we left behind. And do whatever you can to give some love to the Journal of Crime and Justice folks for this helpful issue while you’re at it.

Random Study of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Re-arrest (STARR): Using Core Correctional Practices in Probation Interactions
Charles R. Robinson; Christopher T. Lowenkamp; Alexander M. Holsinger; Scott VanBenschoten; Melissa Alexander; J. C. Oleson
Journal of Crime and Justice
Volume:35 Issue:2 Dated:July 2012 Pages:167 to 188

This study examined the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model, in conjunction with core correctional practices, has offered promising results. The recent application of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model, in conjunction with core correctional practices, has offered promising results. In the present study, supervision officers were trained in core correctional skills and the RNR model. Supervision officers were randomly assigned to training groups and provided audio recordings of interactions with clients to assess their use of learned skills. The current study utilizes taped interactions between officers and offenders, individual-level offender data, and outcome/recidivism data to investigate the impact of the training regimen, which is the core focus of this paper. Trained probation officers demonstrated greater use of the skills taught during training and their clients had lower failure rates. These findings suggest that providing Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Re-arrest (STARR) training to community supervision officers can impact the officers’ use of important correctional skills and improve client outcomes.

Improving Probation Officers' Supervision Skills: An Evaluation of the EPICS Model
Paula Smith; Myrinda Schweitzer; Ryan M. Labrecque; Edward J. Latessa
Journal of Crime and Justice
Volume:35 Issue:2 Dated:July 2012 Pages:189 to 199

This research discusses the implementation issues in a community corrections setting and reports the results of the Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) model. Previous research suggests traditional probation and parole services perform less than optimally in reducing recidivism. In response to these findings, several attempts to integrate the principles of effective intervention and core correctional practices into community supervision have been made. Preliminary results from several jurisdictions suggest that the use of core correctional practices within the context of community supervision has been associated with meaningful reductions in offender recidivism. This research provided the impetus for the development of a new model by the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute, entitled Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS). The purpose of the EPICS model is to teach community supervision officers how to translate the principles of effective intervention into practice, and, more specifically, how to use core correctional practices in face-to-face interactions with offenders. Results indicated that officers trained in the EPICS model demonstrated more consistent use of core correctional practices. Remarkably, trained officers also became more proficient in their use of these skills over time as a result of participation in coaching sessions. These preliminary findings underscore the importance of training and coaching as an on-going process to assist agencies in gaining adherence to the principles of effective intervention and core correctional practices.

Effects of Low-Intensity Supervision for Lower-Risk Probationers: Updated Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial
Geoffrey C. Barnes; Jordan M. Hyatt; Lindsay C. Ahlman; Daniel T. L. Kent
Journal of Crime and Justice
Volume:35 Issue:2 Dated:July 2012 Pages:200 to 220

This paper explores the effects of reduced supervision intensity for probationers who were identified, using a random forest forecasting model, as presenting a low risk of committing new serious offenses. It expands on previously reported results of the Philadelphia Low Intensity Community Supervision Experiment, a randomized controlled trial performed from 2007 through 2008. The authors updated their previous 1-year recidivism results to include 18 months of follow-up data, and assess additional measures that were not available in earlier analyses, including drug-testing results, officer contact compliance, probation violations, and absconding from supervision. The updated analysis affirms previous findings, showing that reduced supervision intensity does not increase the prevalence or frequency of new offending by low-risk probationers, and does not appear to result in any additional threats to public safety. The authors conclude that low-intensity supervision, when used in concert with valid and reliable risk forecasting, offers community supervision agencies a powerful tool for managing large offender populations, allowing the agencies to focus scarce resources on higher-risk offenders and perhaps reduce administrative costs. Further research is needed to quantify the exact cost reductions, and to determine the best means of supervising offenders whose risk level makes them ineligible for low-intensity supervision.

Reduced Caseloads Improve Probation Outcomes
Sarah Kuck Jalbert ; William Rhodes
Journal of Crime and Justice
Volume:35 Issue:2 Dated:July 2012 Pages:221 to 238

This article explores the impact of probation supervision on outcomes. Probation practitioners argue that large caseloads limit their effectiveness, but prior research has not supported that assertion. In fact, with exceptions, strong studies of small caseload intensive probation supervision have produced undesirable findings: no reduction in recidivism and increased technical revocations. However, probation standards and practices have changed considerably since this earlier research, suggesting that new studies may yield different results. This study introduced reduced caseloads (approximately 54 medium- to high-risk probationers per officer) into an agency with officers fully trained in implementing evidence-based practices, a combination of supervision strategies based on known predictors of criminal recidivism. The authors evaluated the intervention's effect on recidivism and technical revocations of probation using a quasi-experimental design (difference-in-differences). The authors used survival analysis to estimate that the smaller caseload reduced the rate of recidivism by roughly 30 percent; technical violations increased by 4 percent. The authors conclude that reduced caseloads in agencies using modern supervision practices reduce recidivism.

Getting Technical: Parole Officers' Continued Use of Technical Violations Under California's Parole Reform Agenda
Danielle S. Rudes
Journal of Crime and Justice
Volume:35 Issue:2 Dated:July 2012 Pages:249 to 268

This study examined how parole officers manage technical violations in an organizational environment where technical violations are not supported by management? How do parole officers manage technical violations in an organizational environment where technical violations are not supported by management? Using ethnographic data collected during 3 years (1300 hours) of fieldwork with California parole officers (POs) from 2003 to 2006, this paper considers how POs manage technical violators after the initiation of a rehabilitation-focused reform that encouraged POs to avoid violating parolees for technical/administrative violations except in the most egregious or troublesome cases. Data analysis suggests that POs often viewed this reform negatively and responded with various resistance strategies to continue violating parolees. Resistance tactics included: (1) partnering with police; (2) piling charges, and (3) using paperwork enhancement strategies. Officers felt these strategies better met community safety goals by assuring lengthy revocation sentences or increasing the likelihood of new crime prosecution. These findings have implications for the effectiveness of reform implementation and the success of prisoner reentry initiatives.

Effects of Parole Officers' Perceptions of the Organizational Control Structure and Satisfaction with Management on Their Attitudes Toward Policy Change
Matthew D. Makarios; James McCafferty; Benjamin Steiner; Lawerence F. Travis III
Journal of Crime and Justice
Volume:35 Issue:2 Dated:July 2012 Pages:296 to 316

This study examined the impact that perceptions regarding the organizational control structure have on parole officers' attitudes toward policy change. Research on the organizational control structure in prison suggests that correctional officers' perceptions of reduced control negatively affected work-related attitudes. This study seeks to extend the literature by examining the impact that perceptions regarding the organizational control structure have on parole officers' attitudes toward policy change. The Ohio Adult Parole Authority Progressive Sanction Grid was implemented to increase uniformity when officers impose sanctions for offenders' violations of their release conditions. Using data collected via a statewide survey of parole officers concerning the implementation of a graduated sanctioning policy, this study examines the relationships between officers' perceptions of the organizational control structure, their satisfaction with upper-level management, and their attitudes toward policy change. Results indicate that perceptions of control impact satisfaction with upper management, which in turn, affects attitudes regarding the legitimacy of a reform that limited officers' discretion during the sanctioning process.

--Mike Connelly

Over the last month or so we’ve done a couple of pieces linking you to articles on leadership (here and here). And in response to virtually no demand we can hook you up with some more below. If “The Value of Failure” one sounds familiar, it may be because you’re having déjà vu about this book review from much longer back. And thanks for remembering.

“Leadership Lessons: Petraeus & the Value of Failure”
“Leading the Way on ‘Lean’” (WA state’s “lean” management process)
“Job Autonomy, Trust in Leadership Keys to Improvement Initiatives”
“10 Leadership Rules That Are No Longer Relevant”
“These Five Statistics Show Just How Much Fear Cripples Employee Performance”
“An Exec Tells Us 3 Ways Women Leadership Benefits a Company”
“More Female Board Directors Add Up to Improved Sustainability Performance” (IOW, women will likely get us through The Perfect Storm better than men, for reasons similar to those in the headline article just above this. . . uh, you can take the gun away from my head now, J’me.)

--Mike Connelly

This has to be a feel-good piece when it claims that at least some of your favorite pastime—procrastination—is actually good for you and those you work for/with. Yes, yes, you’ll get around to reading this later (saw that one coming), but it does turn out that not all that “putting off” is negative. Some is really positive, and the article spells it out in detail even your immediate supervisor can understand.

You get a series of reasons to embrace the procrastinator inhabiting your clothing, including this one, which hopefully will get you to click the link to check the others.

When procrastinating points to something bigger
And here’s one more benefit of procrastination: it might give you insight into why you’re avoiding what you’re avoiding.

Take a minute to think about why you’re putting something off. Perhaps the reason you can’t seem to focus on your textbook is because it’s just not the right subject for you, even if you initially thought it was. Or maybe you’re stuck on that chapter you’re writing because your idea isn’t good enough. Or, if you aren’t replying to that client’s email, there’s a good chance that subconsciously you don’t want their business.

(Hit the link now. Don’t put it off.)