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

***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: What does it Entail, What is the difference, the start point, Managing Managers – A/ B/ C/ D/ E/ F/,)

Link to Chapter 01:

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

1. Use An Apprenticeship Model

The best training for someone learning to become a manager is individualized attention from their boss. This should not just occur in meetings though. We should do real work together, looking for opportunities to explain what we are doing and how we are doing it. This will allow us to not only teach them but also to observe them in action. We are not going to sit in on all of their one-on-ones (micromanaging..!!) but we should make time to do things like participate in their team meetings, watch them give feedback, or conduct job interviews. Whenever we are observing them, give immediate feedback as long as it is not in front of others in a way that undermines them.

Find ways to see our managers in the act of managing (and then share feedback and observations). We can do this by:

The purpose of observing or shadowing the people we manage is not just to give feedback—it can help us better understand their management and leadership style. It could even be an opportunity for us to learn from them. Pay attention to how they do things differently from us and appreciate those differences.

• Give Them Space & Know How We Are Doing

We do not want to dictate exactly how our employees do their job. We have to allow that individual to lead in his/ her own way. They need to figure out what is authentic to them. This is especially important when there are differences, such as gender, between us and our direct reports. For example, keep in mind that a woman cannot assert authority in the same way as a man and have the same impact.

We will be most supportive to our direct reports if we understand how we are performing as a coach and mentor. We can ask directly or use a 360 tool to assess how we are doing. Make sure that the questions get at indirectly and implicitly whether we are a good role model or not. Are we consistent in what we are asking for and what our expectations are? Also, do not wait for our annual performance review to ask for input. Feedback has to be much more immediate and connected to the work we are doing. So set up the expectation early on that we want to hear how we are doing.

• Get To Know Their Team

It can be tricky to know how much we should interact with our direct reports’ teams. On the one hand, we need to be familiar with the players so that we can give the manager relevant feedback and coaching. But, on the other hand, we do not want to undermine their authority. Do not allow ourselves to get into the situation where we are hearing things they are not telling their manager. Any interactions should be above board with the explicit goal of trying to better understand the team and help the manager. Be clear with everybody that we are aligned and there are no secrets. But do not close off all communication. If there is a serious concern, it’s best to have an open door policy.

Building authentic relationships with our direct report’s direct reports has four significant benefits:

• We Are Not The Domain Expert Anymore

Domain expertise and domain leadership are not the same things. Knowledge, of course, is formative for decision-making and credibility, but it is not the driving force behind helping a group of people work together, get aligned around common objectives, and make progress. The latter depends on our ability to build trust, to communicate honestly, to figure out what motivates each person, and to lay out a clear path of where we are going, and why it’s important to get there. We are likely further from being the domain expert we once were than before. It feels unnerving, to say the least — we are not up-to-date with the latest technologies or trends as we would like to be. But keep in mind that our priority is not in our fluency in the domain. Our priority is making sure the people on our team are the domain experts, and that we are helping them do their best work to contribute to the organization.

• Make The Answer To “Where Are We Going?” Resoundingly Clear.

Vision is undoubtedly important to share as a leader. After all, our team needs to understand where they are going and why it is important to get there. But when we are managing managers, this vision needs to be exceedingly clear. Why? Because the folks we are managing will need to answer the question, “Where are we going?” for their direct reports. Our managers will need to find ways to align the personal visions of their team members with the organization’s shared vision. So if we have not made the answer to the question “Where are we going?” absurdly obvious, the vision becomes watered-down or distorted in some way once our managers share it with their direct reports. As a manager of managers, we must clarify, repeat, reinforce, evaluate, and again clarify and repeat the answer to “Where are we going?” over and over again.

Principles to Remember

Growing Leaders, Not Just Leading Leaders

Naturally, as a manager of managers, part of our role involves growing other leaders in the organization. This does not necessarily mean putting formal training or mentorship programs in place (though, it can help). Growing other leaders can be as straightforward as carving out more dedicated time to ask questions like, ‘Is there anything outside your current role you would like to be contributing toward?’ or ‘What project have you been most proud to work on and why?’ Essentially, we want to consider:

This also means personally exemplifying the kind of leadership we would like to see across the organization. Managers who are leading their teams are taking notes from us, watching us for cues on how to behave, make decisions, and handle situations. Our actions are not just affecting our direct reports anymore — they are affecting their direct reports as well. Everyone is learning from our actions, implicitly.

We will notice that managing managers is not wholly different from managing individual contributors. The fundamentals are the same. Whether we are a manager of managers or of individual contributors, we are still helping a team achieve its desired outcomes. Rather, the points of emphasis differ:

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

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

HENRI FAYOL VS ABRAHAM MASLOW: BEHAVIOURAL PERSPECTIVE ON LEADERSHIP

As our career progresses, we may find we do fewer technical tasks and spend more time guiding a team or planning strategy. While that’s often a given today, in the 19th century most companies promoted the best technicians. But Henri Fayol recognized that the skills that made them good at their jobs did not necessarily make them good managers.

Who Was Henri Fayol?

Fayol’s 14 Principles of Management identified the skills that were needed to manage well. While inspiring much of today’s management theory, they offer tips that we can still implement in our lives and organizations. Fayol also created a list of the five Primary Functions of Management, which go hand in hand with the Principles.

What Is Administrative Theory?

Fayol called managerial skills “administrative functions.” In his 1916 book, “Administration Industrielle et Générale,” he shared his experiences of managing a workforce. Fayol’s book – and his 14 Principles of Management – helped to form what became known as Administrative Theory. It looks at the organization from the top down, and sets out steps for managers to get the best from employees and to run a business efficiently.

Caveat: . . . . . . . . . . Administrative Theory is characterized by people “on the ground” who share personal experiences, improve practices, and help others to run an organization. This contrasts with the Scientific Management Ideas led by Frederick Taylor , which experimented with how individuals work to boost productivity.

The 14 Principles of Management: A Revisit

By focusing on administrative over technical skills, the Principles are some of the earliest examples of treating management as a profession. They are:

What are Fayol’s Five Functions of Management?

While Fayol’s 14 Principles look at the detail of day-to-day management, his Five Functions of Management provide the big picture of how managers should spend their time. They are:

Is Fayolism Still Relevant Today?

Fayol highlighted the differences between managerial and technical skills. What’s more, he was one of the first to recognize that “manager” is a profession – one whose skills need to be researched, taught and developed. We only have to look at the language he used to see that Fayol was writing over 100 years ago. For example, he refers to employees as “men.”

But, without the contributions of these pioneers, such as Fayol, we would probably be teaching industrial engineering, sociology, economics, or perhaps ergonomics to those who aspire to manage. To be doing so would push us back to the 19th century, when technical know-how reigned supreme as a path to managerial responsibility. When we look closer, we discover that many of Fayol’s points are fresh and relevant. Such as:

Some of these ideas may seem a bit obvious, but at the time they were ground breaking. And the fact that they’ve stuck shows just how well Fayol’s Principles work.

Criticism Of Fayol’s Principles Of Management

That’s not to say that everyone is a fan of Fayol’s Administrative Theory. Some detractors claim that:

The Interlinks Between the Theories Of Henry Fayol & Abraham Maslow

Fayol’s perspective of the overall success of an organization was to include the formulation of goals, strategies and plans and to work through others to ensure that these activities were implement. These principles also had to be supplemented and supported by discipline and anticipation. Fayol also believed that management could be taught and was concerned about improving the quality of management.

Maslow’s theory of motivation, on the other hand, took a more psychological approach, which focused on employee motivation. This theory proposed that within every person lied a hierarchy of five needs – starting with physiological needs and ascending to safety, social, esteem and finally, self-actualization needs. Hence, in order to motivate a person, Maslow stated that lowest level needs must be substantially satisfied before the next level can be activated and so on.

Application of Fayol’s Concepts

Fayol believed that the responsibility of general management is to lead the enterprise toward its objective by making effective and efficient use of available resources.

Fayol’s five functions are the rules of his administrative doctrine. He had shown sustained effort that his administrative principles could be applied to all social organizations from the family to the state. He stressed that the 14 principles must be flexible and adaptable to the situation at hand. The principles of management were aimed at helping managers manage more effectively.

Application of Maslow’s Concepts

In Maslow’s theory, it is assumed that when an individual has the knowledge and skills to perform his or her job, a manager can influence their motivation to achieve levels of excellence. Maslow’s five needs are arranged in a hierarchy of importance that can be described as prepotency. The higher-level needs are not important and will not manifest till lower-needs are met and satisfied. This hierarchy can also be divided into two orders of needs. The lower-order needs are physiological, safety and social concerns, and the higher-order needs are esteem and self-actualization concerns.

Comparisons

Fayol’s ideas of the five functions and 14 principles are good frameworks for managers to follow if they want to manage more efficiently and effectively. Maslow’s ideas on how an individual behaves in a working environment has helped us understand the importance of motivation complementing administration from a managerial point of view. These two concepts complement each other as they help managers better manage administratively and psychologically. It depicted how effectively and efficiently a workplace should function and how employees should be motivated to commit and perform at their best. Hence, Fayol and Maslow’s ideas and concepts have indeed helped us understand the job of getting things done through people.

The Interlinks: Management, Leadership And Transformational Leadership

Management is about the mind. It is the manager’s job to stay focused on the task and goals, to set action plans, thereby helping followers deal with complexity. Leadership is more about the heart, or staying focused on the people and their individual characteristics, creating a shared vision that helps followers to participate in a change process. Transformational leadership is about breaking down resistance to change. This is done both through “assigning meaning to change” and through the change within the leader (him)/(her)self.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

THE DUNNING KRUGER EFFECT: INTERPLAY OF BEHAVIORS- CHAPTER 02

***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: Meaning & Interpretation, Historical Origins, Types Of Information: The Ignorance Of Ignorance, The Dunning-Kruger Effect In The Workplace and In Our Lives)

Link to Chapter 01:

THE DUNNING KRUGER EFFECT: INTERPLAY OF BEHAVIORS- CHAPTER 01

Behaviors That Initiate The Dunning-Kruger Effect

How To Steer Away From The Dunning Kruger Effect

People can learn they are incompetent . . . by becoming competent. Thinking of meta-cognition again, we may divide it into two: General and domain specific.

If we can hone our general meta-cognition, we can ensure that we do not fall for the Dunning-Kruger effect in whatever domain. Every time we think – “I am above average, of course” – an alarm bell needs to go off in our mind. How do we know we are above average? Getting to know our peers and what they are doing can help. If we can distinguish between the competent and those who are not, maybe we do know what we are doing. If not, that should be enough of a warning to dive deeper into whatever we are learning – switching to specific meta-cognition.

Another antidote is the Stoic art of premeditatio malorum, or pre-meditation of evils. Assuming we have failed, or found out we are objectively bad at something – how do we tend to explain it? Would we call it just a bad day, or something deeper? Depending on how many times we face this failure in real life (a proxy for competence), the answer ought to transition from “just a bad day” to “I need to improve”. Here are a few other things we can do:

Countering The Dunning-Kruger Effect In The Workplace

People are social animals and do not like to be exposed as simply wrong, so the best way to handle people is to help them to understand that things are more complicated than they thought through their own reasoning. That is, they must realize for themselves that maybe there is more to the situation or problem than they initially thought. Some ways we can do this are:

A) With our  Subordinates- Appropriate Coaching Style:

We can adopt a coaching style to give them feedback on their ideas and work progress. This style should not be critical but should help them to explore potential issues with their ideas. Over time, team members will develop a deeper understanding of typical issues that might arise, and a set of tools and strategies for analyzing situations for potential problems that might occur on their own.

B) With our Superiors- Managing Up: We want our superiors to realize for themselves that their initial ideas may be more complex and fraught with difficulties than they originally imagined. This will involve:

Domain Dependence Of The Dunning Kruger Effect

The effect does not show up everywhere. One big caveat is the domain under consideration. In some domains, knowledge does imply competence. For example, someone who understands inferential logic will be a competent logician. In other domains, competence depends on other factors too, like physical skill. For example, soccer coaches probably know what they are doing, but can we imagine Sir Alex Ferguson playing a 90 minute game now? He is not competent at playing soccer. Despite this, he has the knowledge to realize when one of his players is making a mistake in the game.

In domains where knowledge implies competence, lack of skill implies both the inability to perform competently as well as the inability to recognize competence, and thus are also the domains in which the incompetent are likely to be unaware of their lack of skill. Or, the domains in which the Dunning Kruger effect runs rabid. If we cannot serve in tennis, we probably don’t think we are Wimbledon material. But again, that does not stop some people from thinking they can win a point off Serena Williams.

Finally, in order for the incompetent to overestimate themselves, they must satisfy a minimal threshold of knowledge, theory, or experience that suggests to themselves that they can generate correct answers.

The Paradox Of Overcoming Ignorance

How do we get someone—or ourselves—to look for something we cannot even see?  This is the paradox of trying to overcome our own ignorance: The very thing that would help us see our mistakes is the same thing that would keep us from making them in the first place. We cannot reason with a conspiracy theorist precisely because they did not form their beliefs with reason.

Part of the problem is that there is comfort in the feeling of knowing. People do not like uncertainty. And so settling on a belief helps us feel like we have made more sense of the world. When we can make sense of the world, we feel safe. Whether that belief is true or not does not matter—it just has to give us some relief from the anxiety of not knowing.

Also, it turns out it is not helpful to be direct with them for how stupid they are. Being too open to people simply causes them to become more defensive and double-down on their challenged beliefs, not relinquish them.

Conclusion

Humility is an important value. In fact, the Dunning-Kruger Effect suggests that humility can be highly practical. By intentionally underestimating our understanding of things, not only do we open up more opportunities to learn and grow, but we also foster a more realistic view of ourselves, and prevent ourselves from looking like a narcissist around others. Now, when we talk about the Dunning-Kruger effect we seem to (ironically enough) believe that it doesn’t apply to us. But the truth is, every single one of us has been a victim of it, at one point or the other, and our denial is the very proof it. We can find many examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect just by imploring ourselves, for example our shortcoming when it comes to accepting differing opinions or facts that directly contradict our views stems from our belief that we already know the “correct” opinion on a particular matter.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

THE DUNNING KRUGER EFFECT: INTERPLAY OF BEHAVIORS- CHAPTER 01

If we were asked to rate our driving ability on a scale of 1 to 10, how would we score ourselves? Maybe we are not amongst the best drivers in the world, but we probably do not believe we are the worst. In fact, we probably rate ourselves as being a little better than the average driver. The problem with this is that most people rate themselves as being a better driver than the average person. This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where most people overrate their abilities, with the greatest overestimation coming from those with the lowest skills.

Perhaps what’s even more amazing is that the English philosopher Bertrand Russell said this long before the advent of the internet. Today, due to the joys of social media, we are regularly exposed to legions of people who believe they know what they are talking about when they do not. And, indeed, as Russell pointed out, the more clueless these people are, the more confident in their pronouncements they seem to be. People who are bad at something do believe they are good at it, and people who are good at it do believe they are bad at it. Amateurs are overconfident and experts are under confident. Newbies believe they have got it all figured out and the weathered veterans understand that nothing is really known for sure.

What Is The Dunning-Kruger Effect?

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is a cognitive bias characterized by overconfidence in one’s ability on a particular subject. The gap between perceived ability and actual ability is typically blind to the individual concerned, but often not to others around them. The Dunning-Kruger effect was first recognized in David Dunning and Justin Kruger’s 1999 study “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments”. This gap between perceived performance and actual performance can be best shown using the Dunning-Kruger Curve.

The Curve shows that people with zero experience know they are incompetent. However, those with just a little experience vastly overestimate their competence. As people get further experience, they become more aware of the gaps in their knowledge and their confidence decreases until they reach the point of average competence. After this point, as their expertise increases, so does their confidence.

The scariest thing about this effect is that we won’t even realize we are there. An important point to realize is that the only people who tend to underestimate their abilities are those that are actually the most competent and experienced. This is often called the burden of expertise.

Similar Falacies – Historical Origins

Anna Karenina principle (Leo Tolstoy- 1877): The Anna Karenina principle states that a deficiency in any one of a number of factors dooms an endeavor to failure. Consequently, a successful endeavor (subject to this principle) is one for which every possible deficiency has been avoided.

In other words: happy families share a common set of attributes which lead to happiness, while any of a variety of attributes can cause an unhappy family.

Aristotle’s version:

Much earlier, Aristotle states the same principle in the Nicomachean Ethics (Book 2):-

The Opposite of Dunning-Kruger:

The opposite of the Dunning-Kruger Effect to some degree is Imposter Syndrome.

Here, you have high-ability but believe your actual ability is very low. In a nutshell, while your ability is high, you feel like a fraud or believe that you are faking competence in some way.

Types Of Information: The Ignorance Of Ignorance

There are four types of information:

The unknown unknowns are where the Dunning-Kruger effect comes into play in the worst way. It is our tendency to overestimate our own knowledge/skills/competence and underestimate our own ignorance. The Dunning-Kruger Effect goes beyond ignorance. It presents a meta-layer of ignorance—the ignorance of our own ignorance. And that is what Russell says is so wrong with the world: that we predictably overestimate our knowledge and abilities in a way that causes more errors and graver mistakes.

Some more instances are:

We fail to consider that we also fall victim to this blindspot. We have blind spots when it comes to our emotional awareness as well.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect In The Workplace

In many domains in life and work, success and satisfaction depend on knowledge, wisdom, or savvy in knowing which rules to follow and which strategies to pursue. People also differ widely in the knowledge and strategies they apply in these domains. When people adopt incorrect strategies, not only do they reach wrong conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it. Some situations that arise may be:-

Impact  Of Dunning-Kruger In The Workplace

Impact  Of Dunning-Kruger In Our Daily Lives

A) People think they are better than they are: They think they are better than they actually are, not that they are better than the best. In some cases it is another behavior that is in play – confidence. The perceived ability therefore is equal to how great their confidence may be. People with almost zero knowledge don’t think they “know everything.” They think they know more than they do. It’s still less than what competent people know.

B) People do not recognize competence when they see it: They do not recognize the real great people. Therefore, they cannot learn from them, cannot improve themselves, and are destined to stay as they are. Meta-cognition is this ability to think about and judge our thinking. It’s a skill separate from how well we learn (cognition).

C) People do not learn from their peers: One of the ways people gain insight into their own competence is by watching the behavior of others. Because of their difficulty recognizing competence in others, they will be unable to use information about the choices and performances of others to form more accurate impressions of their own ability.

For success to occur, many things must go right: The person must be skilled, apply effort, and perhaps be a bit lucky. For failure to occur, the lack of any one of these components is sufficient. The problem with failure is that it is difficult to figure out the root cause. Because of this, even if people receive feedback that points to a lack of skill, they may attribute it to some other factor.

***To be continued in Chapter 02 (Behaviors That Initiate The Dunning-Kruger Effect, How To Steer Away From It, Countering The Dunning-Kruger Effect, Domain Dependence, Paradox Of Overcoming Ignorance) Link to Chapter -02:

THE DUNNING KRUGER EFFECT: INTERPLAY OF BEHAVIORS- CHAPTER 02

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

CONTENTIOUS TOPICS AT WORK— BEHAVIORAL AND COGNITIVE IMPACT

Both science and common sense tell us we should avoid discussing topics at work that incite emotion and make us irrational. Hundreds of behavioral science studies show that people rarely understand the true intentions of others. Two main reasons exist. On one hand, we all exhibit thinking biases, and these biases distort how we interpret what others tell us. On the other hand, even if we as listeners take pains to counter our biases and think correctly, emotions aroused by controversial, hot-button topics, can deplete abilities to reason. This two-fold assault on the mental strength or cognitive control can lead to misunderstandings and getting viewed as a threat.

.

For all those reasons, it is essential we appreciate the consequences of raising, controversial, hot button topics in the wrong place or at the wrong time—especially at work. Unfortunately, many of us undermine the efforts to bring about meaningful change in organizations by deferring to non-empirical tactics that ignore the cultural and emotional contexts of where we work. When serious issues do need to be discussed (e.g., harassment, fraud, discrimination, incompetence, etc.), informal discussions do not do them justice. Otherwise, people’s mental hang-ups and cognitive biases will creep in.

Take, for example, a work environment where status quo bias makes people resistant to change. Assuming we ignore this fact and decide to raise the issue of weight-discrimination (bias against overweight people) during a team remote call meeting aimed at launching a new product line. Even though the problem does not impact the main agenda, we specifically refer to a colleague, also on the call, who is struggling with his/her weight. The result may be that everyone in attendance will feel uncomfortable, even the overweight colleague, and that might even be needed—to rock the boat, point out the elephant in the room, dispense justice, etc. Undeniably, according to science—and to common sense—the efforts will backfire.

In the end, they will deny the accusations and perhaps even gear up to retaliate against us and overweight colleagues.

Some Ways To Craft An Approach For Discussing Controversial Topics At Work:

A) Making sure there really is a quantifiable problem:- . . . There is a fallacy commonly observed in behavioural science known as mind projection- when we believe everyone around us has the same worldview we possess. As in the above example, if we believe weight discrimination at our company exists, and we believe everyone else sees the same thing but is not acknowledging it—even overweight colleagues. This assumes that we know something and the rest of those most affected do not—and that’s just plain arrogance.

Also, a bias known as fundamental attribution may be leading us to assign meaning and context to what others do when that meaning is not there. All that is not to say the discrimination does not exist. Rather, it’s to say we need make sure it exists beyond the example we have lemon-picked. Indeed, lemon-picking itself hints of a common bias known as confirmation, which can work against us. For example, we might assert a problem exists while others can pick an example to suggest it does not. The only way to prevent this stalemate is to gather the facts and data first—perhaps by side-barring those who might be affected and seeing if there really is a problem.

B) Finding out what the affected colleagues want:- . . . A defining aspect of emotional intelligence involves understanding the emotional states of others. Before raising a controversial issue, we should probe to see how those most affected by it will feel by us discussing it. In other words, just because it is a problem does not mean other people affected want it resolved or that they want us to resolve it. It is surprising how many otherwise socially adjusted people insist on raising hot-button issues to create discomfort or to label themselves as “straight shooters”.

In doing so, they follow the misguided belief that their actions aid improvement, team cohesion or performance. More often, raising an issue that embarrasses or adversely impacts the affected—without first gaining their buy-in—will do more harm than good. The buy-in and a gauge of fallout of the affected is extremely essential.

C) Examine the context:- . . . The next thing is to choose the right context. In the above example, bringing up weight discrimination was out of context because the focus of attention by the team was on a business matter. Numerous studies have shown that when primed to focus on business objectives, we discount ethical and moral issues. This bounded ethicality effect suggests due attention will not be paid to an ethical issue when raised completely out-of-context. Not only are people likely to ignore the issue, but they may also defend their positions despite the evidence presented. However, if the context of discussion is ethical, ethical issues will be given due consideration. The best way to broach a controversial issue is to first ensure all minds are focused away from financial goals and objectives.

D) Frame the solutions:- . . . Under framing (another behavioural bias) our decisions (and thinking) change based upon how information is presented to us. How we raise controversial issues matters in terms of how people will respond. Evidence shows human beings respond in vague ways to problems (as each has their own solution) but they can typically agree on (or reject) a solution. So, if we want a person to accept the facts and/or case that is being putting forward, one way could be to devise a solution and frame it in a way they will understand and value. The solutions need to be framed on the basis of how the organization works (Organisation culture). For example, in a goal-driven organization, we could try to structure the solution in a way that outlines clear metrics and goals for eliminating the problem. In a more fluid organization, we could offer metrics that will be reviewed periodically as a sort of “health check”.

E) When in doubt, avoid discussing controversial topics:- . . . If, despite all efforts, we do not see the supporting data, the buy-in of the affected or the context appropriate for raising an issue—it is advisable not to discuss it—at least, not informally. There is always the possibility we could be completely wrong about an issue, despite our gut feelings. An issue might be prevalent in our industry, but we do not see evidence it exists in our company. It might exist elsewhere in the organization, but not in our division. The point of not raising it is not to avoid rocking the boat but to avoid tipping it over unnecessarily.

Topics Best Avoided In Discussions at the Workplace-

In the end, there is a time and place for discussing controversial, hot-button topics at work, but seldom is there room for doing so informally. People are not robots, they have feelings, emotions and biases. Assuming that raising an issue is so important that these factors can be ignored is akin to creating more problems rather than solving them. Certain topics are best avoided in discussions at the workplace. This is because they infringe into human behaviors that are rarely understood. Some of these are:

Understanding this, we must appreciate that everyone experiences and reacts to fear differently. For many, fear creates irrationality. It leads them to either freeze or do erratic things or a combination of both. In most cases, a person in fear does not fully understand or even remember their own behaviour—even when it resulted in creating major problems.

For all those reasons and more, highlighting strange or panic behavior in the office place, among colleagues or even in your surrounding neighborhood increases tension, stress and creates more problems. Undoubtedly, vetting concerns around serious issues around the water-cooler can often make things worse. Either we should bring them up only with close friends, one-on-one, or in a formal setting—where facts, data and those affected by the problem can be gathered. Of course, because the above list of topics reflects what is typically covered on the landing pages of most news outlets, we might wonder what then can be discussed. Lots of things—but especially topics that are not emotionally charged or, if emotional, have common, sympathetic markers- make good discussion topics. These include:

At the end of the day, few of us are paid to discuss hot-button, taboo topics at work. Yet, most of us should understand the extreme risk of doing so.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa