Logo

Posts Tagged ‘Psychology’

Kill false assumptions & evolve

Kill false assumptions & evolve

Many of us are making decisions based on false assumptions every single day. In fact we’re underpinning our businesses, organisations, products and personal lives with false assumptions. We keep on doing things that have been proven wrong, that haven been proven not to work, despite mounting evidence that there’s a better way.

Our false assumptions are memes, i.e. viral cultural ideas we pass from human to human, brain to brain (you can read a bit more about memes in my previous post on replicators here). Sometimes we keep spreading memes that aren’t doing us any good, regardless of new information that should illuminate the fact they’re a load of crap.

For example research by MIT, LSE and loads of others confirmed several years ago that our assumption that people perform better when offered a greater financial incentive is wrong. In fact hard evidence demonstrates that when you’re dealing with tasks that require even the most rudimentary cognitive ability, the higher the financial reward you offer the poorer the performance. Surprising, but true. It’s a fact.

Yet still we keep on doing the same old things based on false assumptions, despite the evidence that we’re actually damaging our businesses and our teams’ productivity.

The facts and evidence also tell us what does actually work. What really gets the most out of people and helps them reach peak performance, is autonomy. People like to feel they’re in control of their own destiny – that they’re self-guided; and they want to feel a sense of purpose and mastery. Check out Dan Pink’s commentary on this topic.

If you take these two thoughts – 1. that we’re basing our decisions on how things should be designed on false assumptions; and 2. that people want autonomy – it isn’t difficult to draw conclusions about why platforms like Linux have been so powerful.

The thing is, when we try to design things – technology platforms, mechanisms for rewarding staff, educational programmes – lots of false assumptions come into play. This is precisely why we’ve ditched waterfall development methods in favour of agile methods. It’s risky and expensive to lock yourself in a room for years on end with a massive budget and build something you assume people want; so instead we build a little bit, show the world, learn, tweak, release, learn, tweak, release.

One way to look at optimising how you go about designing your work, life and objects, in a more agile way, is to consider very basic scientific laws and principles.

For instance, consider for a moment how far our human capabilities for designing amazing, functional structures extends. Yep, we’ve designed some pretty cool stuff. But think for a moment, what’s the best designer of all? Look around you. I’d argue that it’s very clear the best designer of all is evolution itself. We only need to look at the complexity and unexpectedness of nature to see that evolution is the ultimate designer.

In fact, organisations, markets, economics, the open source movement – they’re not just like evolutionary systems – they are evolutionary systems. We tend to think of evolution the way we were taught at (linear) school… that it’s just a biology thing; when in fact it’s the most powerful recipe for finding innovative solutions to complex problems.

As philosopher Dan Dennett said, evolution is ‘design out of chaos without the aid of mind’. It’s the act of creating a design without a designer. So long as there’s variation, selection and replication – just like the creation and spreading of human memes – you get evolution. So long as there’s variation – like staff with different abilities; selection – a process of choosing the ‘fittest’ talent; and replication – replicating the good stuff they do… you get evolution. You get the optimum way of doing things, without you having to know in advance exactly what that’ll look like.

So, you might be thinking that’s all very well, but how do you harness evolution to get things done in a better way?

Well, the first thing you need to do is stop trying to be the designer. Stop assuming you know which design will work. There’s no way you could’ve drawn a design for Linux or even Wikipedia that was an accurate picture of how it actually turned out. When you assume you’re the designer and you’ll come up with a design that’ll work, you end up spending loads of money, taking loads of time and by the time you unleash your design on the world, it’s outdated and you discover many of your assumptions were wrong and you’re screwed (ask Microsoft).

Companies who fall in love with their designs and cling onto them despite evidence they don’t work will die. Companies who embrace evolutionary principles will thrive. That’s the reason why so many start-ups find success in such unexpected places. Look at Paypal – they started as a PalmPilot app.

The really hard part is dealing with large organisation, with deeply embedded management hierarchies and industrial revolution legacy thinking.

