Showing posts with label John Hagel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Hagel. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Much Ado About Cognitive Biases

I'm seeing "cognitive biases" everywhere I look! Three times today I've come across the phrase, outside of the strictly business press. From: 

  • The Atlantic, December 2011: "The Myth of Objectivity." An essay about how our political leanings are tied to our m-i-s-conceptions about economics -- and how myside bias, the tendency to judge a statement according to how conveniently it fits with one's settled position, factors in. 
  • A recent novel by David Brooks entitled The Social Animal. Chapter eleven outlines some of the work being done in the cognitive bias sphere by behavioral economists and others. Their research is linked specifically to management consulting later in the book. 
  • Edge Perspectives with John Hagel: "Cognitive Biases in Times of Uncertainty." A blog posting about our tendency to focus on things that could go wrong in times of uncertainty. (wherein he cautions that this loss aversion bias of ours can lead us "down a path that we tread at our peril") 
You know what these rascals are. Scientifically, cognitive biases are "systematic tendencies to deviate from rational calculations." Unscientifically, they're inclinations or predilections. Mindsets. Or: the ways in which we're wired.

Biases live in our unconscious minds. That makes 'em Freudian features, I suppose, in the sense that they're mostly hidden from view, but they're not weird, neurotic, or pathological per se. To the contrary, it's normal to perceive the world in biased ways. I'm Okay, You're Okay. We're all biased. Everywhere and all of the time our biases are with us.

Even at work.

And that -- along with the fact that they can be pretty darn impregnable -- has important implications for business.

YOUR BOSSES' BIASES

No matter where we are, it's never easy in the moment to clearly see our own biases. I'd be willing to bet, though, you've had no trouble over the years spotting your bosses'. Think for just a second: Are you able to recall a former boss whose predictable ways, or consistent cluelessness, maybe, caused you to mutter under your breath? make a beeline for the break room? march on over to Monster.com? I don't think there's any getting around it...

If you've cared about what your company's doing and where it's heading, if you've been awake and alert at the wheel, then you've seen your fair share of poorly conceived plans, over-budget projects, unsuccessful reorganizations and [insert your favorite failed initiative here]. You've probably also attributed one or more of those to one or more of your bosses and their dubious thought processes. Rightly so.

It's only to be expected. (Isn't it by now?) Bosses are human. When you mix biased bosses with biased non-bosses you end up with biased companies. Companies with room to improve.

FOR CONSULTANTS: A NEW "IN"

That such companies exist is great for consultants. They provide an opening, in that such companies gotta act. Consultants can help them act better by making them smarter.

How do consultants make clients smarter?

By helping them make better sense of their business realities. Traditionally, the emphasis has been on providing them with effective ways of identifying things like structural differences (pertaining to costs, customers and competition) and capabilities (internal ones) -- the expectation being that clients would use those to glean intelligence, i.e., input, with which to inform and guide their later actions, i.e., output.

Makes sense to me, but, as we've come to find out, it's not an air tight or fool proof formula.

That's because between input and output there are decisions to be made. And, the deciding itself matters. Poor decision making leads to poor decisions. Research by the likes of McKinsey and Bain bears it out. It's also helped kick-start what looks and feels like a new movement: Some consultants are now helping their clients get smarter by homing in on the decision stage, too.

This new thrust is 100% about quality. Poor decision making lets garbage in. Good, i.e., high quality, decision making ensures that what goes in is the best it can be. The new value proposition logic says: Best-possible input thanks to best-possible decisions...should lead to best-possible output...which should lead to best-possible results for clients. Therefore, it's reasonable for consultants to expect to be rewarded for boosting decision effectiveness.

CHALLENGES

What makes for poor decision making is a lack of objectivity. The culprit? Cognitive biases. But getting rid of them or, more realistically, countering them -- well, that's easier said than done. Among the challenges: How do you even talk about such an esoteric subject? How do you go about developing tools and processes effective enough to counter real biases in real business situations?

I should say tons of good work has already been done on both fronts. For example, thanks to Dan Lovallo (a McKinsey adviser) and Olivier Sibony (a director in that company's Brussels office) not only do we now have a scientific definition of cognitive biases, we also have, with the publication last year of "The Case For Behavioral Strategy," a nifty bias typology for identifying them.

The Atlantic essay I cited deals with myside bias. Messrs. Lovallo and Sibony use "confirmation bias" to mean the same thing: the overweighting of evidence consistent with a favored belief, underweighting of evidence against a favored belief, or failure to search impartially for evidence. A confirmation bias, in turn, is a kind of pattern recognition bias. (As it turns out, we humans are really, really good at recognizing patterns -- even where they ain't.*)

Being able to communicate about biases is just a start. In order to combat their own, in-house biases, companies (i.e., clients) need weapons in the form of tools and processes.

For those consultants taking the lead in developing them, the work revolves around the idea that a decision, and the quality of it, is dependent upon three (3) factors: data gathering + judgments + a process for marrying the two. The more thoroughly each one of these is de-biased, the better the resultant decision. Individual consulting assignments then entail: 

  • working side-by-side with clients on a key decision, sniffing out sources of biases as they relate to the three factors; 
  • selecting practices and tools to minimize the most relevant biases; 
  • making those (practices and tools) that work a routine part of the way the client makes all key decisions. 
That's a pretty zoomed out view. Zoom in, on the other hand, and you see challenges, experiments, wins, losses -- a scene that seems generally to be "bursting with enterprise and energy like a hive of bees." (Wm. Gass)

OPPORTUNITIES

The suggestion that decision making should and could become a point of emphasis in companies isn't new. Ram Charan and Larry Bossidy were talking a decade ago about "relentlessly confronting reality" and methodically rooting out biases.

McKinsey and Bain have done a lot of the heaviest lifting since then. Both still seem to be going full steam ahead. I know of other consultancies that are actively involved, but I don't know that this has become a mainstream offering. (Is your firm targeting decisions? If so, I'd love to hear from you.) My impression is that opportunities are plentiful.

Personally, I find the whole thing fascinating. Maybe even ingenious, the idea that a company's improved decision making could become, in effect, a driving force for growth. I can envision decision-centered approaches working wonders. At the same time, though, I still leave room for the converse; for the possibility that they could sizzle...fizzle...and flop.

How come?

We're not talking about simple systems here. We're not talking about machines. A certain pattern recognition bias of my own reminds me, always, to curb my enthusiasm. When it comes to we humans, and to systems (e.g., companies) that we comprise, let's just say...we're full of surprises. Famously so.

Can't wait to see how it all plays out.

*Confirmation biases are one of five types of pattern recognition biases the authors often see in business situations. The other four they call: Management by example, False analogies, Power of storytelling, and Champion bias. Click here for their full McKinsey Quarterly article.


Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Everything Else Comes After

Can you match the S.M.I.B.S.F. (Single Most Important Business Success Factor*) on the left with its description & source on the right?




Answers:
  1. PASSION = John Hagel, et. al, The Power of Pull
  2. OWNERSHIP & SELF-ACCOUNTABILITY = Les McKeown, Predictable Success
  3. GUMPTION = Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
*a little clunky, no?

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Wasted 15 Minutes


30 MINUTES. That’s how much time I alotted the other day (“so long as nothin’ else goes sideways”) to learn as much as I could by perusing the ABOUT pages found at managementexchange.com and unstructure.org respectively. I wanted to understand the objectives of the people involved, how their interests do or don’t jibe with mine, and how their overall approaches compare one-to-the-other.

Going in, I knew that the Management Innovation eXchange (MIX) and Unstructure were online platforms for exchanging ideas having to do with ‘speeding up’ the evolution of management. And that’s about it.

What I discovered is that the two groups /projects are similar in just about every significant way: 
  • ISSUE: Management is an important social technology, but one that needs a facelift – pronto.
  • RESPONSE: Provide an open source, i.e., democratic, environment in which anyone can contribute to new thinking about management's evolution.
  • HOPE: That actionable, helpful ideas will emerge.
There were a few differences. (One of the MIX Team Members, for example, is Gary Hamel – a rock star, as management thinkers go. The fact that discussions there are centered around his “Moonshots for Management” stands out.) But none of the differences were so earth shattering as to keep me from bookmarking both sites and thinking about participating. I was impressed.

The Rest Of The Story

My 15 minutes at unstructure.org were up, but there was one more link that had my attention. It lead me away from its ABOUT page onto one of its discussion forum pages and –

Boy, was I surprised to find out that the most recent post was well over two hundred days old! On further review, it now appears as though the whole site’s inactive. I don’t know what the deal is. Was there a merger with MIX? A stoppage? If Unstructure is no more, I’m sorry about that. Seems like a lot of effort and good intentions went into building it.

I s’pose there are many morals to the story. The first that comes to mind is this: 

I knew from the start I was taking a slight risk. I should have asked upfront: Are there tools or strategies I can deploy that'll prevent me from squandering up to 30 minutes unnecessarily? Had I done that, I would have remembered what the authors of The Power of Pull point out, that there are ways “to sort through the noise to find the signals that can guide us.”

Their advice? If you want the time and effort you invest in focusing on stuff to pay off, make return on attention a top priority. There are search and serendipity tools that can assist. Their book does a nice job of introducing some of them.

Monday, February 28, 2011

That's The Way We Do Things Around Here

In Making It All Work, David Allen makes what I think’s an interesting distinction:

“Because what I teach is actually not a system but a systematic approach, it can be adapted…”

When I first read that (in context) I thought I knew precisely what he meant. Looking at it again, though – Do I really know the difference between a system and an approach? How about a methodology? A formula?

What got me thinking about this was a visit to the SCORE (Service Corps of Retired Executives) Web site. I was following up after something I’d read last year, that Deluxe Corporation, one of the largest check printers in the U.S., was teaming up with SCORE to make its Counseling Methodology available to smaller businesses.

To my mild surprise, I discovered this time around that the words ‘counseling’ and ‘methodology’ have been chopped in favor of ‘mentoring’ and ‘program’. Hmmm. Mentoring Program strikes me as less structured, less prescriptive, less pushy…

I don’t know how much thought or debate went into the name change. But I think it matters, at least to this extent:

If you'd ask a small business owner to describe what her company does day-in and day-out in its efforts to be successful, there’s a good chance she’d end by saying something like, “That, in a nutshell, is the way we do things.” There'd likely be no references to systems, methodologies, etc. In this respect there's a disconnect...between typical small business owners and the mentors (or consultants or coaches or facilitators or advisors) who call on them.

What can be done about it? Well, if you're in that second camp and your mission is to help smaller businesses succeed, you can do 'em a favor by bridging the gap. Be clear about who you are and what you have to offer -- and learn to use their lingo. Down to the last word.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


For kicks, here's how some other thought leaders describe their offerings:


Friday, February 25, 2011

A Mind Map Of Sorts

It seems to me there are a lot of smart management thinkers saying the same thing: the old way of operating and governing businesses is no longer working (most convincingly communicated, in my opinion, by John Seely Brown and his BIG SHIFT team) but there's a promising and overarching new way that is. The questions they're asking and the solutions they're offerering are strikingly similar. 'S'far as I know, though, the smart guys I have in mind are relatively un-connected to one another. Would or could it be beneficial to bring 'em together as a group? That's what I've been wondering these days. Maybe this (below) will shed light on why:



Sunday, January 30, 2011

Vroom, Vroom!

And we’re off.

Did you know there are specific approaches you can take to: turbocharge your company’s productivity? drive performance breakthroughs? harness the power (of “pull”) to negotiate today’s tough business terrain and set big things in motion?

Well, there are

And – apart from the fact that their authors like automotive analogies – the approaches I have in mind, while distinctly different from one another, share lots of things in common. Each one, for example, represents a comprehensive and holistic way to create value. Each is essentially a formula for success. “This is how you, Mr. or Ms. CEO, should manage your company; this is how to systematically and continually make things better” is what they’d say if they could talk. Each is well-conceived, well-developed and real-world tested.

Le’ me throw some names at ya: John Hagel. Ram Charan. David Allen. Robert Kaplan. Tony Schwartz. David Norton. John Seely Brown. These are some of the authors / leading thinkers I’ve been following like a detective the past few years.

What I’d like to do (in this here blog) is explore various aspects of their work. I’m especially interested in the common grounds: Where do their approaches intersect and overlap? How complete are they? Could they be merged in helpful ways?

WHY EXPLORE THIS STUFF?

Let’s just say for now there’s a learning intention on my part, and an equally big teaching intention. If there are management tools leaders can reliably use to get and keep their firms on track, i.e., if there are shortcuts to business success, I want to know about them. And I want to pass them on –

Especially to leaders of smaller businesses. Smaller businesses are responsible for most of the growth in the U.S. but many fail because, in the words of Dick Harrington, the former head of Thomson Reuters, “they have poor basic business practices.” I'd like to help speed up the adoption of good basic practices amongst this group.

Just how to do that is another matter. Is it even possible to pass these approaches (that typically originate within academia or at top consultancies and Fortune 500 companies) down to the little guy? What kinds of messaging and media are most effective?

The latter is a subject I’m keenly interested in. It’s where elements like storytelling, dramatization and visual presentation could come into play…and where I hope to head soon!