Dr. Heidi Grant

Why Some Leaders Don’t Learn From Their Mistakes

by Leave a Comment

In prepared remarks before the panel investigating the roots of the financial crisis, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan blames the subprime crisis on foreign investors, nonbank lenders, the spread of securitized mortgages and financial firms for failing to manage their risk. The one person he did not blame was himself, or his institution — the Fed.

– Shahien Nasiripour, The Huffington Post, reporting on Greenspan’s testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on April 7, 2010

Despite the fact that the Federal Reserve, as the nation’s largest bank, did not take any significant action to curb the reckless lending that precipitated the Great Recession, Alan Greenspan seemed to apportion blame everywhere but to himself.  At one point in his testimony, he even appeared to blame the fall of the Berlin Wall.  (His logic:  seeing the truly awful job the Soviets were doing running their economy brought about distrust of “central planning” of any kind.   So evidently, the excesses of Capitalism are Communism’s fault.)

Alan Greenspan was instrumental in determining U.S. financial policy for 19 years, but he doesn’t feel that he was responsible for the failure of the policy he helped create, or that it’s failure was to some extent avoidable.  Is he crazy?  Actually, no.   Did he consciously and willfully mislead the Commission (and the rest of us)?  Very probably not.  Without actually being Alan Greenspan, I can’t say for sure, but the odds are good that he really does believe he’s not to blame.  And as much as we might like to think otherwise, many of us would feel the same way if we were in his shoes.

Psychologists call this the self-serving bias – the tendency to see ourselves as responsible for our successes, but to see other people or the circumstances as responsible for our failures.  We reason this way to protect our self-esteem, and to protect our image in the eyes of others.   We also do it because it really feels right.  Think of an actor on stage – as a member of the audience, you are focused on what he is doing, but if you’re the actor, you see everything but yourself.  You see your fellow actors, the scenery, the audience, but you can’t actually watch you.  Because of what’s called the actor/observer difference, it’s easy for Alan Greenspan to look back over his 19 years at the Fed and see all the factors that played a role in screwing things up, and harder for him to see his own role in it.

Psychologist Tony Greenwald’s 1980 American Psychologist article on this topic cited some very amusing examples of the self-serving bias, taken from a San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle article on the explanations drivers gave to their insurers after an accident.  You’ll notice that some of these people went to remarkable lengths to deflect blame:

As I approached the intersection, a sign suddenly appeared in a place where a stop sign had never been before.  I was unable to stop in time to avoid an accident.

The telephone pole was approaching.  I was attempting to swerve out of its way when it struck my front end.

A pedestrian hit me and went under my car.

My car was legally parked as it backed into the other vehicle.

Studies show that in fact, nearly us fall victim to this kind of bias (though we tend to think that only other people do – yet another example of the bias at work.)

The upside of all this self-protection is that we don’t feel so bad when things go wrong, and can stay optimistic about our future chances for success.  The downside, particularly for the leaders on whose judgment we must rely, is that we don’t learn anything from our mistakes if we don’t recognize that we made them in the first place.  How can you do a better job next time if you won’t even admit you did a bad job this time?

From a motivational perspective, the best way to handle a failure is to look honestly at how your own actions contributed to the outcome, emphasizing what you can change so that your performance improves from now on.  And even though, in his mid-80s, Alan Greenspan is unlikely to serve a second round as Fed Chairman, he would probably like to get an accurate handle on what went wrong – something he will never do unless he admits that he was actually driving.

How Long Will This Take? 3 Steps to Being a Better Judge of Time

by 2 Comments

From my Fast Company blog:

Every Saturday morning, while my husband JD is eating his cereal and attempting to fully awaken, I ambush him with the list of household chores and errands I’ve been making all week (and saving for when he’ll be home to help me.)  Every single time, an argument ensues.  At its core is JD’s unshakeable belief that any task, no matter how complex or difficult, can be completed in about 15 minutes.  “Let’s go out and have some fun, “ he’ll say, “and we’ll tackle that stuff when we get back this afternoon.”  “But there won’t be enough time!” I reply, with mounting frustration.  “It will be fine,” he says.  More often than not, he is wrong.

