GOAL SETTING: ITS SYSTEMIC BEHAVIORAL IMPACT – CHAPTER – 02

***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: Case Studies on Goals going Awry, Inappropriate Calibration of Goals, Impact of Time Horizon on Goals,)

Link to Chapter 01:

GOAL SETTING: ITS SYSTEMIC BEHAVIORAL IMPACT – CHAPTER 01

Goals Becoming Too Challenging

Proponents of goal setting claim that a positive linear relationship exists between the difficulty of a goal and employee performance. Specifically, they argue that goals should be set at the most challenging level possible to inspire effort, commitment, and performance—but not so challenging that employees see no point in trying. This logic makes intuitive sense, yet stretch goals also cause serious side-effects like:-

Shifting Risk Attitudes:-> Goal-setting often distorts risk preferences. People motivated by specific and challenging goals adopt riskier strategies and choose riskier gambles than do those with less challenging or vague goals. Related literature has found that goals harm negotiation performance by increasing risky behavior. Negotiators with goals are more likely to reach an inefficient impasse than are negotiators who lack goals. A negotiator who has obtained concessions sufficient to reach their goal, will satisfies and accept the agreement on the table, even if the value maximizing strategy would be to continue the negotiation process. Clearly, in some domains, goal setting can significantly harm performance rather than promote better outcomes.

In the 1996 Mt.Everest disaster in which eight climbers died due to the decisions of the two team leaders is an example of destructive goal pursuit. On Mt. Everest, world-class high-altitude guides, Rob Hall and Scott Fischer, identified so closely with the goal of reaching the summit that they made risky decisions that led to their own and 6 of their clients’ deaths. Some warning signs of leaders who have become excessively fixated on goals may be:

Unethical Behavior:-> Goal setting has been promoted as a powerful motivational tool, but substantial evidence demonstrates that in addition to motivating constructive effort, goal setting can induce unethical behavior. Goal setting can promote two different types of such behavior:

First, when motivated by a goal, people may choose to use unethical methods to reach it. For example, at Sears (reference – case study from chapter 01), mechanics told customers that they needed unnecessary repairs and then performed and charged them for this unneeded work.

Second, goal setting can motivate people to misrepresent their performance level—in other words, to report that they met a goal when in fact they fell short. For example, in 1993, employees at Bausch and Lomb who were driven to reach sales targets reported sales that never took place. They falsified financial statements to meet earnings goals.

Goal setting, of course, is not the only cause of employee unethical behavior, but it is certainly an important, understudied ingredient. A number of factors serve as catalysts in the relationship between goal setting and cheating: lax oversight, financial incentives for meeting performance targets, and organizational cultures with a weak commitment to ethics.

The interplay between organizational culture and goal setting is particularly important. An ethical organizational culture can reign in the harmful effects of goal setting, but at the same time, the use of goals can influence organizational culture. Specifically, the use of goal setting, like “management by objectives,” creates a focus on ends rather than means. Goal setting impedes ethical decision making by making it harder for employees to recognize ethical issues and easier for them to rationalize unethical behavior.

Psychological Costs of Goal Failure:-> One problem embedded in stretch goals is the possibility that the goal may not be reached. In negotiations, for example, challenging goals can increase negotiation and task performance, but decrease satisfaction with high-quality outcomes. These decreases in satisfaction influence how people view themselves and have important consequences for future behavior. It was found that giving someone a challenging goal versus an easy goal on an attention task or an intelligence test improved performance, but left people questioning their concentration abilities and overall intelligence. These goal-induced reductions in self-efficacy can be highly detrimental, because perceptions of self-efficacy are a key predictor of task engagement, commitment, and effort.

Fostering  Collaboration and Learning in Goals

In order to adapt to a competitive landscape, organizations need employees who are able to learn and collaborate with their colleagues. Goals can inhibit both learning and cooperation.

Goals inhibit learning :->  When individuals face a complex task, specific and challenging goals may inhibit learning from experience and degrade performance. A person who is narrowly focused on a performance goal, will be less likely to try alternative methods that could help her learn how to perform a task. The narrow focus of specific goals can inspire performance but prevent learning.

“Learning goals” can be used in complex situations rather than “performance goals.” In practice, however, managers may have trouble determining when a task is complex enough to warrant a learning, rather than a performance goal. In many changing business environments, perhaps learning goals should be the norm. Even when tasks are complex enough to clearly warrant learning goals, managers face the challenge of identifying the specific, challenging goal levels for learning objectives.

Goals create a culture of competition :->  Organizations that rely heavily on goal setting may erode the foundation of cooperation that holds groups together. An exclusive focus on profit maximization can harm altruistic and other behavioral motives. Similarly, being too focused on achieving a specific goal may decrease extra-role behavior, such as helping coworkers. Goals may promote competition rather than cooperation and ultimately lower overall performance.

When Goals Harm Motivation Itself:-> As goal setting increases extrinsic motivation, it can harm intrinsic motivation – engaging in a task for its own sake. This problem is important, because managers are likely to over-value and over-use goals. Although people recognize the importance of intrinsic rewards in motivating themselves, people exaggerate the importance of extrinsic rewards in motivating others. In short, managers may think that others need to be motivated by specific and challenging goals far more often than they actually do. By setting goals, managers may create a hedonic treadmill in which employees are motivated by external means (goals, rewards, etc.) and not by the intrinsic value of the job itself.

