Tag Archives: psychology

Please understand me. I want you to

in Marketing, Psychology, Strategy

please understand me

I have a few friends who are looking for a job and have been for a awhile. They use digital means such as Linkedin, Simply Hired, Monster to find jobs as well as network with people. This process takes a lot of time, but the biggest problem is they still live with their parents; and the parents are fed up with it.

They’ve even told me their parents want to take their computers away because they think finding a job through the internet is dumb. They say they should job hunt the old fashioned way by going door to door. Say what?

It’s ironic because recruiters are changing their employee-hunting tactics to focus more on online:

Rather than sift through mounds of online applications, they are going out to hunt for candidates themselves. Many plan to scale back their use of online job boards, which they say generate mostly unqualified leads, and hunt for candidates with a particular expertise on places like LinkedIn Corp.’s professional networking site before they post an opening. As the market gets more competitive again, they are hiring recruiters with expertise in headhunting and networking, rather than those with experience processing paperwork.

I’m not saying the old fashioned way of job hunting is wrong, it’s just that parents fail to understand how the internet is changing how we do most things;  including job hunting. Why this disconnect?

Because of ignorance. They don’t take the time to step into our world and see what we see. This same principle applies to understanding the world of both our customers and employees.

Why is this important?

Step into their world

I recently argued that CEO’s should use social media because they need to get an intimate feel for the tools their customers and employees use to communicate instead of leaving it up to their lieutenants to figure it out. If they don’t experience these tools firsthand, they’ll never get the visceral experience of how these tools are really used in the front lines.

I don’t know about you but I like to experience things first hand and get an intuitive feel for them because it’s the only way I can understand how others might use, react, behave, etc.

Your customers want you to understand them

Point: The only way to understand what customers (our children) are thinking is to put ourselves in their shoes and step into their world. Look at the world from their eyes. We have to close the gap between their world and ours if we are to understand and help solve their problems in a better way.

How do you do that?

Easy.

Observe, notice, ask, listen, repeat.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Reverse brainstorming: A better way to generate creative ideas

in Creativity, Innovation, Strategy

brainstorming

When we consider ‘how aha really happens‘ the traditional method we use for generating creative ideas, brainstorming, has flaws. Ask your friends, when do they have their best ideas? They will seldom answer, ‘during a brainstorming session’. Most likely it was in the shower, while driving and stuck in traffic or while daydreaming. The fact of the matter is ‘we can’t schedule creativity’ because we don’t know when that ‘aha’ will strike. Yet despite this basic human process we find that managers schedule a specific time for teams to come up with creative ideas.

This is not how creativity works in our brains. (Read page two of ‘How Aha really happens’):

“Over the past decade, neuroscientists have come a long way in figuring out how ideas form in the human mind. As it turns out, their findings contradict how most companies understand and organize innovation. But very few executives know that. They continue applying their conventional wisdom, unaware that science has overturned it.”

Another common belief is that having diverse people involved in a brainstorming session improves idea generation and selection. While this is true that doesn’t mean that the human element of ‘bias’ doesn’t exist. Group dynamics stifle innovation:

For example, in brainstorming sessions several people can quickly dominate a conversation often restricting the sharing of all potential ideas. In other cases, individuals may think less critically about a problem because they are happy to let others do the heavy lifting.  And, those people who lack confidence or internal credibility are more likely to practice self-censorship within peer groups. Finally, groups can be a breeding-ground for organizational barriers such as cultural norms and management bias that limit creativity and critical thinking.

Ok so now what?

Hybrid Model of Brainstorming

I think a better way of brainstorming is doing the opposite of typical brainstorming. For example, instead of brainstorming in groups to solve a particular problem at a particular time, setup a weekly meeting and let people bring in ideas on any subject that strike them at any time during the week. Interesting right?

Also in a traditional brainstorming session the group picks out the idea right there. Instead, don’t decide right away. Because if you brought an idea on any topic at all, the rest of the group might not have thought about the topic before. They’ll greet you with a blank stare in their face.

