Obesity, Diabetes Interfere With Work Productivity

Obese workers with type 2 diabetes report less productivity on the job than their normal-weight co-workers, according to a new study of 7,338 working adults.

"We obtained information directly from individuals on how effective they were at the workplace to provide their perspective of the impact of diabetes and obesity on patients' lives," said study co-author Kathleen Fox, Ph.D. In a survey of adults with or at risk for diabetes, participants answered questions about missed work time, reduced on-the-job effectiveness and impairment in daily activities.

The analysis, which appears in the May/June issue of the American Journal of Health Promotion, found that being obese and having diabetes predicted on-the-job problems with productivity.

Obese people with type 2 diabetes experienced the most work impairment, losing 11 percent to 15 percent of work time -- about 5.9 hours per week -- because of health problems that affected productivity on the job, said Fox, president of Strategic Healthcare Solutions, LLC.

In comparison, normal-weight participants at low risk for diabetes reported losing only 9 percent of work time -- about 3.6 hours per week -- due to health problems.

Obese workers with type 2 diabetes also experienced the most problems off the job, reporting impairment during 20 percent to 34 percent of their daily activities, like shopping, exercising and childcare.

The study supports previously published research that "the heavier people are, the more lost productivity at work," said Anne Wolf, an instructor at the University of Virginia School of Medicine who specializes in researching the economic impact of obesity.

What differed was that researchers found an independent effect of diabetes on productivity, Wolf said.

"From an employer's perspective, this study provides evidence that workplace wellness programs that include weight loss and weight management would be beneficial for obese employees with or at risk for diabetes," Fox said.

"Employers who spend money in a lifestyle intervention will find their investment returned to them in the form of increased productivity and reduced absenteeism," Wolf agreed.

read the full article...

Most Popular: Incompetent Bosses Get Promoted by Acting Dominant

Those who act more dominantly are perceived as more competent, even if their actual skills don't measure up. The guy (or gal) in charge isn't really competent for the job. How can this be?

Researchers at the University of California explored this phenomenon in their study titled, "Why Do Dominant Personalities Attain Influence in Face-to-Face Groups? The Competence-Signaling Effects of Trait Dominance."  In the study, the most dominant personalities were rated the highest for such qualities as general intelligence, dependability, and self-discipline. At the same time, subjects perceived less outspoken workers as having less desirable traits, giving them high scores for being conventional and uncreative.

Managers may want to look a little closer when judging their employees' true productivity and value. The study's results may also help individuals achieve improvement in their own reputations - just by speaking up.

From the article:

Anybody in the workplace, and perhaps politics, has probably experienced this perplexing phenomenon. The guy (or gal) in charge isn't really competent for the job. How can this be? According to a study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business, those who act more dominantly are perceived as more competent, even if their actual skills don't measure up.

Organizational behavior and industrial relations Associate Professor Cameron Anderson and doctoral candidate Gavin Kilduff documented their findings in a recently published paper, "Why Do Dominant Personalities Attain Influence in Face-to-Face Groups? The Competence-Signaling Effects of Trait Dominance." To test this "great pretender" theory amongst perceived leaders, Anderson and Kilduff recruited 68 unacquainted students and divided them into 17 same-gender teams of four people each. The participants' average age: 21 years. The researchers gave each team 45 minutes to design a mock non-profit environmental organization or a for-profit Web site. The winning team would receive a $400 prize. More importantly, the experiment required each participant to rate his or her colleagues' level of influence on the group, and each participant's level of competence. The sessions were videotaped so the researchers and an independent group of observers could also rate the students' work. The independent observers were selected to reflect the subjects' peer group.

The results revealed that team members with the most dominant personalities were rated the highest for such qualities as general intelligence, dependability, and self-discipline. At the same time, subjects perceived less outspoken workers as having less desirable traits, giving them high scores for being conventional and uncreative.

To be fair, Anderson and Kilduff wanted to give the alpha standouts of the group the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps these newly anointed leaders were indeed, more competent. A second experiment left no debate.

In round two, researchers asked the teams of students to solve computational problems taken from old versions of the Graduate Management Aptitude Test (GMAT). Participants reported their previous Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) math scores to researchers prior to trying to solve the GMAT problems. When it was time to reveal the answers out loud, the people who spoke up more were, again, the ones their teammates deemed as the leaders of the group. In addition, it didn't matter if the chosen leaders offered the correct answers, only that they offered more responses. What's more, the leaders didn't even have to provide the final solution to the problem to be exalted to the top of the heap.

Anderson and Kilduff's work redefines what it means to be dominant in the context of influence. Past studies have aligned dominant behavior with aggressive, heavy handed tactics. This study found dominant people attain influence by displaying competence, "These findings suggest that dominant individuals may ascent group hierarchies by appearing helpful to the group's overall success as opposed to aggressively grabbing power."

While the findings may be troubling to some, they may be helpful to managers who may want to look a little closer when judging their employees' true productivity and value. The study's results may also help individuals achieve improvement in their own reputations - just by speaking up.

read the full article...

Embrace the Dwight Schrutes in Your Office for Better Performance

Nobody wants to share a cubicle with a new hire like Dwight Schrute. The beet-farming volunteer sheriff's deputy/paper salesman creates many awkward moments because of his differences with co-workers on NBC's "The Office."

But according to new research, better decisions come from teams that include a "socially distinct newcomer." That's psychology-speak for someone who is different enough to bump other team members out of their comfort zones.

Researchers noticed this effect after conducting a traditional group problem-solving experiment. The twist was that a newcomer was added to each group about five minutes into their deliberations. And when the newcomer was a social outsider, teams were more likely to solve the problem successfully.

From the article:

The research is published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

"One of the most-cited benefits of diversity is the infusion of new ideas and perspectives," said study co-author Katie Liljenquist, assistant professor of organizational leadership at BYU's Marriott School of Management. "And while that very often is true, we found the mere presence of a newcomer who is socially distinct can really shake up the group dynamic. That leads to discomfort, but also to a better process that ultimately yields superior outcomes."

The key factor is simply whether newcomers are distinct in some way from the other group members.

"Remember, socially 'distinct' doesn't necessarily mean socially 'inept,'" says Liljenquist, whose co-authors on the paper are Northwestern's Katherine Phillips and Stanford's Margaret Neale. "Dwight's upbringing and past work history - in addition to his bobblehead doll collection - all contribute to the measure of diversity he brings to 'The Office' melting pot."

The paper adds a new wrinkle to the wealth of research on teams, says Melissa Thomas-Hunt, associate professor at Cornell's Johnson School of Management.

"[This research] is groundbreaking in that it highlights that the benefits of disparate knowledge in a team can be unleashed when newcomers actually share opinions of knowledge with old-timers but are socially different," Thomas-Hunt says. "It is the tension between social dissimilarity and opinion similarity that prompts heightened effectiveness in diverse teams."

What explains the results?

According to Liljenquist, newcomers in the experiment didn't necessarily ask tougher questions, possess novel information, or doggedly maintain a conflicting point of view. Just being there was enough to change the dynamic among old-timers who shared a common identity.

When a member of the group discovered that he agreed with the new outsider, he felt alienated from his fellow old-timers -- consequently, he was very motivated to explain his point of view on its merits so that his peers wouldn't lump him in with the outsider.

The person who found himself disagreeing with the in-group -- and instead agreeing with an outsider - felt very uncomfortable. An opinion alliance with an outsider put his social ties with other team members at risk.

"Socially, that can be very threatening," Liljenquist says. "These folks are driven to say, 'Wait, the fact that I disagree with this outsider doesn't make me weird. Something more is going on here; let's figure out what's at the root of our disagreement.' The group then tends to analyze differing opinions and critical information much more thoroughly, and that facilitates much better decision-making results."

Another revelation

The experiment also revealed a fallacy in the assumptions we make about our own effectiveness in groups. The subjects in the experiment were members of different fraternities and sororities. In general, when the newcomer was from the same sorority or fraternity as the other team members, the group reported that it worked well together, but was less likely to correctly solve the problem.

In contrast, when the newcomer was a member of a rival sorority or fraternity, the opposite was true -- these groups felt they worked together less effectively, yet they significantly outperformed socially homogenous groups.

"What's really distinct about this research is that, from a self-reporting perspective, what people perceive to be beneficial turns out to be dead wrong," Liljenquist says. "The teams that felt they worked least effectively together were ironically the top performers!"

In the workplace

Common "social distinctions" in today's workplace, Liljenquist says, would include:

* One employee from accounting working on a team in which everyone else is from sales
* An employee of a company that had just been bought out finding herself on a team of people from the acquiring firm
* An out-of-stater finding himself on a team full of natives of the company's home state

To help employees in those situations cope, managers would be wise to explain that such conflict can actually generate better results.

"Without that information people just assume, 'This is really uncomfortable. My team obviously must not being working effectively,'" Liljenquist says. "The experience in diverse teams may not always be a feel-good session, but if employees know that from the outset, they can better deal with inevitable conflicts and recognize the potential benefits -- that the affective pains can translate to real performance gains."

Although Liljenquist acknowledges many other cases for diversity in the workplace, she contends that "reaping the benefits of diverse workgroups doesn't necessarily require that newcomers bring unique perspectives or expertise to the table. Simply having people around us who differ on some dimension (break)- whether it is functional background, education, race or even a different fraternity - drives a very different decision-making process at a group level because of the social and emotional conflict we experience in their presence."

read the full article...