Family Meal

Here’s a link to my article on Positive Psychology News Daily this month, about  the benefits associated with eating together.

If you’d like to comment, feel free to do that here or on the PPND website.

Thanks!

Image: courtesy of sunface13

Here’s a link to my posting to Positive Psychology News Daily this month, reviewing some of the keynotes at the recent CAPP conference at Warwick University:

• Well-Being and Behavioural Economics : David Willetts, MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Innovations, Skills and Universities, UK

• Half-Life – Education for Well-being : Anthony Seldon, Master, Wellington College, UK

• Positive Psychology as a Force for Social Change: Robert Biswas-Diener, Debasish Sen Sharma, and Alex Linley

If you’d like to comment or ask questions, you can do that here or on the PPND website.

For other reviews of the CAPP keynotes by my colleague Timothy So, click here.

Here’s my latest article on Positive Psychology News Daily on that age-old subject of wealth and happiness. It seems to have caused a bit of a stir with some readers, judging from the number of comments (32 as of today), although maybe not for the right reasons!

Never mind, I’m sure you’ll find the recent research interesting. Feel free to write your comments on the Positive Psychology News Daily site itself.

Image: thisduck

There is increasing media coverage of the government’s plans to introduce lessons in emotional intelligence (EI) in schools in England, not all of it positive. Some argue that this initiative is needed to create a healthy balance after years of focusing on targets, league tables and standardised testing brought about by the introduction of the national curriculum. Others think it’s a load of liberal mumbo-jumbo which has no place in a system which fails to ensure all school leavers have basic maths and literacy skills. According to the recent 2007 CBI / Pertemps Employment Trends Survey 52% of employers are dissatisfied with the basic literacy of school leavers, and 50% with their basic numeracy.

But does it have to be an either/or solution? It might be more effective if separate EI lessons aren’t added into the curriculum (which would mean that some other lessons have to be squeezed out) but if existing subjects, like English, Drama and History are adapted to focus on the relevant EI topics (like self-awareness and motivation). In this way, an EI approach becomes incorporated into the fabric of the school, and ultimately becomes ‘the way we do things round here’. It’s a bit like trying to change the culture in an organisation – it doesn’t work unless behaviours also change.

And there are a couple of interesting points which do need to be explored further in order to get parents and teachers on side with this. The first is whether or not EI can actually be measured – as with happiness and well-being assessments, much of it is subjective. Does that mean they are any less meaningful or useful? In a system so tied in to targets and league-tables, this may not be an easy one to resolve.

The second is whether EI can be increased through teaching or training. It is true that a greater number of EI assessments are being used in the business world today, to help enhance ones skill in recognising and understanding emotions, ultimately enabling them to be managed more effectively. What we don’t know is whether ones EI can be increased – even the experts behind the original EI theory, Mayer, Salovey and Caruso are unsure about this.

Most people working in the positive psychology field appear to welcome the introduction of EI into British schools. If we want it to be successful, however, there is one big caveat….DON’T create an EI league table!

Anyone who does communication or presentation skills training is probably aware of the work of Albert Mehrabian PhD on the relative importance of verbal and non-verbal messages in face-to-face communications. The ‘7-38-55′ rule is that the content of speech (the actual words used by the speaker) accounts for only about 7% of meaning. The way it’s said (pitch and tone of the speaker’s voice for example) accounts for about 38% of meaning, and the body language of the speaker accounts for the remaining 55%. Which explains why, if you’re saying one thing, but your voice and body language are saying another, people are more likely to accept the message you give through your non-verbal clues, not the literal meaning of the words themselves.

So what happens when communications aren’t face-to-face, and the body language element is absent? I was intrigued when I heard Alison Fragale, Assistant Professor of Organizational Behaviour and Strategy at the University of North Carolina on Radio 4’s All in the Mind programme on 23rd January. She talked about an experiment to find out what type of speech, a more powerful style or a more powerless style, is more conducive to gaining promotion in the workplace. I think most people with a background in business would say that an assertive style is a prerequisite.

She described powerless speech as a more submissive or tentative style, characterised by hesitation (e.g. ‘um’ and ‘well’), intensifiers (e.g. ‘very’ and ‘really’) as well as phrases like ‘don’t you think?’ and ‘I’m not really sure but’…’. Powerful speech, on the other hand, has none of these linguistic markers.

All the communications skills training I’ve ever come across is aimed at getting people to speak more confidently and assertively, but what Fragale’s experiment revealed is that it depends on how much interdependence there is in an organisation. If there is a high expectation that people will work collaboratively, then a submissive style is seen to be preferable, and people with this style of speech will be promoted. In organizations where people work independently, however, an assertive style will more likely lead to promotion.

Fragale’s advice to people in business is

1) to increase your awareness of the type of culture you’re working in,
2) practise the style of speech that will lead to the outcome you want, and
3) continually ask for feedback on your style of speech.

So it would seem, context, rather than content, is still very much king.