So instead of evaluating your idea the group will ask you to explain the idea as best you can, including all the elements that you combined in your head to come up with the idea. Then everyone goes off and think about individually and the discussion can continue over emails, telephone or in person. Eventually, a promising idea might emerge from the pack. At that time, it’s time for the ‘What Works Matrix‘ as an individual or group exercise.

Bottom line is creating the element of surprise at the beginning of idea generation. Because if you don’t create surprises you aren’t innovating.

Reverse brainstorming isn’t new

Now that you know how creativity works in the brain, the point is that our brains make connections continuously without us being aware of it. And because this is a natural human process, it’s key that we take advantage of in a whole week or month and not just in a two hour session.

Now, new research suggests that this hybrid model of brainstorming is more effective than the traditional one. While the research may be new, the practice is not. Firms such as IDEO have been doing this for years. They’re well known for including people from diverse backgrounds in all their meetings, essentially preparing a cocktail mix of ingredients to generate creative ideas.

This is how creativity works in the brain.

Obstacles don’t go away easily

Personally, I practice this model of brainstorming myself but have encountered problems. For example, if you’re the only one who brainstorms this way you’ll end up generating ideas that make no sense to others. They’ll think you’re nuts but at the same time they’ll give you the benefit of the doubt since you seem to have all the cool non-conventional ideas. Another problem is that people are used to brainstorming and selecting an idea right there. They don’t want to give an idea time to ‘simmer’ in their brains because of the bias for action. And also because they have more ‘important’ things to do in their routines and supposedly have no time to think. Blah!

So what to do?

Well you have to get people on board in the new way of brainstorming. My recommendation is ‘educate’ your team on how creativity works in our brains so they become aware of their own tendencies. This isn’t necessarily going to eliminate all obstacles but it’s an effective way to get people to believe, and as a plus they’ll feel smarter.

Thoughts? Do you practice a version of reverse brainstorming?

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Bill Gates and the confirmation bias

in Psychology

I got a PowerPoint preso in my email today about a speech given by Bill Gates to a high school of the 11 things kids won’t learn in school. The rules themselves are quite good and you should definitely check them out.

While I had never heard of such a speech from Bill Gates, I had a hunch he didn’t give this speech and was curious to see if there was a video on the web. I googled ‘bill gates speech to teenagers’ and ended up finding out that and that no one actually knows where they came from.

What’s interesting is most people would not have gone to Google to dig deeper, they’ll believe with certainty that Bill Gates gave this speech just as they’ll believe most everything that confirms their own beliefs. It’s very easy to get influenced by such a presentation because it comes from an authority figure, we humans will automatically take it as ‘must-do’ advice.

The main thing is to understand that…

We’re all suckers for BS

It’s very easy to dress up ideas and align them with an influential figure to ‘provoke’ change. I have no doubt this presentation has been shared by parents throughout the world who then showed it to their kids and got a good result because of it. But, the opposite is also true. An idea can be manipulated with bad intentions in mind, and then we’ll have a very different result.

My point is that we often fall prey to the confirmation bias, our inherent tendency to confirm what we believe is true. I’m not arguing the value of the 11 laws on the presentation, they’re worth reading and taken into consideration. I’m just pointing out that by not ‘questioning’ our own beliefs we overlook the truth which most of the time lead to bad decisions.

The truth: Tell anyone what they want to hear and they’ll believe you. Especially if it’s common sense!

What to do instead?

Seek out the real truth, not what you believe to be true

As , in innovation activities there is a very strong emotional incentive to seek out opinions and information that confirms the value of our ideas:

Whenever we have an idea, instead of searching for ways to prove our ideas wrong, we usually attempt to prove them correct. Once we see a pattern we do not easily let go of it, we keep digging and digging to see that pattern more and more. Sometimes there isn’t even a pattern there but we somehow ‘want’ to believe there is. You know all too well how this plays out in any organization.

Again, instead of confirming our beliefs we should spend time searching for ‘evidence’ that we are wrong. The intention is not to be a skeptic, but to set ourselves free from assumptions and see with clarity. Some of us will dig deeper than others but the important thing is that you dig to challenge your own thinking. See the light!

