Unconventional Wisdom

Why is it that when testing out a concept for a new restaurant, people are willing to spend more money if the restaurant is named Studio 97 rather than Studio 17?   How come the key to selling more Italian wine in a store is to have opera music in the background? And why would people come up with wildly different estimates for the sum of 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 as compared to 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8? 

Or how about this one:  Why do we buy more soup when it is on sale (e.g., 3 cans for $5) than when it is cheaper to purchase individually (at $1.50 per can)?

These very different examples make little sense, except that these instances have been replicated over and over in scientific experiments.   The reason:  It seems that we are not as rational as we think we are.   Our operating system, apparently, is not in full control; and something else intervenes.   It turns out that our brains, as they have been taught to do over the millennia, seek short cuts (heuristics) in a complex world overloaded with data and alternatives.  The quick choices that we make based on our internal algorithms can unconsciously go astray.

Not surprisingly, this imperfection in our intellectual armor has attracted considerable attention.  Amos Tversky and Danny Kahneman are two psychologists who delved into this interesting, but anomalous behavior.  The latter won the Nobel Prize in economics, and both are warmly portrayed in Michel Lewis’s wonderful book, “The Undoing Project.”  As humans, we think fast and slow; and our two selves—fast thinking for survival and slower, more rational thought—often battle each other.  Other scientists have contributed to the discussion of how judgments are made and the fact that unconscious bias often intercedes.  The field of behavioral economics is in full bloom, and new professions are emerging to add to our understanding of how we are wired as people.  My favorite new job titles are evolutionary psychologist and organizational anthropologist.

Given these apparent contradictions in rational order, let’s take a closer look at two categories of statements.  The first are the statements that seem to be true, reflect conventional wisdom, and would not seem to be worth the time to challenge.  But perhaps they should be.  Then there are statements that are almost contradictions themselves, but are worth greater thought. 

Statements that Seem Logical but May Not Work.

·        I am working on a tough problem so I need to stay longer at the office.  The best course of action is to go home, engage in other activities and let your unconscious mind go to work.  Our unconscious mind is much better at thinking through complex problems; too much intentional focus freezes thought and stifles creativity.  It turns out that the old adage—let me sleep on it—is quite true.

·        Build credibility for an initiative by emphasizing its benefits and strengths.  Actually, not.  Everyone expects a sales pitch and that projects and proposals will be put in the best possible light; but interestingly, trust and credibility are gained by doing exactly the opposite.   For example, the next time you make a presentation seeking support for a project, include not only the barriers or downsides, but also why stakeholders should not support the plan.  This can lead to a very different discussion and exchange, much more honest and substantive than reactions to a typical, one-sided marketing pitch. 

·        I feel like I am not doing my job (and earning my salary) if I don’t work long hours and stay electronically connected.  Many people feel this way but they need to pay attention to science.  Don’t confuse busyness with productivity.  People are not productive working long, interrupted hours.  Our thought processes decline after 90 minutes of intense focus and we need periods of renewal, such as taking a 20-minute walk with a colleague.  If we get less than 6 hours of sleep, the effect is similar to being intoxicated at work the next day.  And being tied to mobile devices is literally addictive; and leads to shallow work as opposed to making real substantive contributions.   On average people check e-mail and mobile devices 150 times per day and lose 21% of productive time.  Experiment with moving away from antiquated social norms that impede rather than promote productivity.

·        People are most engaged when they relax.  Ah, the mental image of the hammock and a glass of lemonade; but no, we are most engaged when we are challenged.  This is best articulated by the concept of flow and the satisfaction we get from assignments that stretch our physical and mental capabilities.  This is the Learning Zone in which we feel alive, challenged and energized.  Angela Duckworth (Grit, 2016) talks about a rule they have in their family.  It’s called the Hard Thing rule and each family member choses one.  You can’t quit until the end of the commitment, and then each person gets to pick his or her next gritty thing, whether it be playing the violin, developing a new skill or hobby or extending your capabilities in some way.  Totally cool way to engage the family.

·        Hire candidates who are the strongest cultural fit.  Sounds good but nope.  Southwest Airlines is famous for articulating its hiring philosophy:   Hire for values and train for the rest.  Cultural fit is a valuable consideration:   More people leave their jobs because of a cultural mismatch than technical skills issues.  But cultural fit is not the only or most important consideration.  In the case of cultural fit, group think and homogeneous organizations can emerge if everyone is the same.  It is essential to have people who think differently, challenge prevailing thought and even have competing perspectives on issues.  Disney was a pioneer in computer animated graphics technology but felt this technology threatened its traditional business; Polaroid was an early leader in digital cameras, and Phillips had the inside track on the iPod.  They all passed on these opportunities, rather expensively.  No one wanted to rock the boat.  Rather than hire for narrow cultural fit, hire for cultural diversity and contribution.

Mark Twain deserves the last word on these statements that seem true.  “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.  It’s what you know for sure, that just ain’t so.” 

Seeming Contradictions That Work

Here are six statements where truth emerges from seeming contradictions, but on closer examination, the contradictions may only be superficial.

·        It takes longer to prepare for a shorter presentation.  Yes. it does.  It takes time to make thoughtful choices, and know what not to say.  I like to tell the story of Mark Twain who was asked to come speak at a community function.  His first question was how long is my talk….because if you want me to speak for an hour I can come tomorrow.  If its 30 minutes, I’ll be ready next week.  If its ten minutes, it will be a month.

·        Less is more.  Technically less isn’t more, but in the workplace, it usually is.  When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, he asked his leadership team to identify new initiatives that could make a huge impact.  The list quickly became extensive; and then he said:  ok, pick three because this is all we can do well.  Another data point is the capacity of short term memory, which ranges from 4 to 7 new pieces of information….anything else doesn’t register.  Long lists of bullet points or complex slides are simply wastes of time.

·        Failures can lead to more successes.   Some failures are just that:  crummy execution and results.  But other failures can be stepping stones to excellence, as Amy Edmondson in The Right Kind of Wrong (2024) suggests.    Great companies understand that failures, especially when pushing the envelope and creating new products and processes, lead to success.  Innovation involves risk; and without risk, there are no breakthroughs.  Failure is seen, not as a personal shortcoming, but a learning and growth opportunity.  If innovation is valued at your organization, the right kind of failure should be celebrated and recognized, not punished or ignored. 

·        I can influence others best by saying….nothing.  Conventional thinking argues that if presenters are compelling enough, then people will be persuaded to do what we want them to do.  But this conventional thinking is wrong.  The key is actually asking the right questions to engage people and get them to experience things themselves.  Personal experiences are the best teacher and motivator, not what someone else says you should do.  Plus, by asking good questions and demonstrating real interest in the other person, trust is extended; and it is virtually impossible to influence people without establishing the foundation of trust.

·        Aesop’s Fable:  Is it the tortoise or the hare?  It depends.  For children, the lesson that slow and steady (the tortoise) wins the day makes perfect sense.  Perseverance, follow-through and “stick-to-it ness” are wonderful traits in business and life.  But when we look at the fable differently, the hare has advantages.  In business, slow and steady may not be the best model, although there continues to be debate about being a pioneer or settler.  The hare is also a metaphor for how we function best as human beings.  People work most effectively in bursts punctuated by periods of renewal or rest.  It is like interval training for swimmers, track athletes (or rabbits):   periods of intense activity (usually 90 minute of deep work) followed by recovery.  Or it is like an intense, months-long business project followed by a sabbatical or time to recharge and renew.  As people, there is a cycle and rhythm to our physical and mental exertion, and we need to recognize that these are renewal resources that must be replenished, or they will be lost.

·        Failure to prepare is preparing to fail.  John Wooden.  The greatest of all American college basketball coaches did very little coaching during games.  He never called the first time out.  He rolled up the game’s program in his hand, took his seat on the bench, nodded to his wife Nell; and unleashed his players.   It was all about working harder in practice and being better prepared for the moment.  His practice sessions were renowned for their intensity, physical demands, and were synchronized down to the second.  This was “deep practice” before it was ever called that.

Oh, one more thing about how we are not in as much control as we think.  Dan Pink (2018) talks about body rhythms and internal clocks—and not the conscious decisions that we make—that can unwittingly impact performance.  We all experience a trough roughly seven hours after waking; and the consequences can be mildly annoying, if not damaging.  The evidence is quite clear:  anesthesiologists make four times greater errors at 4 pm than 9 am; doctors are more likely to prescribe unnecessary medications in the afternoon than the morning; and traffic accidents peak in the afternoon.  Evidently, the most unproductive part of the day is at 2:55 pm.

But in true Dan Pink fashion, he doesn’t leave us down in the trough.  There are intentional actions that can overcome the effects of the trough—lack of alertness and vigilance.  The remedies are breaks that allow us to restore and refresh.  One of the seemingly counterintuitive findings about high performers is that they are really good….at taking vigilance breaks.  And Pink defines a whole range from micro breaks, school recesses, lunch away from your desk, walking outside with others, and even the Churchillian nap.

So, we don’t have it all figured out.  We are wired in ways that we can’t always control or even understand.  And while this may be frustrating to some because it does demonstrate the limits of rationality and logic; it is also part of the wonder of being human, the search for meaning and trying to get better every single day.   Wisdom comes in many shapes and from many different sources.  We just have to be open to receiving it.