As much as I enjoy giving him a hard time about his total inability to judge how long something will take, the truth is that most people aren’t much better at it.  In fact, human beings are generally pretty lousy when it comes to estimating the time they will need to complete a task.  Psychologists refer to this as the planning fallacy, and it’s an all too common problem – one with the very real potential to screw up our plans and keep us from reaching our goals.

Studies show that the planning fallacy can be attributed to several different biases we have when estimating how long it will take to do just about anything.  First, we routinely fail to consider our own past experiences while planning.   When my husband tells me it will take him 15 minutes to vacuum the carpets, he is ignoring the fact that it took him an hour to do it last time.   And as any professor can tell you, most college seniors, after four straight years of paper-writing, still can’t seem to figure out how long it will take them to write a 10-page paper.  We just don’t take our past into account the way we should when thinking about our future.

Second, we ignore the very real possibility that things won’t go as planned – our future plans tend to be “best-case scenarios.” So running to the store for a new vacuum cleaner might take 15 minutes – if there is no traffic, if they carry the model we’re looking for, if we find it right away, and if there aren’t long lines at the register.

Lastly, we don’t think about all the steps or subcomponents that make up the task, and consider how long each part of the task will take.   When you think about painting a room, you may picture yourself using a roller to quickly slap the paint on the walls, and think that it won’t take much time at all – neglecting to consider how you’ll first have to move or cover the furniture, tape all the fixtures and window frames, do all the edging by hand, and so on.

So while we all tend to be prone to the planning fallacy to some extent, some of us fall into its trap more often than others. People in positions of power, for example, are particularly vulnerable, because feeling powerful tends to focus us on getting what we want, ignoring the potential obstacles that stand in our way.  A recent set of studies by Mario Weick and Ana Guinote shows that such a narrow focus does indeed turn powerful people into very poor planners.

In one study, half of the student participants were made to feel powerful (by being told that their opinion would influence the course requirements established for future students).  Next, all students were asked to estimate how long it would take to finish an upcoming major assignment.   Everyone was overly-optimistic, but the powerful ones were significantly more so.  Powerful students estimated that they would finish their assignments 2.5 days before they actually did, while the control group was on average only 1.5 days late.    So feeling powerful makes you think you’ll take a whole day less to complete the assignment than you would have guessed had you been feeling a little more ordinary.

A second study induced feelings of power by having some of the participants recall a time in their past when they felt very powerful, and this produced a similar result.  Powerful participants estimated that it would take them only 4 minutes to complete a proofreading task that actually took 9 minutes, compared to the control group’s estimate of 6.5 minutes.

In a third study, participants who were made to feel powerful thought it would take them less time to write an essay, get ready for an evening out, shop at the supermarket, and prepare a 3 course meal, than the control group.   Importantly, these effects completely disappeared when powerful participants were explicitly told to recall how much time these activities had taken them in the past, and use that information to make their estimates.  So when powerful people are forced to focus on all the relevant information, their planning is far more accurate.

When you’re making a plan and estimating how long it will take, be sure to stop and 1) consider how long it has taken you in the past,

2) identify the ways in which things might not go as planned, and

3) spell out all the steps you will need to take to get it done.

This is particularly important when you are in a position of power, so make sure that there are safeguards or reminders in place to help you to consider all the information you should.  Otherwise, you may fall victim to the everything-takes-15-minutes kind of optimism that can lead to disaster.

A Simple Fix for Miscommunication Part 2: Putting It Into Practice

by 1 Comment

(From my Fast Company Blog)

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post on miscommunication in the workplace, and how so much of it is caused by the fact that people routinely fail to realize how little they are actually communicating. We think we’ve said a lot more than we actually have.  As a result, our colleagues are left guessing as to what we meant, or what we want from them.  All too often, they guess wrong.