The good news is that the answer lies within. Management doesn’t have to come up with a crazy new design. It’s much easier than that. They just need to create an environment where the optimum design will evolve; and the way to do that is to get out of the way.

Big companies are chocful of hundreds, thousands of brains. The answers lie in there somewhere. The trouble is, traditional top-down communication and top down hierarchical management can’t extract them. These hundreds, thousands of people are desperate to self-guide, to work autonomously, to contribute great innovative leaps – just like MIT and LSE and numerous innovative companies have proved. They just need the ability to work together and to break out of the old siloed routines.

This sounds scarily like losing control to many organisations. And relinquishing control is exactly what it is. But it needn’t be scary. To remove the fear, all that’s required is a universal understanding of some basic rules… and a splash of trust. As John Whitney, a professor at Columbia Business School said, ‘More than half of a traditional organisation’s activities, including the use of time clocks that monitor workers and marketing campaigns designer to win back disappointed customers, are needed only because of mistrust’.

If everyone understands the rules and they aren’t too prohibitive and don’t hamper evolution and autonomy, it’s a recipe for success. By enabling everyone in an organisation to connect with everyone else if they need to, spreading this sort of understanding is easier than ever.

These days it’s startlingly cheap and easy to enable everyone in an organisation to connect with everyone else if they need to.

Simply by questioning assumptions – and by putting basic collaboration tools and systems in place – and by creating a culture of experimentation, of iteration – create, share, test, tweak, create, share, test, tweak – innovations will evolve naturally, teams will be happy and we have a way forward that’s altogether more fulfilling and more aligned with not only the outside world, but our fundamental human nature.


Rory Sutherland on… Advertising & Human Behaviour

Rory Sutherland on… Advertising & Human Behaviour

Here’s the second in the series. Rory Sutherland talking about advertising and human behaviour. Rory covers some of the points I was getting at in this presentation on Complexity & Humanity 2.0.

Rory Sutherland on… Advertising & Human Behaviour from Jane Young on Vimeo.


Humanity 2.0 on slideshare homepage

Humanity 2.0 on slideshare homepage

Nice one slideshare!

“Hey ResonanceBlog!

Your presentation Complexity & Humanity 2.0 has been selected amongst the ‘Top Presentations of the Day’ on the SlideShare homepage.

Our editorial team would like to thank you for this awesome presentation, that has been chosen from amongst the thousands that are uploaded to SlideShare everday.

Congratulations! Have a Great Day!

- The SlideShare team

p.s. Why not blog/twitter this and let the world know about the masterpiece you have created?”

slideshare_complexity


More complexity theory & humanity 2.0

More complexity theory & humanity 2.0

The discovery of complexity

The discovery of complexity

Networks are an essential ingredient in any complex adaptive system. In biology, molecules interact in cells, cells interact in organisms, organisms interact in ecosystems. As Eric D. Beinhocker points out in one of my favourite books, ‘The Origin of Wealth’:

“The economic world likewise depends on networks. The earth is girdled by roads, sewers, water systems, electrical grids, railroad tracks, gas lines, radio waves, television signals and fiber-optic cables. These provide the highways and byways of the matter, energy and information flowing through the open system of the economy. The economy also contains massively complex virtual networks: people interact in companies, companies interact in markets and markets interact in the global economy. Just as in biology, the networks of the economic world are arranged in hierarchies of networks within networks.”

BUT… traditional economics glossed over networks because they didn’t fit neatly into the equilibrium paradigm, whereby the economy was likened to an equilibrium system, i.e. behaving like a ball dropped into a bowl, rolling around until finally settling in a predictable place, until something external disrupts it. More recently the perfect sums have been ditched in favour of the idea that the economy is a complex adaptive system, i.e. a system of dynamically interacting parts in which micro-level interactions lead to the emergence of macro-level behaviour patterns. A single ant or water molecule is boring on its own, but naturally becomes an army or whirlpool as a byproduct of complex interactions. People are the same – the internet is the same. If a system reaches a state of equilibrium, it’s essentially dead.

