Wednesday, December 30, 2009

There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does

Yep, I have been watching more TED talks.  This time...  Daniel Pink. Thanks to Tim for the link.

Daniel Pink describes a 1945 Karl Duncker social science experiment called the Candle Problem.  Subjects are shown into a room and given the objects as seen in the image to the right and are asked to attach the candle to the wall so that the wax does not drip onto the table. People start by trying all sorts of ways of melting the candle base and sticking it to the wall with the thumb tacks.

The solution is here.  but... think just a little bit before you go there ;-)

The interesting part of the experiment comes when Doctor Karl introduced incentives.  Group A are first told that that they will be timed to establish averages for how long it takes to solve the problem.  Group B are told that they will be timed and the top 25% will receive $5, and the top, fastest time of the day will receive $20.

How should it work?  Which group should be fastest?  This experiment has been replicated multiple times over 40 years.  The results are always the same.  One of the groups is a degree worse, averaging three and a half minutes worse than the other.

Incentives should work...  Bonuses, performance pay... "If - then" rewards

But they don't work here.  Group B, the incentivised lot, are three and a half minutes worse.

Three and a half minutes worse than the non-incentivized Group A.  Why does this happen?  How could this be?  How can these incentives not work?

The candle problem requires lateral, creative thinking... it is non-obvious.  If you have looked at the solution, it is not directly clear.

"There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does" Daniel Pink. 

What type of work is being outsourced to "cheaper" locations?  It is the process driven, clear step by step type work.  What type of work is not being outsourced?  Creative, non-obvious, lateral thinking type work.

Direct incentives don't deliver improved performance in creative, non-obvious problem, lateral thinking type work. What does?  I recommend you watch the video and see Dan tell you the three things that really do improve performance in the type of work that most professional people are engaged in:
  1. Autonomy
  2. Mastery
  3. Purpose

Sunday, December 27, 2009

How we fool ourselves brilliantly and how Dwight D. Eisenhower became President

Most days are much the same. However, great changes in our world don't come from normal days - they are driven by the extreme events, the outliers.  Something like 70% of all the drops in the US stock exchanges are due to 6 particular days of extreme share price drops. The course of my own life has not been a steady journey along a clearly defined route...  4 or 5 key days, 3 or 4 chance meetings - this is what has shaped the most important contents of my life so far and the trajectory for the future.  This blog post has been inspired by my reading of Nassim Taleb's book "The Black Swan: The impact of the Highly Improbable".


I read the biography of Eisenhower in 2002 when I was studying for my MBA.  Dwight D. Eisenhower was the lowest ranked of his whole West Point class at the age of 42.  He had been passed over for promotion to Colonel twice and was now based on the island of Guam, in the middle of nowhere, and he did not get along with his boss.  Acording to his son, he was trying on pairs of jeans and getting used to the idea of civilian life. 

On December 7th, 1941, the Japanese navy bombed the US Pacific Fleet based in Pearl Harbour, definitively bringing the US into the second world war. General George C Marshall coordinated the US response to the Japanese attack.  I recall reading that over the next 3 days, Marshall invited many generals, strategists, politicians so that he could brief them and then ask "how do you recomend we respond?" 

One of Marshall's administrative staff had been on a West Point course on military strategy led by Eisenhower. In a total cooincidence, Eisenhower was passing through Hawaii on his way to the US.  The guy on the administrative staff told Marshall that a certain general had not shown up for his appointment - and suggested that Marshall spend some time with Eisenhower instead. Marshall said ok and Eisenhower was shown in.  Marshall briefed Eisenhower on the Japanese bombing and asked "how do you recomend we respond?".  Eisenhower's response was "give me these 4 guys and 24 hours and I will give you my answer." 

The next day Eisenhower described to Marshall his plan, covering logistical response, political response, military response, communications response...  and Marshall said "Good.  Now do it."  Eisenhower was promoted on the spot and given command.  This moment led to his appointment as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. His plans and execution allowed the allies to win the war. In 1953, he was elected President of the United States and won a second term in 1956.

If Eisenhower had not been passing through the island of Hawaii on 8th December 1941, how would his life have turned out?  Who would have been the 34th President of the United States?  What would Dwight D. Eisenhower have accomplished in civilian life?  A factory supervisor?  Maybe a middle manager at GE?  Or is destiny so powerful that he would have found a route to Presidency through another path?  (I seriously doubt it).


According to Taleb in "The Black Swan", the human mind suffers from three ailments when it comes to looking back and understanding history, or even the events that shape our own personal history:
  1. The illusion of understanding:  Plato, Newton, many scientists have discovered simple rules that predict the way the universe works.  I have a preference for simple formulae that predict behaviour. I love to generalise from my experience. The world is more complicated (or random) than the simple models we would like to use. Nando Parrado talks about the biggest decision in his life being the choice of seat 9B on an airplane 36 years ago (see my previous post on Nando Parrado here).
  2. The distortion of hindsight: we underplay luck in our analysis of the past.  We seek hindsight validation of why Google is number 1, why Starbucks has 14,000 stores and another Seattle coffee shop is still just that, why one person becomes rich whilst another becomes poor - and we latch on to the simple models that we then try to generalise and apply. Each case of success is due to a massive quantity of luck (well discussed in Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers"), combined with some decent input ingredients (that are well worthy of study and copy).
  3. The overvaluation of authoritive people: they know lots about the past... but the future is not going to be just like the past - yet we shut down our brains and listen blindly when "the expert" walks into the room. They are the type of people who would say that there is no such thing as a purple cow. You will not see what you are not looking for, especially if you do not believe that it could exist. (watch this 60 sec video first - and tell me how many passes of the basketball are completed by the white team).
So, if prediction of the future is impossible, should we close down business schools, history courses, cancel company strategy planning sessions? 

I would say "no way". 

I love a quote of Winston Churchill on planning: "The plan isn't worth the paper it is written on; however, the process of planning is priceless".  We don't have plans because they necessarily turn out just so - we have plans so that a team of people have shared goals, ideas and passions.  They may exceed their plan or fail miserably in following their plan - but the fact that they work together as a team is important.  The chances of success without a goal is very low. The chances of success with a goal and a bit of luck are greater.

My other conclusion is that the worst thing that business schools can create are "experts".  If a professor runs a class as if they and they alone have the answer then we are failing. If an MBA comes out feeling that he or she is an "expert" then we have failed.  If they come out with integrity, ideas, the ability to inspire, motivate and work well with other people, perserverance...  then we have succeeded.

My final question... how do I get more luck?  Happy Christmas and I wish you all a healthy, happy and fun 2010.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Persuasive Speaking. The four types of audience.


I am a regular user of Apple iTunes University. On the late night Aer Lingus flight over from Barcelona to Dublin yesterday, I was listening to Jeffrey Anderson of Regent University deliver a lecture on Persuasive Communication. I like his thinking on audience analysis.

There are four types of audience, and consequent persuasive strategy that you can come upon when you are seeking to move a group to action through your speech.
  1. Friendly. Your purpose: reinforcing their beliefs.
  2. Apathetic. Your purpose is to first to convince them that it matters for them.
  3. Uninformed.  Your requirement is to educate before you can begin to propose a course of action.
  4. Hostile. You purpose is to respect them and their viewpoint. The most you may be able to gain is respect to listen to your views. It is key that you can present some information that is viewed as new to the audience before asking for any change in their position.  This is firstly courteous, but also gives the listener's ego room to change without feeling demeaned ("based on this new information, I ask you to change")
When providing new information it is vital that you help the listeners "assimilate".  How can you make it real for them?  There are a number of techniques to bear in mind.
  • Use stories (ideally real stories), metaphors, hypothetical situations
  • Stress common ground
  • Present statistics/data that is clear to conclude from
  • Address conflicting evidence (what are the strengths and weaknesses of the conflicting evidence)
  • AVOID exageration or gross hyperbole.  The use of exageration in a number of areas of public debate has caused extreme entrenchment of the opposing sides. eg. abortion, climate change. The persuasive speaker works hard to keep to the facts and be clear about the logic of the proposed course of action.

Monday, December 14, 2009

What matters most? What is your word for 2010?


Seth Godin asked a group of thought-provoking people to provide a word (and a 200 word essay) on what they're thinking about as the new year rolls in. He's turned that into a pdf called What Matters Now. Read more about the project at Seth's blog.

I have embedded a version of the document hosted at Scribd.com.  Those viewing via subscription may need to click through to original post here.  I like page 32 "Evangelism", page 50 "Change" and page 59 "Fascination".  A good read that I found from the book is Tony Hseih "Poker" (Full article: Everything I learned about Business I learnt from Poker)



The PDF is free. You can view it in the embedded Scribd player above or you can download it here. Inside you will find articles by such writers as:
… and many others. Big thoughts and small actions make a difference. What is your big thought and corresponding small action(s) for 2010?  Feel free to write your word and 200 word essay in the comments...

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Five and a half reasons why you should start a blog today

  1. It will force you to become a better thinker and get clear on your beliefs. It will force you to read to gather material. It will force you to read critically as you ask "why?" "why not?" "why does she say that?" "is that really the answer?"
  2. Tom Peters says "If you are not blogging, you are an idiot." (here)  He is a guru. It must be true.
  3. You have a much better answer for "what do you do?" "I am a writer".  You are no longer a passive observer of life, you now participate in the creation of content and ideas. 5 years from now people will invite you to speak. 10 years from now you will have written enough material for a good book. 20 years from now your kids will think you were once smart.
  4. It is better than a diary. You might get some admiration and affirmation.
  5. You can save time (in future) - if people regularly ask you similar questions, write your answers up in a blog post and refer people there.
  6. It is free and easy. 
    1. Free: I use Blogger.  Friends recommend Wordpress. Posterous allows easy posting from email.
    2. Easy: One of the best starter guides is from Penelope Trunk. I must her reiterate her point on avoiding perfection (no typos).  Force yourself to hit publish after 30-45 minutes no matter what. Perfection is the enemy of creation. If you have a really bad error, just re-publish. Otherwise, let your users tell you and engage more.
One reason why you should not create a blog:
  1. You will not make money from a blog.  Do not spend time reading "get rich quick" "teeth whitening" "best affiliate program" offers. You will create the blog and overcome procrastination only if you write about something about which you care lots and want to learn more.
A final note. Jim Rohn passed away last friday.  He was a great American philosopher. Out of his many great sayings, I will leave you with one: "We must all suffer from one of two pains: the pain of discipline or the pain of regret".

    Sunday, December 06, 2009

    Why worry? It should all come together in the end shouldn't it?

    I read Captain Corelli's Mandolin by Louis de Bernieres when I was 23 years old.  It changed an idea I had about life. This scared me.

    The book tells the story of an lieutenant that is stationed on a Greek Island as part of the Italian occupation during the second world war.  He gets to know the locals and falls in love with the daughter of a villager.  They enjoy happy times together.  The Allied forces take back control of Greece, and the Italian army beats a hasty retreat.  Our lieutenant has to depart but he and the Greek girl promise that he will return after the war.  Three years later, the war ends, peace arrives and our lieutenant, after years in camps and on the run, finally can make his way back to the Greek island.  He travels to Greece, catches the ferry to island and walks towards the village.  He reaches the village in the late afternoon and is walking up the final stretch of hill up towards the centre of the village.  He sees a woman in the square, his Greek girl.  She is holding a baby in her arms.  The lieutenant turns and walks away, never returning.  He travels the world.  Each Christmas the girl receives a postcard from some spot in the world - always anonymous and with no return address.

    After many, many years, the man decides that he cannot live without seeing the girl at least one more time.  He is now in his 60s.  He makes his way to Greece, catches the ferry and repeats his journey of 35 years before.  He walks to the village.  He is walking up the hill towards the square and meets a young local boy.  He asks "does Pelagia still live here?". The boy says "I don't know any Pelagia".  The man reflects and thinks.  "She will be old now, 60.  She was the daughter of Iannis". The boy responds "that bitter old woman?  She lives slightly outside the village" and indicates the house.  Our lieutenant gets to the door and knocks.  When the door opens, the girl who is now an old woman stands for a few seconds in shock and then hits him with all of her force and slams the door shut.  He knocks and knocks and finally she opens. "Why did you do this to me?  Why did you abandon me?".  "I saw you with a baby, I thought you had a baby, thought you had married, had found someone else...  I didn't want to stir up..."  "Why?  Why didn't you ask?  It was my sister's baby.  I was babysitting".

    Before I read this book I had the idea that life was like a 10 pin bowling alley when it is set up for a kid's party.  They put foam into the gutters so that all of the balls will reach the end and take down at least a pin or two.  After reading the story, I realised that life does not have this foam protection.  Life has big gutters, and it is quite possible to put my life into the gutter and not hit a single pin.

    Steven Covey says "Begin with the End in Mind". Alfred Nobel had a unique view of his obituary while alive.  He was one of three brothers.  When Alfred was 55, one of his brothers died.  A french newspaper confused the brothers and the next day's edition came out with an obituary of Alfred.  He had the unique opportunity of reading his own obituary and he really did not like it.  He was the inventor and mass producer of dynamite.  Reading his obituary (the creator of death and destruction) was the inspiration to change his life and leave a different legacy.  Today we have the Nobel peace prize - because Alfred was so gutted to see that his legacy was going to be death and destruction that he spent the rest of his life creating the greatest current symbol of peace.
    Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...