If you are a manager and want to position your company or organization to succeed in the future, I'd suggest changing the normal managerial question of "How do I get more out of my employees?" to "How do I get the best out of my employees?"
Why? because passion, energy, creativity and innovation aren't easily reflected in quarterly earnings statements but they do show up in the long-run.
I travel frequently and it is not uncommon that I must use public restrooms. On occasion, I encounter a disgusting and unsanitary toilet (such as the picture to the right).
My initial reaction -- pardon the pun -- is to get pissed off at the person who did it. This is only natural.
What isn't natural is that I immediately put together a psychological profile of the culprit in my mind. Typically, he is an overweight, middle-aged, cellphone-talking, self absorbed salesman who thinks he (and his time) are more important than anyone else.
In the very rare case, my assessment might be correct (although I highly doubt it.)
In an attempt to unlearn this bad habit (and to remind myself that the only person I can really change is myself), I decided to engage in a little mental exercise the last time I encountered a nasty, stained toilet seat.
Instead of casting negative aspersions on the mental image of the culprit, I considered an opposite scenario. I asked myself if could there be any scenario whereby leaving such a mess would be justified -- or at least understandable.
To my amazement there were.
For example, I pictured an elderly man with Parkinson's disease who, through no fault of his own, could no control his accuracy. He wanted to clean up his mess but because of his ailing back, he was unable to do so. Ashamed, he quietly left the bathroom.
Or, perhaps, a young boy was traveling with his single mother. Unable to escort the boy into the bathroom, the child took care of business but made a mess because he was nervous. He then departed in haste because he knew his mother was anxiously waiting outside.
Did either scenario actually occur? Probably not, but they are no more or less likely than my initial "self-absorbed salesman" scenario. They do, however, have the advantage of putting a more positive spin on a negative situation. They also had the added benefit of changing my mental attitiude from one of anger to one of compassion.
My advice: Next time you encounter a similar situation, try to unlearn your first impression and view the world from a new and different perspective. It might just allow you to blow off steam and keep you from getting pissed off at the world.
Related Post
Below is a wonderful talk by Kathryn Schulz, self described "wrongologist" and the author of Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error. I especially liked this statement of hers:"One of the problems with being wrong ... is that it feels like being right."
This is so true and it is one of the reasons I strive to replace statements of "no doubt" with the more philosophical statement: "to know doubt."
After listening to her presentation, however, I'm even more convinced we need to teach unlearning in kindergarten and that each of us must strive to possess a little more intellectual humility."
Related Post
Someone Else Being Wrong Doesn't Make You Right
I am currently reading William Irvine's book, A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy and stumbled across this paradoxical -- or, at least, counter-intuitive -- idea: Denying yourself pleasure can lead to pleasure.
How?
Consider eating an ice cream cone or, perhaps, a pleasant dessert. Undoubtedly, such an experience would be pleasurable. What people often forget is that the opposite may also be true. In the case of not eating ice cream or dessert it is possible that you may also experience pleasure by being pleased with yourself for showing self-constraint.
“Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.” – Francis Bacon
Question: Estimate the odds of the following two events:
Did you rate the second scenario (b) as being more probable? Many people do even though the first scenario (a) is more likely. If you reflect on the two options for a moment this should be obvious because, as a general condition, Scenario b would naturally be included under Scenario a.
The reason many people misdiagnose the odds is because the second scenario (a California earthquake) is easy to perceive, whereas the first is more abstract. In much the same way, people misdiagnose situations based on their perception. This truism is often characterized as seeing the glass as either half full or half-empty, although the true impact of this distinction goes far beyond this cliché.
The difference between optimists and pessimists has succinctly been delineated by Martin Seligman, the author of Learned Optimism, who explains it thusly: When bad things happen to optimistic people they tend to see the event as: 1) temporary (limited in duration); 2) external (being caused by something outside their immediate sphere of influence); and 3) specific (affecting only a partial or isolated area of their life). Pessimistic people, by contrast, view negative events as: 1) permanent (or lasting a long time); 2) personal (they are somehow to blame); and pervasive (affecting all aspects of their life).