Physics has likewise evolved to embrace complexity in favour of neat maths that doesn’t fit reality. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, a measure of disorder or randomness in a system, is always increasing. The universe as a whole is drifting from a state of order to disorder.

Our brains are made to deal with complexity, but we don’t make decisions by logically churning through every available piece of information. Instead we satisfice, taking the information we have and doing the best we can. Cognitive science has grown to recognise that we’re much better at inductive than deductive reasoning. We spot patterns and weave stories around metaphors and analogies.

Computers are the opposite, helping make up for our deductive shortfalls. It’s interesting that the rise of agile development follows the same pattern as new knowledge in physics, biology, economics and other advanced fields of discovery; as does the creation of new business models that embrace our inherent sociability and the complexity of networks. We’re no longer seeking the perfect, no longer adopting unrealistic assumptions to make the maths work out in the equilibrium framework we’ve been convinced explains everything for so long.

We know the energy inherent in what we’re doing renders equilibrium not only irrelevant, but impossible.

Complex adaptive system


The power of WHY

The power of WHY

As we’re increasingly bombarded with overchoice in today’s world – evident in the tens of billions of SKUs we’re faced with – our internal filtering and image-storing is stretched, forcing us to skim, scan and dump the contemplative.

But some people manage to pause, take a breath and simply ask ‘WHY?’

For instance, if you haven’t already heard about the incredible work of Pranav Mistry, it’s worth googling.

Pranav dared to ask WHY. Why do we sit at a computer in a chair with a mouse? Why is that the way we use technology, with wires and screens and cumbersome kit that relies on our ability to master these machines?

All around the world, people asking why are seeing the same world but through fresh eyes, in ways large and small. Why do we believe in God? Why do we wear suits and go to work at 9am?

I’d like to ask why we clip wings and curb behaviours to the point of running on rail tracks, when off the rails needn’t result in a crash. Not if you actually designed a hover-car that voided the manky rails.

So here’s to those who ask why. Try it, from the moment you get up, get dressed, travel to work, eat your lunch, have a bunch of meetings. Half the time we haven’t stopped to think of the endgame – the goal… or indeed whether we’re even enjoying the journey. And if you’re not enjoying the journey? Ask WHY. Then ask why you haven’t done anything about it.


Our biased brains

Our biased brains

I had a fascinating chat with Ogilvy Group UK Vice-Chairman Rory Sutherland the other day. We talked about the need for advertising to understand psychology and behaviour, rather than focusing on proposition alone.

On that note, it’s always useful to be reminded of how our heads really work; and how our biases affect belief formation and decision-making. Here are some examples:

* Bandwagon effect — the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behaviour.

* Bias blind spot — the tendency not to compensate for one’s own cognitive biases.

* Choice-supportive bias — the tendency to remember one’s choices as better than they actually were.

* Confirmation bias — the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions.

* Congruence bias — the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, in contrast to tests of possible alternative hypotheses.

* Contrast effect — the enhancement or diminishing of a weight or other measurement when compared with a recently observed contrasting object.

* Déformation professionnelle — the tendency to look at things according to the conventions of one’s own profession, forgetting any broader point of view.

* Denomination effect — the tendency to spend more money when it is denominated in small amounts (e.g. coins) than large amounts (e.g. bills).

* Distinction bias — the tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately.

* Endowment effect — “the fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it”.

* Experimenter’s or Expectation bias — the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.

* Framing — Using an approach or description of the situation or issue that is too narrow. Also framing effect — drawing different conclusions based on how data is presented.

* Hyperbolic discounting — the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, where the tendency increases the closer to the present both payoffs are.

* Illusion of control — the tendency for human beings to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes that they clearly cannot.

* Impact bias — the tendency for people to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.

* Information bias — the tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.

* Irrational escalation — the tendency to make irrational decisions based upon rational decisions in the past or to justify actions already taken.

* Loss aversion — “the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it”.

* Mere exposure effect — the tendency for people to express undue liking for things merely because they are familiar with them.

* Moral credential effect — the tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent prejudice.

* Need for closure — the need to reach a verdict in important matters; to have an answer and to escape the feeling of doubt and uncertainty. The personal context (time or social pressure) might increase this bias.

* Neglect of probability — the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.

* Not Invented Here — the tendency to ignore that a product or solution already exists, because its source is seen as an “enemy” or as “inferior”.

* Omission bias — the tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).

* Outcome bias — the tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.

* Planning fallacy — the tendency to underestimate task-completion times.

* Post-purchase rationalization — the tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was a good value.

* Pseudocertainty effect — the tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.

* Reactance — the urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice.

* Restraint bias – the tendency to overestimate one’s ability to show restraint in the face of temptation.

* Selective perception — the tendency for expectations to affect perception.

* Semmelweis reflex — the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts an established paradigm.

* Status quo bias — the tendency for people to like things to stay relatively the same (see also loss aversion, endowment effect, and system justification).

* Von Restorff effect — the tendency for an item that “stands out like a sore thumb” to be more likely to be remembered than other items.

* Wishful thinking — the formation of beliefs and the making of decisions according to what is pleasing to imagine instead of by appeal to evidence or rationality.

* Zero-risk bias — preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.


Management is so last century

Management is so last century

As David Weinberger said in The Cluetrain Manifesto, ‘Management is a powerful force, part of a larger life-scheme that promises us health, prosperity, calm and no surprises in every aspect of our lives, from health to wealth to good weather and moderately heated coffee from McDonald’s. We are all victims of this assault on voice, the attempt to get us to shut up and listen to the narrowest range of ideas imaginable.’

Here here.

It’s bizarre, when you think about it, that we seek health, prosperity and calm in a framework that’s configured to avoid surprises (not to mention the fact such management frameworks do quite the opposite, restricting prosperity and wrecking your health… duh!).

Essentially a framework that avoids surprises is setting us up for a fall, given that life is totally unpredictable (just look at the accuracy of trending, forecasting and predicting in retrospect – we’re pretty much always wrong, usually wildly, except for the one in a zillion folk who are hailed as heros / experts because they won the prediction lottery).

We’re actively encouraged (forced?) to surrender our individuality in return for a financial bribe and a supposedly non-disturbing, secure, predictable, managed environment. How damaging is that?

If we focused on understanding basic psychology – and in particular neuropsychology – rather than technology, management, or most things to do with ‘professionalism’, we’d learn to cope with surprises. There’s no anti-depressant and productivity tool quite like understanding what your brain is up to (which is normally the opposite of all the crap we reel off in our inner narrative). We’d learn to adopt calm by flicking switches that send neurons on productive paths, as opposed to destructive panic / depression / fear trains of thought. Most importantly, we’d learn that we have myriad choices… without all the BS constrains we confabulate, largely as a result of managed structures and irrational fears.

Coupled with the lack of cynicism and suckerism for imbalance and hype, our denial, biases and love of fallacy are at best sub-optimum… at worst bloody dangerous.

Every last pirate-lynching dinosaur the management structure spews out has been conditioned to fear change – to be unwilling to accept that bettering society involves doing new stuff that isn’t business as usual. It’s not business as usual! IT IS NOT BUSINESS AS USUAL!! Some folk never seem to get it. “But I’ll be out of a job!” they shriek. “More fool you,” we think quietly, while we bend and flex and change at pace with the world… mostly ignoring them and opting to avoid a ‘proper job’ at all costs (although some of us work form the inside).

The thing is, the pirates, the Scrmblrs and every single one of us are changing and bettering society from the bottom up. We’re faster, more innovative and powerful. We organise without organisations. We run on leadership, not management; passion, not KPIs. We’re not afraid to let one-another loose… in fact we love loose cannons. They’re our favourite.

You know who you are!

(Email me!)


  
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes