10,000 Hours

A few weeks ago, my friend Tim Scudder (CEO at Personal Strengths USA) posted the following on one of the networking sites we both frequent: "Just read Outliers by Gladwell. 10,000 hours to achieve mastery!? Speaks volumes to the value of retaining and developing people."

I have often thought about the importance of developing and retaining good people. Clearly investing in the growth of our employees is essential to the success of the organization.

But,Tim's comment caused me to stop and reconsider my thinking about the organizational costs of loosing an employee who has reached a significant level of mastery. His comment made me think about the true value of the individual, and the importance of retaining and continuing to develop these exceptional people.

From a leadership perspective, the knowledge, skills and abilities of the people within the organization contribute to the success of the entire system. (See the blog post on Knowledge, Skill and Talent) The stronger your team, the more likely it is that you can achieve your goals.

In Outliers, Gladwell states “…[T]en thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert – in anything...” (P. 49)

At first blush it seems that this in not that hard to achieve. Any employee who had worked for five years has invested 10,000 hours in a job. So why is it that finding people who have achieved mastery is so rare?

When you examine what mastery requires, it is more than time-in-grade. Mastery requires study and focused effort. For example, an employee may come into the organization having an idea of what leadership requires, but they may spend only a few hours each week developing their leadership skills; only a few hours in practicing the craft. It may take many years, even decades, to achieve the 10,000 hours necessary to develop a great leader.

If you do the math (and this is admittedly very rudimentary math based on some very gross assumptions), at a total cost of $100 per hour (including all overhead related to employing a person), and assuming that a person spends maybe ¼ of his or her time actually working on developing mastery of a chosen field, it will take 40,000 hours for a person to achieve the 10,000 hours of investment in a chosen field. This is equal to about 20 years of work. During those 20 years, the organization will have invested over $4 million in that employee’s development. If the person spends significantly less than ¼ of their time each week invested in developing their craft, mastery may never be achieved.

What is lost when that 20 year veteran, that person who has achieved mastery, walks out the door?

At a minimum, you will be trying to attract another highly experienced person from a competitor or related business. According to Human Resources experts like Hewitt Associates and Bliss & Associates, the best case cost for lost productivity, recruitment, and training will be 150% of the person's salary. (Julie Clark, City of Carlsbad HR Director) In the worst case, you will invest years bringing the new person up to a level of mastery that was lost.

A leader (and the organization as a whole) must consider not only the monetary costs of loosing an employee who has achieved mastery, he or she must also consider the systemic costs.

What were the costs to the classical music world for the loss of Mozart? What would be the cost to Apple for the loss of Steve Jobs? How would the world be different today if we had lost the other masters of their craft before their contribution was made?

What would be the cost to your organization of the loss of key leaders or "masters"?

Tim said that the concept that it takes 10,000 hours to achieve mastery speaks volumes about value of retaining and developing people.

I believe that it not only speaks, it shouts.



.

What Makes a Culture Successful?

For decades there has been a discussion going on in the ranks of culture wonks regarding whether corporate culture has a significant impact on a firm’s long-term economic performance. The conventional wisdom says that there is a direct link between corporate culture and success. But, where was the proof?

In the early 1990s John Kotter and James Heskett published Corporate Culture and Performance, in which they studied the relationship between culture and success. Their work uncovers some of the things a manager or leader can do to create a culture that supports the success of the organization.

Admittedly some of the examples in the book are dated. The economy of 2009 has taken some very good companies into uncharted territory regardless of their culture. But, if we look at culture as something that survives beyond the economic cycle, that creates a foundation of the vision, ethics, reality and courage for those who live within the culture, we find that Kotter and Heskett have some great advice for leaders even in today’s turbulent times.

Having a strong culture is often cited as an important element in an organizations success. Kotter and Heskett point out that having a strong culture is not enough. History is full of examples of organizations with strong cultures that were either negative or did not adapt as the world changed around them. Strength of culture does not guarantee success.

These non-adaptive cultures were often characterized by arrogance, bureaucracy, centralization, and insularity. Managers tended to hold on to strategies that were no longer relevant. And, managers in these organizations were likely to make it difficult for anyone below them to implement new processes or procedures. The hierarchy required involvement from the top when implementing new or better strategies. (P. 142 – 151)

Successful cultures were those that had values and norms that helped it adapt to a changing environment. In these cultures managers paid close attention to the world around them, and made incremental changes in strategies and practices to keep the firm’s culture in alignment with “reality”. (See prior blog entries on Reality.)

These managers and leaders were driven by a desire to meet the needs of all constituents – customers, employees, stockholders, and the community. These values also emphasized the importance of people (See prior blog entries on Ethics.), and processes that encouraged changes that created “…competent leadership throughout the management hierarchy.” “[T]his value system is key to excellent performance … because it tends to energize managers and get them to do what is needed to help firms adapt to a changing competitive environment.” (P. 143)

The research of Kotter and Heskett has empirically shown that valuing vision, ethics, and reality are essential to a culture’s success. Their work also suggests that managers and leaders need to exhibit free will and courage to successfully lead their organizations through turbulent times.

……………….

For those of you who are interested in leadership, this might be a good time to go back and review some of the early posts on this blog related to the Dr. Koestenbaum’s work on the Leadership Diamond – Vision, Ethics, Reality, Courage.

Here are a few links, just to get you started:

Leadership Diamond Basics
Free Will
Going Deeper
What is Real
Change
Polarities
Asking the Right Questions

……………….

How to Search Prior Blog Entries:

To search for prior entries on this blog, you can type key words into the search box located in the upper right portion of any blog page. Typing "Reality" into the search box will yield all blog entries where the term "Reality" has been used.

Skills, Knowledge, And Talent

Please note that there are several great comments posted at the end of this blog. Be sure to click on the "comment" link at the bottom of this entry to see the comments. And, thank you to all who have shared their views.

______________________________________

We often read or hear about leaders who are described as skillful, knowledgeable, or talented. But, what does it mean to be skillful, knowledgeable, or talented? And, can a person who wants to be a successful leader become skillful, improve their knowledge base, or expand their leadership talent?

Part of the answer lies in the definition of skills, knowledge and talents. Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman examine the difference between skills, knowledge and talents in their book First Break All The Rules.

According to Buckingham skills are the "how-to's of a role" (p. 83). Skills can be transferred from one person to another. A person can learn a how to hold a golf club, build a house, write a sentence, or do arithmetic. Skills are an important part of being successful at any endeavor. And, without skill any resulting action or effort will be clumsy and ineffective.

Knowledge is "what you are aware of" . There are basically two types of knowledge: "...factual knowledge - things you know, and experiential knowledge - understandings you have picked up along the way." (p. 83)

Factual knowledge would be the rules of mathematics, accounting, scientific principles, or other similar fact-based information. Like skills, fact-based knowledge can be learned from others and/or gained through some form of education. (p. 83)

Experiential knowledge is harder to teach. It is less tangible, more related to patterns and connections. To gain experiential knowledge you must take time to stop, reflect on past experiences, and find meaning. Experiential knowledge may be different for each person because each will experience a different pattern of life. (p. 83-84)

Talent is a totally different phenomenon. Talent is the pattern of thinking and feeling that comes from the very core of the individual. Some people care deeply about precision and accuracy, discipline, and responsibility. Others have a drive to compete, be competent, strive to achieve a mission, or dedicate themselves to a certain belief. And, others may feel strong empathy, value interpersonal relations, dedicate themselves to the success of a team, or exhibit great courage in overcoming resistance. (p. 84-85) Buckingham breaks talents into three categories: striving talents, thinking talents, and relating talents.

• Striving talents explain the why of a person. They help you understand why a particular person cares deeply, and why they try a little harder than others in certain circumstances.
• Thinking talents explain the how of a person. They explain how a person analyzes situations, how decisions are reached, whether thinking is linear or intuitive process, or is the person systematic or creative.
• Relating talents explain the who of a person. They explain the relationships the person is likely to build, in whom will the person trust, the way the person will relate to strangers, and expose deep feelings about the way the person will manage interpersonal relationships. (p. 85)
  

Buckingham says that talents cannot be taught. If a person does not have a particular talent, there is very little a person can do to inject it into themselves or others. Talents are difficult (if not impossible) to transfer from one person to another.

If Buckingham is right, this creates an interesting situation for us in our role as leaders. It becomes essential to understand ourselves deeply; a process that takes dedicated self-examination.

Knowing our own skills, knowledge, and talents is the start. We can then develop ourselves through purposeful learning, receiving coaching, and reflection (making sense of our experiences). We can also make use of this self-knowledge to help us identify people who bring skills, knowledge, and talents to the organization or team that are complimentary to our own.

This self-development takes courage and the ability to admit that we may not have every attribute necessary to create success (or as Dr. Peter Koestenbaum would say, "Greatness").

Relying on others is easier for people who already have a strong relationship awareness skills, or what Buckingham calls "relating talents". (P. 252) It may be harder for people who tend to be autonomous thinkers. But, regardless of your personal talents, being able to bring the right people together at the right time is essential to the success of any endeavor.

If you are interested in doing some meaningful self-reflection, nothing beats having a great coach to guide you along the path. As one of my colleagues (and one of my unofficial coaches) Ray Patchett pointed out to me one day "Even Michael Jordan has a coach." No matter where you are in your career, the corporate hierarchy, or how good you think you are, there is no substitute for having someone who can help you take a realistic look at yourself.

In his article "Teaching Smart People How to Learn" (Harvard Business Review, May , 1991), Chris Argyris points out that professionals often find learning about themselves most difficult. Self-examination and questioning our own behavior is extremely difficult, particularly for those who have achieved some professional status. Having someone who can help you through the discovery process, who cares about your success, opens pathways to greatness that many never discover.

The more you understand about yourself the more you are going to be able to understand others. Also, the better you understand your own skills, knowledge, and talents, the better you can identify where to improve yourself, and when to bring others close to you to help fill in gaps.

The Ladder of Inference

The following was first presented to me by my good friend and mentor, Jim Boylan, PathFinders Consulting Alliance. Jim knows a great deal more about this than I do. So, if you are interested in the deeper implications of how the Ladder of Inference affects relationships, please contact Jim at jbpathfinders(at)roadrunner(dot)com, or click on the PathFinders Consulting Alliance tab at the top of the blog.

________________________________________________

How do you define Truth? What do you believe about human capability and motivation? What do you believe about human nature?

You probably don't spend a lot of time thinking about these questions. But, these definitions, beliefs, and assumptions about others are always acting, filtering, and coloring your response to what is going on around you.

Here's an example. You are driving down the road at a sedate 40 miles per hour in fairly heavy traffic. A small, beat up sedan comes up from behind you, zigzagging in and out of traffic, traveling far too fast for conditions. He cuts in front of you, almost taking off your front bumper. Hanging his head out the driver's side window, he shouts something at you, and speeds away, continuing to quickly weave through traffic.

Your first thoughts are probably "What an Idiot!" or something more forceful. Because of our culture most of us assume that it is inappropriate to flaunt traffic laws, or to endanger other drivers. You know from the kind of car the person was driving, and the way he was behaving, that this is clearly some deadbeat nut who shouldn't have a driver's license. In fact, you may feel this so strongly that you offer the fellow a parting disparaging salute as he drives away.

You have observed a situation, applied your filters and assumptions about proper highway etiquette and behavior, and have come to a conclusion about the character and motivation of that person, and you have acted on your conclusions.

You have just climbed the "Ladder of Inference". (To see if you climbed the correct ladder, read the last paragraph of this post.)

Here's how the Ladder of Inference works:

• I observe objectively - Observation by itself is not a biased activity. When I observe I see what happens, hear what was said, or experience a situation - no more and no less.
• I select data from what I observe - Here is where the filtering begins. I create assumptions about which parts of the event I have observed are important. This assumption about importance is based on how the things that have been observed affect me, or fit into my cultural experience. A person from one culture may not understand the significance of events that occur within another culture. Culture can be large (a country, religious group, political party, or shared language), or small (individual, family, or workgroup).
• I add meaning to what I have selected - At this point, I imply meaning using the norms of my culture, or experience.
• I make assumptions based on the meaning I have added - This process begins to fill in gaps in knowledge. Where I don't know something about the event, I naturally assume that the motivations, behaviors, wants, desires, likes and dislikes should match my own. These assumptions take the guesswork out of understanding the situation.
• I draw conclusions which prompt feelings - Now that I understand the situation, and have filled in the gaps with assumptions, I can draw conclusions about why the person is behaving that way. And, of course, I immediately begin to have feelings about these conclusions.
• I adopt beliefs about the world - Based on my conclusions, I can now see that there are things within the world that are out of alignment (or in the case of a positive conclusion, in alignment). I am having either negative or positive feelings about the situation. And, at this point, I believe some form of action, whether it is a physical act, spoken words, or other behavior on my part, is necessary.
• I take action based on my beliefs and feelings - I now fully understand the entire situation and take the necessary action: I give the departing driver a negative hand gesture. Or, in the case of a work situation, perhaps I say something that I believe to be appropriate based on my conclusions about the current situation. This is often an emotional, rather than a rational response.

This move up the Ladder of Inference takes milliseconds. It happens all day long. It happens when we interact with people, and when we read the news. It also affects how others see us as they climb their own Ladders of Inference.

There are a few things you can do to help cut down the number of times you run up the ladder:

• Make your thinking process visible to others by explaining your assumptions, interpretations, and conclusions. This is easier to do in the office where there are other people around to help you think through things than it is while you are alone, driving down the road. But, even when you are alone, you can take a moment to examine your journey up the ladder before deciding what action you will take.

• Invite others to test your assumptions and conclusions. When you have the opportunity to work with others, have them help you think things through.
• Use respectful inquiry to help others make their thought processes visible. Use open and nonjudgmental questions, rather than questions that exhibit a bias.
• Explore impasses, and don't agree to disagree too soon. This helps you avoid hidden or unspoken assumptions and conclusions that hide the journey up the Ladder of Inference.

Next time you find yourself having an emotional reaction to something, take the time to notice what triggered this feeling. Observe the events that have occurred. Examine the data you selected. Think about the filters you use to interpret information. Identify your assumptions and conclusions. Understand the root of your feelings. And then select the action you will take.
________________________

By the way, in case you are curious, the fellow driving the beat up sedan was on the way to the hospital with his wife who was seven months pregnant. Her labor started unexpectedly while riding in the car. The hospital was only 2 blocks away. The life of both the mother and the baby were at risk. What he shouted out of his window was "I'm sorry, please excuse me."

What did you think he said?
________________________

Here is a slide, provided by Jim Boylan, PathFinders Consulting Alliance, that can be used when talking through the Ladder of Inference with a group.

Trust

Trust is the essential ingredient in any successful relationship. Whether that relationship is between two people, within a family, organization, community, or government, trust is the element that allows the relationship to function effectively.

In their book "The Leadership Challenge" Kouzes and Posner express the importance of trust this way:

Trust is at the heart of fostering collaboration. It's the central issue in human relationships within and outside organizations... Individuals who are unable to trust other people fail to become leaders. (The Leadership Challenge - P. 163)

In "The Speed of Trust", Stephen M. R. Covey notes that in high trust organizations the speed of every aspect of the business goes up and costs go down, whereas in low trust organizations speed suffers while costs can rocket upward. (The Speed of Trust - P. 13)

Trust is the lubricant that lets an organization work smoothly and quickly. In high trust situations ideas are communicated with a minimum of effort, tasks are completed without excessive oversight, processes flow without excessive rules, and people feel valued and empowered. In a low trust environment, a cultural friction develops that causes the slowing of systems, growth of management structures to oversee and monitor work, establishment of new bureaucracies, and creation of rules. In these environments true leadership becomes almost impossible.

Because they can't bear to be dependent on the words and work of others they [leaders] either end up doing all the work themselves or supervise work so closely that they become overcontrolling. Their demonstration of lack of trust in others results in others' lack of trust in them. (The Leadership Challenge - P. 163)

The leader's own assumptions about the organization play an important role in creating a high trust environment. Edgar Schein says that "... a fully connected [communication and information] network can only work if high trust exists among all the participants and that high trust is partly a function of leader assumptions that people can be trusted and have constructive intent." (Organizational Culture and Leadership, p. 370)

If a leader starts from the position that people cannot be trusted, communication and information networks cannot function quickly. The cultural friction slows every aspect of the organization.

A lack of trust is often translated into a feeling of suspicion. A leader working in a suspicious system feels that everything that is done should be questioned. Employees feel that they have to cover their backside with extra work, and that everything will be checked, and double-checked. Within all of this effort, the lack of trust (suspicion) robs the leader and the organization of time and money.

Mahatma Gandhi believed that "When there is suspicion about a person's motives, everything he does becomes tainted." (The Speed of Trust, p. 8) Therefore, in organizations where there is low trust, no matter how much additional work is done, it is the underlying motives of the leader or workers that will be questioned. There will always be the search for the hidden agenda or conspiracy.

In his Leadership Diamond Model, Dr. Peter Koestenbaum expresses the belief that trust is an essential part of the ethics of the leader. (The Philosophic Consultant, P. 46) Koestenbaum would agree with Schein that a leader's assumptions about the organization, and the leader's ability to behave in an ethical manner toward the organization (an attitude of care and empathy for humanity, and how our actions affect others), contributes to the environment of trust within an organization.

But, if the experts agree that trust is so important to a leader's success, 1) why do so many leaders fail to understand that their inability to succeed is tied to their own inability to establish trust within their organizations? And, 2) what can a leader do to create trust when it does not naturally exist?

Before a leader can start to build (or rebuild) trust, a leader must understand that a trust gap exists. This is a bit like starting any 12 step program - the first step is recognizing that you have a problem, and need help. Without recognition, you can never cross the gap because you are unaware that it exists.

As to why so many leaders fail to see the trust gap, it is hard to say. But it is likely that the answer lies within the leader. Kouzes and Posner show that managers and leaders "... with the highest control scores have the lowest personal credibility." (The Leadership Challenge - P. 166) Credibility is an essential element in trust; we tend to trust people we see as credible. Highly controlling behavior on the part of the leader sends a signal that is received as "You don't trust me." When I see myself as trustworthy, and receive the signal that says I am not trusted by the leader, I respond in kind; I will not trust the leader.

Let's say you are the leader in question. Breaking this cycle starts with you. Before you can ask others to trust you, you must first demonstrate your trust in others. This means going first, being willing to risk, and communicating.

Communications - letting people know what you are thinking, when you are thinking it, and why you are thinking it - is the starting point. Constant, person to person, open, and honest communications is a step in recreating a trusting relationship. Self-disclosure, and a willingness to be vulnerable to others whose behavior you cannot control is all part of this process. (The Leadership Challenge - P166-170)

There is more to the process. And, if you are interested in taking the journey required to rebuild trust, I recommend both The Leadership Challenge, and The Speed of Trust. In addition, a good coach could be worth their weight in gold (literally speaking). Creating trust within your organization could make the difference between success and failure, for both you and the organization.

-

The Comfort of the Cage

There is an oft told story (perhaps apocryphal) about how to train an elephant to stay wherever its trainer wants it to be. As the story goes, when the elephant is first born, it is chained to a stake making it impossible for the elephant to move beyond the length of the chain. After a while, the elephant learns that its efforts to break the chain are futile. It gives up the effort and begins to live within the area defined by the chain. Later in life, the elephant's keeper no longer needs a heavy chain and stake to control the giant beast. The keeper simply ties a rope to the elephant's leg, and the elephant, knowing from prior experience that it cannot break the tether, allows the rope to limit its movement. It has become comfortable within an invisible cage.

"Comfortable" may not be the right word. Maybe "resigned" is more appropriate. But, the message is the same. We all are trained to live within limits that are defined for us by others. It begins when we are young, and continues while we are learning our craft, or practicing our profession. It happens in families, and in personal relationships.

These limits, rules and boundaries are part of the culture within which we exist. Edgar Schein, an expert on the subject or organizational culture, noted that "any group with a stable membership and a history of shared learning will have developed some level of culture." (Organizational Culture and Leadership, p. 15) This shared learning can be a good thing, preserving the group's ability to remain healthy and thrive, or a bad thing causing the group to continue practices that create limits and boundaries that serve no useful purpose.

Schein says that it is the "unique function of leadership" to identify dysfunctional cultural norms or values, to manage cultural evolution, and help groups survive in a changing environment.

Regardless of whether the cultural norms are positive or negative, these norms may have become so ingrained in the group's culture that they are now base assumptions; assumptions that have become so strongly held that any other way of thinking or behaving would be inconceivable, just like the elephant in the above story. (Organizational Culture and Leadership, p. 22) In fact, organizations often find that any attempt to examine these base assumptions is destabilizing.

However, if the culture includes assumptions, behaviors, and norms that are negative or do not contribute to the survival of the organization, it may be time for a change.

One way to go about examining these base assumptions is to use a technique known as double-loop learning, or frame breaking. This process, first described by Argyris and Schon, is based on the idea that underlying assumptions, norms, and limits should be questioned through a series of loops (each response is questioned again) that expose the layers upon which we build our cultures, actions, and systems.

This process is difficult and uncomfortable for any group. A leader that digs into the base assumptions will experience considerable push back from the members of the group. Schein says that "The human mind needs cognitive stability. Therefore, any challenge to or questioning of a basic assumption will release anxiety and defensiveness." (Organizational Culture and Leadership, p. 23) However, double-loop learning offers a way for an organization to understand the foundation upon which its culture is built, and to begin the change process when those base assumptions no longer serve the needs of the group.

If our elephant applied double-loop learning to its situation from time to time, it might find that the environment had changed, and new opportunities were available that had previously seemed unthinkable.

If our elephant applied double-loop learning I wonder where the elephant might be today.

Ethics and the Prince - Situational Ethics Today

In 1513 Niccolo Machiavelli published a book titled The Prince, a work that would become synonymous with a complete lack of moral and ethical behavior in the pursuit of power. In the 496 years that have passed since its first publication, The Prince has been reviled and rejected by many, while it has been studied and embraced by various leaders and scholars for its raw and unvarnished assessment of how leaders (Princes) come to power, and how they retain their position in the world.

One chapter (chapter XVIII) titled "In What Way Princes Should Keep Their Word", is of particular interest for those studying leadership in both public and private positions. Machiavelli has the uncanny knack of putting into words behaviors, feelings, and beliefs that exist deep within many who find themselves in leadership positions, and exposing the related costs and benefits in nonjudgmental terms. He applies no value systems other than those related to the desire to obtain and retain power. (Peter Koestenbaum would refer to this dark side of human behavior as the shadow side of the Leadership Diamond).

Here is an example from the beginning of chapter XVIII:

How praiseworthy it is that a prince keeps his word, and governs by candor instead of craft, everyone knows. Yet, the experience of our own time shows that those princes who had little regard for their word and had the craftiness to turn men's minds have accomplished great things and, in the end, have overcome those who governed their actions by their pledges. (P. 62, The Prince, Bantam Classic edition, March 1981)

Today's headlines are filled with examples of leaders who, knowingly or unknowingly, still subscribe to Machiavelli's assertion that those who have the "craftiness to turn men's minds" will be the ones who succeed in our society.

Machiavelli goes on to say:

... a wise prince cannot and should not keep his pledge when it is against his interest to do so and when his reasons for making the pledge are no longer operative. If all men were good, this would be a bad precept, but since they are evil and would not keep a pledge to you, then you need not keep yours to them. Nor did a prince ever lack legitimate reasons by which to color his bad faith." (P. 62, The Prince, Bantam Classic edition, March 1981)

Today, as in Machiavelli's time, situational ethics often come into play. When I assume that you are not ethical, or will not live up to your promises to me, I am immediately freed from any responsibility to keep my promises to you. Or, when the situation under which a promise was made changes, I am no longer expected to live up to my promise. I am free to behave as necessary under the new circumstances.

How often have we used this reasoning to excuse our decision to abandon a promise, contract, or pledge? This happens in both private industry and government. It happens in both national politics and local city councils. It happens among families and friends. We have seen this in many debates over the financial crisis, pension reform, and employment relationships. We have seen this in international business, foreign relations, and cultural conflicts.

The challenge for leaders is to be conscious of this natural and deeply rooted ability to rationalize away reasons to maintain ethical standards when situations change. Peter Koestenbaum writes that "... ethics contains two important elements. One is the profound value of empathy and the other is the overarching power of principle." (P. 108, The Philosophic Consultant) Maintaining a leader's connection to empathy and principle in a world of changing realities is challenging at best.

Koestenbaum goes on to say that "Being ethical is always a decision."(P. 114, The Philosophic Consultant) It is a choice, an act of free will. Therefore, it is necessary that leaders remain conscious that they have a choice when it comes to how they will demonstrate their ethics to the world.

Machiavelli explains that we can easily sacrifice our ethics to achieve what we see as a necessary end. Koestenbaum challenges us to keep empathy and principle in our minds as we choose what our behavior will be.

For leaders, the constant struggle is that what is easy is not always ethical, and what is ethical is not always easy.

Leadership and Perception

In order to get the full benefit of this blog entry, you must read and carefully perform the task described in Part One before moving on to Part Two. Following the instructions precisely is essential.  

I also want to note that this actually works best in a facilitated setting.  If you are going to do this with a group, I suggest that you find a facilitator who can help you get the full benefit of this exercise.

 


If you are game, read on.

Part One

Below you will find a link to a video posted by the Visual Cognition Labs. When you are ready, click on the link and play the video. Here's your assignment:

• This very short video shows two teams who will be passing basketballs between members of their respective teams. There is a White Tee Shirt team and a Black Tee Shirt team.
• Your task is to focus on the White Tee Shirt team and count the number of times the basketball is passed between members of the White Tee Shirt team.
• The number of passes will be difficult to count because at least one of the passes is visually blocked by a member of the White Tee Shirt team, therefore you will have to focus carefully.
• Play the video only once.
• Record the number of passes you observe.
• Here is the link http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/flashmovie/15.php
• Go.

When you are done, you may scroll down to read Part Two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't Read Ahead... 

Be sure to complete Part One before moving on to Part Two

Don't Read Ahead... 

 Be sure to complete Part One before moving on to Part Two

Part Two

If you have not completed part one. Go back to the first part of this blog entry and follow the instructions.

If you have completed Part One, you are ready to answer the following questions:

• How many passes did you count? Answers typically range from 12 to 15. Personally, I counted 14.

• Did you observe anything unusual during the passing of the basketballs?

• Did you see the gorilla? Yes, there was a gorilla in the video.

• If you didn't see the gorilla, go back and play the video again. This time you can ignore the number of passes between team members.

Based on a study performed by Daniel J. Simons and Christopher F. Chabris of the Psychology Department at Harvard University, as well as studies conducted by other researchers referenced by Simons and Chabris, somewhere between half and two thirds of participants in this experiment will not see the gorilla on the first pass.

This is a phenomenon referred to "Inattentional Blindness": a failure to perceive objects that are there because our attention is focused elsewhere. Inattentional blindness occurs even when the object of interest is momentarily obscured by something of importance that would have been noticed had the observer been more generally aware.

For example, if you have ever entered a theater and been so focused on finding a seat that you did not notice one of your friends waiving to you from across the room, you experienced inattentional blindness. Your focus on the task of finding a seat obscured your ability to recognize the wave from your friend. Inattentional blindness happens when what we are looking for does not match the objects that we are seeing.

The concept of inattentional blindness does not only apply to interesting visual demonstrations like the clip you just watched. It also applies to systems, ideas, groups, and leaders.

When what we expect to see does not match what we see, we can experience inattentional blindness. When systems are set up to handle certain kinds of processes, problems, or issues, they can be blind to opportunities for improvement. When ideas are proposed that do not match what we are expecting to hear, we ignore them or are not even aware that they were expressed because of inattentional blindness. And, when leaders have a strong focus on what they want to achieve, they may miss opportunities. Their inattentional blindness may make them fail to see the gorilla in their midst.

Leaders can protect themselves from this phenomenon. Here are a few rules to live by:

• Encourage those around you to offer their observations, ideas, and suggestions even though they may challenge the stated goal, outcomes, or norms. They may be identifying a gorilla that other team members are not seeing.
• Step away from the action and into the balcony (see the prior blog entry on The View From the Balcony) to make sure you are seeing the whole picture, not just the part that you find most interesting.
• Be aware that we often see what we expect to see. We can be blind to even big changes that do not match our expected reality.

Perhaps we will cover more on this topic in future blog posts.

Let me know what you thought of this exercise.