Judging by the popularity of the post, Fast Company readers can relate.  You know how frustrating it is to be on the receiving end of communication that is confusing or vague.  But most of us have no idea that we are guilty of the same crime.  It’s easy to see why – after all, we know what we mean.  Unless we are confronted directly about how poorly we are communicating (something people are generally loathe to do, for a number of reasons), how are we to know if we’ve said enough?

I received a number of emails asking how to put the insight gained from the last post into practice on a daily basis.  Here are three strategies you can use to make sure that you are saying everything that needs to be said.

1)    Take a few moments before communicating to identify the key points you need to get across. Write them down if you think you might forget something when you are actually conversing (this is very common).  If you think any of your key points “go without saying,” you are probably wrong.

2)    Create a process for assessing understanding.  Everyone on your team needs to participate – don’t single anyone out.  When you communicate something to a team member, end the encounter by asking them to summarize in their own words what they heard.

For this to work well without anyone feeling patronized, you need to make it clear that this is not a test – your concern is that you didn’t communicate effectively, not that they weren’t paying attention.  Also, it has to work both ways.  When your team member brings something to your attention, you should summarize what you heard as well.

Without direct feedback, there is no way to figure out if the message was fully received.  But people are reluctant to provide this feedback if there is no explicit process in place.  They worry about looking foolish, or irritating the communicator (particularly when the communicator is the boss.)

3)    Invite questions should they arise.  Sometimes, you don’t realize that you didn’t understand what a colleague asked you to do until you actually try to do it.  At this point, it can be embarrassing to go back and admit “I don’t get it.”  Take the embarrassment out of it by reminding your team members that you are always happy to answer any questions that may come up later.  When you are asked for clarification, provide it with enthusiasm.

I know that all of this seems like a lot of work, and it is.  But the extra time and effort you put in to improving your team’s ability to communicate will be well worth it.  You’ll spend far less time fixing mistakes and putting out fires.  Your team will be more motivated and productive.  And you’ll have confidence that everyone is finally, and permanently, on the same page.

Giving Employees the Feeling of Choice, When You Are Really Pulling The Strings

by Leave a Comment

A Guest Post for SmartBlog on Workforce:

Most managers and leaders have, on a regular basis, the unenviable task of trying to get other people to adopt particular goals.  Companies have agendas, and employees need to support those agendas if the company is to succeed.  But if you want your employees to live up to their full potential, it’s not enough that they do what you tell them to – that they work hard and meet deadlines because you said they have to, and you are watching.  Ideally, you want the members of your team to see that the goals they are pursuing have real value.

In fact, you want them to make the goals their own – and with good reason.  Again and again, studies show that the greatest motivation and most personal satisfaction comes from those goals that we choose for ourselves.   Self-chosen goals create a special kind of motivation called intrinsic motivation – the desire to do something for its own sake.   When people are intrinsically motivated, they enjoy what they are doing more, and find it more interesting.  They feel more creative, and process information more deeply.  They persist more in the face of difficulty.  They perform better.  Intrinsic motivation is awesome in its power to get and keep us going.

Autonomy is particularly critical when it comes to creating and maintaining intrinsic motivation.  But in the workplace, goals have to be assigned.  What’s a manager to do?

It turns out that it isn’t so much actual freedom of choice that matters when it comes to creating intrinsic motivation, but the feeling of choice.  Choice provides a sense of self-determination, even when choice is trivial or illusory.

The good news is, while true autonomy in the workplace can be hard to come by, the feeling of choice can be created fairly easily, using these three tips:

Tip 1: First, and most obviously, your employees need to understand why the goal they’ve been assigned has value.  Too often, managers tell their employees what they need to do, without taking the time to explain why it’s important, or how it fits into the bigger picture.  No one ever really commits to a goal if they don’t see why it’s desirable for them to do it in the first place.  Don’t assume the why is as obvious to your team as it is to you.

Tip 2: When the goal itself is predetermined by Management, allowing your employees to decide how they will reach the goal can create the feeling of choice necessary to be intrinsically motivated.  Allowing them to tailor their approach to their preferences and abilities will also give them heightened sense of control over the situation they find themselves in, which can only benefit performance.  (If you can’t give them total free reign, try giving them a choice between two options for how to proceed.  If even that is not possible, skip directly to Tip 3.)

Tip 3: If you have to assign both the goal and the method for reaching it, try creating the feeling of choice by inviting your employee to make decisions about more peripheral aspects of the task.  For instance, if your employees have to attend weekly team meetings to improve communication and collaboration (with both the goals and method for reaching it predetermined), you can have team members take turns deciding what the topic of the meeting will be each week, or even what kind of lunch will be ordered in.  Studies show that these more peripheral decisions create a feeling of choice, even when the choices aren’t particularly meaningful or relevant to the goal itself.

Take time to reflect on how you might be able create a greater sense of autonomy in your own workplace using these three steps. Choice is incredibly motivating – to bring out the best in your employees, harness its power.

Too Much Miscommunication At Work? A Simple Fix

by Leave a Comment

From my Fast Company Blog:

“I’m sure he understood what I meant.”

“I’m sure it was obvious.”

“It goes without saying…”

The most common source of miscommunication in any workplace is a very simple one:  people routinely fail to realize how little they are actually communicating.  In other words, we think we’ve said a lot more than we actually have.

Psychologists call this the signal amplification bias (because we can’t resist slapping esoteric names on things – calling it the “I’m Sure It Was Obvious” Effect would be much more to the point.)

Studies show that the vast majority of us tend to believe that our behavior is much more expressive than it actually is, and this occurs across a wide variety of situations.

For instance, we often think people know when we’re lying – that our discomfort with deception is obvious – when they rarely have any idea.  We also assume that others understand our goals and what we’re trying to accomplish, when in fact they don’t have the first clue.  Most of what we say and do every day is open to multiple interpretations, and when other people try to figure out what we really mean, they are apt to guess wrong.

We are particularly likely to be “sure it was obvious” with people we know well or who we’ve worked with for a long time – we assume our thoughts and behaviors are transparent, when they are far from it.  So, ironically, the risk of miscommunication is greater with a close colleague than a brand-new coworker.

When we assume that other people know what we’re thinking, and what we are expecting of them, we do them a real disservice.    Assuming that we’ve been clear about what we wanted, we blame them when things don’t go as planned.

The next time you catch yourself thinking “I didn’t expressly say that to Bob, but it should be obvious…” STOP.  Nothing is ever obvious unless you made it obvious by spelling it out.

Remove the phrase “It goes without saying” from your mental lexicon, because it is total rubbish.  If something is important, then it goes WITH saying.  Make a point of saying exactly what you mean, and asking for exactly what you want, and you will be pleasantly surprised by often you get it.

How To Recognize Motivational Strengths (Yours, and Everyone Else’s)

by Leave a Comment

From my Fast Company blog:

Why do colleagues working toward a common goal so often fail to see eye-to-eye when it comes to achieving it?  At times, you feel like you aren’t on the same page, or even the same planet, as your coworkers, even when everyone involved is clearly capable and has a proven track-record of success.  Why the disconnect?

The answer is a remarkably simple one:  There is more than one way to look at the same goal.  Take for example a goal that many of us share:  I want to do my job exceptionally well.   For some of us, doing our jobs well is about achievement and accomplishment – we have what psychologists call a promotion focus.  In the language of economics, promotion focus is about maximizing gains and avoiding missed opportunities.

For others, doing our jobs well is about security, about not losing the positions you’ve worked so hard for.  This prevention focus places the emphasis on avoiding danger, fulfilling responsibilities, and doing what feel you ought to do.  In economic terms, it’s about minimizing losses, trying to hang on to what you’ve got.

Promotion and prevention-focused people work differently to reach the same goal.  They use different strategies, have different strengths, and are prone to different kinds of mistakes.  One group will be motivated by applause, the other by criticism.  One group may give up too soon – the other may not know when to quit.

