UNDERSTANDING THE PARETO PRINCIPLE (THE 80/20 RULE)

The Pareto principle states that for many outcomes, roughly 80% of consequences come from 20% of causes (the “vital few”). Other names for this principle are the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few, or the principle of factor sparsity.

Management consultant Joseph Juran developed the concept in the context of quality control and improvement, naming it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who noted the 80/20 connection while at the University of Lausanne in 1896. In his first work, Cours d’économie politique, Pareto showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. The Pareto principle is only tangentially related to Pareto efficiency. More generally, the Pareto Principle is the observation (not law) that most things in life are not distributed evenly. It can mean all of the following things:

The Uneven Distribution

What does it mean when we say that things aren’t distributed evenly? The key point is that each unit of work (or time) doesn’t contribute the same amount. In a perfect world, every employee would contribute the same amount, every bug would be equally important, every feature would be equally loved by users. Planning would be so easy. But that isn’t always the case.

The 80/20 principle observes that most things have an unequal distribution. Out of 5 things, perhaps 1 will be good. That good thing/idea/person will result in majority of the impact of the group. Of course, this ratio can change. It could be 80/20, 90/10, or 90/20 (the numbers don’t have to add to 100 even). The key point is that most things are not 1:1, where each unit of input (effort, time, labour) contributes exactly the same amount of output.

The Upside of the 80/20 Principle

When applied to life and work, the 80/20 Rule can help separate the vital few from the trivial many. For example, business owners may discover the majority of revenue comes from a handful of important clients. The 80/20 Rule would recommend that the most effective course of action would be to focus exclusively on serving these clients (and on finding others like them) and either stop serving others or let the majority of customers gradually fade away because they account for a small portion of the bottom line.

The 80/20 Rule is like a form of judo for life and work. By finding precisely the right area to apply pressure, we can get more results with less effort.

An Everyday Example – Home Cleaning 

Let us say we are cleaning our house. Some people might approach this by distributing their effort evenly across a variety of tasks, including dusting, vacuuming, and mopping each room. But this probably is not very efficient — it would take many hours to get everything done. The Pareto Principle tells us that 80% of how clean our house appears comes down to 20% of our cleaning efforts. Again, we don’t need to work out exactly what 20% of our cleaning looks like. But we do need to ask questions like:

We might conclude that giving the house a quick vacuum, clearing away the bulk of the clutter, and dusting down the main surfaces makes a huge difference. Or perhaps we figure that visitors will spend most of their time in the living room and dining room, so we will focus on them and only give other rooms a cursory clean? But giving every mirror a perfect polish and removing every speck of dust from the house might not make such a big difference to the overall result. 

The Downside of the 80/20 Principle

We get one, precious life. How do we decide the best way to spend our time? Productivity concepts will often suggest that we focus on being effective rather than being efficient.

Efficiency is about getting more things done. Effectiveness is about getting the right things done. In other words, making progress is not just about being productive. It’s about being productive on the right things. But how do we decide what the right things are? The 80/20 Rule states that, in any particular domain, a small number of things account for the majority of the results. The point is that the majority of the results are driven by a minority of causes. There is a downside to the 80/20 principle, and it is often overlooked. To understand this pitfall, here is a story.

A Story: Audrey Hepburn- A New Path

Audrey Hepburn was an icon. Rising to fame in the 1950s, she was one of the greatest actresses of her era. In 1953, Hepburn became the first actress to win an Academy Award, a Golden Globe Award, and a BAFTA Award for a single performance- her leading role in the romantic comedy Roman Holiday. Even today, over half a century later, she remains one of just 15 people to earn an “EGOT” by winning all four major entertainment awards: Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony. By the 1960s, she was averaging more than one new film per year and, by everyone’s estimation, she was on a trajectory to be a movie star for decades to come.

But then something funny happened- she stopped acting. Despite being in her 30s and at the height of her popularity, Hepburn basically stopped appearing in films after 1967. She would perform in television shows or movies just five times during the rest of her life. Instead, she switched careers. She spent the next 25 years working tirelessly for UNICEF, the arm of the United Nations that provides food and healthcare to children in war-torn countries. She performed volunteer work throughout Africa, South America, and Asia.

Hepburn’s first act was on stage. Her next act was one of service. In December 1992, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her efforts, which is the highest civilian award of the United States.

The Shortcoming of the 80/20 principle:

For a moment, let us all Imagine it is 1967. Audrey Hepburn is in the prime of her career and trying to decide how to spend her time. If she uses the 80/20 Rule as part of her decision-making process, she will discover a clear answer- do more romantic comedies. Many of Hepburn’s best films were romantic comedies. They attracted large audiences, earned her awards, and were an obvious path to greater fame and fortune. Romantic comedies were effective for Audrey Hepburn.

In fact, even if we take into account her desire to help children through UNICEF, an 80/20 analysis might have revealed that starring in more romantic comedies was still the best option because she could have maximized her earning power and donated the additional earnings to UNICEF.

Of course, that’s all well and good if she wanted to continue acting. But she didn’t want to be an actress. She wanted to serve. And no reasonable analysis of the highest and best use of her time in 1967 would have suggested that volunteering for UNICEF was the most effective use of her time. This is the downside of the 80/20 Rule: A new path will never look like the most effective option in the beginning.

Optimizing for the Past or the Future

Let us look at another example. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, worked on Wall Street and climbed the corporate ladder to become senior vice-president of a hedge fund before leaving it all in 1994 to start the company. If Bezos had applied the 80/20 Rule in 1993 in an attempt to discover the most effective areas to focus on in his career, it is virtually impossible to imagine that founding an internet company would have been on the list. At that point in time, there is no doubt that the most effective path—whether measured by financial gain, social status, or otherwise—would have been the one where he continued his career in finance.

The 80/20 Rule is calculated and determined by our recent effectiveness. Whatever seems like the “highest value” use of time in any given moment will be dependent on our previous skills and current opportunities. The 80/20 Rule will help us find the useful things in our past and get more of them in the future. But if we don’t want our future to be more of the past, then we need a different approach. The downside of being effective is that we often optimize for our past rather than for our future.

The Way Forward

Given enough practice and enough time, the thing that previously seemed ineffective can become very effective. We get good at what we practice. When Audrey Hepburn dialed down her acting career in 1967, volunteering didn’t seem nearly as effective. But three decades later, she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom—a remarkable feat she is unlikely to have accomplished by acting in more romantic comedies.

The process of learning a new skill or starting a new company or taking on a new adventure of any sort will often appear to be an ineffective use of time at first. Compared to the other things you already know how to do, the new thing will seem like a waste of time. It will never win the 80/20 analysis. But that doesn’t mean it’s the wrong decision.

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

THE DIDEROT EFFECT: INTERTWINED BEHAVIOURS

The famous French philosopher Denis Diderot lived nearly his entire life in poverty, but that all changed in 1765. Diderot was 52 years old and his daughter was about to be married, but he could not afford to provide a dowry. Despite his lack of wealth, Diderot’s name was well-known because he was the co-founder and writer of Encyclopédie, one of the most comprehensive encyclopedias of the time.

When Catherine the Great, the Empress of Russia, heard of Diderot’s financial troubles she offered to buy his library from him for £1000 GBP (in AD 1765….!!) Suddenly, Diderot had money to spare. Shortly after this lucky sale, Diderot acquired a new scarlet robe. That’s when everything went wrong.