A person’s outlook on life—be it optimistic or pessimistic—might seem a matter of personal disposition but Seligman’s research suggests otherwise. Pessimism can be unlearned and the benefits are not inconsequential. Optimists have been found to lead longer, healthier, happier and, ultimately, more successful and fulfilling lives.
Consider just one of Seligman’s studies on optimism. In 1985, while working with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 15,000 potential applicants took Met Life’s regular career profile test along with an Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ), which measures optimism. One thousand applicants were hired as salespeople on the basis of the career profile alone. Met Life, however, still had a shortage of insurance agents and took the unusual step of hiring an additional 100 employees solely on the basis of those who scored in the top half of the ASQ. In other words, they hired only optimistic people for the additional openings.
What Met Life discovered was that the special hires—people who didn’t pass muster on its regular career profile—outsold the pessimists in the regular force by 57 percent.
This was the result of a few different factors. For starters, optimism helped these people push ahead in the face of failure. Rather than accepting setbacks as a mark of personal failure, they adopted an outlook closer to that of the great inventor, Thomas Edison, who once remarked: “I have not failed. I have found 10,000 ways that didn’t work.” And failure, as we saw in this lesson, can have the counter-intuitive affect of enhancing the quality of a product—or, in this case, a sales pitch—by virtue of continuous improvement.
Optimism also encourages risk. This isn’t always a positive trait but in an era of continuous change risk-taking can call forth those qualities most likely to deliver success in a fast-changing environment: innovation and agility.
Unlearning pessimism merely requires you to adopt a positive explanatory style as your default setting when describing negative events. Instead of focusing on the negative strive to put negative matters in a positive light and, where possible, view them as temporary, external and limited in nature. In other words put on rose-color glasses.
Homework Assignment: If one were required to compile a list of “the best things that could ever happen to me,” it would be hard to imagine that “being jilted by a lover” would make the list. To better understand how to adopt a positive explanatory style, explain how being left at the altar by an erstwhile lover could, in fact, come to be described as “the best thing that ever happened to me”?
“We must unlearn the constellation to see the stars.” – Jack Gilbert
Question: Consider these three words: eye, gown, basket. Can you think of another word that relates to all three?
If not, don’t fret. Zone out. That’s right, don’t focus, concentrate, “zone in” or even try get “in the zone.” Just allow your mind to wander.
Of the many beliefs and habits society must unlearn, one is the idea that the traits of concentration and focus are undeniably positive attributes. This is not to imply these traits are bad. They aren’t. In fact, for the most part, they are instrumental to a person or an organization’s success.
As with so many other things in life, however, moderation is necessary. With this caveat in mind, I’d like to therefore give you permission to daydream and zone out on occasion. A host of new scientific research suggests that “mind wandering” can yield positive results; and, if you have ever come up with a clever, creative or innovative solution to a pesky problem while walking, exercising or taking a hot bath or shower, you can perhaps testify to its benefits.
Scientists theorize that while zoning out people are more apt to engage different parts of the brain. This facilitates the creation of new connections, which, in turn, lead to new insights and the development of creative solutions.
In his excellent book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, Dan Pink recounts the work of psychologist Karl Duncker and his “candle problem.” In its simplest form, people are given a candle, a box of tacks and a book of matches and told to attach the candle to a wooden wall in such a way that no wax drips on the table. (See figure 1.)
Most people begin by attempting to adhere the candle to the wall with a tack or by melting the bottom of the candle and sticking it to the wall. Neither strategy works. Before the problem can be solved people must overcome what is termed “functional fixedness.” In this case, participants must see the box of tacks as a platform, which can also be attached to the wall. (Figure 2.)
What is more interesting is that when another psychologist offered students a financial incentive to solve the problem, he discovered it took the students an average of 3.5 minutes longer to solve.
The reason is because the inducement of a financial reward caused most people to narrow their focus. In other words, they zoned in on a misguided solution and it hindered their ability to see the problem from a different – and, ultimately, more constructive -- perspective.
Now, to return to the question at the beginning of this section, have you arrived at the correct solution? If not, that may be because you have kept your eye on the ball too closely. You’d have been better off taking a break and playing with a ball. (If you still haven’t arrived at the solution it is: ball.)
I know a few people who don't wear seat belts. Normally, as someone with libertarian leanings, I wouldn't have a problem with this. (This would almost certainly be the case if society weren't also required to pay for their treatment after they have been in an accident)
My problem stems from those individuals who cite, as a rationale for their decision, stories of people who have lived after being thrown through a windshield. Their conclusion is that a seat belt might somehow similarly prevent them from escaping death after a bad accident. In short, they use the stories of these survivors as justification for their decision.
I will admit that, while rare, such events do occur and people can occasionally be saved by being thrown through a windshield. What my friends who espouse this line of thinking miss is that there are literally thousands of people who died precisely because they were thrown into or through a windshield.
Dead men don't talk so it is only natural that we will only hear the stories of those rare few who were fortunate enough to survive.
An element of unlearning us to see what we can't see and hear what we can't hear. This is hard to do but if you listen closely you might just hear the lesson of unlearning in the whispers of the thousands who didn't live to tell the tale of their encounter with the windshield.
If I haven't been clear enough, I encourage you to buckle up. If you need a little inspiration, just watch this short but powerful video.
Have you ever been at a stoplight when the person in the car in front of you didn't move when the light turned green? It's happened to me on numerous occasions and my natural inclination is to not only lay on the horn but to think unkindly of the person in front of me. In my mind they are usually either an "idiot" or an "asshole." This is especially the case if I can see that the person is talking on their cellphone or applying mascara. But, truth be told, I don't need to see either of those things to think badly of them.
Compare this situation to those occasions when I'm the person at which someone else is honking or blaring their car horn. Do I naturally think of myself as an idiot or an asshole--even if I was talking on my cellphone? Of course not.
I highlight this discrepancy because it speaks to an important unlearning skill--the ability to see things from a new perspective. In the case of honking the horn and spewing obscenities at the person in front of you, notice how your (and my) initial reaction is to assume the person has a fundamental character flaw. For example, they are a self-centered asshole because they think their phone call is so damn important or they are applying mascara simply because they are a shallow, self-absorbed narcissist.
While it is possible that these things may be true about the person, it is also possible the phone call may be important or that the person is applying mascara because she has an important interview and she needs the job to provide for her three year-old child.
It is unnatural to give people the benefit of doubt in such situations, but what's interesting is that we regularly provide ourselves this luxury all the time. When someone honks at me my first reaction is to consider the context of my unique situation. For example, I might have been oblivious to the light in front of me because I was thinking about an important work or family matter or I was on the phone speaking to the director of a volunteer organization which I'm supporting.
Of course, the person behind me doesn't know any of this. They just think I'm a self-centered asshole ... and I would too if I was behind myself (and didn't know it was me.)
My point is this: When looking at the actions of others we are quick to see fundamental character flaws. But when assessing our own actions we appreciate the importance of situation and context. I know this because I'm the asshole who needs to unlearn this behavior.
To see the world more clearly, I'd invite all of us to consider the situation and context in which people's actions take place before rushing to snap judgements about people's characteristics.
Related Post
Read the following statements:
I'm not experienced.
I'm not good enough.
I don't have the skills.
Now, add the word "now:"
I'm not experienced, now.
I'm not good enough, now.
I don't have the skills, now.
Every personal shortcoming is relative. To embrace our future potential, we must unlearn barriers. One of the greatest is the idea that "now" is a permanent condition. It isn't.
Imagine the year is 1980 and this motley crew (see the picture to the right) walks into your office to sell you on some great big scheme that will make everyone a lot of money. Would you listen to them? You might but, even if you did, you probably wouldn't really hear what they said because you would have already discounted them because they looked "different" or "weird."
Of course, the fellow in the lower left-hand corner is Bill Gates and, today, he is the second or third richest person in the world.
If today, a group of young people came into your office with tattoos and pierced noses would you listen to them? To prove that you might not "hear" them, I invited you to watch this 30-second video on the "Mosquito Buzz Tone" -- it is a sound that most people over the age of 50 literally can't hear. (If you're over that age you won't be able to hear the sound so invite a younger colleague or a child to watch with you and ask them if they can hear the sound.)
If nothing else this "audio metaphor" should give you pause to consider what else you're not hearing.
Related Posts
