MANAGING MANAGERS: COGNITIVE BEHAVIORS- A PERSPECTIVE – CHAPTER – 01

What is the biggest difference between managing managers versus managing individual contributors? Clearly, it is a question top of mind for many of us, all over the world, who find ourselves promoted or hired into a role where we are not just a manager — but a manager of managers. Is this brand of leadership any different? What should a new manager of managers consider in their role? Do we need to provide Training/ Coaching? And how do we serve as a good role model?

What Does It Entail

When we are managing managers, our responsibilities are two-fold: we need to make sure they are producing good work (as with any employee) and that they are effectively supporting their teams. We might know how to do the former, but how do we do the latter? In some ways, managing managers is similar to managing anyone else — we need to align their goals with ours, provide feedback, and help them advance their careers, says Sydney Finkelstein, professor at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business. But there is one important difference —managing managers also requires leadership coaching. We have to coach managers to develop the culture and capabilities that their team members need, says Linda Hill, professor at Harvard Business School.

What Is The Difference?

This is especially important because moving from an individual contributor to a manager is an often neglected transition. In most organizations, first-time managers do not get a lot of formal training. The critical difference is that the work we are overseeing and supporting is management. Sounds simple, but management is tricky because it is both a technical and a relational skill. As the manager of a manager, we are paying attention to the outcomes that they lead their teams to achieve and how they relate to their staff in the process.

On top of that, in traditional hierarchical structures, the manager/staff relationship has a built-in power dynamic. That is what we call positional power—it is part of our job to help our managers hold this power responsibly. This includes seeking to understand how their other identities (age, race, gender, etc.) and experiences with power and privilege intersect with their role at work. Managing managers requires familiarity with management best practices, adaptability and responsiveness, and keen attention to equity and inclusion.

The Start- Clear Understanding of Manager Job Profile/ Specification

A statement of requirements our business expects from managers for a role is key. These may include Emotional characteristics and Sensory demands (such as making judgements).

Manager positions can differ widely from one organization to another. This requires organizations to provide a clear profile of the traits, skills and qualities for high performing managers. Aligned to the business drivers, this profile clearly specifies what a manager must know, what experiences s/he should have, what s/he can do, and what personal attributes s/he must possess to be a high performing manager.

Managing Managers

Some ways in which we can fill in the gap and help our direct reports be great managers may be as follows.

• Model The Right Behaviour

Research has revealed a common theme- people learn how to lead from their bosses. But our direct reports do not just learn from us when we sit down for our one-on-one meetings. It is not particularly authentic to say we are going to be a role model on Thursday from 4 to 5pm. People are watching all the time. Therefore, we need to be managing our people in the way that we expect them to manage their own teams.  It is useful to be deliberate and aware that people are paying attention. For example, if we want our direct reports to give their team members autonomy, be sure that we are doing the same for them.

• Cultivate And Affirm Ownership

One common challenge for many managers is owning their management– meaning embracing the responsibility that comes with positional power and increased organizational leadership. In most workplaces, positional power gives a manager real influence over the employee’s quality of life at work (how much they’re paid, how they get feedback, opportunities for advancement, their sense of belonging, etc.) and sometimes beyond (references for future jobs). These decisions require context (including knowledge of policies and ongoing bias checks) and a sense of responsibility for one’s authority.

Additionally, when we are a manager, we are not just on the hook for our performance and our work—we are responsible for supporting someone else. This requires skill in coaching, delegating, and holding others accountable, where a manager’s approach can shape staff experience.

Finally, managers can also have an outsized impact on the stress levels, emotional health, and sense of belonging of their teams (even when they don’t mean to), which is even more complicated when managing across lines of difference. While many managers struggle with owning their management, authority, and influence, the “why” behind it may vary. Here are some possible reasons:

Whatever the reason, the managers we manage will benefit from the time we invest to cultivate and affirm ownership over their sphere of influence, which is a core competency for their role.

• Change The Focus Of Our Coaching

We spend time with our individual contributors talking about the specifics of their work but with managers, we will also need to explore their relationships with their direct reports. Instead of asking, “How’s that project going?” we might ask “How are you working with XXXX to get that project done?” or “How might you better support XXXX on that project?” The aim is to talk directly about how they are coaching and giving feedback. This sends a signal that these things are important. We may ask them how much time they are spending on coaching since they might be tempted to overlook this, and we might regularly remind them that we all have a responsibility to develop people.

• Compliment Them In Public

The people who report to our direct reports look to us for clues as to how they should feel about their managers. If we respect the person and the job he/she is doing, they will too. The aim is to give people opportunities to demonstrate their credibility in front of others. When we show that we value someone on our team and their direct reports are watching, it can really help. Some ways are praising them publicly, asking for their advice in front of others, or assigning them part of a presentation that lets them show off their expertise. Also we need to be careful as the same effect can work for negative comments. If we have criticism to offer, we must be sure to do it privately.

• Go Through The Same Training

Some organizations offer formal training for new managers or send up-and-coming leaders to executive education programs. Really good executive learning programs teach a common language (way of doing things) and that can be really valuable for us and our direct report. If we participated in a class that we found particularly helpful, suggest that our managers do the same.

• Get Comfortable Criss-Crossing

When we are managing managers, our focus is much more cross-functional — we are working with business units across the entire organization, instead of just one or two. There is a popular misconception that we get more freedom and control the higher up we go. But the reality is, when managing managers, our freedom and control is contingent on more moving pieces. We have more stakeholders to consider and more departments to coordinate with. We may have the final word on more things and greater scope than when we were only managing individual contributors, but now, as a manager of managers, our view of the pie — and our responsibility of the pie — is bigger.

***To be continued in Chapter 02 (Managing Managers- G/ H/ I/ J/ K/, Principles To Remember, Growing Leaders not just Leading Leaders,) Link to Chapter -02:

MANAGING MANAGERS: COGNITIVE BEHAVIORS- A PERSPECTIVE – CHAPTER – 02

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

THE PATH TO ACCOUNTABILITY: BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED – CHAPTER 02

***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: Meaning & Interpretation Of Accountability, The Blame Game, Its Impact)

Link to Chapter 01:

THE PATH TO ACCOUNTABILITY: BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED – CHAPTER 01

The demand for rights has become extremely popular, but when it comes to  dealing with responsibility and accountability, we lag far behind, a gap that accounts for increase in  blaming and rights proclaiming, but very few instances of personal responsibility and accountability. The better the case for victimization, the more visibility and exposure we get, and, consequently, the greater the psychological or monetary reward we receive.

The “blame game,” and the “thirst for exposure,” are just two symptoms of a widespread “responsibility avoiding” syndrome, which have afflicted individuals, groups and organizations as well. A majority of people in organizations today, when confronted with poor performance or unsatisfactory results, immediately begin to formulate excuses, rationalizations, and arguments for why they cannot be held accountable for the problems.

Ways To Move Away From The Blaming

What is the accountability ladder and why is it important?

As is with all behavior – it starts with the leadership. The level of accountability within an organization is directly related to the level of accountability that the leaders display. Leaders can never afford to forget the actions that they initiated or created. It is not good enough to ask someone to do something and then ‘forget’ to ask if it was done or for an update on the progress of the action. If we do, the underlying message we are communicating is that the action was not important. Accountability starts at the top. The state of accountability is a reflection of the leadership culture.

So how do we move towards a positive accountability culture – how do we help people to become more accountable? The first thing is to establish where ‘the locus of control’ exists in the organization. Do people ‘feel’ like they have permission to be accountable or are all decisions made by the leadership?

Accountability and Engagement.

Next is the relationship between accountability and engagement. Getting our people engaged in their work is an important aspect of accountability and sets the stage for a healthy, productive work environment. The level of ownership someone takes for the job they do is key. An engaged employee can yield up to 57 percent more discretionary effort than one who is not engaged. Three important strategies for creating employee engagement include:

WIIFM (What’s in it for me?)

Once the stage is set, and we have created the most productive and positive work environment we can, we need to understand employee motivation, both extrinsic and intrinsic.

The Accountability Ladder

The accountability ladder could be described in eight steps broken in two groups; accountable or victim behaviors. These are:

1. I don’t know: No accountability – management and workforce has no clue about unhappy customers or loss.
2. Excuse: More excuses and fewer results – It is mainly due to lack of focus and low productivity.
3. Wait and hope: Expecting results without communicating requirements
4. Blame others: Blame game – play the victim and find someone or something for cause of failure.
5. Acknowledge reality: Recognize the level of workload or tasks required for business growth.
6. Own it: Take responsibility and commit to business goals.
7. Find solution: Take ownership of situation and ability to handle issues professionally.
8. Make it happen: Develop innovative products and achieve breakthrough goals.

The Line between Victimization & Accountability

The roots of victimization stems from its subtle system of belief that people cannot become what they desire to become because of their circumstance. People and organizations find themselves thinking and behaving below the line whenever they consciously or unconsciously avoid accountability for individual or collective results. Stuck in these victim behaviors, they begin to lose their spirit and will, until, eventually, they feel completely powerless.

Only by moving above the line and climbing the steps to accountability can we become powerful again. Rather than face reality, sufferers of this malady oftentimes begin ignoring or pretending not to know about their accountability, denying their responsibility, blaming others for their predicament, citing confusion as a reason for inaction, asking others to tell them what to do, claiming that they cannot do it, or just waiting to see if the situation will miraculously resolve itself.

Accountability for results rests at the very core of the total quality, people engagement and empowerment, and continuous improvement. The essence of it therefore is getting people to become personally accountable – rising above their circumstances and doing whatever it takes (within the bounds of ethical behavior) to get the results they want.

Neither individuals nor organizations can stay on the line between these two realms because events will inexorably push them in one direction or the other. While both people and organizations can have accountability in some situations and victim behavior in others, some issue or circumstance will arise to influence them to think and act from either an above the line or below the line perspective. Even the strongest commitment to accountability will not prevent us from ever falling below the line. That sort of perfection is not humanly possible. But those who are truly accountable never remain there for long.

Where Are We:

We can take a moment to identify where we are on this ladder. Here are a few pointers that may help:

Moving Up the Ladder – So how do we get others or ourselves above the line? Take a few moments to answer the following questions:

What did we notice about these questions? They are all positively focused. Spending the time to answer them may give us a new perspective or place to focus our emotional energy. These are also great questions to ask our people if we feel they are struggling below the line. Questions like these can really open up discussion and help someone refocus.

All of us have been below the line. All of us know what it is like to feel as if we are being treated unfairly and are trapped in our current circumstances. The Accountability Ladder is a great way to diagnose where we are. The ability to understand and help individuals work through the reasoning of why living “Below the Line” can cause undue stress and overall misery; can help them move to a position that may be healthier and happier in the long run.

Ways to Imbibe Personal Accountability

Guiding People to get them Above the Line:

There are five steps to follow when guiding others above the line. These include:

The most critical piece of this is number three. After we have spent time listening and acknowledging the current challenges, the question we need to ask them is, “Given our current circumstances, what else can we do to move forward?” This helps shift them from victim mode to action. Once they begin to talk about what else can be done, make sure to provide the feedback and the support they need to move ahead.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

THE PATH TO ACCOUNTABILITY: BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED – CHAPTER 01

Most people view accountability as something that happens to them or is inflicted upon them, choosing to perceive it as a heavy burden to carry. In fact, many people think about accountability as a concept or principle to be applied only when something goes wrong or when someone else is trying to determine cause and pinpoint blame. Often, when things are moving along smoothly and failure has not yet set in, people rarely ask “Who is accountable for this or that?” It seems that only when the boat is filling up with water or the fire is out of control do people start looking around for the responsible party.

The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines accountability as “the fact of being responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked”. This in itself is a slightly negative connotation of accountability. “……..to explain them when you are asked’- implying a post-op view with little choice to the state of accountability. This confession-oriented and powerless definition suggests that accountability is a state someone arrives at after the event. Here is another definition:

This implies that accountability is the process of owning it and doing it. It requires a level of ownership that includes proactively taking charge of commitments. It is a perspective that embraces both current and future efforts rather than reactive and historical explanations.

The Blame: Whose Fault is it

Imagine this. We are babysitting two kids. And they are running around pushing each other and doing the usual obnoxious things. Then suddenly we hear a crash. In the next room, a super sacred one million rupees worth vase that the wife’s grandma made with her bare hands during the her toughest times is knocked off the table and lies on the floor in a thousand pieces.

What happens? The two kids immediately point blame the other. They present their cases. They start whining and cutting each other off. Now, let’s say one of them is a little naughty and violent and we have a hunch that it’s probably his fault anyway (bias). What do we do? Nothing. We either punish them both, or do nothing.

None of this changes the fact that both of them were running around and being reckless near nice precious objects, or the fact that theoretically, both were behaving negligently enough to cause destruction. It also does not change the fact that the vase is broken and is never coming back. One could even argue that it’s our fault for putting such a valuable item in a vulnerable place around kids. We spend a lot of our time and effort looking for whose fault something is, even when it doesn’t matter.

Here is another instance. We order a nice steak at a restaurant and it arrives under-cooked after a long wait. We want to blame the cook so we call the manager over and go on a tirade. But who knows, maybe the steak was poorly prepared by someone else, or the steak was not stored correctly the night before, or it was a faulty supply. Or maybe they tried buying from a faulty supplier. Or maybe there is a poor system of communication in the restaurant and so misunderstandings are prevalent and this affects how the food is prepared. But no, the cook was at fault, and needs to be made aware of the blame. As humans, we all enjoy a scapegoat; we need a scapegoat.

We see this most often with the government. An entire bureaucratic system may be at fault, causing continuous waste and inefficiency, but a few people get blamed and fired and the system continues. The public is satisfied. Someone is blamed and punished, so everything must be right again.

What is Personal Accountability?

Personal accountability is being willing to accept the consequences resulting from our choices, actions, or behaviors. Being personally accountable means owning the situations that we have been a part of. This means taking responsibility for the outcome, whether it is good or bad, and doing our best to rectify the situation. While it can be challenging to assert accountability, especially when the situation is not good or we have failed on a task, it is in these situations when personal responsibility matters most. By taking ownership of the situation, action, or choice, we build:

When we show that we are trustworthy, dependable, and willing to take ownership even when things fail, we become someone senior colleagues can depend on and will earn leadership opportunities. There are times when it’s important to know whose fault it is. Like when engaging in chemical warfare. Or finding out who pissed on the toilet seat. But in most of the cases in our lives, it’s an inconsequential distraction. And it is based largely on ego gratification and little on actual life improvement.

What Is the Blame Game?

When something goes wrong and we feel threatened, it’s natural to want to defend ourselves against any repercussions. We might find ourselves scape-goating or trying to shift the blame elsewhere. We may try to distance ourselves from a problem, fearing that taking responsibility for errors or mistakes could harm our careers or make us look bad. But this approach doesn’t solve anything. Shifting the blame will not help us fix the problem that caused the delay. Sometimes it is all too obvious when a team is playing a blame game. But it can happen in more subtle ways, too, like:

The Impact of Blame

Blaming others can have a detrimental effect on morale and performance. Team members may feel belittled or humiliated if they’re pinpointed for blame – especially if it is not their fault.

A culture of blame may also lead to individuals or teams being scapegoated when the real problem may lie elsewhere, or have a number of causes. It is easier to blame someone in another department or building than it is to point the finger at someone we sit with every day.

Over time, this type of scapegoating may even perpetuate bias or prejudice, or lead to accusations of discrimination. Also, it can damage the integrity of other team members who witness it, especially if they do nothing to stop it. “Passing the buck” can deplete trust with stakeholders. Conversations along the lines of, “Well, that is the finance team’s fault, not ours, so I cannot help you” can make the whole company seem incompetent.

Blame can also stunt creativity and innovation within the organization – if people are afraid to try new things in case they do not work out, this can reduce team and company performance in the longer term. Finally, some individuals may be prone to accepting blame where it is not warranted. A protective manager, for example, may “take the rap” for someone else’s mistake. Or, an individual who is highly self-critical may view everything as their fault, even when it is not.

***To be continued in Chapter 02 (Ways To Move Away From Blaming, Accountability & Engagement, Accountability Ladder, Victimization & Accountability, Guiding To Rise Above Accountability) Link to Chapter -02:

THE PATH TO ACCOUNTABILITY: BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED – CHAPTER 02

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.

THE SCARCITY MINDSET: MEANING AND BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED – (CHAPTER 02)

***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: Meaning, Progressive & Degenerative impact, Loss Aversion, Psychological Roots)

Link to Chapter 01:

THE SCARCITY MINDSET: MEANING AND BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED – (CHAPTER 01)

Forms in which Scarcity Mindset may Manifest

A) Believing That Situations Are Permanent: . . . . . . . . . . We think “Well, that’s just the way it is” instead of changing our frame of mind and seeking out our own happiness. Thinking this way depletes our energy, harms our self-esteem, and makes life a burden in general. Nothing is permanent. There are moments in our lives that will take our breath away. An abundant mentality thinks this way and sees life as dynamic and mouldable; something that is ours to shape and make to our liking. Perhaps most importantly, an abundant mentality sees life as an adventure.

B) Using Thoughts And Words Of Scarcity: . . . . . . . . . . What we tell ourselves ultimately becomes an extension of us if left unchecked. When negative thoughts arise, which is quite natural, one way is to become an observer and refuse to engage with them. Everyone is afraid of rejection. However, a recent study from Stanford reports that people tend to overestimate their chances of being rejected. Furthermore, even if we do happen to get rejected usually it is just a matter of widening our pool and continuing along our path.  Rejection doesn’t happen as often as we tend to think—and even if does, it’s simply a matter of moving forward.

C) Comparison/ Being Envious Of Others: . . . . . . . . . . This kills gratitude and stokes the fire of scarcity. When it comes to bettering our circumstances, we can consciously choose to devote our time and energy towards doing so and not wasting it on envious thoughts and feelings. Comparing ourselves to other people is a sure-fire way to stay stuck. The truth is we have no idea what the financial situation of another person or business is. Furthermore, everyone’s definition of success is different. It is important that we define what success means to us so that we can act accordingly.

D) Not Being Generous: . . . . . . . . . . When one lives with a scarcity mindset, they are more apt to “skim off the top” with time, money, relationships, etc. These actions have unintended consequences and make it less likely to generate the positive effects that we seek in our own lives. If we believe in lack, by default, we believe in giving less of ourselves. This does not necessarily mean money, it also means being generous by smiling, saying kind words, investing our time in people, and simply serving a greater good.

E) Overindulgence: . . . . . . . . . . When one thinks in terms of scarcity, they are most likely to overeat, overspend and, in general, become more gluttonous. This is because of another temptation: instant gratification. When we think of money as a scarce resource, there is a tendency to use that resource for pleasure. But pleasure could reinforce the scarcity mindset that one already possesses.

For instance: Let us say that we are having a tough day, feel down on ourselves, and need something positive. We could do something constructive like spending some time with the family (abundance)…or…we could buy that new, cool gadget that we have wanted with our credit card (scarcity). Here the abundant choice has absolutely nothing to do with money. We are focusing our time on what matters the most and not succumbing to some temporary pleasure that, while good for a time, does nothing more than add to the notion that we simply do not have enough.

F) There is too much competition: . . . . . . . . . .We live in an incredibly abundant universe, which means that there are plenty of clients, press opportunities, deals, contracts, blog readers and customers to go around. The best we can do is take care of our side of the street and focus on how our business serves people. Furthermore, we are living in a “share economy” where collaboration has taken centre stage. A classic example is AirBnB and Uber. The truth is this kind of economy, where people are sharing resources, talents, and skills rather than competing with one another, has opened the door for more opportunity within the markets.

G) There is not enough resources/ Economy is Bad: . . . . . . . . . .Lack of resources and funds stops people from doing a lot. Sometimes people use this as an automatic excuse out of fear. There is always someone making money regardless of the state of the economy. Those who curb their scarcity mentality are trained to see opportunity in everything. Many people found themselves in a position of having to create their own businesses because they could not find forms of traditional employment. We also have women starting businesses at a faster rate than ever before. Much of this came as a result of a bad economy.

It is like the old saying goes, Necessity is the mother of invention. It just so happens that often those inventions lead to abundance. In an effort to feel comfortable and secure, many would-be entrepreneurs forego creating businesses despite their desires because they feel like traditional employment is more secure.

Scarcity And Abundance Loops at Play (Using an example of Art)

Scarcity Mindset At Play (With Instances around us To Support Recognition)

Many organizations use psychological alteration to influence favorable decisions to maximize profit. Understanding how scarcity works allow us to be aware of such tactics and be prepared. Some examples of these are:

A) Time-limited scarcity: . . . . . . . . . In time-limited offers, the user needs to decide before a set deadline- this adds a sense of urgency to the decision-making process.

Instances: – – – – The most common real-life scenario is waiting until the last minute to complete projects/study for exams. In such cases, focus and attention levels increase and so does prioritizing. Flipkart indicates the count-down timer showing when the discounted price ends, which influences the user to grab the product deal before it expires.

B) Quantity-limited scarcity: . . . . . . . . .This is considered more powerful than time-limited scarcity, as availability depends on popularity or supply and is therefore unpredictable. This can be of the following types:

i) Limited Supply: – – – Items with limited supply are valued and desired more. Oil prices soar in countries like India due to limited supply, whereas the opposite is true in countries like Kuwait, Saudi due to availability. Amazon showcases “only 2 left in stock”, representing a product’s diminishing availability thus influencing the user to make the decision quickly.

ii) Popularity: – – –The popularity of an item represents the social proof that it must be good and valuable and triggers us to grab the deal. Myntra is used to showcase “18 people added this item to their cart” in their product page which informs the user that the product they are viewing is popular and might get over soon.

iii) Limited Supply and Popularity: – – – – This is more effective than the above two. Not only do we desire an item when it is scarce, but we also want it, even more, when we have to compete for it. Stamps and antique pieces are quite valuable because they are unique and cannot be easily supplied. People then outbid each other to possess the item which makes the value of the item increase significantly.Booking.com showcasing “only 6 rooms left” along with “6 people are looking at this moment”.

C) Access-limited scarcity:: . . . . . . . . .When access to certain information is limited, it is perceived as having higher value because of exclusivity, especially when it’s bound to social status.

Instances: – – – – Priority pass membership provides access to special airport lounges which include free complimentary food, alcohol, Wi-fi, and discounts on shopping. One Plus implemented an invite-only sales strategy which helped them create a great buzz in the market. People ‘lucky enough’ to be invited felt more privileged. This resulted in over 25 million visits to the site and close to a million sales in less than a year after launch.

D) Ban or Censorship:: . . . . . . . . .When anything interferes with our prior access to some item, we desire it more and want to have even more than before.

Instances: – – – – The ‘Romeo and Juliet’ effect highlights that the greater the parental disapproval of a relationship is, the more that relationship intensifies.

E) One-of-a-kind Special Events:: . . . . . . . . .‘Now or never’ scenarios. We seek to experience ‘once in a lifetime opportunities’, because of their unavailability later on.

Instances: – – – – Reliance Jio provided great introductory offers in India at the time of its launch which attracted a lot of customers. In Kanchipuram, the idol of Aththi Varadar is available for darshan once every 40 years for only a few days. Lakhs of devotees visit the temple to experience this once in a lifetime opportunity.

Ways to deal with Scarcity Mindset

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

THE SCARCITY MINDSET: MEANING AND BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED – (CHAPTER 01)

Most of us can remember playing musical chairs as a child. As the music played and we marched around the circumference of the circle of chairs, we anxiously awaited the music to stop so we could fight for that last seated spot. There was something about that one-on-one physical competition and face-to-face conflict fighting for something tangible that added spice to the game. This is often one of the youngest experiences that we have of a scarcity mentality that can be translated to adult life

Simply put, Scarcity is the condition of having insufficient resources to cope with demand. When we are faced with limited resources, we strive to make effective use of them in the process of making important decisions. Economics is the study of how we use our limited resources (time, money, etc) to achieve our goals. This definition refers to physical scarcity.

Once we enter that professional world, that “every person for (him/her)self” way of thinking often re-emerges as many people fight for a single job opening or a chance at being promoted. People in the corporate world are conditioned to think in this limiting way, and we may have been influenced as well.

When we think of the word ‘scarcity’, many of us will immediately think about money. After all, it is expensive to live, and many of us concern ourselves by stretching each Rupee. However, scarcity is a mindset. It comes in many other forms – time, relationships, health, intelligence, judgment, willpower, etc. Scarcity orients the mind automatically and powerfully toward unfulfilled needs. For example, food grabs the focus of the hungry. For the lonely person, scarcity may come in poverty of social isolation and a lack of companionship.

Having thoughts and feelings of scarcity automatically orient the mind towards unfulfilled wants and needs. Furthermore, scarcity often leads to lapses in self-control while draining the cognitive resources needed to maximize opportunity and display judgment. Willpower also is depleted, which makes one prone to feelings of giving up. People in this state attend to the urgent while neglecting important choices that will have a drastic effect on the future. A scarcity mindset is exactly that: a mindset.

Progressive Impact

On the positive side, scarcity prioritizes our choices, and it can make us more effective. Scarcity creates a powerful goal dealing with pressing needs and ignoring other goals. For example, the time pressure of a deadline focuses our attention on using what we have most effectively. Distractions are less tempting. When we have little time left, we try to get more out of every moment.

Scarcity contributes to an interesting and a meaningful life. When there is always time for everything, there is no urgency for anything. A life without limits would lose the beauty of its moments, and it would become boring. For example, resolution of midlife crises consists in accepting mortality. Midlife often heightens the feeling that there is not enough time left in life to waste. We overcome the illusion that we can be anything, do anything, and experience everything. We restructure our lives around the needs that are essential. This means that we accept that there will be many things we will not do in our lives.

Scarcity forces trade-off thinking. We recognize that having one thing means not having something else. Economists call this the opportunity cost—the alternative use of the money. Doing one thing means neglecting other things. However, slack frees us from making trade-offs. For example, as our budget grows, the purchase of the iPad takes up a smaller and smaller portion of our disposable income. Thus, a bigger budget makes decisions less consequential and lessens feelings of scarcity.

Degenerative Impact

The context of scarcity makes us myopic (exhibiting bias toward here and now). The mind is focused on present scarcity. We overvalue immediate benefits at the expense of future ones (e.g., procrastinate important things, such as medical check-ups, or exercising). We only attend to urgent things and fail to make small investments even when future benefits can be substantial.  To attend to the future requires cognitive resources, which scarcity depletes. We need cognitive resources to plan and to resist present temptations. 

A key concern in the management of scarcity is to economize cognitive resources. Cognitive resource is about allocating our limited information-processing abilities. Concentrating our effort on one or—at most—a few goals at a time increases the odds of success. For example, research suggests that the best way to get more done in less time requires one to avoid exhaustion and skillfully manage energy by getting sufficient sleep (8 or more hours), more breaks, or daytime naps.

Loss Aversion:

When we see something which we want becoming less available, we get physical anxiety. This is worse when there is direct competition. The focus narrows and emotions rise making it difficult to feel calm. Opportunities appear more valuable to us when availability is limited. The idea of potential loss plays a significant role in human decision making. People seem to be more motivated by the thought of losing something than by the thought of gaining something of equal value. We prefer avoiding a loss than pursuing gains. The FOMO(Fear of Missing Out) is directly associated with this.

Psychological Roots:

Psychological Reactance Theory:- ‘Reactance is unpleasant motivational arousal that emerges when people experience a threat to or loss of their free behaviors. So, when something (a product or service) which is generally easily available becomes scarce, this perceived ‘threat’ to our freedom to have it makes us crave it significantly more than before.

Anticipated Regret:– Another unpleasant emotional state that may influence our buying choices is anticipated regret. In other words, the feeling we experience when we imagine what it would be like if the decision we are currently making is the wrong one.

***To be continued in Chapter 02 (Forms of Scarcity Mindset, Instances around us, ways to identify and mitigate) Link to Chapter -02:

THE SCARCITY MINDSET: MEANING AND BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED – (CHAPTER 02)

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

WORK ETHOS & PRINCIPLES: BEHAVIOURS ASSOCIATED

A Story: The Work Ethic of Albert Einstein

Einstein’s most famous contribution to science, the general theory of relativity, was published in 1915. He won the Nobel Prize in 1921. Yet, rather than assume he was a finished product, Einstein continued to work and contribute to the field for 40 more years. Up until the moment of his death, Albert Einstein continued to squeeze every ounce of greatness out of himself. He never rested on his laurels. He continued to work even through severe physical pain and in the face of death.

Einstein died of internal bleeding caused by the rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. One physician familiar with Einstein’s case wrote, “For a number of years he had suffered from attacks of upper abdominal pain, which usually lasted for 2-3 days and were often accompanied by vomiting. These attacks usually occurred about every 3 or 4 months.” Einstein continued to work despite the pain. He published papers well into the 1950s. Even on the day of his death in 1955, he was working on a speech he was scheduled to give on Israeli television, and he brought the draft of it with him to the hospital. The speech draft was never finished.

When Ralph Morse (a photographer for LIFE Magazine) walked into Einstein’s office, he snapped a photo of the desk where Albert Einstein had been working just hours before. Nobody knew it yet, but Einstein’s body would be cremated before anyone could capture a final photo of him. As a result, Morse’s photo of Einstein’s desk would soon become the final iconic image of the great scientist’s career.

Everyone has a gift to share with the world, something that both lights us on fire internally and serves the world externally, and this thing–this calling–should be something we pursue until our final breath. Whatever it is for us, our lives were meant to be spent making our contribution to the world, not merely consuming the world that others create.

Hours before his death, Einstein’s doctors proposed trying a new and unproven surgery as a final option for extending his life. Einstein simply replied, “I have done my share, it is time to go. I will do it elegantly.” We cannot predict the value our work will provide to the world. That is fine. It is not our job to judge our own work. It is our job to create it, to pour ourselves into it, and to master our craft as best we can. We all have the opportunity to squeeze every ounce of greatness out of ourselves that we can. We all have the chance to do our share.

How Do Prisoners of War Stay Alive?

Prisoners of war who have managed to survive the most brutal conditions will often claim one of the most important factors in survival is not food or water, but a sense of dignity and self–worth. In other words, the only thing that keeps some men alive in the direst of circumstances is the belief that they are worthy of being alive. Applying this to our daily lives, it makes sense that longevity would be prevalent in cultures where contribution is baked into everyday life.

For example, let’s take a culture where it’s common to go to the neighbour’s house and talk each night. During a face–to–face conversation, we have to either contribute or sit silently in the corner like a weirdo. The act of contributing to a conversation, no matter how simple it seems, allows us to derive a small sense of self–worth. Being a meaningful part of a conversation makes us feel like were a worthwhile part of the neighbour’s life. When we add up all of the small contributions to the many conversations over the years, it’s easy to see how we can develop a strong sense of self–worth when we live in a culture where contribution is typical.

Contributing vs. Consuming

We alter the course of other’s lives by what we create and contribute. When we speak or write or act, we influence the people around us. When we contribute something to the world, we matter. And thus the act of creating enhances our feelings of self–worth.

That is often lost online as it is becoming increasingly easy to spend our time consuming rather than contributing. Most of the time on those devices and networks is spent consuming what someone else has created rather than contributing our own ideas and work. The result, I believe, is that our sense of self–worth slowly dwindles.

These contributions don’t have to be major endeavours. Cooking a meal instead of buying one. Playing a game instead of watching one. Writing a paragraph instead of reading one. We do not have to create big contributions, but just need to live out small ones each day.

Too often we spend our lives visiting the world instead of shaping it. We can be an adventurer, an inventor, an entrepreneur, an artist. Contributing and creating doesn’t just make us feel alive, it keeps us alive.

Elements of A Strong Work Ethic

But when can we describe our work ethic to be good and strong? Some elements that serve as a solid foundation for a strong work ethic are:

Integrity: . . . . . . . . Its greatest impact is seen in our relationships with the people around us, which is why integrity is seen as one of the most important ingredients of Trust. According to Robert Shaw, you can earn a certain level of trust if you are able to achieve results while demonstrating concern for others and acting with integrity the whole time. Hence, the formula:

Acting with integrity, in this context, also means behaving in a consistent manner. For example, if we are part of a team, our behaviour should be in tune with everyone, in accordance with a clear set of guidelines in working together toward a clear purpose.

Emphasis on Quality of Work: . . . . . . . . If we show dedication and commitment to coming up with very good results in our work, then our work ethic will definitely shine.

While some employees do only the barest minimum, or what is expected of them, there are those who go beyond that. They do more, they perform better, and they definitely go the extra mile to come up with results that surpass expectations. Clearly, these employees are those who belong to the group with a solid work ethic.

Professionalism: . . . . . . . . The word “professionalism” is often perceived as something that is too broad or wide in scope, covering everything from our appearance to how we conduct ourselves in the presence of other people. It is so broad and seemingly all-encompassing that many even go so far as to say that professionalism equates having a solid work ethic.

Discipline: . . . . . . . .Work ethic is something that emanates from within. We can tell someone to do this and that, be like this and like that, over and over, but if they do not have enough discipline to adhere to the rules and follow through with their performance, then there is no way that they can become the productive employees that the company wants.

Sense of Responsibility: . . . . . . . . The moment we became part of the organization and were assigned tasks and duties, we have a responsibility that we must fulfil. If we have a strong work ethic, we will be concerned with ensuring that we are able to fulfil our duties and responsibilities. We will also feel inclined to do our best if we want to get the best results.

Sense of Teamwork: . . . . . . . . As an employee, we are part of an organization. We are simply one part of a whole, which means we have to work with other people. If we are unable to do so, this will put our work ethic into question. Work ethic is also continuously shaped by relationships, specifically on how we are able to handle them in achieving goals, whether shared or individual.

Other traits of good work ethics include:

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

SOCIAL PROXIMITY: OUR LINKS TO PROXIMITY AND BEHAVIOURS ASSOCIATED

Do we like someone more if they stand closer to us? Imagine we are the only person in an elevator when the door opens and someone walks in and stands right next to us.  Uncomfortable is likely an understatement to describe how we would feel.  But are there other circumstances in which a stranger can get that close to us and elicit not alarm bells of warning, but feelings of warmth? According to research, the answer is yes.

In today’s world, we are mindful of social distance expectations, whether cultural, social, or preventive post-pandemic.  We are also aware of personal boundaries, and the reality that different people have different comfort zones, and do not appreciate “space invaders.”  Yet in some situations, it appears that proximity can have a positive effect on first impressions, quality of interaction, and even generosity. 

Research demonstrates that closer physical distance increases compliance with a request from a stranger on the street.  Many of us are familiar with this phenomenon.  As we pass people on the street for example, whether selling balloons, pens, or seeking to register people to vote, we might behave differently when approached physically, versus called out verbally from someone sitting behind a table.

In addition to a social distance sweet spot, depending on whether the speaker is too far or too close to us, our reaction might also depend on group membership. People seated alone in public are more likely to comply with a request from an in-group member over an out-group member at close and medium distances, but not at a far distance.  The rationale suggested that out-group members create more interpersonal anxiety at close range, which decreases compliance; distance decreases this effect. 

Research also indicates that there may be a link between proximity and generosity, specifically, the impact of interpersonal distance between customers and servers on tipping behavior. A range of behaviors have been known to generate better tips, like, squatting down next to the table, drawing a smiley face on the back of the check, mimicking patron nonverbal behavior, and introducing themselves by name. Therefore, proximity might actually enhance the perception, and productivity of interpersonal interaction.

Proximity and familiarity

Proximity means geographical closeness. An obvious and basic requirement for forming a relationship is that the people involved need to be geographically close enough to have opportunities to interact with each other. We may find a certain film star very attractive but if we never get the chance to meet them or talk to them then we will have no chance of forming a relationship. If we examine friendship patterns of people living in blocks of flats then they will be much more likely to be friendly with the people who live near them on the same floor than with people living on different floors just because they have more opportunities to meet and get to know each other.

Similarly people are more likely to form friendships at work with the people working near them and students will be more likely to form friendships with people studying the same subject and attending the same classes. Having more chances to interact with another person means that we become more familiar with that person and numerous studies have shown that we prefer people who are familiar to us rather than strangers. This is known as the ‘mere exposure effect’ (Robert Zajonc, 1968) which states that the more often we are exposed to a stimulus whether it is a sound, picture or person the more positively we will rate that stimulus.

So how do brands or companies use this phenomenon to their advantage? One of the greatest examples of this is the ongoing rivalry between Coca-Cola and Pepsi. In 1975, Pepsi conducted a blind taste test, which found that most consumers preferred the taste of Pepsi to Coke. In response to these results, Coke invested millions in market research to produce “New Coke,” a novel beverage designed using a sweeter formula, to replace the original Coke. The product was not well received by consumers and sales dropped. Within months, the original Coke had been brought back as “Coca-Cola Classic” and new beverage was dropped.

However, when Coke later produced their own taste test experiment they failed to consider the impact that advertising had on consumers. Though consumers did hold a preference for the taste of Pepsi, their constant exposure and familiarity with the classic red and white brand actually resulted in more consumers choosing Coke over Pepsi. This effect has been referred to as the “Pepsi Paradox,” described by Lone Frank in Scientific American.

Impact Of Proximity When Under Threat

From a biological standpoint, responding to potential threats as if they were clear and present dangers is typically adaptive. Imagine, for example, a hiker who encounters a curved object behind a log on the hiking path. It is far better—for the purpose of survival—to treat a benign twig as a snake and generate a defensive reaction than to ignore a potentially dangerous snake and continue walking blithely along the path. In a similar manner, people tend to represent perceived threatening objects as more physically immediate.

For example, people who have a cockroach phobia are more likely to perceive a cockroach as physically larger and moving more quickly towards them compared to those who are less fearful of it. Also, anxiety-prone people perceive negative emotional stimuli as if seen from a closer perspective. Perceived threats reduce body motion, decrease heart rate and increase anxiety in humans—the same physiological reactions found in animals (i.e., freezing) when threatened by predators. These sorts of responses are typically adaptive because they trigger a cascade of reactions that prepare the body for appropriate action (Flight or Fight).

The Function Of Intergroup Apology.

Building a wall between workgroups is a costly and contentious activity. A significantly less costly, and more socially constructive option for reducing threat-induced proximity is apology. An interpersonal apology reduces the desire for retribution and increase forgiveness. However, the link between intergroup apology and forgiveness is still being debated. The weakness of the intergroup apology-forgiveness link may be due, in part, to intergroup friendships.

It has been long established that contact, particularly high quality cross-group friendship, promotes positive intergroup relations. However, the perceived severity of a transgression may be worse when victims have cross-group friends. This is because it may be especially painful to be harmed by those considered a friend. Research confirms that harm originating from close others heightens a sense of betrayal, which undermines forgiveness.

Physical Proximity, Serendipity And Collaboration

Physical proximity may foster the formation of collaborative relationships by generating an obligation to interact cued by the sensory presence of another person. This means that even employees who may not want to interact find it difficult to avoid the social obligation to engage in a chance encounter when in the presence of others.

There is also research that shows that physical proximity may inhibit collaboration by causing employees to socially withdraw. For example, employees who moved from enclosed to open offices to promote collaboration, identified a 70% decrease in face-to-face interaction. Rather than promoting chance encounters, too much proximity, such as in a crowded open-plan office, can trigger conflict, facilitate territorial behaviours and undermine collegiality. In this respect, physical proximity may fail to promote collaboration when employees feel disengaged from their organization, fail to communicate and/or identify with their colleagues.

Serendipity – defined as a ‘search, with unintended discovery’– relates to the combination of prior knowledge, purposeful action and favourable accident that facilitates new discoveries. Another way to interpret it is that ‘chance favors the prepared mind’. The research on the role of chance encounters and social obligation in fostering collaboration indicate that an equal role for chance in the form of favourable accidents and search in the form of directed effort may aid in better collaboration.

Thus employees can actively facilitate serendipitous discoveries (and perhaps encounters) through a display of flexibility such as remaining open to new experiences, actively searching for information, paying attention to their environment, challenging the status quo and capitalizing on their social networks to make the most of surprises. Organizations can enhance serendipity by creating work conditions that combine constraint and freedom and through practices such as role rotation, and team-working that expose employees to diverse perspectives.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

CHOICE ARCHITECTURE: ENHANCEMENT OF HUMAN DECISIONS

We may assume that humans buy products because of what they are, but the truth is that we often buy things because of where they are. For example, items on store shelves that are at eye level tend to be purchased more than items on less visible shelves.

Here’s why this is important – Something has to go on the shelf at eye level. Something must be the default choice. Something must be the option with the most visibility and prominence. This is true not just in stores, but in nearly every area of our lives. There are default choices in our office, car, kitchen and in our living room. If we design for default in our life, rather than accepting whatever is handed to us, then it will be easier to live a better life. In the book Nudge, authors Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein explain a variety of ways that our everyday decisions are shaped by the world around us.

Designing for Default:- . . . Although most of us have the freedom to make a wide range of choices at any given moment, we often make decisions based on the environment we find ourselves in. Consider how our default decisions are designed throughout our personal and professional life. Some examples may be:

Choice Architecture

Researchers have referred to the impact that environmental defaults can have on our decision making as choice architecture. Choice architecture is the design of the different ways to present choice options to a chooser. This presentation will influence the final choice made. Lets look at this with a simple dinner party example. Suppose we are invited to a friend’s house for the evening with dinner. As the evening begins, we notice that there is a large bowl of French fries put out before us. We have three choices:

For someone with limited self-control when it comes to food, choice number C is doubtful. Choice number A and B are both plausible as well. As it becomes obvious that the French fries are being consumed in its entirety, the host removes the bowl. With the bowl gone, the guests will maintain a sufficient appetite to enjoy all of the food that will follow. The question is, how could we all possibly be relieved when our choice to eat the fries had been taken away? In the land of economics, it is against the law for us to be happy about this.

If the bowl of fries was left, all of it would have been consumed. When the bowl was taken away, we all sighed in relief over the fact we had no fries to eat. How could we change our mind in the space of say fifteen minutes or so in regards to what we wanted? Our decision was being made in an environment where there are many features – both noticed and unnoticed – influencing our final choice. In this scenario, the host architected the environment, to create new surroundings. With no fries bowl, all decide by default that choice C was the better (and healthier) option.

Choice architecture as a concept was born from the discipline of behavioral economics. This discipline shows that individuals tend to be subject to predictable biases. These common and predictable biases are termed as elements. The six choice architecture elements are:

Approaches to Enhance Our Default Decisions

Simplicity. It is hard to focus on the signal when we are constantly surrounded by noise. It is more difficult to focus on reading a blog post when you have 10 tabs open in your browser. It is more difficult to accomplish your most important task when you fall into the myth of multitasking. When in doubt, eliminate options.

Visual Cues. In the supermarket, placing items on shelves at eye level makes them more visual and more likely to be purchased. Outside of the supermarket, we can use visual cues like the Paper Clip Method or the Seinfeld Strategy to create an environment that visually tracks our actions in the right direction.

Opt-Out vs Opt-In. There is a famous organ donation study that revealed how multiple European countries skyrocketed their organ donation rates: they required citizens to opt-out of donating rather than opt-in to donating. We can do something similar by opting our future self into better habits ahead of time. For example, we could schedule a yoga session for next week while we are feeling motivated today. When the workout rolls around, we have to then justify opting-out rather than motivating ourselves to opt-in.

Designing for default comes down to a very simple premise: shift the environment so that the good behaviors are easier and the bad behaviors are harder.

Fear-Based Decision Making
Fear-based decision making is when we let our fears or worries dictate our actions (or our lack of action). Some examples may be:-

Considerations on Overcoming Fear-Based Decisions

Stepping out of the Comfort Zone is important. If we fail inside our comfort zone, it’s not really failure, it’s just maintaining the status quo. If we never feel uncomfortable, then we are never trying anything new.

Also, Just because we don’t like where we have to start from doesn’t mean we should not get started. Feelings of fear and uncertainty have a way of making us feel unprepared. Some instances are:-

Here’s a tough question that forces us to consider the opposite side: How long will we put off what we are capable of doing just to maintain what we are currently doing?

We may need to stop making uncertain things, certain. Just because someone else got rejected from that job doesn’t mean we will too. Maybe we tried to lose weight before, but that doesn’t mean we cannot lose it now.

The More We Limit Ourselves, the More Resourceful We Become

We have a tendency to see boredom as a negative influence and we often use boredom as justification to jump continually from thing to thing. One is weary of living in the country and moves to the city; one is weary of one’s native land and goes abroad; one is weary of Europe and goes to America, etc.

The assumption that often drives these behaviours is that if we want to find happiness and meaning in our lives, then we need more: more opportunity, more wealth, and more things. We start to believe that moving somewhere new will remove the messiness of life. Or, that if we just lived in a new location or had a new job, then we would finally be granted the permission and ability to do the things we always wanted to do. Sometimes the life we are looking for can be found embracing less, not more.

A solitary prisoner for life is extremely resourceful; to him a spider can be a source of great amusement. History is filled with examples of people who embraced their limitations rather than fought them. Ingvar Kamprad only had enough money to start a business selling match sticks. He turned it into IKEA. Richard Branson has built 400 businesses despite having dyslexia. Dhirubhai Ambani began as an errand boy at a petrol bunk. Our limitations can provide us with the greatest opportunity for creativity and inventiveness.

It can be easy to spend our life complaining about the opportunities that are withheld from us and the resources that we need to make our goals a reality. But there is an alternative. We can use these constraints to drive creativity. We can embrace the limitations to foster skill development. The problem is rarely the opportunities we have, but how we use them.

The only thing needed to begin a new life is a new perspective. The more we limit ourselves, the more resourceful we become.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

SYSTEMS THINKING AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: A PERSPECTIVE

Organizational development “refers to the context, focus and purpose of the change while developing an organization.” Additionally, one recent definition of organizational development states: “Organizational development is a critical and science-based process that helps organizations build their capacity to change and achieve greater effectiveness by developing, improving, and reinforcing strategies, structures, and processes.” In essence, good organizational change and development require a systems-thinking mindset and an interdisciplinary, holistic approach to tackling complex organizational challenges.

Systems Thinking has been gaining significant interest lately as a comprehensive approach to introducing organizational change and development. Through systems thinking, a number of core concepts and practical tools can be applied to better understand the complexity of each organization. There are many competing definitions of systems thinking in the academic literature. As Ross D. Arnold and Jon P. Wade point out in their recent article, “Systems thinking is, literally, a system of thinking about systems.”

Analytical/ Linear Thinking Vs Systems Thinking

The Parts Of A System

Systems are made up of three parts: elements, interconnections, and a function or a purpose. The word “function” is used when talking about a non-human system, and the word “purpose” is used for human systems. The elements are the actors in the system. In our circulatory system, the elements are our heart, lungs, blood, blood vessels, arteries, and veins. They do the work. The interconnections would be the physical flow of blood, oxygen, and other vital nutrients through our body. The function of the circulatory system is to allow blood, oxygen and other gases, nutrients, and hormones to flow through the body to reach all of our cells.

An Example – The School (or) An Educational Institution

A school is a system, with the elements represented by teachers, students, principals, custodians, secretaries, bus drivers, cooks, parents, and counsellors. The interconnections are the relationships between the elements, the school rules, the schedule, and the communications between all of the people in the school. The purpose of a school is to prepare the students for a successful future and to help them reach their full potential.

Unfortunately, some unintended behaviours can occur as a result of Organizational Change when the Systemic interplay is ignored. Consider the purposes of the actors in this system:

In this system, the high-stakes nature of the tests cause school districts to put a lot of pressure on their teachers to teach to the test and base their evaluations on their test scores. Teachers feel the need to compete with one another to earn the highest scores, as well as gain job security and an increased salary, so they no longer share ideas with one another and they may even cheat when administering the tests. Students feel a lot of pressure to earn high enough scores to be promoted to the next grade or avoid remedial classes, so they may cheat on the test.

A government may profess that educating children is a high priority, but if it slashes education funding, then clearly educating children is not a primary purpose of that government. This was not the intention of putting these tests into schools, and everyone agrees that those results are awful. Unfortunately, if the sub-purposes and the overarching system purpose are not aligned and coexisting peacefully, a system can’t function successfully.

The Most Important Part of a System

Perhaps the easiest way to examine how a system’s elements, interconnections, and purposes compare in terms of importance within a system is to speculate how the system would be impacted if each component was changed one at a time.

The least impact on a system is usually felt when its elements are changed. While certain elements may be very important to the system, by and large, if the elements are changed, the system can still continue to exist in a similar form and work to achieve its purpose or function. In a school, teachers, administrators, and other employees may leave, transfer, or retire. Students move away or may enter higher grade levels beyond the school. The elements may change, but the school is still easily identified as a school, and it still has largely the same objectives and sense of purpose.

Changing the interconnections of a system is quite different. If the interconnections change, the system will be impacted significantly. It may no longer be recognizable, even if the elements remain in place. Putting the students in charge instead of the adults in a school setting would undoubtedly change that system dramatically.

Changing a system’s function or purpose also greatly impacts the entire system and may render it unrecognizable. If the school’s main purpose is no longer educating children, but is now to make money by recruiting students to charge tuition, obviously the system is dramatically changed.

Every component of the system is essential. Elements, interconnections, and the purpose or function all interact with each other and each one plays a vital role in the system. The purpose or function of a system is often the least noticeable, but it definitely sets how the system will behave. Interconnections are the relationships within the system. When they are changed, the behaviour of the system is also usually altered. The elements are typically the most visible parts of a system, but are often the least likely to cause a significant change in the system unless changing an element impacts the purpose or interconnections as well. Each part of the system is equally important as they work hand in hand, but changing a system’s purpose has the greatest impact on the system as a whole.

Six Themes Of Systems Thinking

Interconnectedness and synthesis relate to the dynamic relationships between various parts of a whole, the process of obtaining expected synergies between parts of the company. This includes the idea of circularity, which stresses the requirement of a mindset shift from linear to circular. Similarly, the concept of emergence relates to the outcomes of synergies that can come about as the elements of a system interact with each other in nonlinear ways. In the workplace, this often takes the form of the push and pull that happens due to organizational politics and competing priorities. Organizational leaders with a systems-thinking mindset will see this as an opportunity for enhanced collaborations and innovation.

Balancing and reinforcing feedback loops within an organization serve as guidance for making adjustments as we learn more about the interconnectedness of the elements of the system and their outcomes. Additionally, causality refers to the flows of influence between the many interconnected parts within a system. As we better understand the casualty and directionality of these elements, we will have an improved perspective on the many fundamental parts of the system, including relationships and feedback loops.

In the workplace, a skilled systems-thinking leader will ensure that mechanisms for multiple feedback loops are established and effectively communicated to their employees. Furthermore, they will understand correlation versus causation as they use the data gathered from the feedback loops to enhance workplace practices. Finally, systems mapping is a tool that systems thinkers can use to identify and visually map out the many interrelated elements of a complex system, which will help them develop interventions, shifts, or policy decisions that will dramatically change the system in the most effective way.

Ten Enemies of Systems Thinking

Some common thinking statements which act as obstacles to systems thinking may be:

Systems thinking does not come easily to everyone. Many find systems thinking to be a bit unstructured and unorganized when they first begin to look at the world through this lens. It may be overwhelming and uncomfortable at first because they become concerned about taking action when they don’t know the effect that their suggested solution may have on the system and its parts. Rest assured that this feeling is perfectly normal and will begin to ease over time as we reach deeper levels of understanding into the way systems behave.

The ultimate gain is the ability of organizations to be responsive to the changes in ecosystems and to be prepared to fine-tune and adapt parts of their organization on the fly. With this understanding, systems’ thinking provides clear benefits to organizations. It shows alternative directions for improvement with respect to the company’s inner and outer connections. It gives a significant advantage in increasing the organization’s capacity for change and, as a consequence, to fulfill the vision of business sustainability.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

THE CURSE OF KNOWLEDGE: UNDERSTANDING LESS-INFORMED PERSPECTIVES

vector abstract illustration with brain and puzzle

The term the “curse of knowledge” was coined in a 1989 paper by researchers Colin Camerer, George Loewenstein, and Martin Weber. This phenomenon is sometimes also conceptualized as epistemic egocentrism, though some theoretical distinctions may be drawn between these concepts.

The curse of knowledge is a cognitive bias that causes people to fail to properly understand the perspective of those who do not have as much information as them. For example, the curse of knowledge can mean that an expert in some field might struggle to teach beginners, because the expert intuitively assumes that things that are obvious to them are also obvious to the beginners, even though that’s not the case. Because the curse of knowledge can cause issues in various areas of life, such as when it comes to communicating with others, it’s important to understand it.

The Curse Of Knowledge: Common Occurrences & Influences

This can make it harder for experts to teach beginners (also known as the curse of expertise). For example, a math professor might find it difficult to teach first-year math students, because it’s hard for the professor to account for the fact that they know much more about the topic than the students.

This can make it harder for people to communicate. For example, it can be difficult for a scientist to discuss their work with laypeople, because the scientist might struggle to remember that those people aren’t familiar with the terminology in the scientist’s field.

This can make it harder for people to predict the behavior of others. For example, an experienced driver may be surprised by something dangerous that a new driver does, because the experienced driver struggles to understand that the new driver doesn’t understand the danger of what they’re doing. This aspect of the curse of knowledge is associated with people’s expectation that those who are less-informed than them will use information that the less-informed individuals don’t actually have.

This can make it harder for people to understand their own past behavior. For example, it can cause someone to think that they were foolish for making a certain decision in the past, even though the information that they had at the time actually strongly supported that decision. This aspect of the curse of knowledge can manifest in various ways and be referred to using various terms, such as the hindsight bias, knew-it-all along effect, and creeping determinism.

When it comes to the curse of knowledge, the perspective of the less-informed individual, whether it’s a different person or one’s past self, is often referred to as a naive perspective.

The Tapping Study

One well-known example of the curse of knowledge is the tapping study. In this study, participants were randomly assigned to be either a tapper or a listener. Each tapper finger-tapped three tunes (which were selected from a list of 25 well-known songs) on a desk, and was then asked to estimate the probability that the listener will be able to successfully identify the song that they tapped, based only on the finger tapping.

On average, tappers estimated that listeners will be able to correctly identify the tunes that they tapped in about 50% of cases, with estimates ranging anywhere from 10% to 95%. However, in reality, listeners were able to successfully identify the tune based on the finger tapping in only 2.5% of cases, which is far below even the most pessimistic estimate provided by a tapper, and which therefore represents evidence of the curse of knowledge.

Overall, the tapping study demonstrates how the curse of knowledge can affect people’s judgment. Specifically, it shows that people who know which tune is being tapped have an easy time identifying it, and therefore struggle to accurately predict the perspective of others, who don’t have the same knowledge that they do.

The Psychology & Causes Of The Curse Of Knowledge

The curse of knowledge is attributed to two main cognitive mechanisms:

People’s curse of knowledge can be caused by either of these mechanisms, and both mechanisms may play a role at the same time. Other cognitive mechanisms may also lead to the curse of knowledge. For example, one such mechanism is anchoring and adjustment, which in this case means that when people try to reason about a less-informed perspective, their starting point is often their own perspective, which they struggle to adjust from properly.

All these mechanisms, in turn, can be attributed to various causes, such as the brain’s focus on acquiring and using information, rather than on inhibiting it, which is beneficial in most cases but problematic in others. In addition, various factors, such as age and cultural background, can influence people’s tendency to display the curse of knowledge, as well as the way and degree to which they display it.

Finally, other psychological concepts are associated with the curse of knowledge. The most notable of these is theory of mind, which is the ability to understand that other people have perceptions, thoughts, emotions, beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from our own, and that these things can influence people’s behavior. Insufficient theory of mind can therefore lead to an increase in the curse of knowledge, and conversely, proper theory of mind can reduce the curse of knowledge.

Dealing with The Curse Of Knowledge

There are several things that you can do to reduce the curse of knowledge:

Other Debiasing Techniques

We can use various general debiasing techniques, such as slowing down our reasoning process and improving our decision-making environment. In addition, we can use debiasing techniques that are meant to reduce egocentric biases, such as visualizing the perspective of others and then adjusting our judgment based on this, or using self-distancing language (e.g., by asking “are you teaching in a way that the students can understand?” instead of “am I teaching in a way that the students can understand?”).

It is important to keep in mind that none of these techniques may work perfectly in every situation. This means, for example, that some techniques might not work for some individuals in some circumstances, or that even if a certain technique does work, it will only reduce someone’s curse of knowledge to some degree, but won’t eliminate it entirely.

Related Biases

The curse of knowledge is considered to be a type of egocentric bias, since it causes people to rely too heavily on their own point of view when they try to see things from other people’s perspective. However, an important feature of the curse of knowledge, which differentiates it from some other egocentric biases, is that it is asymmetric, in the sense that it influences those who attempt to understand a less-informed perspective, but not those who attempt to understand a more-informed perspective. The curse of knowledge is also associated with various other cognitive biases, such as:

***Source Credits:-

http://www.effectiviology.com/

http://www.doi.org/

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa