Marina Gorbis's Blog, page 1442

Make the Right Decisions About Your Company’s Sustainability Efforts

It’s vital that companies manage their impact on the planet, and most are willing to invest at some level in sustainability initiatives. But with myriad choices for how to do so, and long lists of stakeholders to please, managers struggle with a basic question: How do we decide which projects to green-light?

At UPS, management has developed what it calls a “materiality matrix” to help focus discussion and guide decisions. As described in the HBR article “Sustainability a CFO Can Love,” by the company’s chief financial officer Kurt Kuehn and Lynnette McIntire, it is used to display proposed initiatives in terms of their relevance internally to the company’s strategy and externally to outside parties. When a sustainability proposal lands in the matrix’s sweet spot, appealing highly to both external stakeholders and internal managers, it’s a safe bet that it will gain momentum quickly and yield the most positive impact.

 

Using the materiality matrix is one of five steps Kuehn and McIntire suggest for making sound sustainability investments. For the other four, read the full article.

Founding a Hardware Start-Up Is Getting Easier

Only 3% of U.S. venture-capital investment was for hardware start-ups last year, but that represents a big increase from 1992–2011, when the figure was less than 1%, says the Wall Street Journal. Investors have long shied away from start-ups making gadgets such as wearable electronics, because of the challenges posed by manufacturing, distribution, inventory, and technical support. But help has arrived: Today’s contract manufacturers, such as PCH International, will not only make your product for you, they’ll also provide engineers and project managers in China; as a consequence, U.S. venture capitalists are taking a rosier view of hardware start-ups.

Turn Your Next Interruption into an Opportunity

Modern life, particularly work life, has become increasingly hectic. There are relentless demands from meetings, emails, text messages, questions to answer, problems to solve, fires to put out. It can begin to feel like there is never any time to get “real work” done.   If you feel overwhelmed by endless interruptions at work, you are not alone.

One of the most powerful lessons I have learned in my over thirty five years of leadership experience is that these thousands of little interruptions aren’t keeping you from the work, they are the work. When you look at it this way, a whole world of opportunities opens up. Think about it. Every single interaction is rife with the potential to become the high point or the low point in someone’s day. Every “interruption” offers an opportunity to lead impactfully, to set expectations, bring clarity to an issue, or infuse a problem with energy and insight. To reframe these moments in an empowering way, I call them “touchpoints.”  If we choose with purpose to see these moments not as distractions from our work, but as the work, then we can begin to lead more meaningfully in each and every moment.

So, how do we do this? How do we begin to change our approach towards these interruptions? Where do we start? If we’re to treat each interaction as spring-loaded with possibilities, then we must prepare to engage within these moments in the most effective way possible. One way to train ourselves to do this is to identify the key components in each exchange. It is helpful to consider the three variables of every touchpoint.

Is the issue itself something important, such as a question, a problem, or decision that affects the performance of individuals, teams, or the whole organization? Remember, importance is in the eyes of the beholder, so it is critical that one be alert to the perspectives of everyone in the interaction. This could be how to address an employee complaint, replace a key team member, or how to make a project come to fruition in the face of budget cuts. In each interaction it is necessary to assess if the issue is “yours,” “theirs,” or “ours.”

David, a former plant manager for P&G, has a visceral appreciation for the importance of this component. During his tenure, he made it a habit to walk through his plant every single day with the goal of addressing 10 of his own to-dos. David would carry his list of 10 pressing issues on a slip of paper as he roamed throughout the plant. They could range from getting an update on a safety issue to spreading the news about an award the company had won. Although he would embark on his walk with just these 10 items in mind, something wonderful happened again and again. David was interrupted. People would notice him walking the premises and take the opportunity to raise their own ideas, problems, and questions. Rather than avoiding these interactions, David would embrace each and every one. He would listen carefully to swiftly assess who owned the issue, consider all the other people who might be involved, and help to bring clarity and energy to resolve each new concern he encountered. All while simultaneously moving through his own to-do list. Pretty efficient. With this approach, he achieved infinitely more in a single minute than he could sitting isolated at his desk, sending emails for an hour.

Whatever you say or do in a touchpoint may be quickly transmitted exponentially throughout the other people involved – and then relayed again and again. Remember, organizations are living systems in which people are connecting all the time: individuals who report to you directly, colleagues, and anyone with whom you have a straight or dotted reporting line. Consider that every single person with whom you interact is embedded in complex webs of relationships. It is crucial to think about all of the people who will be affected by your words and actions, even those who are not present in a particular interaction.

Who is the leader in the interaction? Who is bringing clarity and focus to the issue? It doesn’t have to be the person with the most seniority or the most impressive title; behavior dictates leadership. You are the leader in the touchpoint if you listen intently, help frame the issue, and spread infectious positive energy exponentially throughout the organization.

To see how these come together and take it a step further, consider the example of George, head of a 500 person R&D department. He was involved in a tense meeting with senior executives. A very specific and narrow point was being heatedly debated. After listening intently, George realized the issue was being framed too narrowly. Although he was not the most senior person in the room, he felt he needed to speak up. In this case, he knew he might have to disrupt the flow of the meeting to make a productive point. He chimed in, initiating a touchpoint. George boldly articulated a broader strategic view that allowed his R&D team more decision making power. It was a lonely view, but he advocated it passionately. Later that day, he ran into a colleague from the legal department who had heard about his argument. He was surprised. How did she know about it? It turns out his team members were proud he had taken a strong stand, felt energized by his advocacy, and had spread the word throughout the organization. His message had spread exponentially and invigorated his people! What if he had stayed silent? An opportunity would have been lost. The role of the leader extends beyond embracing interruptions as opportunities for touchpoints. It also involves initiating touchpoints when your instincts and experience signal to you that a re-framing of the issue is necessary to advance the agenda. When executed correctly, word gets out. This is the power of embodying the role of the Leader in any particular touchpoint.

Using this structure to reflect on the variables in each touchpoint, you can begin to unlock the full potential of each interaction. I encourage you to treat every interruption as a golden opportunity to contribute meaningfully. You’ll become more fully present in your leadership. Each moment will become a chance to inspire a sense of possibilities and stimulate the desire for betterment throughout the entire organization.

 

Know What Kind of Careerist You Are

Executives who combine work and family emphasize the importance of defining success for themselves. In our last blog post, we talked about objective versus subjective success — the difference between your quantifiable, Wikipediable list of accomplishments and your day-to-day emotional and intellectual pursuits. Like everyone else on the planet, you have only 168 hours per week to spend. So it’s important to strategically allocate your time to the objective goals that will bring you the most subjective satisfaction.

But what brings satisfaction? It’s different for different people — even at the same workplace, even in the same role. If you’re trying to answer that question about yourself or your employees, here’s a helpful framework from Managing the New Careerists, by former BYU management professor C. Brooklyn Derr. Though the careerists aren’t so new anymore (the book came out more than 25 years ago), Derr offers an interesting historical perspective on the rapidly changing world of work — and keen insights about human nature, which evolves much more slowly. He outlines five “career orientations,” which tend to shift over time, depending on life circumstances:

Getting ahead. People who are motivated by upward mobility focus on promotions, raises, making partner, and increasing their authority. They’re competitive and willing to put in long hours and negotiate office politics to win those rewards. This is the default career model in the U.S., which means that it’s easy for those who want to get ahead to explain themselves to bosses, colleagues, and family. Also, almost everyone who is just starting out in a career has this priority. It’s usually around age 30, give or take a few years, that people begin to explore other orientations.

Getting secure.  Those who seek regularity and predictability in their work environment are motivated to fit in with others and uphold group norms. They avoid risk and are less concerned with advancement than with career control. If this description has you rolling your eyes, you’re not alone. It’s difficult for people to admit they want this kind of security, because it sounds like the life of a corporate drone, which no one wants to be. That’s especially true today, given the rise of the free agent in all industries. But people motivated by security are loyal and willing to put in extra effort when the situation requires it — not just when it will bring them glory.

Getting free. Derr describes people with this orientation as “hard to work with, impossible to work for, slippery as eels to supervise and manage, and infinitely resourceful in getting their own way.” People who value getting free want autonomy and self-direction. They have less tolerance for regulations, status reports, and other forms of bureaucracy than those in the “getting secure” camp. Like getting ahead, the desire to get free is widely understood and even admired, at least in the U.S. However, people who are motivated by freedom must pay their dues before they can have autonomy. Even if getting ahead isn’t your primary orientation early on, when you’re still building your reputation, some argue that it makes sense to act as if it is. Once you’re established, you can shift gears and strive for deeper rewards.

Getting high. These are people who care deeply about deploying their expertise, solving problems, creating new things, and feeling engaged. They are ambitious and sometimes idiosyncratic. Unlike professionals intent on getting ahead (who might take on boring but important assignments in order to win favor with clients or managers), those motivated mainly by getting high will gravitate toward work that provides greater stimulation, even if it’s low-profile or high-risk. They’ll also trade a certain amount of autonomy for an exciting or meaningful job — they might join the military, for instance—which a person with a “getting free” orientation probably wouldn’t do.

Getting balanced. Have you been nodding along, thinking that there’s a bit of truth and desirability in each orientation? That means you’re motivated by balance. People with this orientation want to enjoy objective career success, personal development, and close relationships, and they’ll strive to achieve all these goals over time. They are unwilling to sacrifice a personal life to career demands, but they’re also unlikely to coast in a job for which they are overqualified to free up their time at home. They want challenge, and fulfillment, both on and off the job.

Derr says that getting balanced is the most common orientation but points out that only some people seem genuinely motivated it. Others have balance thrust upon them, as it were, and simply know that they have to make career sacrifices for the sake of their families, or postpone relationship or personal goals until certain job priorities are met.

Career orientations often draw people to certain lines of work, but it’s not as simple as saying that programmers are motivated by one thing, salespeople by another. People can be attracted to the same industry or job for many different reasons, and those reasons may change over time. Even the most ambitious careerist, in the midst of a health or family crisis, might find balance and security more important than promotions or intellectual thrills.

Try using Derr’s framework as a tool for career planning — and for management. Learning what truly motivates your employees can help you assign people to the right projects, develop them appropriately, and retain them.

An MBA Holds its Perceived Value, Even in Lean Times

Just as the Great Recession sent investors retreating to value positions in the stock market, it also heightened questions for anyone investing in higher education. In general, concerns with high tuitions, student debt loads, and student outcomes are fueling debates about whether the returns are attractive. The value of a higher degree can seem even more dubious when the timing of it lands a graduating student directly into a tight labor market.

Such markets, the thinking goes, suppress wages for new hires and favor those with more work experience – suggesting that new graduates might have been better off to skip graduate school and spend that time instead establishing more of a toehold in the world of work. For students graduating in recessionary times, even those lucky enough to find jobs start behind in salary and consequently never enjoy as much value from their degrees as those graduating in more flush times.

We were surprised, therefore, when our survey of people holding MBAs (or other graduate degrees in business and management) found no such regrets amongst the cohorts who graduated in recessionary years.

Responding to GMAC’s 2014 Alumni Perspectives Survey were nearly 21,000 business school alumni around the world. Focusing on the majority of them (19,456) who earned their degrees since 1980, we find that graduates during recession years (1980-82, 1990-91, 2001, or 2008-09) are just as likely today to value their degrees highly as those graduating in other years. For these alumni, the retreat to value went through, not around, the classroom.

The “value meter” holds steady for alumni in every form of return we asked about: financial, personal, and professional. As they rate the value of their graduate business degrees, there simply aren’t meaningful differences between those alumni who graduated in recessions and those who didn’t:

95 percent of recession-era graduates rate the value of their MBA or master’s degree in business as good to outstanding, compared with 94 percent of those graduating in other years.
95 percent of business school recession-era graduates agree that the degree was personally rewarding, compared with 94 percent of those graduating in other years. Findings are similar when alumni consider whether their degree was professionally rewarding (91% of graduates in a recessionary period compared with 90% of others).
Knowing what they know now, 96 percent of both groups of business school alumni would still pursue the degree.

Indeed, when it comes to financial indicators, business school alumni who graduated in recessions are slightly more likely to rate the value of their degree highly. For example, of business school alumni who graduated during a recession:

79 percent rate their degree financially rewarding, compared with 75 percent of business school graduates during non-recessionary years.
69 percent agreed that their job adequately compensated them, compared with 67 percent of graduates outside of recession years.
84 percent said their degree was essential to their employment, compared with 83 percent of the other graduates.

We should note that alumni across the years consider the value of their degree through their own prisms of experience. Those who graduated into a more challenging job market are considering the value of the degree as compared with other options they had — pursuing a different degree (or no degree) — as opposed to considering the value of their degree compared to those earning graduate business degrees in other years.

These results echo findings of another survey we conduct annually of Corporate Recruiters. It asks employers — the proving ground for the professional and financial value of a degree — what their company goals are and what they look for in new hires. Whether they are hiring in a recession or not, these employers value the skills that new hires from graduate business schools bring to their companies.

Perhaps no one wants to graduate into a recession — but for those who got their graduate business degrees during recessions, our findings suggest that regrets are not in order. Holders of MBA and other graduate business degrees overwhelmingly feel they are better off having earned the degree. The skills, experience, and networks gained during business school yield returns regardless of the job market at graduation and may be even more valuable in a tight job market.

Another finding from our alumni survey suggests that the payback on an MBA degree accrues over the long term. Analyzing responses from graduates as far back as the class of 1959, we find that earlier graduates are more likely to rate the value of the degree highly than recent graduates, consistent with findings from previous years. Our interpretation of the result? The knowledge, networks, and experience gained in graduate business programs yield rewards – financial, professional, and personal – over the course of careers, come good times or bad.

Nike’s Forum Shows the Promise and Peril of Community

A New Year’s Eve tweet announced the launch of the Nike Community Forum. You could be forgiven for not noticing. Today, promotion of the forum has been removed from the site’s navigation bar, and social media conversations regarding the forum are next to none. Yet the Nike Community Forum is one of Nike’s greatest opportunities — a way to bring its Nike+ mobile users to their website (an e-commerce conversion opportunity) and create a truly active and engaging ecosystem of athletes.

Nike is often praised for their innovative brand campaigns and grassroots community development via running clubs. However, like many brands, Nike is struggling to translate their aspirations into a thriving online community, as embodied in their forum. Their efforts form a cautionary case study for other brands looking to jump into the “community” game.

Nike’s forum ought to be a cornerstone of Nike’s transition from sticker-shock endorsement deals to community-driven brand-building given the upside.  Although we’d all prefer to be as fit as our favorite athlete, it’s not our full-time job; it takes small steps over a long period of time to obtain our training goals. That’s when learning and encouragement from peers becomes valuable, not just to Nike’s customers but also to Nike itself. With the support of friends, the occasional jogger becomes a regular runner, and eventually, a more frequent and lucrative Nike customer. Further, the forum ought to be an opportunity for Nike to gather the customer feedback that fosters product improvements, shorter product development cycles, improved marketing strategies, and new distribution channels.

Despite all this potential, however, the community features Nike offers have fallen short. Yes, Nike+ is more than a mileage tracking app and FuelBand is more than a fancy pedometer; both, like the forum, are gateways into their “community.”  And yet slapping the label “community” on a userbase doesn’t make it one. Nike trumpets the accomplishments of its users — 1.4 million half-marathons in 2013, and 57.3 million Nikefuel goals reached. But a community’s accomplishments are only valuable as a metric  if the accomplishments are a result of the community’s engagement with one another. To truly bring its community to life, Nike needs enable runners to engage with each other in a meaningful way and measure results accordingly. Its forum, with the purpose to “inspire, educate and achieve our goals together,” is the perfect environment in which to make this happen — if well executed.

First, Nike needs to get clear on what type of forum they want. Generally speaking, there are two types of forums: informational and conversational. Informational forums include StackExchange, Yahoo Answers and GetSatisfaction; content is meant to be useful and searchable over a long period of time. Conversational forums include Reddit and Facebook groups; content here is fleeting as the conversations come and go. Nike’s forum, however, lacks this kind of clarity of use; is this forum meant to be informational or conversational? Lasting or ephemeral? All of the above, as it’s currently designed. High-value, informational content such as users discussing  treatments for strained IT bands is right next to fleeting comments such as “ran 5 miles today! whoo!” The latter type of content is distracting and simply not as valuable as the former; if they want to keep it, however, it belongs elsewhere within Nike’s platform.

Additionally, forum content should be organized according to general topics of utility. Currently, posts are categorized by topics such as “motivation,” “achievements,” and “training,” and subforums of achievements such as “run 10k,” or “earn more NikeFuel.” While certainly Nike’s intent here is to inspire action, this content organization isn’t useful because it doesn’t map clearly to users’ needs. Informational content relevant to the “run 10k” subform could be just as relevant to the “earn more NikeFuel.” Rather than duplicating content, it would make more sense for searchability purposes to organize subforums by more user-focused athletic topics such as “long-distance running,” “weight training,” and more specific tags such as “speed,” “marathon,” or “beginner.” This reorganization would better capitalize on the forum’s potential with informational content that has longevity, is more searchable and discoverable, and most importantly, has more clear expectations for engagement between members.

Finally, Nike should consider how their forum connects to their app. What if runners could access the best forum content on the go (for the part of the forum that is informational)? Or, if members could submit their completed runs from the app to browser-based activity feed on forum for digital high-fives (for the part that is conversational)? While most brands considering forums and other community-driven digital initiatives are concerned about negative brand backlash and the use of community properties to vent customer frustrations, Nike’s example shows what is much more likely: that instead of an angry mob, your forum will remain desolate without clear purpose and scope, thoughtful organization and proper promotion.

A forum such as Nike’s has the potential to be a valuable long-term resource to the community and set the bar for other branded forums. By narrowing the scope of the forum, reorganizing the content categories, and connecting its in-app, online and offline community efforts, Nike’s forum will have a better chance of vitality. If well executed, Nike has the opportunity to not only to build generation of athletes that inspire each other, but also to increase brand affinity and create a long tail of lifetime high-value customers.

Why You Should Stop Brainstorming

How many times have you been in a brainstorming session this week? Chances are the answer is, “More than I can count.” But no study has proven that brainstorming works well, even though it has been the go-to method for idea generation since 1953.

But there is an alternative. After researching why brainstorming inhibits creativity and innovation, my colleagues and I came up with a new process we call Brainswarming. Watch the video below for more information on what it is and how you can implement it:

Brainswarming is a trademark of Dr. Tony McCaffrey

Feeling Fear in the Presence of a Brand Makes You More Attached to It

People who were scared by clips from the movies The Ring and Salem’s Lot felt more emotionally attached to a brand of sparkling water that had been placed on their desks than did others who watched clips from exciting or sad movies or happiness-inducing scenes from the series Friends (3.70 versus 2.11, 2.54, and 2.28, respectively, on a 7-point emotional-attachment scale), say Lea Dunn of the University of Washington and JoAndrea Hoegg of the University of British Columbia. Fear makes people want to share their experience with others, and if a brand is present it can satisfy this desire, almost as though it were a person, the researchers say.

Google Flu Trends’ Failure Shows Good Data > Big Data

In their best-selling 2013 book Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work and Think, authors Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier selected Google Flu Trends (GFT) as the lede of chapter one. They explained how Google’s algorithm mined five years of web logs, containing hundreds of billions of searches, and created a predictive model utilizing 45 search terms that “proved to be a more useful and timely indicator [of flu] than government statistics with their natural reporting lags.”

Unfortunately, no. The first sign of trouble emerged in 2009, shortly after GFT launched, when it completely missed the swine flu pandemic. Last year, Nature reported that Flu Trends overestimated by 50% the peak Christmas season flu of 2012. Last week came the most damning evaluation yet.  In Science, a team of Harvard-affiliated researchers published their findings that GFT has over-estimated the prevalence of flu for 100 out of the last 108 weeks; it’s been wrong since August 2011. The Science article further points out that a simplistic forecasting model—a model as basic as one that predicts the temperature by looking at recent-past temperatures—would have forecasted flu better than GFT.

In short, you wouldn’t have needed big data at all to do better than Google Flu Trends. Ouch.

In fact, GFT’s poor track record is hardly a secret to big data and GFT followers like me, and it points to a little bit of a big problem in the big data business that many of us have been discussing: Data validity is being consistently overstated. As the Harvard researchers warn: “The core challenge is that most big data that have received popular attention are not the output of instruments designed to produce valid and reliable data amenable for scientific analysis.”

The amount of data still tends to dominate discussion of big data’s value. But more data in itself does not lead to better analysis, as amply demonstrated with Flu Trends. Large datasets don’t guarantee valid datasets. That’s a bad assumption, but one that’s used all the time to justify the use of and results from big data projects. I constantly hear variations on the “N=All therefore it’s good data” argument, from real data analyts: “Since Google has 80% of the search market, we can ignore the other search engines. They don’t matter.” Or, “Since Facebook has a billion accounts, it has substantively everyone.”

Poor assumptions are neither new nor unpredictable. When the mainstream economists collectively failed to predict the housing bubble: their neoclassical model is built upon several assumptions including the Efficient Markets Hypothesis, which suggests that market prices incorporate all available information, and, as Paul Krugman says, leads to the “general belief that bubbles just don’t happen.”

In the wake of epic fails like these, the natural place to look for answers is in how things are being defined in the first place. In the business community, big data’s definition is often some variation on McKinsey’s widely-circulated big data report (PDF), which defines big data as “datasets whose size is beyond the ability of typical database software tools to capture, store, manage, and analyze.”

Can we do better? I started asking myself and other data analysts what are the key differences between datasets that underlie today’s GFT-like projects and the datasets we were using five to 10 years ago. This has led to what I call the OCCAM framework, a more honest assessment of the current state of big data and the assumptions lurking in it.

Big data is:

Observational: much of the new data come from sensors or tracking devices that monitor continuously and indiscriminately without design, as opposed to questionnaires, interviews, or experiments with purposeful design

Lacking Controls: controls are typically unavailable, making valid comparisons and analysis more difficult

Seemingly Complete: the availability of data for most measurable units and the sheer volume of data generated is unprecedented, but more data creates more false leads and blind alleys, complicating the search for meaningful, predictable structure

Adapted: third parties collect the data, often for a purposes unrelated to the data scientists’, presenting challenges of interpretation

Merged: different datasets are combined, exacerbating the problems relating to lack of definition and misaligned objectives

This is far less optimistic a definition, but a far more honest appraisal of the current state of big data.

The worst outcome from the Science article and the OCCAM framework, though, would be to use them as evidence that big data’s “not worth it.” Honest appraisals are meant to create honest progress, to advance the discipline rather than fuel the fad.

Progress will come when the companies involved in generating and crunching OCCAM datasets restrain themselves from overstating their capabilities without properly measuring their results. The authors of the Science article should be applauded for their bravery in raising this thorny issue. They did a further service to the science community by detailing the difficulty in assessing and replicating the algorithm developed by Google Flu Trends researchers. They discovered that the published information about the algorithm is both incomplete and inaccurate. Using the reserved language of academics, the authors noted: “Oddly, the few search terms offered in the papers [by Google researchers explaining their algorithm] do not seem to be strongly related with either GFT or the CDC data—we surmise that the authors felt an unarticulated need to cloak the actual search terms identified.” [emphasis added]

In other words, Google owes us an explanation as to whether it published doctored data without disclosure, or if its highly-touted predictive model is so inaccurate that the search terms found to be the most predictive a few years ago are no longer predictive. If companies want to participate in science, they need to behave like scientists.

Like the Harvard researchers, I am excited by the promises of data analytics. But I’d like to see our industry practice what we preach, conducting honest assessment of our own successes and failures. In the meantime, outsiders should be attentive to the challenges of big data analysis, as summarized in the OCCAM framework, and apply considerable caution in interpreting such analyses.

The Heretic’s Guide to Getting More Done

Are you working endlessly but not accomplishing all you want? Mystified that continuous attention to work is not resulting in satisfactory progress toward your goals? So focused on work that you’re not thinking about or doing much else? If so, you may not be giving your brain the benefit of adequate downtime. A recent article in Scientific American, Why Your Brain Needs More Downtime, summarizes the evidence that “mental breaks increase productivity, replenish attention, solidify memories, and encourage creativity.”

How can hard-working business leaders get the downtime they need? In my executive coaching practice, I help clients reach peak performance by actually doing less work at key times—and by engaging in downtime activities that cutting-edge research shows to be effective in boosting productivity.

Here are five tips for getting downtime so that you can perform better than ever:

DAYDREAM AS OFTEN AS YOU WANT.  Letting your mind wander has significant benefits. Neuroscience research on the brain’s default mode network reveals that the brain is active and productive during states of daydreaming and mind wandering. In an article entitled Rest is Not Idleness, researchers describe evidence that a robust default mode network enhances perception, attention, and cognition. They argue that “constructive internal reflection”— the term they coin for daydreaming and related “rest” states—is essential for learning, problem solving, and goal setting. This may help to explain why some of our best ideas come when we’re in the shower, not sitting at a computer. We can create that shower effect in the workplace by intentionally paying less attention to work and letting our minds wander wherever they please.

STOP PREPARING FOR MEETINGS AND PRESENTATIONS.  Evidence that brain rest is beneficial should have practical implications for how we work. Many of my clients focus intensively (or obsessively) on meetings and presentations they believe can make or break their careers. Drawing on accumulating downtime research, I encourage them to spend less time attending to details of what they’re going to say or put on PowerPoint slides. Instead, I coach them to think about almost anything else as the meeting or presentation approaches. A senior biotech executive in my practice was initially wary of this advice, as he had always entered fits of anxiety as presentations to his executive team approached. When he began to pay less attention to upcoming presentations, his performance improved. And then he gave the presentation of a lifetime—one that was so powerful that it led to a major promotion and to a company-wide shift in how these kinds of presentations are made by everyone across the firm.

SPEND LESS TIME ON KEY DECISIONS.Research shows that we make sounder decisions when we analyze less and empower our subconscious minds to do the heavy lifting.  A 2006 study compared two groups of 40 people who were asked to make a decision about the optimal car to purchase based on specs of several different vehicles. One group spent 4 minutes concentrating exclusively on the task, while the other group spent 4 minutes with the specs while also distracted by solving anagrams. The distracted group made the wiser choices. The researchers observed that “it is not always advantageous to engage in thorough conscious deliberation before choosing.” As long as the distracting task isn’t too complex, a “deliberation-without-attention” approach can be extremely effective. Always having a crossword puzzle, People magazine, Sudoko book, or other enjoyable distraction nearby can be surprisingly valuable.

BE MORE “MINDFUL” THAN FOCUSED. Research on daydreaming and distractions should prompt us to build such “mindfulness” activities into our work lives. How is that possible? Most of my clients can’t break away from the office and go to a yoga or meditation studio during the workday. But with coaching (plus disciplined practice on their own), they can make real progress in this area. Many of my clients, for example, benefit from periods of rhythmic, controlled breathing for short durations (even a minute or two) while at work. I encourage them to pay close attention to their breathing, purposely slow their respiratory rate, and take deeper and longer breaths. This is a form of “biofeedback,” which research shows is an effective self-management tool in high-stress workplaces.  Another mindfulness strategy is to have a “mantra,” a word or phrase that can foster a meditative state, diminish stress, and foster creativity by giving the brain the rest it craves.

SHORTEN YOUR WORKDAY. Research shows that top performers only work for stretches of 5 hours or less, taking restorative breaks at least every hour. Some employers recognize this fact and give employees adequate time away from narrowly focused work tasks (more should follow suit). In my coaching practice, I work with clients on rigorous “behavioral scheduling” of essential work and non-work tasks, so that they can obtain appropriate downtime. When this approach does not suffice, sometimes I advise my clients to take part or all of a workday off periodically. Under some circumstances, even a sick day may be justified to give the brain some rest. Most of us should reduce our time at work in order to work more effectively.

Compelling new research reveals that “less is more” for human brains—and that mental downtime should be among our highest priorities.  If you aren’t making progress on that to-do list or performing up to the level you need to, just give it a rest.