There's a new study "Civic honesty around the globe" recently published in the journal, Science that has received a lot of attention this past week in both the press and social media (for example, see the headline story on NPR "What dropping 17,000 wallets around the globe can teach us about honesty"). It's really quite an interesting article, but the headlines are a little misleading. Let me explain.
Given all the attention on corporate ethics and corruption in business, a group of researchers from the Department of Economics at the University of Zurich conducted a series of large-scale field experiments on honesty. Several studies in the past have shown, in most cases rather convincingly, that largely as a function of rational self-interest (i.e., most individuals look after number one - themselves), honest behavior should become less common as the potential gains from acting dishonestly increase. In other words, if we have a chance to get more of something - whether that something is money or some other kind of advantage - most economic models suggest that there is a greater chance of cheating or other unethical behavior. Most of the research conducted in this area has involved either laboratory-based experiments or direct observation of actual practices (for example, companies acting dishonestly to achieve material advantage - think of the Enron scandal or WorldCom scandals to name just two). Therefore, in order to test this in the real world, with real people, these investigators conducted an incredibly large and well-designed study in 355 different cities in 40 different countries around the world.
Basically study investigators returned "lost wallets" to individuals (who were not part of the study) at banks, theaters, museums, post offices, hotels, or police stations. As they handed over the wallet they would tell these individuals, "Hi, I found this [pointing to the wallet as they handed it over] on the street around the corner. Somebody must have lost it. I'm in a hurry and have to go. Can you please take care of it?"
Each wallet was completely transparent (think of a business card case) and had three identical business cards (listing the name and contact number of the wallet's "owner"), a grocery list, and a key. Some of the wallets contained nothing else ("No Money" condition), some contained US $13.45 in local currency ("Money" condition), and in a small subset of cities (in the US, UK, and Poland), US $94.15 in local currency ("Big Money" condition).
The investigators dropped off more than 17,000 wallets. So, what happened? Surprisingly (and rather reassuringly), adding money to the wallet increased the likelihood that the individual would report the lost wallet to the owner (increasing from 40% likelihood in the "No Money" condition to 51% in the "Money" condition). Further, in the subset of cities in the US, UK, and Poland, the likelihood that the wallet was reported missing increased even more as the amount of money in the wallet increased (increasing from a 46% likelihood in the "No Money" condition to 61% in the "Money" condition and 72% in the "Big Money" condition). These rates were fairly consistent regardless of which country that was studied! Across the globe, when the wallets were reported missing, over 98% of the money was returned!
Some of the headlines about this study in the past week are somewhat misleading - most of the reports in the media suggest that the investigators dropped the wallet on the street. Regardless, the fact that in most cases, the individuals who received the lost wallet were more than likely to contact the owner to report it (and then return almost all of the money in the process) is rather reassuring. Additional data reported in the study suggested that in most cases, these individuals reported the missing wallet out of altruistic concerns or an aversion to viewing oneself as a thief, rather than fear of reprisal or legal action.
So, in addition to being the best policy, honesty appears to be more common than previously thought!
Sunday, June 30, 2019
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
Too many surveys?
We recently took one of our cars to the dealership for an oil change. We've always been very happy with the Service Department at this particular dealership, and our experience this time wasn't any different than what we've come to appreciate from past experience. The dealership sent us a video inspection of our car via text message (we were able to watch the technician walk beneath our car and point out and explain different maintenance items, such as the wear on our brake pads and tire tread) - very cool and very high tech! We were able to pick up the car later in the day, pay our bill online, and left completely satisfied.
The day after our appointment, I received a request to complete a customer satisfaction survey via e-mail. I work in a service industry, so I completely understood the rationale for sending out an experience survey. I left the request in my e-mail Inbox to complete later when I had some free time. A few hours later, I received another request via text message. Shortly thereafter, I received a telephone call from an employee at the dealership asking me if I would talk to her about my experience. In other words, during the short span of about six hours, I received a request to complete a survey via e-mail, a second request via text message, and a third request via telephone call.
I will fully admit, I was pretty short with the telephone survey. She asked if I was the one who had brought the car to the dealership. I answered that it was actually my wife who had brought the car, but unfortunately she was not available. She then asked if I knew whether my wife was satisfied with the service received, and I answered in the affirmative. She then asked if I would be willing to provide my e-mail address so that the dealership could send me service reminders, rebates, or recall information. I told the surveyor that the dealership already had my e-mail address, as they had contacted me earlier in the day via e-mail to respond to another survey. She then asked if I would like to provide my cell phone number so that the dealership could provide service reminders. Again, I offered that the dealership already had my cell phone number as they had already contacted me (and, in fact, the surveyor has also contacted me on my cell phone). To be perfectly honest, the conversation did not quite go as smoothly as I am telling you now, but I hope you get the point.
It seems like we are inundated with customer satisfaction surveys. Almost every interaction with the service industry nowadays comes with a request to fill out a survey. I get it - having customer experience survey data is important. How else is a service organization supposed to improve? Unfortunately, the fact that bonuses and rewards for employees are closely tied to customer feedback is a big problem. For example, how many times have you been told by an employee that you, as the customer, will be receiving a feedback survey and he or she would appreciate a good response? I will take it one step further. How many times have you been asked to give an employee a perfect score on a survey (e.g., a perfect 10 out of 10) because his or her pay is tied to that score and anything less than a 10 is not good enough? Employers are figuring this out - I recently completed a customer feedback survey that included the following question: "Did any employee ask you to give him or her a perfect score on this survey?" Wow.
Again, I get it. We have to measure what matters, and customer satisfaction definitely matters. Unfortunately, we live in a service economy. Almost every interaction with a service organization will come with a survey. Too many surveys will lead to survey fatigue, which in turn will lead to customer annoyance. Is that really what we are hoping to accomplish?
In order for customer survey data to be valid (and hence, actionable), we need a sufficient sample size. Random selection of customers seems appropriate, but if the response rate is too low, the sample size will not be sufficient. For this reason, I suspect that many companies survey every single customer in order to obtain a sufficient sample size in the face of low response rates. Just a thought, but has anyone ever considered that the reason the response rate is so low is that we are asked to complete far too many surveys in the first place?
I also find that surveys are getting longer and more detailed. Even if most surveys take less than 10 minutes to complete, they still take up valuable time out of customer's busy day. There's probably a balance somewhere between the long surveys that feel like a mortgage loan application versus the five-point smiley face surveys that you can find in airport restrooms ("Please rate the cleanliness of this restroom!").
Customer feedback is incredibly important. Customer experience surveys aren't going away - nor should they. However, I think we have to find a better balance. We need to appreciate that our customer's time is valuable too and refine our survey methodology accordingly.
The day after our appointment, I received a request to complete a customer satisfaction survey via e-mail. I work in a service industry, so I completely understood the rationale for sending out an experience survey. I left the request in my e-mail Inbox to complete later when I had some free time. A few hours later, I received another request via text message. Shortly thereafter, I received a telephone call from an employee at the dealership asking me if I would talk to her about my experience. In other words, during the short span of about six hours, I received a request to complete a survey via e-mail, a second request via text message, and a third request via telephone call.
I will fully admit, I was pretty short with the telephone survey. She asked if I was the one who had brought the car to the dealership. I answered that it was actually my wife who had brought the car, but unfortunately she was not available. She then asked if I knew whether my wife was satisfied with the service received, and I answered in the affirmative. She then asked if I would be willing to provide my e-mail address so that the dealership could send me service reminders, rebates, or recall information. I told the surveyor that the dealership already had my e-mail address, as they had contacted me earlier in the day via e-mail to respond to another survey. She then asked if I would like to provide my cell phone number so that the dealership could provide service reminders. Again, I offered that the dealership already had my cell phone number as they had already contacted me (and, in fact, the surveyor has also contacted me on my cell phone). To be perfectly honest, the conversation did not quite go as smoothly as I am telling you now, but I hope you get the point.
It seems like we are inundated with customer satisfaction surveys. Almost every interaction with the service industry nowadays comes with a request to fill out a survey. I get it - having customer experience survey data is important. How else is a service organization supposed to improve? Unfortunately, the fact that bonuses and rewards for employees are closely tied to customer feedback is a big problem. For example, how many times have you been told by an employee that you, as the customer, will be receiving a feedback survey and he or she would appreciate a good response? I will take it one step further. How many times have you been asked to give an employee a perfect score on a survey (e.g., a perfect 10 out of 10) because his or her pay is tied to that score and anything less than a 10 is not good enough? Employers are figuring this out - I recently completed a customer feedback survey that included the following question: "Did any employee ask you to give him or her a perfect score on this survey?" Wow.
Again, I get it. We have to measure what matters, and customer satisfaction definitely matters. Unfortunately, we live in a service economy. Almost every interaction with a service organization will come with a survey. Too many surveys will lead to survey fatigue, which in turn will lead to customer annoyance. Is that really what we are hoping to accomplish?
In order for customer survey data to be valid (and hence, actionable), we need a sufficient sample size. Random selection of customers seems appropriate, but if the response rate is too low, the sample size will not be sufficient. For this reason, I suspect that many companies survey every single customer in order to obtain a sufficient sample size in the face of low response rates. Just a thought, but has anyone ever considered that the reason the response rate is so low is that we are asked to complete far too many surveys in the first place?
I also find that surveys are getting longer and more detailed. Even if most surveys take less than 10 minutes to complete, they still take up valuable time out of customer's busy day. There's probably a balance somewhere between the long surveys that feel like a mortgage loan application versus the five-point smiley face surveys that you can find in airport restrooms ("Please rate the cleanliness of this restroom!").
Customer feedback is incredibly important. Customer experience surveys aren't going away - nor should they. However, I think we have to find a better balance. We need to appreciate that our customer's time is valuable too and refine our survey methodology accordingly.
Sunday, June 23, 2019
The Red Queen Rule
Several months ago, I downloaded a copy of Lewis Carroll's book, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and the sequel, Through the Looking Glass. I found out fairly quickly that there is a lot more to these books than what was portrayed in Disney's animated movie of the same name. As it turns out, Lewis Carroll is actually a pen name - Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was actually a mathematician before he was a writer - the original story of Alice in Wonderland actually came from a story that Dodgson told to the three daughters of Henry Liddell, the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University and Dean of Christ Church during a boat ride on July 4, 1862. The book is a great example of what is known as "literary nonsense" (for other examples, see Carroll's famous poem Jabberwocky (found in Through the Looking Glass). One of the cardinal features of this genre is that these stories and poems are packed with symbolism and meaning - even if they appear on the surface to lack a lot of sense.
There is one passage in Carroll's Through the Looking Glass that I particularly enjoyed that involves the Red Queen (notably, the Red Queen is often confused with the Queen of Hearts, another character in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, but they are two different characters - Disney may be to blame here, as the two characters are combined in the animated film). The Red Queen explains the rules of chess to Alice concerning promotion - she must start out as a pawn and will eventually be promoted to Queen if she reaches the eighth square at the opposite end of the chess board. There is a specific incident later in the book where Alice is constantly running but remains in the same spot without appearing to move forward:
"Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else - if you run very fast for a long time, as we've been doing."
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
Sound familiar? Have you ever found yourself trying to catch up, say at work, and it ends up feeling like you are running in place and never making any progress? As it turns out, there is a well-described phenomenon in evolutionary biology called the "Red Queen Effect" (also known as the "Red Queen Rule" or the "Red Queen Hypothesis"). It essentially states this - organisms are constantly adapting and evolving to the world around them in order to survive. Unfortunately, the world around them is adapting and evolving as well. So, any adaptation that results in an incremental improvement in survival doesn't last very long. For example, if a rabbit evolves in such a way that it can outrun the fox, the fox develops some new skill - say, better hearing or eyesight - that allows it to overcome the rabbit's speed. And so on. And so on.
We see a similar effect with organizations. One organization develops a new product or service line that confers a competitive advantage. The organization uses this new advantage to overtake their competitors. Unfortunately, at the same time, the competitors are developing new skills (or in some cases, learning how to build the new product or develop the new service line) in such a way that the competitive advantage is lost. Overall, both competitor organizations end up better in the long run (they have each learned new skills or developed new products), but they are no better than each other. Any competitive advantage does not last.
It's pretty amazing when you think about it. A story in one of the classic works of children's literature becomes a metaphor for evolutionary biology AND organizational development and competitive markets. I mention this all, not because I think it's important for everyone to know the "Red Queen Effect" but because I think it provides yet another example of how reading widely in disciplines outside your own can be incredibly enlightening. Take the time to learn and read in a discipline outside your own. You may come across an interesting story like the Red Queen - more importantly, you may learn something that you can adapt to your own line of work.
There is one passage in Carroll's Through the Looking Glass that I particularly enjoyed that involves the Red Queen (notably, the Red Queen is often confused with the Queen of Hearts, another character in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, but they are two different characters - Disney may be to blame here, as the two characters are combined in the animated film). The Red Queen explains the rules of chess to Alice concerning promotion - she must start out as a pawn and will eventually be promoted to Queen if she reaches the eighth square at the opposite end of the chess board. There is a specific incident later in the book where Alice is constantly running but remains in the same spot without appearing to move forward:
"Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else - if you run very fast for a long time, as we've been doing."
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
Sound familiar? Have you ever found yourself trying to catch up, say at work, and it ends up feeling like you are running in place and never making any progress? As it turns out, there is a well-described phenomenon in evolutionary biology called the "Red Queen Effect" (also known as the "Red Queen Rule" or the "Red Queen Hypothesis"). It essentially states this - organisms are constantly adapting and evolving to the world around them in order to survive. Unfortunately, the world around them is adapting and evolving as well. So, any adaptation that results in an incremental improvement in survival doesn't last very long. For example, if a rabbit evolves in such a way that it can outrun the fox, the fox develops some new skill - say, better hearing or eyesight - that allows it to overcome the rabbit's speed. And so on. And so on.
We see a similar effect with organizations. One organization develops a new product or service line that confers a competitive advantage. The organization uses this new advantage to overtake their competitors. Unfortunately, at the same time, the competitors are developing new skills (or in some cases, learning how to build the new product or develop the new service line) in such a way that the competitive advantage is lost. Overall, both competitor organizations end up better in the long run (they have each learned new skills or developed new products), but they are no better than each other. Any competitive advantage does not last.
It's pretty amazing when you think about it. A story in one of the classic works of children's literature becomes a metaphor for evolutionary biology AND organizational development and competitive markets. I mention this all, not because I think it's important for everyone to know the "Red Queen Effect" but because I think it provides yet another example of how reading widely in disciplines outside your own can be incredibly enlightening. Take the time to learn and read in a discipline outside your own. You may come across an interesting story like the Red Queen - more importantly, you may learn something that you can adapt to your own line of work.
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
Juneteenth Independence Day
I was getting ready to finish up today's blog post this afternoon, when I happened to check my calendar on my Apple iPhone. Today is June 19th, or Juneteenth Independence Day. I am embarrassed to admit that I wasn't sure why today was called Juneteenth, so I looked it up. Today happens to be a very important day in our nation's history. Would it help if I told you that today is also called "Freedom Day"?
Juneteenth, or Freedom Day, commemorates the announcement of the abolition of slavery in the U.S. state of Texas on June 19, 1865. Texas was the last of the former Confederate States of America to abolish slavery, which had occurred more broadly with the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. Texas was the first state to establish Juneteenth as an official state holiday in 1980 - today, Juneteenth Independence Day is officially recognized as either a state holiday or special day of observance in 46 states. Apple added Juneteenth Independence Day to its calendars in iOS under official U.S. holidays in 2018.
It is right that we recognize a day like today. Today, we celebrate freedom. We also recognize that even today, more than 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, we have work still to do. Today, we should take a moment to reflect on where we are as a nation. Today we should take a moment to reflect on the work that lies ahead to eliminate prejudice of all kinds. Remember, and do not forget what it means to be free. Remember, and do not forget that only 150 or so years ago, we finally granted that freedom to an entire group of our fellow Americans. Remember, and do not forget, that even today, prejudice and inequality exists in our country.
Juneteenth, or Freedom Day, commemorates the announcement of the abolition of slavery in the U.S. state of Texas on June 19, 1865. Texas was the last of the former Confederate States of America to abolish slavery, which had occurred more broadly with the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. Texas was the first state to establish Juneteenth as an official state holiday in 1980 - today, Juneteenth Independence Day is officially recognized as either a state holiday or special day of observance in 46 states. Apple added Juneteenth Independence Day to its calendars in iOS under official U.S. holidays in 2018.
It is right that we recognize a day like today. Today, we celebrate freedom. We also recognize that even today, more than 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, we have work still to do. Today, we should take a moment to reflect on where we are as a nation. Today we should take a moment to reflect on the work that lies ahead to eliminate prejudice of all kinds. Remember, and do not forget what it means to be free. Remember, and do not forget that only 150 or so years ago, we finally granted that freedom to an entire group of our fellow Americans. Remember, and do not forget, that even today, prejudice and inequality exists in our country.
Monday, June 17, 2019
"All Things Must Pass"
The Beatles officially broke up on April 10, 1970. There had been rumors of an impending split for many years prior to that, and both George Harrison and Ringo Starr had temporarily left the group at different points in time during the late 1960's. All four members of the band had been working on solo projects, and they had stopped touring together as of 1966. John Lennon informed the other three members of the band that he was leaving in September, 1969, and the band officially called it quits once Paul McCartney announced his intentions to leave in the Spring of 1970.
After forming in 1960, the Beatles had grown to become one of the most influential rock bands of all-time. During their active years from 1960-1970, all four were knighted by Queen Elizabeth, their 1970 film Let it Be had won the 1971 Academy Award for Best Original Song, and they had won 7 Grammy Awards. They had 6 Diamond albums (over 10 million sold), 20 multi-Platinum albums (over 1 million sold), 16 Platinum albums, and 6 Gold albums (over 500,000 sold) in the United States alone. They had 20 number0one hits on the Billboard Hot 100 - the most of any band in music history, and they were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988.
Unfortunately, all good things must eventually come to an end. George Harrison released his third solo album, All Things Must Pass in 1970. The triple album contained some of Harrison's signature hits, including "What is Life" and "My Sweet Lord," the first number one hit by a former member of the Beatles (all four members would eventually go on to have number one hits outside of the Beatles). The title track is poignant - it deals with the transient nature of things:
All things must pass
None of life's strings can last
So, I must be on my way
And face another day.
All streaks eventually come to an end. Last night, after 85 days, my continuous streak of meeting my Activity, Stand, and Exercise goals on my Apple Watch came to an end. While I confess that keeping up with the streak was incredibly motivating (see one of my previous posts, "A Big Red X"), I also should confess that trying to keep up with the streak was starting to become all-consuming. It was almost as if keeping up with the streak was more important than what the streak represented - good, healthy habits that I should try to maintain on a daily basis.
I confess, there were probably times when I even cheated a little bit (if I was stuck in a sitting position - for example, during a long drive or plane trip - for prolonged times, I could hit my fist against my leg for a several seconds to "register" a stand). I am not sure that "cheating" to keep up with a streak is necessarily a good thing. I even came across a few articles during my background research for today's post entitled, "Hacks for When You Forget to Wear Your Pedometer" and "How to Cheat Your Apple Watch Rings". Again, getting enough exercise every day, walking a certain number of steps, or making sure that you don't sit all the time are all great goals to achieve, but not when the goal becomes so consuming that we are tempted to cheat in order to achieve them or if by not achieving them, we feel an overwhelming sense of failure.
Here's the thing though - it is the actual act (i.e. standing for a certain portion of time every hour or actually exercising) that is important and not the goal. It is the act itself that we should aspire to and not the goal. As it turns out, the goal of walking "10,000 steps per day" isn't so magical after all - a recent study in JAMA Internal Medicine suggested that walking only half that number is linked to a decreased risk of death, at least in the population studied (older women). In other words, daily participation in the actual activity is more important than the goal itself.
So, this morning, after the end of my 85 day streak, I will start a new streak. I am most proud of the days when I actually did all of the activities that maintained my streak. I took more flights of stairs, and I got up to walk more throughout the day. These were all good, healthy habits that I will continue to maintain. Hopefully I will refrain from cheating and actually keep up with the true spirit of the three Apple Watch goals. And hopefully I am better for ending the streak, and like George Harrison with his number one solo and album, coming out better for it. As George Harrison says, "sunrise doesn't last all morning" and "sunset doesn't last all evening" - "so I must be on my way and face another day."
After forming in 1960, the Beatles had grown to become one of the most influential rock bands of all-time. During their active years from 1960-1970, all four were knighted by Queen Elizabeth, their 1970 film Let it Be had won the 1971 Academy Award for Best Original Song, and they had won 7 Grammy Awards. They had 6 Diamond albums (over 10 million sold), 20 multi-Platinum albums (over 1 million sold), 16 Platinum albums, and 6 Gold albums (over 500,000 sold) in the United States alone. They had 20 number0one hits on the Billboard Hot 100 - the most of any band in music history, and they were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988.
Unfortunately, all good things must eventually come to an end. George Harrison released his third solo album, All Things Must Pass in 1970. The triple album contained some of Harrison's signature hits, including "What is Life" and "My Sweet Lord," the first number one hit by a former member of the Beatles (all four members would eventually go on to have number one hits outside of the Beatles). The title track is poignant - it deals with the transient nature of things:
All things must pass
None of life's strings can last
So, I must be on my way
And face another day.
All streaks eventually come to an end. Last night, after 85 days, my continuous streak of meeting my Activity, Stand, and Exercise goals on my Apple Watch came to an end. While I confess that keeping up with the streak was incredibly motivating (see one of my previous posts, "A Big Red X"), I also should confess that trying to keep up with the streak was starting to become all-consuming. It was almost as if keeping up with the streak was more important than what the streak represented - good, healthy habits that I should try to maintain on a daily basis.
I confess, there were probably times when I even cheated a little bit (if I was stuck in a sitting position - for example, during a long drive or plane trip - for prolonged times, I could hit my fist against my leg for a several seconds to "register" a stand). I am not sure that "cheating" to keep up with a streak is necessarily a good thing. I even came across a few articles during my background research for today's post entitled, "Hacks for When You Forget to Wear Your Pedometer" and "How to Cheat Your Apple Watch Rings". Again, getting enough exercise every day, walking a certain number of steps, or making sure that you don't sit all the time are all great goals to achieve, but not when the goal becomes so consuming that we are tempted to cheat in order to achieve them or if by not achieving them, we feel an overwhelming sense of failure.
Here's the thing though - it is the actual act (i.e. standing for a certain portion of time every hour or actually exercising) that is important and not the goal. It is the act itself that we should aspire to and not the goal. As it turns out, the goal of walking "10,000 steps per day" isn't so magical after all - a recent study in JAMA Internal Medicine suggested that walking only half that number is linked to a decreased risk of death, at least in the population studied (older women). In other words, daily participation in the actual activity is more important than the goal itself.
So, this morning, after the end of my 85 day streak, I will start a new streak. I am most proud of the days when I actually did all of the activities that maintained my streak. I took more flights of stairs, and I got up to walk more throughout the day. These were all good, healthy habits that I will continue to maintain. Hopefully I will refrain from cheating and actually keep up with the true spirit of the three Apple Watch goals. And hopefully I am better for ending the streak, and like George Harrison with his number one solo and album, coming out better for it. As George Harrison says, "sunrise doesn't last all morning" and "sunset doesn't last all evening" - "so I must be on my way and face another day."
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
Peer Pressure
Peer pressure can have a powerful effect on the way that we act or behave. We like to conform, as much as possible, to the behaviors, attitudes, and values of the other members in our social networks. For example, one study from Nicholas Christakis, a sociologist and physician at Yale University, and his colleague, James Fowler showed that an individual's risk of becoming obese increased by 57% if he or she had a friend who was also obese (this was compared to a 40% increase in risk if an adult sibling was obese or a 37% increase in risk if a spouse was obese). These same investigators also showed a similar effect on smoking behavior - individuals were more likely to quit smoking if other members in their social network also quit smoking (see their study's findings here). They further found evidence to support that when it comes to influencing our behaviors, the effects of peer pressure extend far beyond our direct connections. People influence their friends (i.e., their direct connections), who in turn influence their friends, and so on, and so on. They call this effect, "three degrees of influence". It's a really interesting field of research.
As it turns out, being happy can have a similar "three degrees of influence." Christakis and Fowler showed (see the study here) that if our friends, siblings, next door neighbors, or spouses become happy, there is a significantly increased likelihood that we will be happy too. In other words, happiness is contagious! Unfortunately, this effect was not seen with co-workers - but hey, it was only one study, right!?!? I wouldn't let that stop you from being happy.
What's the take-home message here? There are a lot of things that are beyond a leader's control. But there are also many things that are within a leader's span of control. His or her attitude is something that can be easily controlled (or at least it should be). Try to be happy (see my previous post "Don't Worry, Be Happy") - it may influence the attitudes of those around you and will certainly influence the attitudes of close friends and family members. And it will make you feel good and pleasant to be around! As Dan Ariely said in a blog post about the study by Christakis and Fowler, "surrounding ourselves with happier people will make us happier, make the people close to us happier, and make the people close to them happier." Be happy!
As it turns out, being happy can have a similar "three degrees of influence." Christakis and Fowler showed (see the study here) that if our friends, siblings, next door neighbors, or spouses become happy, there is a significantly increased likelihood that we will be happy too. In other words, happiness is contagious! Unfortunately, this effect was not seen with co-workers - but hey, it was only one study, right!?!? I wouldn't let that stop you from being happy.
What's the take-home message here? There are a lot of things that are beyond a leader's control. But there are also many things that are within a leader's span of control. His or her attitude is something that can be easily controlled (or at least it should be). Try to be happy (see my previous post "Don't Worry, Be Happy") - it may influence the attitudes of those around you and will certainly influence the attitudes of close friends and family members. And it will make you feel good and pleasant to be around! As Dan Ariely said in a blog post about the study by Christakis and Fowler, "surrounding ourselves with happier people will make us happier, make the people close to us happier, and make the people close to them happier." Be happy!
Monday, June 10, 2019
Faster than the speed of light
What happened to us? At some point during my lifetime, we as a society started demanding access to information almost instantaneously. I am dating myself for sure, but I can remember going to the local library on a Sunday afternoon to look up information for an assignment at school. I can remember the excitement of finally having access to an encyclopedia set at home and not having to go to the local library. I can even remember buying a home computer that came with a free copy of an entire encyclopedia set on an accompanying CD-ROM. When I was growing up, I used to check out all the sports scores in the morning newspaper while eating breakfast. I remember watching the evening news to find out what was going on in the world at the time. Fast forward a few years and I would find out the sports scores on ESPN or check out the world news on CNN. Nowadays, if I want to find out how my favorite sports teams are doing or learn about the news events of the day, I just check the Internet. We want - or more accurately, we demand - to know everything that is going on the moment it happens.
Want even more examples? How many times has this happened to you? Last week I was watching the Cubs play and one of the players, Albert Almora, Jr hit a foul ball into the stands. The ball apparently hit a spectator (in this case, a little girl) and Almora was really distraught. I didn't see what exactly had happened, so rather than waiting for an explanation from the sports announcer, I checked Twitter. I can't tell you how many times I've looked something up on the Internet or social media to find out something that was occurring in real time, even while watching the events unfold on live television. If I were being 100% honest, I have even checked for information on the Internet while watching a sports game in person. I am as guilty as anyone. When I want information, I usually want it right away and without delay.
It used to be that 24/7/365 (i.e., 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year) was a worthy goal. Now, in order to stay competitive and meet consumer demand, organizations have to be 60/60/24 (that is, 60 seconds a minute, 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day). Imagine how hard it is to keep up with this kind of demand! It's almost not possible.
Yesterday, I was waiting with my wife and daughter for our flight home from vacation at JFK International in New York. Both my daughter and I have the airline's app on our cell phones, and all three of us - my wife, my daughter, and I - had signed up for text message alerts when we checked in at the airport. Well, as frequently occurs, our flight was delayed. We had a plane and the weather was perfect - this time, we were waiting on pilots to fly the plane (maybe a subject for a future post). The gate agent had announced that there was a delay, but after about two hours we hadn't heard any new updates. We kept getting text messages on our cell phones about the new estimated departure time, and we were able to get the same information on the app. I went to go talk to the gate agent to see if she had any additional information. When I asked why she hadn't provided any additional updates for the last hour or two, she claimed that she had only just received an update a few minutes before I came up to talk to her! In other words, the passengers waiting at the gate had more up to date information (via the airline's own app) than the gate agent for the airline!
Unfortunately, I really can't blame the airline too much here. I have been in similar situations at the hospital when our employees find out something on social media while an event is happening in real time before our communications team has a chance to send out an update. Information happens fast - maybe even faster than we can provide it!
I don't have a solution here. A big part of leadership is change management. Managing change requires management of information. Providing information in a timely manner - even faster than you think - is absolutely essential. As leaders, we need to be fully cognizant that our employees want access to information - and that access has to be faster than the speed of light!
Want even more examples? How many times has this happened to you? Last week I was watching the Cubs play and one of the players, Albert Almora, Jr hit a foul ball into the stands. The ball apparently hit a spectator (in this case, a little girl) and Almora was really distraught. I didn't see what exactly had happened, so rather than waiting for an explanation from the sports announcer, I checked Twitter. I can't tell you how many times I've looked something up on the Internet or social media to find out something that was occurring in real time, even while watching the events unfold on live television. If I were being 100% honest, I have even checked for information on the Internet while watching a sports game in person. I am as guilty as anyone. When I want information, I usually want it right away and without delay.
It used to be that 24/7/365 (i.e., 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year) was a worthy goal. Now, in order to stay competitive and meet consumer demand, organizations have to be 60/60/24 (that is, 60 seconds a minute, 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day). Imagine how hard it is to keep up with this kind of demand! It's almost not possible.
Yesterday, I was waiting with my wife and daughter for our flight home from vacation at JFK International in New York. Both my daughter and I have the airline's app on our cell phones, and all three of us - my wife, my daughter, and I - had signed up for text message alerts when we checked in at the airport. Well, as frequently occurs, our flight was delayed. We had a plane and the weather was perfect - this time, we were waiting on pilots to fly the plane (maybe a subject for a future post). The gate agent had announced that there was a delay, but after about two hours we hadn't heard any new updates. We kept getting text messages on our cell phones about the new estimated departure time, and we were able to get the same information on the app. I went to go talk to the gate agent to see if she had any additional information. When I asked why she hadn't provided any additional updates for the last hour or two, she claimed that she had only just received an update a few minutes before I came up to talk to her! In other words, the passengers waiting at the gate had more up to date information (via the airline's own app) than the gate agent for the airline!
Unfortunately, I really can't blame the airline too much here. I have been in similar situations at the hospital when our employees find out something on social media while an event is happening in real time before our communications team has a chance to send out an update. Information happens fast - maybe even faster than we can provide it!
I don't have a solution here. A big part of leadership is change management. Managing change requires management of information. Providing information in a timely manner - even faster than you think - is absolutely essential. As leaders, we need to be fully cognizant that our employees want access to information - and that access has to be faster than the speed of light!
Wednesday, June 5, 2019
"You're not you when you're hungry..."
The Mars Company put together one of the most highly successful marketing campaigns in the last several years for its Snickers candy bar, called "You're not you when you're hungry." There have been several commercials (here's one starring the famous actress, Betty White), many of which have gone on to win awards from the likes of the Cannes Lions and the Emmys. As a matter of fact, in the first full year of the campaign, these commercials helped increased global sales of Snickers, an 80-year, billion-dollar brand, by an unprecedented 16%! Not too shabby. But just as important, the commercial has shed light on something that can affects all of us if we don't take care of ourselves. It's called ego depletion and I have talked about it before in a previous post ("What do I know of man's destiny? I could tell you more about radishes...").
Basically, the idea goes something like this. We all have to exercise self-control - some of us more than others at certain times in our lives. Self-control is the ability to resist an urge, desire, or impulse to do something, frequently something that is not good for us (eating that second doughnut, getting angry and yelling at someone we love, or staying up to watch that television show on Netflix, even if we do have to get up early the next morning). Under the vast majority of circumstances, we can resist our temptations or impulses. Unfortunately, though, there are times when our so-called "self-control energy" is so drained that we can no longer fight off these urges. We end up doing something that is either bad for us or bad for our relationships. Our willpower is therefore a limited resource - hence, ego depletion.
Ego depletion is actually a fairly old concept. However, it's gone through a tough time as of late, with several studies calling into question whether it's even a real thing. There have even been a few studies describing something that has come to be known as "reverse ego depletion" - in other words, exercising self-control actually increases our ability to resist the urge to succumb to our temptations. I actually think ego depletion is a real thing that impacts all of us. Here's why.
Going back to the Snickers commercial, "You're not you when you're hungry". If we don't take care of ourselves, we deplete that inner energy that we all have to exercise a certain degree of self-control. We've talked about this before - "Dad is hangry again!" We all get (at least I do) grumpy when we haven't had enough to eat. Being "hangry" is a form of ego depletion. We spend some much willpower fighting off our hunger pangs that we exhaust our ability to get impatient or short with one another.
Look no further than a study published a few years ago in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), entitled "Low glucose relates to greater aggression in married couples". The subjects in this particular study were 107 married couples (at least at the start of the study, happily married couples). The investigators measured the blood glucose levels of each couple every morning before breakfast and each evening before bedtime, every night for 21 consecutive days. Each couple was provided a pair of Voodoo dolls (you read that correctly!) and were instructed to stick from 0 to 51 pins into the Voodoo doll depending upon how they felt about their spouse on that particular night. There was a strong and inverse correlation between an individual's blood glucose level and the number of pins that he or she stuck into the other individual's Voodoo doll! In other words, getting hangry (i.e., having a low blood glucose at bedtime) led to higher aggressive impulses, likely due to ego depletion! How's that for science!?!?!
So, what is the lesson here for all of us? I think the Snickers commercials provide a very important lesson (in addition to being very humorous). What happens in each commercial? Someone, a spouse or friend, recognizes when the individual in the commercial has gotten hangry and not acting like they normally do (hopefully). What does that spouse or friend do? They hand a Snickers bar to the individual and ask, "Better?" At least in every commercial I've seen, the individual responds with a "Better!" We need to do a better job of looking out for each other. We know that we are all at risk for ego depletion. We can hold each other accountable and make sure that we are all performing self-care - getting enough to eat (and eating right), taking breaks when we need to do so, especially in a stressful situation, getting enough sleep at night, and exercising regularly. Imagine how much greater both our work lives would be if everyone looked out for each other in this way!
Next time you witness someone at work who's not acting like him- or herself, take the time to intervene. Take the time to ask if they need to eat something, drink something, or take a short break. Take care of each other.
Basically, the idea goes something like this. We all have to exercise self-control - some of us more than others at certain times in our lives. Self-control is the ability to resist an urge, desire, or impulse to do something, frequently something that is not good for us (eating that second doughnut, getting angry and yelling at someone we love, or staying up to watch that television show on Netflix, even if we do have to get up early the next morning). Under the vast majority of circumstances, we can resist our temptations or impulses. Unfortunately, though, there are times when our so-called "self-control energy" is so drained that we can no longer fight off these urges. We end up doing something that is either bad for us or bad for our relationships. Our willpower is therefore a limited resource - hence, ego depletion.
Ego depletion is actually a fairly old concept. However, it's gone through a tough time as of late, with several studies calling into question whether it's even a real thing. There have even been a few studies describing something that has come to be known as "reverse ego depletion" - in other words, exercising self-control actually increases our ability to resist the urge to succumb to our temptations. I actually think ego depletion is a real thing that impacts all of us. Here's why.
Going back to the Snickers commercial, "You're not you when you're hungry". If we don't take care of ourselves, we deplete that inner energy that we all have to exercise a certain degree of self-control. We've talked about this before - "Dad is hangry again!" We all get (at least I do) grumpy when we haven't had enough to eat. Being "hangry" is a form of ego depletion. We spend some much willpower fighting off our hunger pangs that we exhaust our ability to get impatient or short with one another.
Look no further than a study published a few years ago in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), entitled "Low glucose relates to greater aggression in married couples". The subjects in this particular study were 107 married couples (at least at the start of the study, happily married couples). The investigators measured the blood glucose levels of each couple every morning before breakfast and each evening before bedtime, every night for 21 consecutive days. Each couple was provided a pair of Voodoo dolls (you read that correctly!) and were instructed to stick from 0 to 51 pins into the Voodoo doll depending upon how they felt about their spouse on that particular night. There was a strong and inverse correlation between an individual's blood glucose level and the number of pins that he or she stuck into the other individual's Voodoo doll! In other words, getting hangry (i.e., having a low blood glucose at bedtime) led to higher aggressive impulses, likely due to ego depletion! How's that for science!?!?!
So, what is the lesson here for all of us? I think the Snickers commercials provide a very important lesson (in addition to being very humorous). What happens in each commercial? Someone, a spouse or friend, recognizes when the individual in the commercial has gotten hangry and not acting like they normally do (hopefully). What does that spouse or friend do? They hand a Snickers bar to the individual and ask, "Better?" At least in every commercial I've seen, the individual responds with a "Better!" We need to do a better job of looking out for each other. We know that we are all at risk for ego depletion. We can hold each other accountable and make sure that we are all performing self-care - getting enough to eat (and eating right), taking breaks when we need to do so, especially in a stressful situation, getting enough sleep at night, and exercising regularly. Imagine how much greater both our work lives would be if everyone looked out for each other in this way!
Next time you witness someone at work who's not acting like him- or herself, take the time to intervene. Take the time to ask if they need to eat something, drink something, or take a short break. Take care of each other.
Sunday, June 2, 2019
"Some like it hot"
No, this post isn't about the famous movie, starring Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis, and Jack Lemmon. Although it was a pretty good movie for 1959 and was filmed on location at one of my favorite hotels in one of my favorite cities - the Hotel del Coronado in San Diego, California. And no, this post isn't about the song by the 1980's supergroup, The Power Station (though again, that was a pretty good song, even for the 1980's). No, this post isn't about something far more serious. Something that occurs on an almost daily basis in just about every workplace in our country today. I am talking about the thermostat wars. Some like it hot, some like it cold, and some are never happy no matter what the temperature is in the workplace. If I were to be completely honest, I probably fall somewhere between "some like it cold" and "never happy." Just ask anyone at work about what's the first thing I do when I walk into the attending office on the 5th floor of the Critical Care Tower at our hospital.
It could be worse - Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg apparently likes to set his office thermostat around 60 degrees (all temperatures in this post are in Fahrenheit). Apparently he believes a cooler environment is more conducive to productivity (and there are studies to support him). The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) actually recommends that employers keep the thermostat set somewhere between 68 degrees and 76 degrees.
I am completely making a generalization here, but I am backed up by some evidence - women generally feel colder than men do at the same ambient temperature. Another study by the Eindhoven University of Technology found that women generally prefer the room temperature to be set at 77 degrees (which, I will point out, is 1 full degree above the maximum temperature recommended by the United States government!), while men prefer temperatures around 72 degrees. Based on what temperature my wife would like our thermostat set at in the summer, I would say this study is right on target.
So, does workplace temperature matter more than just personal comfort (which, I will say, is completely worth it)? As it turns out, a group of investigators from the USC Marshall School of Business examined this exact question in a paper published very recently in the journal, PLOS One. Basically, these investigators studied cognitive performance using standardized math, verbal, and cognitive reflection tasks at different room temperatures in males versus females. The math tests involved adding up to five two-digit numbers without a calculator, while the verbal tests involved making as many words as possible using a scrambled set of ten letters. The cognitive reflection task was a personal favorite of mine ("A bat and a ball cost 1.10 EUR in total. The bat costs 1.00 EUR more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?"). Basically, women generally performed better on the math and verbal tests when the room temperature was higher - the reverse was true with the men. Room temperature had no impact on the cognitive reflection task for either gender. I can't really provide you with the range of temperatures used, because they were provided in Celsius and I can't do the conversions - the temperature in our house is set too high! Actually, I found an online conversion calculator and the temperatures in the study ranged from a very comfortable 60 degrees (at least if your last name is Zuckerberg and you are a billionaire CEO) to a sweltering 90 degrees.
Apparently, workplace temperatures are important. The thermostat wars are worth fighting. Unfortunately, it seems like no one will be completely happy with where the thermostat is set, which leads me to suggest compromise. Except when I am working on the fifth floor of the Critical Care Tower, that is!
It could be worse - Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg apparently likes to set his office thermostat around 60 degrees (all temperatures in this post are in Fahrenheit). Apparently he believes a cooler environment is more conducive to productivity (and there are studies to support him). The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) actually recommends that employers keep the thermostat set somewhere between 68 degrees and 76 degrees.
I am completely making a generalization here, but I am backed up by some evidence - women generally feel colder than men do at the same ambient temperature. Another study by the Eindhoven University of Technology found that women generally prefer the room temperature to be set at 77 degrees (which, I will point out, is 1 full degree above the maximum temperature recommended by the United States government!), while men prefer temperatures around 72 degrees. Based on what temperature my wife would like our thermostat set at in the summer, I would say this study is right on target.
So, does workplace temperature matter more than just personal comfort (which, I will say, is completely worth it)? As it turns out, a group of investigators from the USC Marshall School of Business examined this exact question in a paper published very recently in the journal, PLOS One. Basically, these investigators studied cognitive performance using standardized math, verbal, and cognitive reflection tasks at different room temperatures in males versus females. The math tests involved adding up to five two-digit numbers without a calculator, while the verbal tests involved making as many words as possible using a scrambled set of ten letters. The cognitive reflection task was a personal favorite of mine ("A bat and a ball cost 1.10 EUR in total. The bat costs 1.00 EUR more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?"). Basically, women generally performed better on the math and verbal tests when the room temperature was higher - the reverse was true with the men. Room temperature had no impact on the cognitive reflection task for either gender. I can't really provide you with the range of temperatures used, because they were provided in Celsius and I can't do the conversions - the temperature in our house is set too high! Actually, I found an online conversion calculator and the temperatures in the study ranged from a very comfortable 60 degrees (at least if your last name is Zuckerberg and you are a billionaire CEO) to a sweltering 90 degrees.
Apparently, workplace temperatures are important. The thermostat wars are worth fighting. Unfortunately, it seems like no one will be completely happy with where the thermostat is set, which leads me to suggest compromise. Except when I am working on the fifth floor of the Critical Care Tower, that is!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)