The Diderot Effect

Diderot’s scarlet robe was so beautiful, that he immediately noticed how out of place it seemed when surrounded by the rest of his common possessions. In his words, there was “no more coordination, no more unity, no more beauty” between his robe and the rest of his items. The philosopher soon felt the urge to buy some new things to match the beauty of his robe. He replaced his old rug with a new one from Damascus. He decorated his home with beautiful sculptures and a better kitchen table. He bought a new mirror to place above the mantle and his “straw chair was relegated to the antechamber by a leather chair.”

These reactive purchases have become known as the Diderot Effect, which states that obtaining a new possession often creates a spiral of consumption which leads us to acquire more new things. As a result, we end up buying things that our previous selves never needed to feel happy or fulfilled.

Why We Want Things We Don’t Need

We can spot similar behaviours in many other areas of life. Some common instances are:

Life has a natural tendency to become filled with more. We are rarely looking to downgrade, to simplify, to eliminate, to reduce. Our natural inclination is always to accumulate, to add, to upgrade, and to build upon.

The Role Of The Diderot Effect In Evolution

Now it may seem from the get-go that the Diderot Effect feeds on something negative, and the words greed and consumerism come to mind. But when we think about it, the Diderot Effect could be a form of evolution. After all, as the world progresses towards a new chapter, everyone in it would also evolve in terms of their needs and wants.

For example, decades ago, one would not think about having the ability to talk to someone from the other side of the world on a real-time basis, and never at a low cost. However, smartphones, mobile gadgets and the internet has made all this possible. Now, these are not just considered as wants, but actual needs. And with these needs comes a string of other needs, like the subscription to a data plan. For business owners, this effect causes you to think about two things:

• The consumer’s need for upgrades
• The consumer’s need for accessories and/or complementary products

The Diderot Effect in Action

Here’s a clear example of how this works. Let’s look at a professional on the go. This person probably has a laptop that he/ she uses to communicate with the team and prepare presentations and reports as the person flies from one site to another. If we are in the business of developing software for this professional, how would we take advantage of the situation?

Well, we would probably make sure that the tools the person uses continue to be as efficient as possible. For every challenge or difficulty these professionals encounter, we can have a ready upgrade that would solve the problem in an instant. However, these upgrades would require other peripherals as well, sometimes, reaching a point where the person using it has to upgrade their laptop’s operating system, or buy a new and more advanced laptop.

It is the same scenario as your basic Diderot Effect – but with an underlying reason that justifies the process. It’s not just about a senseless yearning for exquisite things for the want of upgrading one’s lifestyle. It’s also about keeping up with the times and understanding that as the world evolves, our needs would have to evolve as well for us to continue being productive and successful.

Mastering the Diderot Effect

The Diderot Effect tells us that life is only going to have more things fighting to get in it, so we need to understand how to curate, eliminate, and focus on the things that matter. Nearly every habit is initiated by a trigger or cue. One of the quickest ways to reduce the power of the Diderot Effect is to avoid the habit triggers that cause it in the first place. Unsubscribe from commercial emails. Call the magazines that send catalogues and opt out of their mailings. Meet friends at the park rather than the mall. Block favourite shopping websites using tools like Freedom.

Become aware it is happening. Observe when we are being drawn into spiralling consumption not because of an actual need of an item, but only because something new has been introduced. Analyse and predict the full cost of future purchases. A store may be having a great sale on a new outfit—but if the new outfit compels us to buy a new pair of shoes or handbag to match, it just became a more expensive purchase than originally assumed.

Buy items that fit our current system. We don’t have to start from scratch each time we buy something new. When we purchase new clothes, we can look for items that work well with our current wardrobe. When upgrading to new electronics, we can get things that play nicely with our current pieces so we can avoid buying new chargers, adapters, or cables.

Buy One, Give One. Each time we make a new purchase, we can give something away. Get a new TV? Give the old one away rather than moving it to another room. The idea is to prevent the number of items from growing. The habit of always be curating our life to include only the things that bring us joy and happiness can be effective.

Let go of wanting things. There will never be a level where we will be done wanting things. There is always something to upgrade to. Get a new Honda? You can upgrade to a Mercedes. Get a new Mercedes? You can upgrade to a Bentley. Get a new Bentley? You can upgrade to a Ferrari. Get a new Ferrari? Have you thought about buying a private plane? We need to realize that wanting is just an option our mind provides, not an order we have to follow.

Our natural tendency is to consume more, not less. Taking active steps to reduce the flow of unquestioned consumption makes our lives better.

Setting self-imposed limits helps as well. Live a carefully constrained life by creating limitations for you to operate within. Avoid unnecessary new purchases. Realize the Diderot Effect is a significant force and overcoming it is very difficult. There are times when we have a legitimate need to buy new things. But the best way to overcome the Diderot Effect is to never allow it to overpower us in the first place.

Remind ourselves that possessions do not define us. The abundance of life is not found in the things that we own. Our possessions do not define us or our success. Buy things for their usefulness rather than their status. Stop trying to impress others with our stuff and start trying to impress them with our life.

***Source Credits: http://www.en.wikipedia.org

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

THE LONG VIEW (OR) BIG PICTURE THINKING – CHAPTER 02

***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: What Is Big Picture Thinking, Importance Of Big Picture Thinking, Detail Oriented Or A Big Picture Thinker- The Difference)

Link to Chapter 01:

THE LONG VIEW (OR) BIG PICTURE THINKING – CHAPTER 01

Identifying the Different Approaches – Approach Indicators

No matter which field we belong to – an aspiring entrepreneur, someone who’s putting together a dream team, or polishing our leadership skills, big picture thinking can help open up, innovative and unexpected creative paths, ideas and solutions.

Detail-Oriented Approach Indicators

• We prefer tweaking an existing plan than creating one from scratch
• We think over issues in such great detail that we sometimes miss the bigger picture
• We end up putting down or highlighting almost all notes
• We work towards high-quality work in most areas of our life and struggle with perfectionist tendencies
• We’re organized and/or like routine

Big Picture Approach Indicators

• We can easily spot patterns in problems
• We have a low tolerance for busywork, tedious errands, and routine
• We are good at figuring out an overview of strategies to get something done
• We get bored when we have to deal with the tiny details of a project
• People view us as incredibly creative and we like to come up with original ideas
• We don’t obsess over little details and therefore, solve problems fairly quickly

The Balance: Big Picture & Detailed Orientation- Components in Business

Strategies Towards a Big Picture Focus

A) Identify habits that limit our big picture thinking ability:. . . Our natural preferences often prevent us from blue sky thinking. So, the first step: break bad habits. Here’s a 3-step framework:

B) See things from a different lens: . . . Diving into big picture questions helps us connect the dots from our actions/tasks to the big goal. In this book, The Magic of Thinking Big, David J. Schwartz calls this, “see what can be, not just what is.” A good starting point is to ask ourselves, ‘what am I trying to achieve?’ Some big picture questions may be:

C) Think big by looking up: . . . The super basic rundown is that whenever we are focusing on the big picture, look up. And look down when not seeing the big picture.

A nice example of chunking reasoning is to think of transport. We can start with a motor car. If We chunk down, We might go to wheel, then rim, then rubber, then tread and even road. If We chunk up, We might go to transport, then to travel, then to vacation, then to wellbeing, etc.”

D)  Use bulleted lists to think big: . . . This is a trick many of use on a regular basis – making a bulleted list of the big picture and then adding sub-bullets to each pillar step. We can then step back and look at what can be added or removed from the sub-bullet pointers to keep the needle moving forward.

So why did this work? Because bullet points give us the visuals on the big picture. It’s challenging to connect the dots when we can’t see them. It’s also tough to translate the big picture if we don’t have it in front of us. What’s more, bullet points are easy to access and revise anytime. This, in turn, provides clarity.

E) Start journaling / mind mapping: . . . When we put our internal prattle on paper, we can easily spot where we are flailing or how it can be shaped to fit the bigger picture. To begin with, note down the big picture, followed by the small details pestering us. The trick is to make sure that it represents not only the big picture, but that it represents the detail, or actionable elements as well. Then record our thoughts to see if they deviate from the big picture plan. 

F) Schedule in some thinking time: . . . Often, when we rush to make a decision, we end up feeling sorry about it. When this happens, it’s usually for one of three reasons:

If we find ourselves nodding yes to any or all of these points, pencil in some uninterrupted, thinking time to our schedule. This space is crucial to making better decisions that rely on the big picture. We will also be able to rate our priorities better – what matters in the big picture, how it contributes to the big picture and so on. This will help us to stop hustling so hard, and ditch the shiny object syndrome.

Self Reflection- The Key

If we pause and contemplate how we are doing, we can make small tweaks that help us stay consistently productive. Some pointers to reflect on may be:

When we are busy executing any tasks in our lives for far too long, it’s easy to forget the details or the big picture depending on the type of thinker we are. For instance, as a big picture thinker, we may be excited by how our old and new ideas are connecting and work on outlining them, forgetting that the ideas have to be structured by many crucial details to work in the long term. The details person on the other hand might be buried in unending to-do-lists, feeling secure in the routines only to be disrupted by an enormous transition they didn’t anticipate.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

NEUROSCIENCES BASED BRAIN/ MIND REGULATION: BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED

We are hard-wired to fight or flee under threat, so it is normal to want to act out in defence when we experience or observe the injustices in today’s world. But when we respond with our primitive, survive mind, it raises the stakes for impulsive and unreasonable reactions and in some cases violence, even death. Our survive brain can colonize our hearts and dwarf our humanity if we continue to allow it—as evidenced by large-scale injustices such as racially motivated murders, hate crimes, violent protests, police brutality, deadly reactions to the COVID-19 lock-down and global terrorism.

Survive Mind Versus Thrive Mind

We have a choice to permit our lives to be driven by our survive mind’s violent reactions or drawn from our thrive mind’s calm, compassionate, and clear-minded actions. Our lives are shaped from the inside out. If we lose our inner connection, in small ways and big, our personal lives and the world unravel. It starts with each of us exercising our own levelheadedness, self-control, and inner calm at an individual level.

All of us have a running monologue in our heads with the intention to control ourselves whether it is to stop from blowing up at the injustice we see in news feeds, eating another slice of pizza, or blurting out at a colleague who talks over us in a virtual meeting. But how many times have we said or done something we wish we could take back? We can blame our impulsive, self-immersed, non-thinking survive brain. Once we become clearheaded and regret what we said or did, we have shifted into our reflective, self-distanced, thinking thrive brain. But what if we could act more from our thrive brain (and react less from your survive brain) in the first place?

Self-Talk: Thrive talk instead of survive talk creates greater resilience.

Self-talk and how we consciously use it is a relatively effortless form of self-control in many different areas of our lives: diet, athletic performance, scholastic achievement, emotion regulation and impulsive behaviors. The way we talk to ourselves can help us survive or thrive.There was a time when people who talked to themselves were considered “crazy.” Now, experts consider self-talk to be one of the most effective therapeutic tools available. The science of self-talk has shown time and again that how we use self-talk makes a big difference.

We have an inner voice that provides a running monologue on our lives throughout the day and into the night. This inner voice, combining conscious thoughts with unconscious beliefs and biases, is an effective way for the brain to interpret and process daily experiences.

According to research, we have greater self-control when we use self-distanced self-talk from our thrive brain that entails using our name and non-first-person pronouns (instead of self-immersed first-person pronouns of “I” from our survive brain). Self-distancing gives us psychological distance from the survive brain’s egocentric bias which in turn enhances self-control, lowers anxiety, bolsters confidence, reduces impulsivity, improves emotion regulation, and cultivates wisdom over time. The reason for this difference is that third person self-talk leads us to think about ourselves similar to how we think about others and gives us agency to regulate our frustration, anger, or fear simply by the way we use internal dialogue.

Our “inner voice” can give us the self-control to stop us from making impulsive decisions. Research has confirmed that we act more impulsively when we cannot use our inner voice or talk to ourselves as we are performing tasks. Self-talk incorporating non-first-person pronouns (like the collective “we”) can enhance athletic performance and the ability to regulate thoughts, feelings and behaviours and help us to avoid rumination and improve performance with greater perspective, calm and confidence.

Self-Distancing

As human beings, our sense of self, or ‘ego’ governs a large part of our behavior, like our interactions with other people, our sense of self-worth and the image we have of ourselves in our minds. And often this image is very fragile, susceptible to all kinds of doubt and insecurity. Recent studies show that creating an alter ego or thinking of one’s self in the third person can go a long way in boosting morale and instilling confidence.

Research shows silently referring to ourselves by name instead as “I,” gives us psychological distance from the primitive parts of our brain. It allows us to talk to ourselves the way we might speak to someone else. The survive mind’s story is not the only story. And the thrive mind has a chance to shed a different light on the scenario. The language of separation allows us to process an internal event as if it happened to someone else. First-name self-talk or referring to ourselves as “you,” shifts focus away from our primitive brain’s inherent egocentricism. Studies show this practice lowers anxiety, gives us self-control, cultivates wisdom over time and puts the brakes on the negative voices that restrict possibilities.

First-name self-talk is more likely to empower us and increase the likelihood that, compared to someone using first-person pronoun self-talk, we see a challenge (thrive mind) instead of a threat (survive mind).

The Language of Separation

The language of separation allows us to process an internal event as if it happened to someone else. Thus, our survive mind’s story is not the only story and the thrive mind has a chance to shed a different light on the scenario. Experts have found that the best approach to deal with the survive mind is to respond as if it is another person. We must remember that the voice is not us. Some Examples of the language of separation and practicing self-distancing are:

Broaden-and-Build: The Big Picture

It sometimes helps to think of ourselves as the narrator, instead of the actor, of our thoughts and feelings when we are in a disturbing scene. Scientists report that narrative expressive writing creates a self-distanced versus self-immersed perspective and helps us overcome egocentric impulses, reduce stressful cardiovascular effects, and apply wise reasoning. With this form of self-distancing, we can process and make meaning from a bird’s-eye view instead of a personal perspective, fostering forward movement as opposed to rumination and re-experiencing the same negative emotions over and over again.

Like the zoom lens of a camera, Mother Nature has hardwired our survival brain for tunnel vision to target a threat. Our heart races, eyes dilate, and breathing escalates to enable us to fight or flee. As our brain zeroes in, our self-talk makes life-or-death judgments that constrict our ability to see possibilities. Our focus is narrow like the zoom lens of a camera, clouding out the big picture. And over time we build blind spots of negativity without realizing it. Self-talk through our wide-angle lens allows us to step back from a challenge, look at the big picture, and brainstorm on a wider range of possibilities, solutions, opportunities and choices.

Self-Affirmations

In 2014, Clayton Critcher and David Dunning at the University of California at Berkeley, conducted a series of studies showing that positive affirmations function as “cognitive expanders,” bringing a wider perspective to diffuse the brain’s tunnel vision of self-threats. Affirmations help us transcend the zoom-lens mode by engaging the wide-angle lens of the mind. Self-affirmations help cultivate a long-distance relationship with their judgment voice and see ourselves more fully in a broader self-view, bolstering our self-worth.

Relationships with Our ‘Parts’

When we notice that we are in an unpleasant emotional state—such as worry, anger, or frustration—holding these parts of us at arm’s length and observing them impartially as a separate aspect of us, activates our thrive talk (clarity, compassion, calm). Thinking of them much as we might observe a blemish on our hand allows us to be curious about where they came from. Instead of pushing away, ignoring, or steamrolling over the unpleasant parts, the key is to acknowledge them with something like, “Hello frustration, I see you are active today.”

This simple acknowledgment relaxes the parts so we can face the real hardship—whatever triggered them in the first place. This psychological distance flips the switches in our survive brain and thrive brain at which point we are calm, clear-minded, compassionate, perform competently, and have more confidence and courage.

Self-Compassion

There is a direct link between self-compassion and happiness, well-being, and success. The more self-compassion we have, the greater our emotional arsenal. Studies show that meditation cultivates compassion and kindness, affecting brain regions that make us more empathetic to other people. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the researchers discovered that positive emotions such as loving-kindness and compassion can be developed in the same way as playing a musical instrument or being proficient in a sport.

The expression of empathy has far-reaching effects in our personal and professional lives. Employers who express empathy are more likely to retain employees, amp up productivity, reduce turnover, and create a sense of belonging in the company. If we cultivate the habit of speaking with loving-kindness, we change the way our brain fires in the moment.

Research shows that when abrasive, survive self-talk attacks us, it reduces our chances of rebounding and ultimately success. Instead of coming down hard on ourselves, loving-kindness helps us bounce back quicker. Forgiving ourselves for previous slip-ups such as procrastination, for example, offsets further procrastination. When we talk ourselves off the ledge using self-distancing, compassion, and positive self-talk, we perform better at tasks and recover more quickly from defeat or setbacks—regardless of how dire the circumstances.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

PERSONAL EFFECTIVENESS AND PRODUCTIVITY: BEHAVIOURS ASSOCIATED

Story – The Ivy Lee Method:

By 1918, Charles M. Schwab was one of the richest men in the world. Schwab was the president of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, the largest shipbuilder, and the second-largest steel producer in America at the time. The famous inventor Thomas Edison once referred to Schwab as the “master hustler.” He was constantly seeking an edge over the competition. One day in 1918, in his quest to increase the efficiency of his team and discover better ways to get things done, Schwab arranged a meeting with a highly respected productivity consultant named Ivy Lee. Lee was a successful businessman in his own right and is widely remembered as a pioneer in the field of public relations.

The Ivy Lee Method:. . . . . . . . During his 15 minutes with each executive, Ivy Lee explained this simple set of daily routine steps for achieving peak productivity:

1. At the end of each workday, write down the six most important things you need to accomplish tomorrow.
2. Do not write down more than six tasks.
3. Prioritize those six items in order of their true importance.
4. When you arrive tomorrow, concentrate only on the first task.
5. Work until the first task is finished before moving on to the second task.
6. Approach the rest of your list in the same fashion.
7. At the end of the day, move any unfinished items to a new list of six tasks for the following day.
8. Repeat this process every working day.

The strategy sounded simple, but Schwab and his executive team at Bethlehem Steel gave it a try. After three months, Schwab was so delighted with the progress his company had made that he called Lee into his office and wrote him a check for $25,000. A $25,000 check written in 1918 is the equivalent of a $400,000 check in 2015.

The Ivy Lee Method of prioritizing our to-do list seems stupidly simple. How could something this simple be worth so much?

A) It is simple enough to actually work: . . . . . . . . The primary critique of methods like this one is that they are too basic. They do not account for all of the complexities and nuances of life. What happens if an emergency pops up? What about using the latest technology to our fullest advantage? Sometimes, complexity is actually a weakness because it makes it harder to get back on track. Emergencies and unexpected distractions will arise. Ignoring them as much as possible, dealing with them when we must, and getting back to our prioritized to-do list as soon as possible is what brings productivity. The use of simple rules to guide complex behaviour often serves the best results.

B) It forces us to make tough decisions: . . . . . . . . . There is nothing magical about Lee’s number of six important tasks per day. It could just as easily be five tasks per day. However, there is something magical about imposing limits upon ourselves. Sometimes, the single best thing to do when we have too many ideas (or when we are overwhelmed by everything we need to get done) is to prune our ideas and trim away everything that is not absolutely necessary. Constraints can make us better. Lee’s method is similar to Warren Buffett’s 25-5 Rule, which requires us to focus on just 5 critical tasks and ignore everything else. Basically, if we commit to nothing, we will be distracted by everything.

C) It removes the friction of starting: . . . . . . . . . The biggest hurdle to finishing most tasks is starting them. Lee’s method forces us to decide on our first task the night before we go to work. If we decide the night before, we can start work immediately the next day, and not end up wasting time deciding what needs our attention. It is simple, but it works. In the beginning, getting started is just as important as succeeding at all.

Another tool that could be useful here is known as the Eisenhower Box (or Eisenhower Matrix) and it’s a simple decision-making tool. General Dwight Eisenhower had an incredible ability to sustain his productivity for weeks and months. And for that reason, it is no surprise that his methods for time management, task management, and productivity have been studied by many people. Before becoming the 34th President of the United States, Eisenhower was a five-star general in the United States Army, served as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War II, and was responsible for planning and executing invasions of North Africa, France, and Germany.

D) It requires us to single-task: . . . . . . . . . Modern society loves multi-tasking. The myth of multi-tasking is that being busy is synonymous with being better. The exact opposite is true. Having fewer priorities leads to better work. World-class experts in nearly any field—athletes, artists, scientists, teachers, CEOs—have one characteristic that runs through all of them: focus. The reason is simple. We cannot be great at one task if we are constantly dividing our time ten different ways. Mastery requires focus and consistency. The bottom line? Do the most important thing first each day. It’s the only productivity trick we need.

The Myth of Multitasking: Why Fewer Priorities Leads to Better Work

The word priority did not always mean what it does today. In his best-selling book, Essentialism (audiobook), Greg McKeown explains the surprising history of the word and how its meaning has shifted over time.

Yes, we are capable of doing two things at the same time. It is possible, for example, to watch TV while cooking dinner or to answer an email while talking on the phone. What is impossible, however, is concentrating on two tasks at once. Multitasking forces our brain to switch back and forth very quickly from one task to another. This would not be a big deal if the human brain could transition seamlessly from one job to the next, but it cannot. Multitasking forces us to pay a mental price each time we interrupt one task and jump to another. In psychology terms, this mental price is called the switching cost. Switching cost is the disruption in performance that we experience when we switch our attention from one task to another.

For example, A 2003 study published in the International Journal of Information Management found that the typical person checks email once every five minutes and that, on average, it takes 64 seconds to resume the previous task after checking your email. In other words, because of email alone, we typically waste one out of every six minutes.

The myth of multitasking is that it will make us more effective. In reality, remarkable focus is what makes the difference. While we are on the subject, the word multitasking first appeared in 1965 IBM report talking about the capabilities of its latest computer.

Finding Your Anchor Task: . .. . . . . . .  . Doing more things does not drive faster or better results. Doing better things drives better results. Even more accurately, doing one thing as best you can, drives better results. The power of choosing one priority is that it naturally guides our behavior by forcing us to organize our life around that responsibility. Our priority becomes an anchor task, the mainstay that holds the rest of our day in place. If things get crazy, there is no debate about what to do or not to do. We have already decided what is urgent and what is important.

Saying No to Being Busy: . . . . . . . . As a society, we have fallen into a trap of busyness and overwork. In many ways, we have mistaken all this activity to be something meaningful. The underlying thought seems to be, “Look how busy I am? If I am doing all this work, I must be doing something important.” And, by extension, “I must be important because I’m so busy.” The people who do the most valuable work have a remarkable willingness to say no to distractions and focus on their one thing.

Implementation Intentions: Mastering One Thing at a Time

Many people have multiple areas of life they would like to improve. The problem is, even if we are committed to working hard on our goals, our natural tendency is to revert back to our old habits at some point. Making a permanent lifestyle change is difficult.

The approach to mastering many areas of life is somewhat counterintuitive. If we want to master multiple habits and stick to them for good, then we need to figure out how to be consistent. How can we do that? Research has shown that we are 2x to 3x more likely to stick with our habits if we make a specific plan for when, where, and how we will perform the behavior. For example, in one study scientists asked people to fill out this sentence: “During the next week, I will partake in at least 20 minutes of vigorous exercise on [DAY] at [TIME OF DAY] at/in [PLACE].”

Psychologists call these specific plans “implementation intentions” because they state when, where, and how we intend to implement a particular behavior. For example, implementation intentions have been found to increase the odds that people will start exercising, begin recycling, stick with studying, and even stop smoking. However (and this is crucial to understand) follow-up research has discovered that implementation intentions only work when we focus on one thing at a time.

When we begin practicing a new habit it requires a lot of conscious effort to remember to do it. After a while, however, the pattern of behavior becomes easier. Eventually, our new habit becomes a normal routine, and the process is more or less mindless and automatic. Automaticity is the ability to perform a behavior without thinking about each step, which allows the pattern to become automatic and habitual. But here is the thing: automaticity only occurs as the result of lots of repetition and practice. The more reps we put in, the more automatic a behavior becomes. The most important thing to note is that there is some “tipping point” at which new habits become more or less automatic. The time it takes to build a habit depends on many factors including how difficult the habit is, what our environment is like, our genetics, and more.

The counterintuitive insight from all of this research is that the best way to change our entire life is by not changing our entire life. Instead, it is best to focus on one specific habit, work on it until we master it, and make it an automatic part of our daily life. Then, repeat the process for the next habit. The way to master more things in the long run is to simply focus on one thing right now.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

COGNITIVE BIASES: MANIFESTATION AND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES – (CHAPTER 02)

***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: Cognitive Biases and Debiasing, The Debiasing Process)

Link to Chapter 01:

COGNITIVE BIASES: MANIFESTATION AND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES – (CHAPTER 01)

Various Debiasing Techniques

There are a few general debiasing strategies (sometimes referred to as cognitive-forcing strategies), which can help deal with many of the cognitive biases. Many of these strategies are interrelated since the underlying principles behind them are similar.

A) Develop awareness of cognitive biases: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .>>  In some cases, simply being aware of a certain bias can help us reduce its impact. For example, consider the illusion of transparency, a cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate how well others can discern their emotional state, so that they tend to think that other people can tell if they are feeling nervous or anxious even in situations where that is not the case.

This happens because our own emotional experience can be so strong, we are sure our emotions ‘leak out.’ However, observers are not as good at picking up on a speaker’s emotional state as we tend to expect. What is inside of us typically manifests itself too subtly to be detected by others. We must relax and understand that if we become nervous, we will probably be the only ones to know.

B) Improve the way we present information: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> This can affect the way people process it, and the same information, presented in two different ways to the same person, can lead to two very different outcomes. Accordingly, by modifying the way we present information to people, we can reduce the influence of certain cognitive biases.

The exact way in which this strategy can be implemented depends on the circumstances, and on the cognitive biases that we are trying to avoid. Presenting information in an optimal way, that encourages people to think through it rather than react intuitively, can go a long way toward mitigating various cognitive biases.

C) Favour simple explanations over complex ones: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> This is rooted in the overkill backfire effect, which is a cognitive bias that causes people who encounter a complex explanation to reject it in favour of a simpler alternative, and to sometimes also reinforce their belief in the simpler alternative. When it comes to debiasing, simple explanations are often preferable to complex ones. This concept can be applied in many areas of the debiasing process, from how we think through past events to how we present information.

D) Slow down the reasoning process: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> The benefit of doing this is that it allows to reflect on our reasoning process, and to think through alternative viewpoints, while also helping to avoid relying on biased intuitions. One way of encouraging this is to establish specific routines and protocols, which ensure that we slow down when necessary. Slowing down can help us reduce various cognitive biases, by enabling us to run an unrushed reasoning process, which is less influenced by our biased intuitions and emotional considerations.

E) Use nudges: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Nudges are simple modifications that are made to an environment to alter people’s behaviour in a predictable way, without forbidding any options or changing their incentives on a significant scale. This means that to count as a nudge, an intervention must be easy to avoid. For example, placing water bottles instead of soda cans near the register of a cafeteria counts as a nudge, while banning soda outright does not. Using nudges usually entails making changes to the people’s decision-making process, in a way that involves the implementation of other debiasing strategies.

One instance where nudges can be helpful is in the mitigation of the backfire effect, which is a cognitive bias that causes people to strengthen their support of their pre-existing beliefs when they encounter evidence which shows that those beliefs are wrong. This bias evident, for example, in the fact that when people are introduced to negative information about a political candidate that they favour, they often end up increasing their support for that candidate. One of the main ways to mitigate the backfire effect is to preface information that people might feel defensive about with questions that encourage them to process it.

F) Change incentives: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> In theory, there are two parameters related to incentives that we can modify in order to reduce the likelihood of biased decision-making: –

1. . . . . . increase the benefits (positive feedback or rewards) of making a non-biased decision. 
2. . . . . .  increase the penalties (negative feedback or punishments) for making a biased decision. 

However, in practice, changing people’s incentives does not always work, and might even backfire in some cases, such as when people feel actively antagonized by the changed incentive structure. Since the effects of changing incentives are difficult to predict, it’s important to be wary if we are thinking about changing them as part of debiasing process.

G) Increase involvement in the decision-making process: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Increasing how involved people feel about a certain decision and how much they care about it can reduce certain cognitive biases. By ensuring that people care more about making an unbiased decision, we can make them more open to using various metacognitive strategies, which can help debias successfully.

There are many ways in which we can increase people’s involvement in the decision-making process. One of the main ones is to emphasize their role as active participants in their own reasoning process, and to encourage them to rely on conscious reasoning, as opposed to subconscious intuitions. In doing this, we can ask people to clearly outline and verbalize their reasoning process, which can help them identify gaps in their logic, and think in a more rational way.

H) Increase personal accountability: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> When people know that they will be held accountable for their decisions and that their decisions will be scrutinized by others, they tend to put more effort into the decision-making process, which can sometimes help people mitigate certain cognitive biases.

I) Elicit feedback from others: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Receiving feedback from other people can help reduce certain cognitive biases. This is especially noticeable in the case of biases that influence people’s perception of themselves, such as the worse-than-average effect, which causes people to incorrectly believe that they are worse than other people at performing certain difficult tasks. However, when considering other people’s feedback, it is important to remember that they are also prone to various cognitive biases. Therefore, it is important to always be wary when deciding who to ask for feedback, and when deciding how to implement that feedback once we receive it.

J) Standardize the decision-making process: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Deciding to make our decisions in a standardized way can help ensure that we use all the necessary debiasing techniques that we need to go through an optimal decision-making process.

For example, the use of a simple mnemonic checklist was shown to help doctors apply important metacognitive strategies and make better decisions in a clinical context.

K) Create favourable conditions for decision making: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> We can facilitate the debiasing process by improving the conditions in which you make decisions. While it is often difficult to make those conditions absolutely perfect, even minor changes can be monumental in helping improve our ability to make rational decisions.

1. Improve internal conditions. These are factors that reduce our cognitive capacity, such as sleep deprivation, as well as factors that increase our cognitive demands, such as multitasking.
2. Improve external conditions. These are factors that reduce our cognitive capacity, such as high noise levels, as well as factors that increase our cognitive demands, such as social pressure.

Bias-Specific Debiasing Techniques

There are also some debiasing techniques that are applicable in more specific cases. They can only help deal with a certain type of bias. The advantage of such techniques is that even though they are applicable in fewer cases, they can often be more effective than generalized debiasing strategies. Some of them are:

A) Reduce your reliance on subjective memory: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >>  Research shows that our memory of past events is subjective, malleable, and prone to various distortions.

For example, there is the rosy retrospection bias, which is a cognitive bias that causes people to recall past events in a way that is more positive than how they experienced those events in reality. This bias can, for example, cause us to remember a past vacation as having been more enjoyable than it really was.

One way to mitigate these issues is to reduce reliance on such memory, by using objective records to examine past events. The main advantage of this technique is that we are better at remembering where information is stored and how to retrieve it, than we are at remembering the information itself.

B) Consider alternative outcomes to past events: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . >> This can also help deal with some of the biases that distort our view of these events. For example, the choice-supportive bias is a cognitive bias that causes people to retroactively ascribe more positive features and fewer negative features to an option that they chose. This bias can, for example, cause to justify a purchase that we made by overemphasizing the positive aspects of the item that we decided to buy. By considering alternative items that we could have purchased, we could potentially mitigate the choice-supportive bias, which could help view the purchase in a clearer, more unbiased way.

When doing this, our focus should be on trying to find a small number of highly plausible alternative outcomes. This is because, as we saw earlier, struggling to find a large number of alternative outcomes to an event can be counterproductive, and could actually hinder our ability to debias.

C) Create psychological distance: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Consider the spotlight effect, which is a cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate the degree to which others are likely to notice their actions or appearance, meaning that it causes people to assume that others are likely to notice it if they wear something embarrassing or say something stupid, even if that is not the case. We experience the spotlight effect because when we think about how other people see us, we tend to anchor their viewpoint to our own. Since we are so used to seeing things from our own perspective, we struggle to accurately judge how other people see us. One way to reduce the impact of this is to create psychological self-distance when we think about how other people view us. This entails trying to look at ourselves from a perspective that is different from our own, such as from the perspective of the person that we are talking to.

Creating psychological distance can also help fight against other types of biases. For example, the authority bias, which is the tendency to obey the orders of an authority figure, even when you believe that there is something wrong with those orders. One way in which people managed to cope with the authority bias was by increasing the physical and psychological distance between themselves and the authority figure. For instance, when the authority figure gave instructions through a phone, and was not in the same room as the person receiving the instructions, people were more likely to think rationally.

In Conclusion

It is important to keep in mind that different debiasing strategies will vary in their effectiveness and will have a different impact in different scenarios.

**Source Credits:

The book- The Art of Thinking Clearly -by Rolf Dobelli

The book- Predictably Irrational -by Dan Ariely
The book- The Illusion of Transparency and the Alleviation of Speech Anxiety -by Savitsky & Gilovich

The book- Nudge by -Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.

COGNITIVE BIASES: MANIFESTATION AND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES – (CHAPTER 01)

Cognitive bias mitigation (or Debiasing) is the practice through which we reduce the influence that cognitive biases have on people, to enable them to think in a more rational and optimal manner. Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from rationality, which occur due to the way our cognitive system works. Cognitive biases affect us in various areas of our life, from the way we interact with others to the way that we form our political opinions. Since these biases cause us to think and act in an irrational manner, their influence can be detrimental, which is why people often want to be able to mitigate them.

Examples of Cognitive Biases

Cognitive biases can influence our thinking in diverse ways, including the undermentioned:

A) Cognitive biases can affect how we form impressions of other people: -. . .  For example, the halo effect is a cognitive bias that causes our impression of someone in one area to influence our opinion of that person in other areas. This bias can cause us to assume that a person is highly knowledgeable and has an interesting personality, simply because they are physically attractive.

B) Cognitive biases can affect how we acquire information: -. . . . For example, the ostrich effect is a cognitive bias that causes us to avoid situations where we might encounter information that we perceive as negative. This bias can cause us to avoid going to the doctor, if we believe that the doctor will have bad news for us, that we do not want to deal with.

C) Cognitive biases can affect how we prepare for the future: -. . . . For example, the pessimism bias is a cognitive bias that causes us to overestimate the likelihood that bad things will happen. This bias can cause us to assume that we are going to do badly on an exam, even if we are prepared for it and it is likely that we will do well.

Does Cognitive Debiasing Work?

Research shows that cognitive debiasing does work in some cases, and that proper training and interventions can help reduce certain biases. However, there are situations where it does not entirely work. For example, one study examined people’s optimism bias, when it comes to believing that one’s own risk of suffering from health issues is lower than that of others.

Despite attempts to correct this bias, the researchers found that people’s optimism bias persisted in the face of various debiasing interventions. This demonstrates that debiasing is not always straightforward and finding the appropriate debiasing techniques to use in a certain situation can sometimes be a difficult process.

Nevertheless, it is always ideal to function under the belief that debiasing might be effective. This means we should try and reduce cognitive biases where possible, as long as doing so is not associated with an excessive cost/ repercussion. It is important to be realistic when deciding on debiasing goals, and when we are assessing whether or not our debiasing attempts will be successful.

How To Debias: – Overview Of The Debiasing Process

There are several stages in the debiasing process.

First, a cognitive bias is triggered. Then, we must become aware of this bias, and realize that it has been triggered. Once we realize that the bias has been triggered, we must conclude if there is a need to debias and make a conscious choice and commit to debiasing. After (or if) we do choose to debias, we need to start by assessing the bias, which involves determining in what way the bias impacts us and (or) the people around us. Once we understand what we are dealing with, we need to select the appropriate debiasing technique and apply it. Once successfully debiased, we can now move on to make an optimal decision.

We can also add an additional step, by reassessing the situation after we apply the debiasing strategy, to determine whether the debiasing attempt worked. Else, we can repeat the previous step, and either implement a different debiasing strategy or attempt to implement the previous one again, until successful at debiasing.

Two things to be cautious of are:

a) It is often difficult to accurately assess whether or not we have debiased successfully.

b) Repeated debiasing attempts can often be difficult to implement in practice, especially if we are trying to debias someone else.

Exercising Metacognitive Strategies

Metacognition, which refers to the ability to be consciously aware of your thought process, stands at the core of cognitive-bias inoculation and mitigation. Metacognitive awareness aids in: –

a) being aware of the various cognitive pitfalls and errors that we might encounter when processing information and making decisions,

b) ensuring that we successfully identify cases where cognitive biases affect people,

c)  successfully applying the relevant debiasing strategies, and,

d) ensuring that we accurately assess how successful the debiasing attempts are.

Differences between different debiasing techniques

***To be continued in Chapter 02 (Various Debiasing Techniques for everyday situations)- Link to Chapter – 02:

COGNITIVE BIASES: MANIFESTATION AND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES – (CHAPTER 02)

*Source Credits:

1. The book- Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman
2. The book- Nudge by -Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.

BEHAVIOURAL LESSONS FROM THE WORK-FROM-HOME ERA

It is safe to assume that an overwhelming majority of the population has now participated in a videoconference. People who may not have even known how to start one six months ago now use them daily—and it is all beginning to feel normal. The technologies that we have all come to rely on have so seamlessly infiltrated our lives that it is easy to overlook their impact. But when we consider the repercussions of remote working, we will see that these platforms have taught us more than just how to use them. They have made us better leaders, collaborators, employees, and employers. Here are some lessons we did not realize we learned from the tools we use to work from home.

Lesson 01- Transparency is not so frightening after all: . . . .. . . . . . .  

Many of us who came of age in the business world between the 1980s and the 2010s have an innate fear of letting a client see anything before it is “ready.” As businesses, we are entrusted to lead projects that constitute millions of dollars in revenue, which has led to the belief that if work is shared with a client before it’s “perfect,” then that trust will be lost. However, after five months of remote work during the most unpredictable time in most of our lives, it’s clear that nothing is perfect and the notion that we need to pretend it is has no place in our minds. Being open and vulnerable in business isn’t the worst thing in the world.

Lesson 02- Our significance is no longer tied to our location: . . . .. . . . . . .  

Good talent is expensive. You get what you pay for, and the best talent in the world is either totally undiscovered or very successful (hence the high cost). Employers did not know what they could not see, so if you were not directly in front of them, they had no idea you existed. The global pandemic has completely changed that.

With budgets being slashed, offices closed, companies shuttering, and the gig economy being revitalized, we have all been forced to realize that remote work works. The past notions of “oh, they work in a metro/ tier 1 city, so they must be good” are gone, and as people across the country were able to refine their work-from-home setups and became familiar, even comfortable, with Slack, Zoom, Dropbox, etc., the playing field was levelled. The migration of talent and remote work reckoning will afford talented creators and businesspeople from across the globe more opportunities and shake businesses clean of the attitude that someone is less valuable if they are not in a big city. After all, in today’s world, if you have tech tools, Wi-Fi, and talent, you can get the job done.

Lesson 03- Our collaboration skills might want improvement: . . . .. . . . . . .  

Between zoom, slack, chat, messenger, texting, and a good old-fashioned conference call or two, there are endless channels for socially distanced conversations to take place. But collaboration is something entirely different, and it is important to remember that talking is not co-thinking, and co-thinking is what gets things done. Energy, attitude, and personality cannot be ‘remoted’ through even the best fiber optic lines. (**quoted – Jerry Sinefield).

Every video call platform has managed to make it more obvious than ever how often team members speak over one another. It is an honest mistake, but even the slightest lag has taught many of us to wait our turn, take a second, and make sure we are not infringing on someone’s time to speak. This small change many have unconsciously implemented has made all the things that feed innovative thinking that much better.

The truth is that as humans, we adapt. Sometimes it happens so quietly that we don’t even notice. So, the next time we notice ourselves waiting our turn to speak, being more vulnerable with a client or co-worker, or not second-guessing our value, we can say a silent “thank you” to all of our work-from-home technology for helping us make positive changes from our couch.

Behaviours That Bring More Focus

Focus seems to be the key. It’s hard to imagine achieving anything of value without given it due attention. And whether it’s in relation to family life, work or study, more focus enables more effective setting and achievement of goals. But while most of us can appreciate the benefits of focus, the path to becoming more focused is often elusive. This is especially the case in our modern world: where gadgets, social media and around-the-clock coverage of world events (and non-events) often serve to distract us.

One solution could be to simply avoid the same things highly focused people avoid. Study after study of highly focused (and not-so-focused) people has given us a good idea of the do’s and don’ts of maintaining attention and getting the job done. Here are some behaviours of focused people:

They do not focus their attention on being focused: . . . . . .. . It might seem counterintuitive, but recent research suggests the best way to gain and keep focus is not to try. In other words, maintaining focus could best be undertaken as a defensive sport. Allowing even 200 milliseconds of mental distraction (around 1/5th of second, i.e., the blink of the eye) can disturb our focus for up to 40 minutes. Getting distracted depletes both our physical energy and our brain power. For example, it uses up vital thinking resources and pushes us more quickly towards mental overload—a state wherein we are less able to make decisions. By contrast, placing effort on getting rid of random distractions regains our focus and preserves our scarce, mental reserves.

They reframe dull work to be interesting: . . . . . . . . . We are only focused when we’re interested in the topic. It is no surprise that if the task at hand is incredibly boring, we lose focus quickly. Nonetheless, seldom in life do we get to work things that are always interesting and engaging. For that reason, highly focused people reframe whatever work or tasks they have, to make them more “interesting”. For example, signing a bunch of documents might be reframed as a chance to reflect on the beauty (or ugliness) of your signature. Reading an exceptionally long and poorly structured client brief might allow thoughts of copyediting.

They never begin something without clear, realistic goals. :. . . . . . . . Goal setting is an entire sub-field of management behavioural science. One of its many insights is that setting clear goals increases productivity. However, the mechanism by which goals appear to boost productivity relates to focus: clear goals give a person an object of focus and helps them mark progress. And that leads to something else. The goal-setting literature says our objectives should be challenging; however, they should also be realistic. Goals that are set too high or too low undermines focus and, as a result, productivity.

They chase those goals with flexibility and agility: . . . . . . . .. At the same time, highly focused people do some things that seem counterintuitive. For example, they set goals but do not set rigid ways of achieving them. As a result, high focused people leave themselves open to exploiting opportunities that arise along the way. These opportunities might make their existing goals easer to reach or change them altogether. When people set out with a rigid plan of action towards achieving goals, they are mostly asking “how” and not “why”. Yet. while seemingly harmless, this subtle distinction reduces focus dramatically. For example, as we become bogged down in the details of pursuing a specific action plan, subconsciously, we get lured off-topic by distractions. Part of that might stem from frustrations in not responding to what is happening then and there. By contrast, asking “why” opens the doorway to accepting alternative approaches and revising what we are doing based upon new data. By doing all that, it helps us maintain focus out of maintained interest and engagement.

They use diversions strategically: . . . . . .. .. Diversions are not always bad. While it’s important to distinguish random distractions from those related to our undertakings, there’s even an important place for random distractions in maintaining focus. Brief, strategically timed distractions—often at various intervals while doing our work—helps us “bounce back” into focus. For example, highly focused people might walk outside to observe the hustle and bustle of city streets or go for a walk in nature or even have an irrelevant conversation as a bounce back strategy. The only caveat is if the distraction involves electronic devices—which, for other reasons—can operate on our brains through visual channels and detract from focus.

They prioritize the mind-soul-body connection:. . . . . . . .. Highly focused people understand that their physical, emotional, and even spiritual condition can influence their abilities to maintain attention. Sufficient sleep is important for maintaining focus, even though many believe “all-nighters” or crunching for deadlines are effective ways to work and focus. Highly saturated foods lead to poor focus, and even a slight amount of dehydration kills our attention and leaves our brains foggy.

Having aggressive emotions (such as produced by an argument or by reading a politically-explosive news article) can affect our abilities to reason for some moments after the event—apart from depleting our mental reserves as they arise. The many ancient practices of meditation and prayer offer different ways of gathering focus.

They never befriend their electronic gadgets:. . . . . . . .. Science shows that our devices distract our attention and deplete our focus substantially. That might seem obvious, when considering email or chats, but even the mere presence of a mobile phone near us, impairs our ability to focus. Studies have shown that our grey matter is pivotal in enabling us to switch tasks and regain focus, as well as process information, build memories and other vital functions. Not only is multi-tasking across electronic media distracting, it could progressively impair our abilities to focus over the longer term by affecting our grey matter.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

PROBLEM SOLVING: BEHAVIOURS IN LEADERSHIP

Leadership is the ability to inspire, influence, and guide others towards achieving a common goal. Effective leadership requires strong problem-solving skills, as leaders need to be able to identify and solve complex problems to drive their teams towards success. Problem-solving provides us those mechanisms of recognizing things, comprehending why they need to be fixed, and determining a course for the action to improve them. They help organisations and individuals to control the environment.

What Are Problem Solving Skills?

Problem-solving skills enable you to determine the problems promptly and efficiently. Problem-solving abilities require quickly determining the underlying problem and implementing a solution. Problem-solving is regarded as having a personal strength rather than a skill that is acquired or learned through coaching or training. You can enhance your problem-solving skills by getting to know the common problems in business and learning from more experienced or qualified people.

Problem-solving skills examples

Research:  . . . . . . . . . .  Researching is a basic skill associated with problem-solving. As a problem solver, we are required to be able to identify the root of the problem and know it completely. We can start to collect more information about a problem by brainstorming with other team members, asking more qualified colleagues, or gaining knowledge through online research or courses.

Analysis:  . . . . . . . . . .  This is another very important step to solving the problem in any situation. Our searching abilities will enable you to understand problems and efficiently produce solutions. We will also require analytical abilities during research to help differentiate between effective and ineffective solutions. 

Decision-making:  . . . . . . . . . . We will want to make a decision about how to resolve the issues that occur. At times, we may be prepared to make a decision immediately. Reliable research and analytical abilities can benefit those who have less experience in their profession. There may also be moments when it is suitable to take some time to craft a solution or escalate the problem to someone more competent in solving it. 

Communication:  . . . . . . . . . .  When knowing probable solutions, we will want to know how to interact, share and seek help on the problem with others. We will also be required to know what communication ways are the most suitable when attempting this. Once we get a solution, communicating it clearly will help overcome any complexity and make implementing a solution more accessible. 

Dependability:  . . . . . . . . . .  Dependability is one of the most valuable skills for problem-solvers. Solving problems at the right time is important. People highly appreciate individuals they can trust to both identify and then implement solutions as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Behavioural problem solving skills.

There are some important behavioural skills that problem solvers usually own. These include: 

If we come out of our comfort zone when seeking to have a solution to a possible problem and doubt our problem-solving skill, there are lots of methods to develop these. While some people are natural problem-solvers, others may struggle with this skill. However, with the right mindset and approach, anyone can develop effective problem-solving behaviors.

Positive Mindset: . . . One of the essential problem-solving behaviors is a positive mindset. Having a positive attitude helps us approach challenges with an open mind, creativity, and determination. Instead of being overwhelmed by a problem, we can view it as an opportunity to learn, grow and improve. A positive attitude also helps maintain focus and motivation, even in the face of setbacks or obstacles.

Analytical Thinking: . . . This involves breaking down complex problems into smaller, more manageable components, identifying patterns and relationships, and developing logical solutions. Analytical thinking helps us approach a problem systematically and objectively, reducing the likelihood of making hasty or emotional decisions.

Creativity: . . . Creativity allows us to think outside the box and come up with innovative solutions. By approaching problems from different perspectives and exploring new ideas, we can develop unique solutions that others may not have considered.

Collaboration: . . . Collaboration is a problem-solving behavior that involves working with others to identify and solve problems. By involving others, we can gain different perspectives, insights, and experiences that can help develop more effective solutions. Collaborating with others also promotes teamwork, communication, and mutual respect, which are essential for success in any area of life.

Continuous Improvement: . . . Finally, continuous improvement is a problem-solving behavior that involves learning from our mistakes and striving to do better. By evaluating the outcomes of our solutions, we can identify areas for improvement and develop strategies to avoid similar problems in the future. Continuous improvement also helps to stay adaptable and responsive to changing circumstances, enabling us to navigate new challenges with confidence.

An Example

As part of its strategy to adapt to pandemic times, Walmart began studying changes that can be brought about to the way the stores are managed. The company is researching on the feasibility of introducing a new team-based operating model which may include the following:

1. Cross-training small teams of associates, who can then better offer support during busy shifts or for associates who take time off 
2. New leadership roles, both at the salaried and hourly level
3. A new pay structure and higher pay for team leads

The previous position of “co-manager” has now become the “store lead,” who is responsible for the store when the manager is away. The “assistant manager” role has become the “coach,” who is responsible for financials, merchandising, staffing, and talent for a large area of the store. And “department managers” are now known as “team leads,” whose responsibilities include setting goals and priorities for small teams of associates. This basic blueprint is one that is founded on sound business strategy and emotional intelligence. The takaways are:

A) People over tasks:  . . . . . . . . . .  On close analysis, we see how Walmart has approached this. The company’s new “team lead” position, which now takes the place of the former “department manager”: These associates will lead and develop people, rather than focusing on completing tasks, giving associates a more direct connection to leadership. 

Bad managers typically spend most of their time putting out fires and use their people to do the same. They go from one crisis to another and seem to always be behind the curve.

In contrast, great managers take more of a leadership role. They focus on developing people instead of managing tasks. They help their people to think critically, teaching principles instead of rules. Then, they give their people the freedom to make decisions, and even to make mistakes–knowing that those mistakes can be turned into major learning opportunities. As a result, they develop people who make good decisions, and help prepare them for greater responsibility in the future.

B) Breadth over depth :  . . . . . . . . . .  Another interesting value lies in the description of Walmart’s previous role of ‘assistant store manager’ versus its new role of ‘coach’:

1. Assistant store manager: Responsible for merchandising plans for their specific area
2. Coach: Responsible for financials, merchandising, staffing, and talent for a larger area

In the new role, coaches have a much broader area of responsibility. Some may see this type of increase in scope as overwhelming, but it has great potential for helping company leaders: Instead of getting trapped in silos or developing a limited perspective, such leaders are gradually trained to see the big picture. They begin to think more critically, to understand how different areas of the business relate to each other–and how to use resources in one area to solve problems in another.

C) Don’t just tell. Show. :  . . . . . . . . . .  Walmart praises employees for their work during the pandemic. But those words of appreciation are made more effective by Walmart’s promise to increase pay for around 165,000 hourly associates. Sincere and specific words of praise can go a long way in keeping your employees motivated. But what will do an even better job is sincere and specific praise that’s backed up–with a reward for their efforts.

Problem-solving behaviors are critical to effective leadership. Leaders who can identify, analyze, develop, implement, and evaluate solutions to complex problems are more likely to achieve their goals and lead their teams towards success. By consistently exhibiting these problem-solving behaviors, leaders can create a culture of innovation and continuous improvement that benefits everyone in their organization.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.