Implementation and Calibration of Goals

Proponents of goal setting have long championed the simplicity of its implementation and the efficiency of its effects. In practice, however, setting goals is a challenging process, especially in novel settings.

Goal setting can become problematic when the same goal is applied to many different people. Given the variability of performance on any given task, any standard goal set for a group of people will vary in difficulty for individual members; thus, the goal will simultaneously be too easy for some and too difficult for others. Conversely, idiosyncratically tailoring goals to each person can lead to charges of unfairness. This has important implications, because employee perceptions of whether rewards fairly match effort and performance can be one of the best predictors of commitment and motivation.

When reaching pre-set goals matters more than absolute performance, self-interested individuals can strategically set (or guide their managers to set) easy-to-meet goals. By lowering the bar, they procure valuable rewards and accolades. Many company executives often choose to manage expectations rather than maximize earnings. In some cases, managers set a combination of goals that, in aggregate, appears rational, but is in fact not constructive. In reality, CEOs (and many Wall Street executives) face asymmetric rewards—a large bonus for meeting the goal in one year, but no fear of having to return a large bonus the following year for underperforming.

Harnessing the Power of Goals

Goals can inspire employees and improve performance as well. Just as doctors prescribe drugs selectively, mindful of interactions and adverse reactions, so too should managers carefully prescribe goals. To do so, managers must consider—and scholars must study—the complex interplay between goal setting and organizational contexts, as well as the need for safeguards and monitoring.

According to General Electric’s Steve Kerr, an expert in reward and measurement systems, “most organizations don’t have a clue how to manage ‘stretch goals’”. He advises managers to avoid setting goals that increase employee stress, to refrain from punishing failure, and to provide the tools people need to meet ambitious goals.

It’s one thing to know about goal setting, and how it can help us, but another entirely to know how to actually set goals and stick with them. Goal setting tools are a great way to help us set goals, keep track of, and stay focused on what we are trying to achieve. These tools can be informal, for instance:

There are several concepts and tools for Goal Setting. Which tool is right for us will depend on what our goals are, how long we want to take to achieve them, and whether it is an individual or group goal.

Here are some popular tools:

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.

THE RISE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A PERSPECTIVE – 01

There are three broad leadership styles recognized in organizational change and leadership development circles. These may be:

Tactical leaders focus on solving straightforward problems with operations-oriented expertise.

Strategic leaders are very future-focused with an ability to maintain a specific vision while forecasting industry and market trends.

Transformational leaders focus less on making decisions or establishing strategic plans, and more on facilitating organizational collaboration that can help drive a vision forward.

Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership where a leader works with teams or followers beyond their immediate self-interests in identifying the change needed, creating a vision to guide the change through influence & inspiration, and executing the change in tandem with committed members of a group. This elevation in self-interest elevates the follower’s levels of maturity and ideals, as well as their concern for the achievement. Transformational leadership is when leader behaviors influence followers and inspire them to perform beyond their perceived capabilities. Transformational leadership inspires people to achieve unexpected or remarkable results.

Transformational leadership serves to enhance the motivation, morale and job performance of followers through a variety of mechanisms like:-

Origins of Transformational Leadership

The concept of transformational leadership was initially introduced by James Downton, the first to coin the term “Transformational leadership”, a concept further developed by leadership expert and presidential biographer James MacGregor Burns. According to Burns, transformational leadership can be seen when “leaders and followers make each other advance to a higher level of morality and motivation.” Burns also described transformational leaders as those who can not only move followers up on Maslow’s hierarchy, but also move them to go beyond their own interests. Unlike the transactional approach, it is not based on a “give and take” relationship, but on the leader’s personality, traits and ability to make a change through example, articulation of an energizing vision and challenging goals.

Later, researcher Bernard M. Bass defined transformational leadership based on the impact that it has on followers. Transformational leaders, Bass suggested, garner trust, respect and admiration from their followers. The extent to which a leader is transformational, is measured first in terms of his influence on the followers. The followers of such a leader are willing to work harder than originally expected. Transformational leadership makes transactional leadership more effective. Transformational leadership encompasses several different aspects, including:

There are 4 components to transformational leadership, sometimes referred to as the 4 I’s:

Idealized Influence (II) – the leader serves as an ideal role model for followers. The leader “walks the talk,” and is admired for this. A transformational leader embodies the qualities that he/she wants in his/her team. In this case, the followers see the leader as a model to emulate.

Inspirational Motivation (IM) – Transformational leaders have the ability to inspire and motivate followers through having a vision and presenting that vision. They inspire followers with clarity. They convince followers with simple and easy-to-understand words, as well as with their own image. Combined, these first two I’s are what constitute the transformational leader’s productivity.

Individualized Consideration (IC) – Transformational leaders demonstrate genuine concern for the needs and feelings of followers and help them self-actualize. This personal attention to each follower assists in developing trust among the organization’s members and their authority figure(s). From this perspective, the leader can work towards training and developing a follower who is having difficulties in a job.

Intellectual Stimulation (IS) – The leader challenges followers to be innovative and creative, they encourage their followers to challenge the status quo. A common misunderstanding is that transformational leaders are “soft,” but the truth is that they constantly challenge followers to higher levels of performance.

Transformational leaders do one thing transactional leaders don’t, which is going beyond self-actualization. The importance of transcending self-interests is something lost sight of by those who see that the ultimate in maturity of development is self-actualization.

Attributes and Behaviors observed of Transformational Leaders

Characteristics of Transformational Leaders

Five major personality traits have been identified as factors contributing to the likelihood of an individual displaying the characteristics of a transformational leader.

Extroversion:- . . . The two main characteristics of extroverts are affiliation (a person’s need to feel a sense of involvement and belonging within a social group), and agency (the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices.), which relate to social and leadership aspects of their personality, respectively. Extroversion is generally seen as an inspirational trait usually exhibited in transformational leadership.

Neuroticism:- . . . It generally gives an individual an anxiety related to productivity which, in a group setting can be debilitating to a degree where they are unlikely to position themselves in a role of transformational leadership due to lower self-esteem and a tendency to shirk from leadership responsibilities.

Openness to experience:- . . . Creative expression and emotional responsiveness have been linked to a general tendency of openness to experience. This trait is also seen as a component of transformational leadership as it relates to the ability to give big-picture visionary leadership for an organization.

Agreeableness:- . . . Although not a trait which specifically points to transformational leadership, leaders in general possess an agreeable nature stemming from a natural concern for others and high levels of individual consideration. Productivity and idealized influence is a classic ability of individuals who possess agreeableness.

Conscientiousness:- . . . Strong sense of direction and the ability to put large amounts of productive work into tasks is the by-product of conscientious leaders. This trait is more linked to a transactional form of leadership given the management-based abilities of such individuals and the detail oriented nature of their personality. Results suggest that transformational leaders might give greater importance to values pertaining to others than to values concerning only themselves.

Studies have shown that subordinates’ and leaders’ ratings of transformational leadership may not converge. According to leaders’ self‐ratings, the extroverted, intuitive and perceiving preferences favor transformational leadership. On the contrary, subordinates’ ratings indicated that leaders with sensing preference are associated with transformational leadership.

Measurement Of Transformational Leadership

One of the ways in which transformational leadership is measured is through the use of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), a survey which identifies different leadership characteristics based on examples and provides a basis for leadership training. The current version of the MLQ5X includes 36 items that are broken down into 9 scales with 4 items measuring each scale.

In the MLQ5X the first 5 components – Idealized Attributes, Idealized Behaviors, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration – are considered to be transformational leadership behaviors.

***To be continued in Chapter 02 (Competencies, Attributes and Traits, Becoming a Transformational Leader, Transformational Vs Transactional Leadership, Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leaders)- Link to Chapter -02:

THE RISE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A PERSPECTIVE- 02

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.

COMPASSION TRAINING: BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED IN CULTIVATING COMPASSION- (CHAPTER 01)

What is Compassion Training?

Compassion is an ever-growing area of interest within psychology and psychotherapy. Definitions of compassion within psychology are varied and divergent, with some researchers considering it to be an emotion, a biologically based characteristic, or a multidimensional construct. There is, however, a broad agreement that compassion is comprised of a combination of affective, cognitive, and motivational components. A simple statement is that compassion is a concern for the wellbeing of others. A panel of researchers in 2012 defined compassion as a complex multidimensional construct comprised of four components:

Differentiating Compassion From Related Constructs

Compassion is often misunderstood and easily confused with other related but distinct constructs. While it is important to define compassion, it is equally important to define what it is not. Some of these differing constructs are:

Empathy: . . . . . . . . . . Unlike compassion, empathy does not incorporate the readiness to act in order to relieve the suffering of others, rather it is the ability to understand another’s feelings and become one with that person’s distress. Empathy is described as the capacity to be affected by and share the emotional state of another and identify with the other, adopting his or her perspective.

Sympathy: . . . . . . . . . . . . Similarly, sympathy is the feeling of care and concern for someone which is often accompanied by a wish to see them happier. Sympathy is the experience of feeling sorrow for someone else’s misfortune but not necessarily a shared perspective or shared emotions. With compassion, there is recognition of the other person’s emotional state and a desire to act in order to help.

Pity: . . . . . . . . . . . . Feeling pity for another is essentially an acknowledgment of their plight. Pity refers more to feeling concern for someone thought to be inferior or weaker than oneself and is by definition, rooted in a hierarchical sense of superiority over someone else. Compassion, on the other hand, does not consider the object of suffering to be weak or inferior in any way. Instead, it encourages a broader vision through common experiences.

Altruism: . . . . . . . . . . . . Altruism is acting out of concern for another person’s well-being, while compassion encapsulates an openness to experiencing suffering and responding with genuine concern, and without judgment. Compassion can exist in the absence of altruistic behaviour.

Love: . . . . . . . . . . . . Compassion is functionally distinct from the two most common forms of love; romantic love and the love of a parent for a child. The fundamental difference between the two is that compassion likely involves a complex combination of multiple positive and negative emotions. Where love is generally associated with positive affect and experiences only, compassion is about being open to the experience of suffering.

The Three Orientations of Compassion

Psychological investigations of compassion have primarily focused on three specific orientations of compassion. They are:

Receiving Compassion: . . . . . . . . . The feeling like one does not deserve kindness from others, can create a fear of receiving compassion. For some, being the recipient of compassion can cause avoidance, and negative emotions such as grief or loneliness. Improving this orientation of compassion may enhance relationships and social connectedness by coaching individuals to become more comfortable being the object of another person’s attention.

Self-Compassion: . . . . . . . . . . Self-compassion positively affects coping skills, life satisfaction, emotional intelligence, social connectedness, mastery of goals, personal initiative, curiosity, wisdom, happiness, optimism, and positive affect. A key component of self-compassion is the absence of self-criticism, which is known to be an early predictor of anxiety and depression. Self-compassionate people tend to recognize that imperfection and failure are often unavoidable, and so are more likely to be kind to themselves when confronted with negative experiences.

Compassion for Others: . . . . . . . . . .  Compassion for others is not always expressed and can actually be suppressed or inhibited. It was initially thought that self-compassion and compassion for others may be related given they have the same theoretical structure and base definition. Research has, indicated that the two may be different because:

1. Compassion is directed towards others as opposed to the self.
2. Individuals are often more compassionate to others than they are themselves.

Can Compassion Be Developed?

Compassion can be adopted at any age and involves training the mind to develop specific skills in order to relate to others and to ourselves, and making a conscious effort to think and act in a compassionate manner. While everyone has, to some degree, a level of compassion, for some it can be beneficial to develop these skills further. Fortunately, developing compassion does not require years of commitment and can actually be advanced quite rapidly.

Much of the emphasis within compassion-based training is on stimulating a more compassionate social mentality. Compassion-based training works by activating affiliative processing systems in the brain. These processing systems include the myelinated parasympathetic nervous system which helps in the regulation of our fight/flight response.

Activation of the parasympathetic system when under a perceived threat encourages a feeling of safeness and security, and allows for mentalization, that is the ability to understand our own mental state.

Compassion training focuses not only on suffering but also on supporting and encouraging compassion for the good of the self and others. Through a range of breathing, postural, imaging techniques and developing recall skills that enable the recall of experiencing compassion, individuals are given the opportunity to experience what compassion is, or could be. In essence, compassion training helps to create ideas in the mind about what can be achieved. With positive effects on mental health, emotion regulation, and interpersonal and social relationships, it is clear that developing compassion can have significant and far-reaching benefits.

***To be continued in Chapter 02 (Cultivating compassion, Measuring Compassion, Ways to build compassion in daily routines) Link to Chapter -02:

COMPASSION TRAINING: BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED IN CULTIVATING COMPASSION – (CHAPTER 02)

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.

INFLUENCING BEHAVIORS: WHY FACTS DON’T ALTER MINDS

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”- Leo Tolstoy.

Why don’t facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us?

The Logic of False Beliefs

Humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If our model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then we struggle to take effective actions each day. However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong.

“Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe—or worse, being cast out—was a death sentence.”- James Clear – Atomic Habits

Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is remaining part of a tribe. While these two desires often work well together, they occasionally come into conflict. In many circumstances; social connection is actually more helpful to our daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea. People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples, rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.

We don’t always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about.If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it’s perfectly happy to do so, and doesn’t much care where the reward comes from. False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach “factually false, but socially accurate.”  When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts.

This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongue at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but also reveals a better way to change the minds of others.

Facts Don’t Change Our Minds. Friendship Does.

Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. We can’t expect someone to change their mind if we take away their community too. We have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.The way to change people’s minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into our tribe, to bring them into our circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially.

The British philosopher Alain de Botton suggests that we simply share meals with those who disagree with us. Sitting down at a table with a group of strangers has the incomparable and odd benefit of making it a little more difficult to hate them with impunity. Prejudice and ethnic strife feed off abstraction. However, the proximity required by a meal – something about handing dishes around, unfurling napkins at the same moment, even asking a stranger to pass the salt – disrupts our ability to cling to the belief that the outsiders who wear unusual clothes and speak in distinctive accents deserve to be sent home or assaulted. Perhaps it is not difference, but distance that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. Facts don’t change our minds. Friendship does.

The Spectrum of Beliefs

The people who are most likely to change our minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics. If someone we know, like, and trust believes a radical idea, we are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. But if someone wildly different than us proposes the same radical idea, well, it’s easy to dismiss them as a crackpot.

One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If we divide this spectrum into 10 units and we find ourselves at Position 7, then there is little sense in trying to convince someone at Position 1. The gap is too wide. When we are at Position 7, our time is better spent connecting with people who are at Positions 6 and 8, gradually pulling them in our direction.

The most heated arguments often occur between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs from people who are nearby. The closer we are to someone, the more likely it becomes that the one or two beliefs we don’t share will bleed over into our own mind and shape our thinking. The further away an idea is from our current position, the more likely we are to reject it outright.When it comes to changing people’s minds, it is very difficult to jump from one side to another. We can’t jump down the spectrum – we have to slide down it.

Any idea that is sufficiently different from our current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates. In conversation; people have to carefully consider their status and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong. Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone’s head and without the risk of being judged by others. It’s easier to be open-minded when you aren’t feeling defensive.

Arguments are like a full-frontal attack on a person’s identity. Reading a book (or a text/email/letter) is like slipping the seed of an idea into a person’s brain and letting it grow on their own terms. There is enough wrestling going on in someone’s head when they are overcoming a pre-existing belief. They don’t need to wrestle with you too.

Why False Ideas Persist

There is another reason bad ideas continue to live on, which is that people continue to talk about them. Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be believed when they are repeated.

People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before we can criticize an idea, we have to reference that idea. We end up repeating the ideas we are hoping people will forget—but, of course, people cannot forget them because we keep talking about them. The more we repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.

Each time we attack a bad idea, we are feeding the very monster we are trying to destroy. Our time is better spent championing good ideas than tearing down bad ones. The best thing that can happen to a bad idea is that it is forgotten. The best thing that can happen to a good idea is that it is shared.

What Is The Goal?

There are instances when it is useful to point out an error or criticize a bad idea. But we have to ask ourselves, “What is the goal?” Presumably, we want to criticize bad ideas because we think the world would be better off if fewer people believed them. In other words, we think the world would improve if people changed their minds on a few important topics.If the goal is to actually change minds, then, criticizing the other side may not be the best approach.

Most people argue to win, not to learn. People often act like soldiers rather than scouts. Soldiers are on the intellectual attack, looking to defeat the people who differ from them. Victory is the operative emotion. Scouts, meanwhile, are like intellectual explorers, slowly trying to map the terrain with others. Curiosity is the driving force. If we want people to adopt our beliefs, we need to act more like a scout and less like a soldier. Are we willing to not win in order to keep the conversation going?

Be Kind First, Be Right Later

“Always remember that to argue, and win, is to break down the reality of the person you are arguing against. It is painful to lose your reality, so be kind, even if you are right.”- Haruki Murakami

When we are in the moment, we can easily forget that the goal is to connect with the other side, collaborate with them, befriend them, and integrate them into our tribe. We are so caught up in winning that we forget about connecting. It is easy to spend our energy labelling people rather than working with them.The word “kind” originated from the word “kin.” When you are kind to someone it means you are treating them like family. Develop a friendship. Share a meal. Be Kind.

**Source Credits: 1)  Language, Cognition, and Human Nature: Selected Articles by Steven Pinker.   2) Religion for Atheists by Alain de Botton.  3) “Why you think you’re right — even if you’re wrong” by Julia Galef.

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.

EXPLORING HUMAN BEHAVIOR THROUGH SCUBA DIVING: LESSONS AND INSIGHTS – (CHAPTER 02)

***Continued from Chapter 01 (Points 01 to 04 Covered- Link Below)

LESSONS IN BEHAVIOUR FROM SCUBA DIVING – (CHAPTER 01)

05) -> Always Dive with a Buddy

Our buddy is there to help should we need them: we run out of air, our equipment malfunctions, we see something incredible that no one else will believe unless we have a witness. Our buddy is there to hold us accountable, to encourage and to calm us down should panic arise. A good buddy thinks not only of themselves, but of their counterpart as well. Our dive buddy could be a stranger we have just met on the boat or a lifelong friend with whom we share a passion. We enter the ocean on each other’s terms, agreeing on a dive plan, understanding that while each person is responsible for himself, they are also there to lend a helping hand. You share the dive together, exit the water together, drifting along in a sort of dependent independency (interdependency).

Lesson:……………………………….. Going through life without someone with whom you can communicate, without someone to be there should you need them, is not an ideal way of life. We need to be able to be alone with ourselves, to love ourselves independent of others, in order to make ourselves happy. But there is something to be said for having an ear that listens. We cannot isolate ourselves too much, closing ourselves off from the rest of the world. We thrive on connection, on acceptance, on belonging to something bigger than ourselves.

The buddy, whether they are a partner, parent, or best friend, can help to appreciate the solitude found in our world while remaining there for each other should we need one another. It is comforting to know that a buddy will be there, or will need us too, when needed.

06) -> Slow Down

The primary purpose of moving on a dive is to do so slowly and purposefully, carefully creeping along a coral reef, checking cracks and crevices for hiding creatures. The more slowly we move, the more we are likely to see. The diver who surfaces after their planned bottom time has lapsed, complaining of not seeing anything, is likely the diver who moved too quickly.

There is no telling what kinds of alien-like life forms are lurking in the lush shelters of vibrant reefs. Many are minuscule or camouflaged, only visible to the trained eye of a curious scuba diver. The marine world is an interesting, astounding, captivating place where no two dives are the same, and no two dives will yield the same sights. The experienced diver knows that careful observation is the secret to uncovering the treasures, both big and small, that the ocean has to offer.

Lesson:……………………………. We are in a world where everything is immediate and fast paced and needs to happen as soon as possible. Diving teaches, for the love of all things beautiful, to slow down and appreciate the environment we are in. It shows us that stress and pressure should not be our motivating factors, rather the reasons behind our actions should lie in what interests us. The forces driving us forward are curiosity and inquisition, our motivation propelled not by what lies ahead, but what lies right here, right now, right in front of our eyes if we will only take the time to look.

07) -> The More We Dive, the Less Weight We Will Need

The first breaths underwater will most likely be taken with a weight that is heavier than the weight we need. There is so much to take in, inhaling with enthusiasm, that we often forget to exhale, filling our lungs, bringing stubborn buoyancy to our bodies that can only begin to be counteracted by adding a few extra pounds to your weight belt.

But then we learn, and the novelty wears off. We start to put techniques into practice, controlling our breathing and remembering to exhale when we feel ourselves floating up. We make it a goal, like many divers have, to continue dropping our weights – diving with our ideal weight, with no more weight than we need. Thus, we begin to conserve energy, making our air consumption lighter and our tank last longer.

Lesson:……………………………… The more we have moved through life, the more weight we have begun to shed; the weight we always seem to carry with us; trying to drag us down when we are clearly meant to fly. It probably begins in adolescence when we are first exposed to all these new expectations that society has for us to act or be a certain way. Weight after heavy weight gets added, draining ourselves faster than we should, leading us to rely on crutches to achieve our neutral buoyancy, our peace of mind. Here is when it is important to exhale- to let it go.

It takes dedicated and consistent practice. The more we go through life, letting go of the unnecessary, the more comfortable we get in our own skin, the more we can conserve our positivity.

08) -> Not Every Dive Will Be Breathtaking

Stunning underwater encounters will be present, but for every magnificent moment, there will be even more hours spent in which we see a lot of the same. That does not mean those dives were not beautiful in themselves, rather they just weren’t as noteworthy as others.

Lesson:………………………….. It’s true in our lives as well. We become accustomed, getting caught in a routine. We wake up wanting our days to look a certain way, thinking that if we do something different it’s going to be the answer that unlocks all of our problems, thinking that every day should be significant. Not every day in our lives is going to be incredible. We must have the ordinary to balance the outstanding. We need monotony in order to appreciate the magnificent.

We have learned to let go of our expectations, to let every feeling wash over us, and to not get discouraged by a little boredom or normalcy. We have learned to create a life for ourselves in which the good outweighs the bad, and, in between the repetitiveness and regularity, we have put ourselves in a place that we can appreciate.

09) -> We Are the Awkward Creature in an Unfamiliar World

Diving in the ocean allows us to get incredibly close to nature, being mere inches away from multiple wild animals. And then, seeing these creatures move in a lightning-fast haste, changing direction and whizzing through the water like its less than air, is incredibly humbling; a reminder of just how vulnerable we are in this unearthly environment. That is why, as divers, we are taught to treat the marine world with such respect; we are outsiders in an arena that does not belong to us, slower than any underwater being no matter how quickly we kick our fins.

Lesson:…………………………………. It is the same with traveling, with seeing more and more of the earth, encountering new cultures, and leaving tracks in our wake. Scuba diving shows us that we are all just awkward creatures in an unfamiliar place. We all have experiences that humble us, that remind us just how vulnerable we are in comparison to the other forces in this world. We think we are in control, and then the change happens, a movement so fast that it occurs in the blink of an eye: a destructive hurricane hits, a pandemic runs through the world, fires rip through forests and suburbs. Which is why we learn that we need to treat our world with respect, acting in our lives with the knowledge that anything can change in an instant. We have become more conscious of our habits, trying to limit the waste we produce, trying to step more lightly through life, leaving less of a footprint behind.

10) -> Always Do a Safety Stop, Even if it’s Not Required

We do a safety stop at the end of every dive, spending 3 minutes at 5 meters or 15 feet, allowing excess nitrogen to begin dissolving from our tissues. Research and the Recreational Dive Planner (RDP) exhibit that a safety stop is not always necessary or required, but we always do one because it is a good diving habit to be in.

Lesson:……………………………… In life, we can look at our safety stops as moments to ourselves. A few minutes each day where we can allow ourselves to decompress the stresses and pressures that have built up throughout the day.  Examples – safety stops as a morning run, sitting down for afternoon tea, or reading a book before we go to sleep, yoga classes, writing my thoughts out on a page, or going for a sunset swim. We take our safety stops as precious moments to ourselves, a chance to reflect and relax before ascending to what’s required of us the following day. It may not always be required, but getting into the practice of doing something for ourselves, creating a habit that allows us to have that time to unwind, to relax and reflect and release all that we have been holding onto, is valuable in our immense vulnerability to the harsh ways of the world.

In Conclusion:

Life has so much to offer for those that decide to indulge in it. We have millions of opportunities every day to discover and experience something new. It seems as though we sell ourselves short far too often, thinking that we aren’t good enough or aren’t worthy enough to try something new. 

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

LESSONS FROM FARMING: LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOURS

Farmers pay attention to the details. It is not always an innate quality. By sheer hard work, constant research, an investment in time, and consistent habits he or she fosters growth in ways others may not understand. A farmer works harder for better results. We could easily be talking about leadership: it is so much like gardening.

As leaders, it is too easy to see the role as one of domination and control. We are in charge and we want everyone to know that. Yet, if we tend a garden or a farm, we learn quickly that the plants have their own way of surviving in the wild. We cannot pull on the green stems. A nurturing approach is not “an” option in leadership; it is the only option. It is also something you can learn with practice and patience, like farming and gardening. To lead effectively, we must nurture. In many ways, the gardening analogy is better than any other analogy (say, running a race, rowing, or building a house). Some things that come out well are:

Strengthen the corner post:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When building a fence, it is essential to have solid corner posts. Their purpose is to provide staying power of the tension so that the barbed wires stay taunt and useful. To gain this strength, a farmer needs to ensure the foundation for the hole is deep enough, well compacted, and braced to support the wires extending from at least two directions. We must be well-anchored and well-grounded to support the tensions and the reliance required to do the job consistently and continuously.

Plant well, harvest right:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. There is more planning which goes into farming than we might realize. Key questions need to be answered such as:  What do we plant? Where do we plant it? Has the right soil preparation been done? When do we plant it? How do we care for it during the growing season? When do we harvest it? How can we maximize my harvest? Plan proactively, balancing timing with the right preparation to get the most results from all resources involved.

Look for the growth:. . . . . . . . . Growth will happen, especially with the most teachable people. Sometimes, we must look a little harder. We may have to get down on our hands and knees to see the germination in the farm, but when the first signs of life are observed, it is a wonderful discovery. The kind of excitement from seeing something grow needs only to be felt. If only we acted that excited as leaders in the workplace.

Pick rocks:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. There are mundane jobs which need to be done to prevent troubles later or at critical times. Picking rocks is one of those responsibilities. Big rocks translate into less soil to grow crops. Small rocks create potential problems at harvest – a rock going through the equipment can result in costly repairs and delays. Do the mundane jobs to clear the environment of potential problems and get the most out of what you have.

Nurture in any way possible: . . . . . . . . . New growth in a garden or a farm is hard to spot and even harder to nurture. It is a bit like the security industry. In security, we have to use any means possible to protect our files. Install a firewall, use anti-virus software, train employees. In farming and gardening, we have to build a fence, add plant food, and cover the seedlings if there is an imminent freeze. Great leaders do the same. Leadership is primarily an act of defence. You defend employees, protect them, give them a place to do their jobs. Any other arrangement can quickly turn into a dictatorship.

Plant seeds and give space to the sowers: . . . . . . . . . The best leaders know how to plant the germ of an idea. They are subtle. “What would it take to get this new product launch a few more clicks on Facebook?” Maybe we already know the answer. Planting a seed is a way to encourage others to think, to foster ambitious ideas, to encourage creativity. The alternative to this leadership style is being the one who always has the best idea. To employees, that is like taking a fully grown tomato plant, digging a hole, and placing it into the garden. The shade alone from that massive stalk will kill the seeds (and the ideas). When newcomers bring ideas from other industries and businesses, are they welcomed or are they rooted out because “that’s not how we do things here”? True leaders think about the whole garden.

Get your hands dirty:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Farmers are unafraid of a little or a lot of dirt. From planting to harvesting and from cattle to chickens, farmers will get their hands dirty. They are in the middle of the action; and they know the only way to help get things done is to get your hands dirty. Jump in and activate the work that needs to be done.

Remove impediments: . . . . . . . . . Maybe the primary act of all great leaders is to remove impediments. Weeds always inhibit growth in a garden. We have to get creative about this process. Resolve conflict. Reward people what they are worth so they can perform their job. Remove distractions and confront problems. Like the master gardener, we are the primary weed control expert charged with encouraging growth.

Give your word, keep your word:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Farmers are helpful. If a neighbor needs a helping hand, it is extended. In rural communities, few words are generally spoken, but the words are always backed-up with action. There are few written agreements in farming; your hand-shake and your word are your commitments. If you say you are going to do something, you do it. Words and actions are bounded tightly together. Offer your commitment, keep your commitment. In the end, your reputation will be what remains.

Praise consistently: . . . . . . . . . Great leaders carry a watering can at all times. The job is highly dependent on our ability to nurture. Forget the sandwich principle (e.g., every negative remark should be “sandwiched” with one slice of praise on top and another on the bottom). Just praise. People have enough negative markers in their life for what they are doing wrong. We need to be the person who tells them what they are doing right and maybe, just maybe, they will grow into something amazing.

Consider the “season.” : . . . . . . . . .  In today’s 24-hour global economy, it would appear that there is no season, nothing that distinguishes night from day. But the smart leader watches the sky, reads the clouds, and can tell when there are shifts to indicate a new season. Bring products to market at the wrong time or introduce an idea without understanding timing and the “garden” can quickly resemble a piece of scorched earth.

Give credence to the unexpected and control what you can control.: . . . . . . . . .  The pandemic has not only raised havoc but spawned dangerous storms throughout the world. Leaders face such conditions: market downturns, a coup in Africa, airline strikes, terrorist attacks. A great leader takes all precautions and then remains flexible and ready for the unexpected. Scenario planning, a strategy first employed by Royal Dutch Shell, brings experts from a wide range of fields together to discuss actions if different scenarios take place. Scenario planning allows you to think out—in advance—various options. In like fashion, a master gardener always has all the tools, sprays, and plant potions necessary for probable surprises.

Feed different plants differently: . . . . . . . . .. Not every plant needs the same thing, yet all plants must eat. A “garden-wise” leader understands “nothing is so unequal as the equal treatment of unequals.” Just as each voice has its own unique sonogram, each employee, associate, and stakeholder needs a unique blend of “food.” For some, the “food” is numbers. For many, it is the opportunity to learn and advance in knowledge. For others, it is the engaging nature of the work itself that offers fulfilment.

Weeding is backbreaking work: . . . . . . . . .. A great leader hates this part of the task. It means fact-finding, accountability, and time. Not everything that is “green” belongs in my garden. Not every associate belongs with you. In fact, firing customers at times can also be the healthiest long-term fertilizer for a vibrant business.

Store for a better day:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. After the crops are harvested, there are two options:  sell right away or store it. At times, the money may be needed sooner rather than later. Usually, the harvest season is not the best time to sell – supplies higher, prices lower. Also, you may need reserves to help out during the bad times, when the weather delivers a blow and crops suffer. A buffer is needed from time-to-time. Keep a reserve – funds, personal energy, time, etc. Know the critical resources and be ready for the droughts and the long haul.

Leaders must take time to stop and “smell the roses.” We can get so overwhelmed with the “work” of our garden that we forget why we planted it. When we step back and gaze at our enterprise, are we pleased with what we see?

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

SHARING THE COMPANY VISION AS A LEADER

“Company vision” might be the fluffiest business term thrown around by nearly every business book and article, often used vaguely, without nuance or thoughtfulness.

Yet despite its watered-down usage, “vision” is the most important information for us to communicate across a team. Research indicates that vision was ranked as the number one information people need to share in a team. Given its significance, how to best share a company vision within a team? Before we can answer that, we must start with what company vision exactly is and why it is important.

What is company vision?

A vision is a picture of a better place. You see this picture in your head: It is what you want the world to look like because your product or team exists. In many ways, your team’s vision is your opinion on how you think the world ought to be. A vision answers the question, “What world do you want to create?” Vision is often misconstrued with other business terms, like “mission,” “purpose,” and “values.” But a vision is different from any of those things. A vision is what you want to create. The mission of your team is why you want to get to that vision. Your team’s values are how you want to get to that vision.

A company vision is a statement that outlines the long-term goals and aspirations of an organization. It is a powerful tool that helps define the direction of the company and provides guidance for decision-making. A strong vision statement can inspire and motivate employees, investors, and customers, and can help create a shared sense of purpose and identity.

Why does sharing a vision matter?

Sharing your company vision is important for four reasons:

• Clarifies decisions.

Many leaders strongly emphasise the importance of sharing vision as the ultimate tool for decision making. When the vision is clear, we give our team something explicitly to point to in decision making. The vision is the compass that all decisions are oriented around.

• Decentralizes decisions.

When the vision is shared across the team, each team member can have greater autonomy. Our team now has a shared destination on the map, so the manager doesn’t need to be ordering a series of coordinates instructing everyone how to get there. No more micromanaging. If we are clear about why we do what we do, our vision becomes a filter through which any employee can make decisions that align with who we are and what we’re about. But all of this is predicated on us as leaders regularly sharing this stuff.

• Alignment through disagreements.

A shared vision also helps a team make decisions amidst disagreement. When people argue over how to grow the sales or whether to pursue a project, this shared vision is a uniting force that can override seemingly irreconcilable differences in opinion. It can also give our co-workers the courage to speak up and offer dissenting opinions since they know what the ultimate vision of the team is what they are trying to achieve.

• The greatest motivator for our team.

When shared, a company vision is the most powerful way to motivate a group of people. It gives the team a common place to strive for. When each person clearly sees that same picture of a better place in their own minds’ eye, each person connects to it and feels that pull of motivation to want to create that place.

Here are three thoughts we can consider:

• Over-communicate vision at all-team meetings

The most common way to share company vision is to utilize team meetings. All-team or all-company meetings are an ideal opportunity to have this discussion: Everyone is present, and you are carving out time to talk about broader team and company issues. Regardless of the frequency, the most important thing is that we hold some sort of regular all-staff meeting and that we make a discussion of vision a part of it. Specifically, at these meetings, the team’s vision can be discussed in the following ways:

What is most important is to not make these meetings a progress update. It is found that employees often feel they know what their co-workers are working on, for the most part. Make communicating the vision the focus.

• Leverage the one-on-one meetings.

Communicating the vision isn’t just about broadcasting the vision: “This is the vision, and you must be on board…” Rather, sharing company vision should be a conversation. After all, a vision that is shared across a team is only built from the personal visions of everyone.

To do this, you will want to discuss the team’s vision during one-on-one meetings with the team members. For example, we can ask:

• Do not just talk about vision — codify it.

Talking about company vision during team meetings is great — but we should go beyond that as well. Leaders often present the vision to be something that developed organically and is discussed when needed. Documenting (codifying) the vision is another method on how to share the company vision. In particular, most teams seem to use an internal wiki or Google Docs to document and share the company vision. This often takes the form of a “culture book” or a few pages of their employee handbook.

As fluffy as the word “vision” can be, it can also be powerful when used effectively.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa