Strategy. Innovation. Brand.
Don’t Beat Yourself Up (Too Much)
Compared to this guy, I’m a great driver.
I’m a pretty good driver. How do I know? I can observe other drivers and compare their skills to mine. I see them making silly mistakes. I (usually) avoid those mistakes myself. QED: I must be a better-than-average driver. I’d like to stay that way and that motivates me to practice my driving skills.
Using observation and comparison, I can also conclude that I’m not a very good basketball player. I can observe what other players do and compare their skills to mine. They’re better than I am. That may give me the motivation to practice my hoops skills.
Using observation and comparison I can conclude that I’m better at driving the highway than at driving the lane. But how do I know if I’m a good thinker or not? I can’t observe other people thinking. Indeed, according to many neuroscientists, I can’t even observe myself thinking. System 1 thinking happens below the level of conscious awareness. So I can’t observe and compare.
Perhaps I could compare the results of thinking rather than thinking itself. People who are good thinkers should be more successful than those who aren’t, right? Well, maybe not. People might be successful because they’re lucky or charismatic, or because they were born to the right parents in the right place. I’m sure that we can all think of successful people who aren’t very good thinkers.
So, how do we know if we’re good thinkers or not? Well, most often we don’t. And, because we can’t observe and compare, we may not have the motivation to improve our thinking skills. Indeed, we may not realize that we can improve our thinking.
I see this among the students in my critical thinking class. Students will have varying opinions about their own thinking skills. But most of them have not thought about their thinking and how to improve it.
Some of my students seem to think they’re below average thinkers. In their papers, they write about the mistakes they’ve made and how they berate themselves for poor thinking. They can’t observe other people making the same mistake so they assume that they’re the only ones. Actually, the mistakes seem fairly commonplace to me and I write a lot of comments along these lines, “Don’t beat yourself over this. Everybody make this mistake.”
Some of my students, of course, think they’re above average thinkers. Some (though not many) think they’re about average. But I think the single largest group – maybe not a majority but certainly a plurality – think they’re below average.
I realized recently that the course aims to build student confidence (and motivation) by making thinking visible. When we can see how people think, then we can observe and compare. So we look at thinking processes and catalog the common mistakes people make. As we discuss these patterns, I often hear students say, “Oh, I thought I was the only one to do that.”
In general, students get the hang of it pretty quickly. Once they can observe external patterns and processes, they’re very perceptive about their own thinking. Once they can make comparisons, they seem highly motivated to practice the arts of critical thinking. It’s like driving or basketball – all it takes is practice.
Keeping An Open Mindset
If you train me, I’ll get smart.
If you don’t, I won’t
In the movie The Four Seasons, Rita Moreno plays Claudia Zimmer, a talkative, outspoken artist who believes she can help others by sharing her insights about their lives. She can be quite blunt. When other characters criticize her candor, she has a stock response: “I can’t help it. I’m Italian!”
According to the Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck, Claudia has a fixed mindset. Claudia believes that her personality is set; it’s not going to change. Similarly, her impulsiveness is also pre-set. She can’t help it. That’s just the way she is. There’s no point in discussing it.
But are personality traits – like impulse control, willpower, and intelligence –actually fixed? Do you really have to play with the hand you were dealt? And how do all these variables affect life achievement?
There’s an increasing body of research suggesting that personality traits are very malleable. Numerous variables can change them for better or worse. One of the most powerful variables is our own desire to change them.
I used to think that IQ was stable (fixed) and resulted primarily from genetics. Eric Turkheimer, however, suggests that the genetic component of IQ is not a quantity but an upper limit. Your ability to reach that limit depends on an array of variables. In general, children raised in intellectually enriched environments are more likely to reach the limit. Children raised in intellectually impoverished environments are less likely to do so.
I now think of IQ as akin to a car’s top speed. Assume that we have two identical race cars; under ideal conditions, each one could reach a top speed of 200 miles per hour. Then we fill one with jet fuel. We fuel the other with low-grade gasoline. Clearly, the jet-fueled car is more likely to reach the top speed. According to Turkheimer, IQ is similar.
Angela Duckworth has also found that self-discipline (also known as impulse control) plays a key role in success. In fact, in academic environments, self-discipline may well be a better predictor of success than IQ.
Roy Baumeister has found that impulse control, like IQ, is not a fixed quantity. Baumeister writes that “Willpower resembles a muscle … in that it can be strengthened by exercise.” He also notes that willpower requires energy and, as energy is depleted, so is willpower. That’s why we have immoral afternoons.
Carol Dweck takes studies like these (and her own) and describes the difference between a fixed mindset and a growth mindset. Claudia Zimmer represents the fixed mindset. As Dweck points out, people like Claudia “…believe their basic qualities, like their intelligence or talent, are simply fixed traits.”
People with a growth mindset, on the other hand, “…believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work—brains and talent are just the starting point.”
Basically, it’s nature versus nurture. And which one wins? Well … nurture. If you believe talent is fixed, you won’t learn anything by making mistakes. So, you’ll avoid making mistakes. On the other hand, making mistakes is an excellent strategy if you believe you can grow your talents. Dweck writes, “… people who believe that talent can be developed are the ones who really push, stretch, confront their own mistakes and learn from them.”
According to New Scientist, Dweck has “…improved the grades and attendance records of thousands of … students across the US simply by teaching them that intelligence isn’t fixed, that hard work can make you smarter ….”
What’s your attitude? Do you think you have to play with the cards you were dealt or can you ask for new cards from time to time?
Beauty and Success
Who’s fastest?
Let’s say you interview a candidate for a managerial position in your company. She’s incredibly smart, with an IQ in the 95th percentile. Because she’s so smart, you conclude that she’ll make a great manager. You hire her.
What mistake have you just made? I usually call it the halo effect, a term coined by the psychologist Edward Thorndike. You form a favorable impression about a person – because she’s smart – and therefore assume that she would have other positive attributes – like being a good manager. It’s as if she were wearing a halo. The fallacy is that the attribute you observe may not be related to the attribute you assume. In our example, just being smart doesn’t necessarily mean the candidate will be a good manager – it takes a lot more than intelligence.
We often see the halo effect with physical attractiveness. (The technical term is the physical attractiveness stereotype). There’s been a wealth of research that shows that attractive people are generally more successful than less attractive people. You might expect this in the fashion industry, but it also seems to be true in politics, law, business, and medicine – fields where physical beauty wouldn’t seem to be related to performance. (For a general overview of such research, click here).
Until recently, I’ve assumed that the physical attractiveness stereotype is just a special case of the halo effect. People assume that an attractive person is also good at other (often unrelated) activities. Because observers make that assumption, the attractive person may get more opportunities to advance than a less attractive person. It’s not the beautiful person’s fault. It’s a cognitive bias from observers.
But what if it’s not? What if the genes that make a person attractive also make him or her more athletic, more competent, and more intelligent? What if beautiful people really are more capable than us average shmoes?
Erik Postma’s recent research seems to point in exactly that direction. Postma studied the relationship between attractiveness and success in the Tour de France bicycle race. If physical attractiveness separates the winners from the losers in such a grueling event, it would strongly suggest that the underlying mechanism that causes attractiveness also provides other advantages as well. Maybe beautiful people really are more capable.
And that’s exactly what Postma found. Postma asked 816 people (72% female) to rate the attractiveness of 80 riders in the 2012 Tour de France. He then correlated attractiveness to success in the race. After a lot of statistical manipulation, he found that “the top 10% of cyclists in the race were reckoned 25% more attractive than the bottom 10%.” (Postma’s original article is here. Popular summaries are here, here, and here. For an interview with Postman about his article, click here.)
As always, there’s still a lot to learn. For one thing, only men were rated. Does the same effect apply to women? Who knows? Additionally, women rated attractiveness somewhat differently than men. The riders rated most attractive by women were among the top cyclists in terms of overall endurance. The riders rated most attractive by men tended to be stronger at sprint events, where speed is more important than endurance. Why the difference? Again, who knows?
What does it all mean? It’s not completely clear but attractive people may just be more capable than less attractive people. The evidence is not strong but it’s enough to make me think that I should get a facelift before my next bike race.
Happiness, Brand, and Innovation
World leaders.
Are Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland the three best countries in the world? You might think so based on the latest rounds of research.
In the past, I’ve reported on the World Happiness Report (WHR) and the Global Innovation Index (GII). Both studies are produced regularly and measure a country’s ability to promote specific outcomes. The WHR measures how happy a country’s citizens are and why. The GII measures how effectively a country promotes and protects innovation, especially in regards to scientific and technical innovation.
In a previous article, I compared happiness and innovation. There seems to be a connection, though it’s difficult to say whether happiness promotes innovation or vice versa. Or perhaps some hidden, third variable promotes both. (By the way, I’ve also written about how happiness is measured).
This year, in addition to the updated versions of WHR and GII, I’ve added another — FutureBrand’s Country Brand Index (CBI) — that measures the strength of a country’s brand. Now in its eighth edition, CBI asks citizens of many countries to judge the most attractive countries to produce “future-positive predictions”. WHR and GII aim to measure the actual phenomenon — either happiness or innovation. CBI measures perceptions; how is a country perceived by citizens of other countries.
Putting together the three studies reveals a great deal of overlap. In the table below, I’ve listed the top ten countries in each report. Countries that make the top ten in all three studies are in red. Countries that reach the top ten in two studies are in blue. Countries that make the list in one study are in purple.
Switzerland is ranked number one in the CBI and GII studies and number three in the WHR study. It’s happy and innovative and has a positive reputation.
All of the Nordic countries — Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden — make at least one of the top ten lists. Sweden and Finland make all three. Denmark and Norway make two. Tiny Iceland makes one.
The USA makes the top ten in brand and innovation but ranks only 17th in happiness.
The lists are dominated by European Protestant countries or their offspring. Asia is represented by only three countries — Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore. African and Latin American countries don’t make any of the top ten lists. The degree of overlap makes me wonder exactly what we’re measuring in these studies. It could be that happiness, innovation, and brand power are intimately related and that these studies measure the strength of the relationship. On the other hand, this could be an example of cultural bias. Or it could be a halo effect. Countries that are successful in one area may be viewed as successful in other areas as well. Of course, the reverse may also be true.
I plan to delve into each of these studies more closely in the future. In the meantime, please review the table below and help me sort out the relationship between the variables and the countries. What causes what?
| WHR 2013 | CBI 2013 | GII 2013 | ||
| 1 | Denmark | Switzerland | Switzerland | |
| 2 | Norway | Canada | Sweden | |
| 3 | Switzerland | Japan | UK | |
| 4 | Netherlands | Sweden | Netherlands | |
| 5 | Sweden | New Zealand | USA | |
| 6 | Canada | Australia | Finland | |
| 7 | Finland | Germany | Hong Kong | |
| 8 | Austria | USA | Singapore | |
| 9 | Iceland | Finland | Denmark | |
| 10 | Australia | Norway | Ireland |
Eighteen Debacles
Debacles happen.
We have two old sayings that directly contradict each other. On the one hand, we say, “Look before you leap.” On the other hand, “He who hesitates is lost.” So which is it?
I wasn’t thinking about this conundrum when I assigned the debacles paper in my critical thinking class. Even so, I got a pretty good answer.
The critical thinking class has two fundamental streams. First, we study how we think and make decisions as individuals, including all the ways we trick ourselves. Second, we study how we think and make decisions as organizations, including all the ways we trick each other.
For organizational decision making, students write a paper analyzing a debacle. For our purposes, a debacle is defined by Paul Nutt in his book Why Decisions Fail: “… a decision riddled with poor practices producing big losses that becomes public.” I ask students to choose a debacle, use Nutt’s framework to analyze the mistakes made, and propose how the debacle might have been prevented.
Students can choose “public” debacles as reported in the press or debacles that they have personally observed in their work. In general, students split about half and half. Popular public debacles include Boston’s Big Dig, the University of California’s logo fiasco, Lululemon’s see-through pants, the Netflix rebranding effort, JC Penney’s makeover, and the Gap logo meltdown. (What is it with logos?)
This quarter, students analyzed 18 different debacles. As I read the papers, I kept track of the different problems the students identified and how frequently they occurred. I was looking specifically for the “blunders, traps, and failure-prone practices” that Nutt identifies in his book.
Five of Nutt’s issues were reported in 50% or more of the papers. Here’s how they cropped up along with Nutt’s definition of each.
Premature commitment – identified in 13 papers or 72.2% of the sample. Nutt writes that “Decision makers often jump on the first idea that comes along and then spend years trying to make it work. …When answers are not readily available grabbing onto the first thing that seems to offer relief is a natural impulse.” (I’ve also written about this here).
Ambiguous direction – 11 papers or 61.1%. Nutt writes, “Direction indicates a decision’s expected result. In the debacles [that Nutt studied], directions were either misleading, assumed but never agreed to, or unknown.”
Limited search, no innovation – ten papers or 55.5%. According to Nutt, “The first seemingly workable idea … [gets] adopted. Having an ‘answer’ eliminates ambiguity about what to do but stops others from looking for ideas that could be better.”
Failure to address key stakeholders claims – ten papers or 55.5%. Stakeholders make claims based on opportunities or problems. The claims may be legitimate or they may be politically motivated. They may be accurate or inaccurate. Decision makers need to understand the claims as thoroughly as possible. Failure to do so can alienate the stakeholders and produce greater contention in the process.
Issuing edicts – nine papers or 50%. Nutt: “Using an edict to implement … is high risk and prone to failure. People who have no interest in the decision resist it because they do not like being forced and they worry about the precedent that yielding to force sets.”
As you make your management decisions, keep these Big Five in mind. They occur regularly, they’re inter-related, and they seem to cut deeply. The biggest issue is premature commitment. If you jump on an idea before its time, you’re more likely to fail than succeed. So, perhaps we’ve shown that look before you leap is better wisdom than he who hesitates is lost.
My Social Media