P.S. Just to clear things up, It’s not that I don’t trust my friend. I just trust my instincts a lot more. But I do get his intent with sharing the preso with me, thanks Smile

Enhanced by Zemanta

Are you more credible as an innovator?

in Innovation

I found this question at the bottom of an article that states that in order . See below:

The research clearly shows that “when people voice creative ideas, they are viewed by others as having less leadership potential,” says Jack Goncalo, who teaches organizational behavior at Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

That may come as a surprise, since many companies claim to prize innovative thinking.

But Goncalo, who led the studies, points out that our deeply ingrained expectations of “creative people” and “effective leaders” are often at loggerheads: Creative types may be seen as mercurial and unpredictable, while leaders “are expected to reduce uncertainty and uphold the norms of the group,” he says.

That’s particularly true in times of economic uncertainty. The data suggest that, when the going gets tough, people crave the security that comes from having leaders who preserve the status quo.

This study further reinforces what we already know about instituting innovation within established organizations, that the forces of human nature are the biggest impediments to innovation.

Naturally, this is the way it’s always been. Human tendency is to prefer the familiar, so naturally people who maintain the status quo will be seen as ‘better’ than creatives. Again, this is a matter of perception. The problem is, as is often the case, in times of uncertainty there are gaps that can be exploited. Opportunities open up because there is a restructuring of the fundamental ideas of the past. Everyone is looking for a light to follow and that light is NOT ‘the same it’s always been’. This is all counter intuitive, but most things that are uncertain are.

But this doesn’t answer the question of this post: Are you more credible as an innovator?

Before answering let me point out that being creative doesn’t mean you’re innovative, although the probability of that happening is much higher than if you’re not creative. Again, this is a matter of definition. What is innovative can be different things to everybody.

So the first thing that needs to happen is the organization has to come to a collective understanding of what ‘innovation’ is to them. That can then help inform how problems are framed and ideas are presented, because if the ideas presented are not aiming at something then most likely they’re going to be shot down and you along with it. I think this is where the fundamental problem is.

Are you more credible as an innovator? If you’ve done it before and it improved/solved a problem then yes. If the ideas are just thrown out there to see what happens then you’re staying right where you are.

We all know we need to innovate continuously to stay relevant, key is making it happen and then all these issues will be kept at bay.

Thoughts?

Enhanced by Zemanta

The flip side of uncertainty

in Creativity, Innovation, Psychology, Thinking

When we present new ideas that are better or different to what currently exists they carry the weight of uncertainty. This is a problem we all face. . And everything right now, everyone says, is uncertain. But just like there’s a flip side to everything the same applies to uncertainty.

See this exchange between Patch Adams and Arthur Mendelson from the Movie Patch Adams:…

Innovation posts of the week: Don’t ask for too much change

in Must reads of the week
Enhanced by Zemanta

How to fight the confirmation bias

in Behavior, Innovation, Psychology

“It is difficult to lay aside a confirmed passion.” – Caius Valerius Catullus

Aha! you got an idea and you want to do some research to know if you’re idea has wings. You setup google alerts, hashtags about related topics on twitter, follow people in the know, join related groups on Linkedin, etc. You know the drill!

Soon after you start receiving information, this information looks familiar to you, it makes sense. Other people are talking about the same thing, you engage them and start exchanging ideas which start taking on a life of their own. This confirms your hunch, you get more excited because your idea has wings. Bangarang! you’re sure to be a gazillionaire!

Sound familiar?

This is the confirmation bias.

Whenever we have an idea, instead of searching for ways to prove our ideas wrong, we usually attempt to prove them correct. Once we see a pattern we do not easily let go of it, we keep digging and digging to see that pattern more and more. Sometimes there isn’t even a pattern there but we somehow ‘want’ to believe there is. You know all too well how this plays out in any organization.

Let’s change that. Time to turn off your lizard brain and engage your critical, truth seeking side of your brain.

In order to fight the confirmation bias let’s do the opposite: learn to spend as much time looking for ‘evidence’ that we are wrong as we spend searching for reasons that we are correct.

It’s not fun trying to prove we’re not the hotshots we think we are but the truth shall set you free.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta