Paraphrasing Robert Oppenheimer, physics would be really hard if particles could talk. In Organizational Behavior, we study people, and they talk, talk back, and come with different personalities. Yet, it is a leader's job to lead effectively all employees. Good luck doing so without some training in the psychology of business.
What leaders do is often at odds with research, known as the doing-knowing gap. Half-truths de jour are dangerous as they can be partly right but are misleading often enough to cause trouble. We leave off-the-shelf guesswork to motivational speakers, who could be entertaining but should not be taken seriously. Leadership decisions based on fiery proclamations and flimsy data lead to misguided choices.
The crux of these podcasts is to provide actionable answers based on research. We will not serve a flavor of the month fad that lacks incremental empirical support. It represents the “best of” Alex and Kayla’s teaching of Management and Leadership.
All content for Banters on Business is the property of alexkayla and is served directly from their servers
with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.
Paraphrasing Robert Oppenheimer, physics would be really hard if particles could talk. In Organizational Behavior, we study people, and they talk, talk back, and come with different personalities. Yet, it is a leader's job to lead effectively all employees. Good luck doing so without some training in the psychology of business.
What leaders do is often at odds with research, known as the doing-knowing gap. Half-truths de jour are dangerous as they can be partly right but are misleading often enough to cause trouble. We leave off-the-shelf guesswork to motivational speakers, who could be entertaining but should not be taken seriously. Leadership decisions based on fiery proclamations and flimsy data lead to misguided choices.
The crux of these podcasts is to provide actionable answers based on research. We will not serve a flavor of the month fad that lacks incremental empirical support. It represents the “best of” Alex and Kayla’s teaching of Management and Leadership.
Professors Alex and Kayla offer a critical examination of the idea of a 32-hour workweek. We explore potential benefits, while acknowledging the challenges. We delve into why a 4 day workweek with the same pay may not be feasible or effective, touching on issues of compensation, productivity, and industry-specific challenges. Whether you are an employee, employer, or just interested in the future of work, this episode provides a thought-provoking analysis of a timely and important topic.
This episode is based on Alex's interview with The New York Times. Alex is an academic expert on the topic confidence. He developed and tested a theory of core confidence published in Journal of Applied Psychology.
Core confidence is observed in someone who displays hope, optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience. We dive into the differences between core confidence and self-efficacy.
What distinguishes HR Analytics from People Analytics? HR Analytics is focused on the past; people Analytics focuses on the future impact. It seeks to answer questions such as, what can we do to impact the future with our employees? It helps organizations embark on a journey in value creation with people as main actors, creating endless enablement during the employee lifecycle.
In this episode, we discuss the really hard philosophical issue in science, which is to make decisions on the basis of comparing things that are not naturally comparable. So, how many lives are comparable to how many dollars? How do we develop interventions that both maximize lives saved and minimize the economic cost?
Humans long to belong. Overall, being alone does not mean loneliness. But, learning to value social solitude is easier said than done. Thus, we predict an increase in depression and relationship break-ups during the pandemic, which will negatively spill-over to impact job performance.
Isn’t it a simple arithmetic to surmise that if there are less people at work, leading them becomes less pressing? If there are less people around the work setting, why would we increase attention dedicated to leading them? This sounds logical. However, what will that do to the motivation and other human qualities of employees?
Teamwork will morph gradually into virtual teamwork. Will the cognitive, emotional, motivational, and social aspects of virtual teamwork be as effective as those of in-person teamwork? One conclusion is certain; it is harder to read body language, emotional cues, and other non-verbal information virtually than when you are in the same room with your teammates.
Paraphrasing Robert Oppenheimer, physics would be really hard if particles could talk. In Organizational Behavior, we study people, and they talk, talk back, and come with different personalities. Yet, it is a leader's job to lead effectively all employees. Good luck doing so without some training in the psychology of business.
What leaders do is often at odds with research, known as the doing-knowing gap. Half-truths de jour are dangerous as they can be partly right but are misleading often enough to cause trouble. We leave off-the-shelf guesswork to motivational speakers, who could be entertaining but should not be taken seriously. Leadership decisions based on fiery proclamations and flimsy data lead to misguided choices.
The crux of these podcasts is to provide actionable answers based on research. We will not serve a flavor of the month fad that lacks incremental empirical support. It represents the “best of” Alex and Kayla’s teaching of Management and Leadership.