So, do you spend your life pursuing accomplishments and accolades, reaching for the stars? Or are you busy fulfilling your duties and responsibilities – being the person everyone can count on? Start by identifying your focus, and then use the information below to better understand and embrace your strengths, your potential weaknesses, and the strategies that will work best for you.

What Motivates You – Criticism or Praise?

When you are promotion-focused, your motivation feels like eagerness – an enthusiastic desire to really go for it.  Eagerness is enhanced by positive feedback –the more you are succeeding, the more motivated you become. Confidence heightens your energy and intensity. Doubting yourself takes the wind right out of your sails.

When you are prevention-focused, your motivation feels like vigilance – you are on the lookout for danger.    Vigilance actually increases in response to negative feedback or self-doubt.  There’s nothing like the looming possibility of failure to get your prevention juices flowing.  Over-confidence or effusive praise, however, may lead you to let down your guard, and undermine your motivation.

Do You Embrace Risk, or Avoid It?

“Nothing ventured, nothing gained” pretty much captures the promotion-focused philosophy. The promotion-minded have a habit of saying “yes” to every opportunity, having what psychologists call a risky bias.  Prevention-minded people, on the other hand, are cautious. They tend to say “no” more, or having a more conservative bias.

These biases manifest themselves in all sorts of ways.  For example, people with prevention goals are reluctant to disengage from one activity to try another, preferring the devil they know to the one they don’t. But their conservative nature also makes them less likely than their risk-loving colleagues to procrastinate, for fear that they won’t have time to get the job done.

Is Your Thinking Abstract or Concrete?

When people have promotion goals, they feel free to be more exploratory and abstract in their thinking.  They brainstorm.  They generate lots of options and possibilities to reach their ideals, and are more creative.  They are also particularly good at picking up on connecting themes or synthesizing information.

In pursuit of prevention goals, abstraction and creativity seems reckless and time-consuming. Prevention-focused thinking is concrete and specific – you pick a plan and stick to it. The prevention-minded are great with details, and have better memory for what they’ve seen and what’s still needs to be done.

Speed or Accuracy?

Executing any modestly complicated task involves what psychologists call a speed-accuracy tradeoff.  The faster you go, the more mistakes you make.  But going slow has costs too – particularly if time is valuable and you are in a hurry to get the job done.  It won’t surprise you to learn that promotion and prevention-minded people end up on opposite sides of this particular trade off, with promotion favoring speed and prevention preferring the slow-but-flawless route.

Are You Better at Getting There or Staying There?

Promotion-focused thinking leads to energetic and enthusiastic motivation in the shorter term, but can be less effective when it comes to long-term maintenance.  Prevention-focused thinking, on the other hand, is ideal for making sure your hard-earned gains don’t slip away.

Do You Get What You Want?

When it comes to negotiating, having a promotion focus will give you the clear upper-hand. Studies show that promotion-minded negotiators stay focused on their (ideal) price or pay targets, while the prevention-minded worry too much about a negotiation failure or impasse, leaving them more susceptible to less advantageous agreements.  When it comes to getting what you want, it pays to focus on what you have to gain, rather than what you might lose.

Armed with an understanding of promotion and prevention, so much of what we do (and what our coworkers do) makes a lot more sense.   Perhaps now you see why you’ve always been a risk-taker, or why you’ve always avoided risks like the plague.  It’s clear why you are uncomfortable with being too optimistic, or why you are known for your sunny outlook.   You get why some things have always been hard for you, while others came easily.

There’s no need to fight it – embrace your promotion- or prevention-mindedness!  After all, both kinds of motivation can bring you success, and each brings something of value (e.g., innovation, attention to detail) to your organization. Just remember to take with a grain of salt the well-meaning advice and input from others when it doesn’t feel right for you, focus on the strategies that play to your own strengths, and see the value in what your differently-motivated colleagues are bringing to the table.