Saturday, January 25, 2014

Looking for a unique way to build trust?

It may sound ludicrous, but researchers from Harvard and UPenn maintain that by using a simple phrase, you can enhance your trustworthiness.  In a series of studies, the researchers explored the power of apology – that is, the degree to which a simple apology (“I’m so sorry”) can make a person appear more trustworthy. 

Why do people apologize? Typically, of course, it’s when they’re to blame (“I’m so sorry that I’m late”).   And prior research demonstrates that people who apologize indeed are considered more favorably (in terms of likeability and “benevolence-based trust”). But researchers Alison Brooks, Hengchen Dai and Maurice Schweitzer chose to examine an entirely different kind of apology – one they call “superfluous apology” in which people apologize for things over which they have no control (“I’m so sorry that it’s raining,” or “I’m sorry that about the heavy traffic”).

Apparently, a superfluous apology (“I’m so sorry that your flight was delayed”) has far more impact than a simple “How are you?” or “I’m sorry to interrupt”. Sounds crazy, no?

Here’s how one of the studies worked: an individual walked up to strangers (one by one) in a Northeastern train station and asked to borrow their cell phone (important note: it was raining outside).  In approaching the strangers, the individual used one of two scripts – script #1: “I’m so sorry about the rain! Can I borrow your cell phone?” Script #2: “Can I borrow your cell phone?”   The researchers found that when script #1 was used, 47% of the strangers offered their cell phone, but when script #2 was used, just 9% of the strangers said yes.  Why such a significant difference?

Said the researchers: “Results from their field study reveal that a face-to-face superfluous apology increases trusting behavior.  Strangers were more likely to hand their cell phone to a confederate when the confederate apologized for the rain than when he did not.” Added the researchers: “Issuing a superfluous apology demonstrates empathetic concern for the victim and increases the victim’s trust in the apologizer.”

They added: “Across our studies, we identify significant benefits to apologizing. Superfluous apologies represent a powerful and easy-to-use tool for social influence. Even in the absence of culpability, individuals can increase trust and liking by saying ‘I’m sorry’ even if they are merely ‘sorry’ about the rain.”

The word “sorry”, of course, is commonly used in two distinct ways. Compare the following: “I’m sorry that I broke your beautiful vase” (fault) vs. “I’m sorry that your beautiful vase is broken” (superfluous).  I refer to these as “sorry #1” and “sorry #2,” yet they’re often confused.  Consider this verbal exchange: “I’m sorry that your car isn’t working,” to which the person responds: “Oh, it’s not your fault.” Of course, we knew that – we were simply offering a superfluous apology to let the person know that we care. To recap: Sorry #1 is when we’re to blame (“I’m sorry that I forget to pick up the milk”), while sorry #2 is apologizing for things out of our control (the most dramatic, of course, is: “I’m sorry for your loss”). 

Are there any drawbacks to apologizing?   Said the researchers: “. . . [S]ome prior work suggests that apologizing may have drawbacks. . . . For example, Tannen conjectures that apologies may harm perceived power and competence, especially for women. Consequently, in addition to measuring empathy and benevolence-based trust, we also explore how superfluous apologies influence perceptions of power and competence-based trust . . . . ” In the current set of studies, the researchers said they identified no drawbacks, yet noted: “Still, it is quite possible that the repeated use of superfluous apologies or the delivery of a superfluous apology that appears insincere may yield different results.”

Final note: I’m sorry that this column is so long (definitely, my fault), and sorry about this terrible cold snap we're having.   


##

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Rush rush. Zoom zoom. Where, precisely, are we headed?

(I thought you’d enjoy this wonderful parable (author unknown, and slightly adapted), urging us to examine life’s priorities).

A beautiful spring day had dawned and now, late afternoon, a small boat docked in a tiny Mexican village.   Near the shore, an American tourist greeted the Mexican fisherman and complimented him on the quality of his fish. Asked the American: “How long did it take you to catch them?”

"Not very long," answered the Mexican.

"Why then, didn’t you stay out longer and catch more?" asked the American.

The Mexican explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family.

The American asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"

"I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and take a siesta with my wife. In the evenings, I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs. I have a full life."

The American interrupted: "I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you! You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat."

“And after that?" asked the Mexican.

"With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers. Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can then negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New York City!  From there you can direct your huge new enterprise."

"How long would that take?" asked the Mexican.

"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied the American.

"And after that?"

"Afterwards?  Well my friend, that's when it gets really interesting," answered the American, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start selling stocks and make millions!"

"Millions? Really? And after that?" said the Mexican.

"Well, after that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife and spend your evenings drinking and enjoying your friends."


##

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Are you a mover, perceiver, stimulator or adaptor?

What’s your dominant thinking mode?

A new book has us thinking again, about how we process the world, how we make plans and how diligent we are in executing those plans (whether it’s planning a meal or building a business).  Authors Stephen Kosslyn (Harvard neuroscientist) and G. Wayne Miller (author, filmmaker) urge us to think about how we think (they call it the theory of cognitive modes), and the implicit hope is that the more we understand our own thinking pattern, the more capable we’ll be in teaming with others, and achieving our goals. 

Kosslyn and Miller crafted their own personality test to help us learn what type of thinker we are (I took the test – more about that, in a moment), and they hope that their body of work advances a sea of personality tests, the most famous of which is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator – which measures individual preferences on four continuums: extraversion-introversion, sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling, judging-perceiving.  

Kosslyn and Miller begin by thoroughly debunking the long-held notion that we’re either left-brained or right-brained. The authors declare:

“The popular left/right story has no solid basis in science. The brain doesn't work one part at a time, but rather as a single interactive system, with all parts contributing in concert, as neuroscientists have long known. The left brain/right brain story may be the mother of all urban legends: It sounds good and seems to make sense—but just isn't true.”

In an article written for the Wall Street Journal this past fall, the authors explain that their new theory “has emerged from the field of neuropsychology, the study of higher cognitive functioning – thoughts, wishes, hopes, desires and all other aspects of mental life.” They first explain the anatomical aspects of brain function (top-brain vs. bottom-brain), and then detail four cognitive modes or thinking styles – mover, perceiver, stimulator and adaptor.

Thinking Mode #1: Mover

Explain the authors: “According to the theory, people who habitually rely on Mover mode are most comfortable in positions that allow them to plan, act and see the consequences of their actions. They are well suited to being leaders.”  The authors name names – hypothesizing that Oprah Winfrey, the Wright Brothers, FDR and NASCAR’s Bill France Jr. are all “movers.”

Thinking Mode #2: Perceiver

Who might be a perceiver? The authors tab the Dali Lama and Emily Dickinson, given that people in perceiver mode “try to make sense in depth of what they perceive; they interpret their experiences, place them in context and try to understand the implications.” But, the authors maintain: “. . . they don't make and execute grand plans. By definition, such people – including naturalists, pastors, novelists – typically lead lives away from the limelight. Those who rely on this mode often play a crucial role in a group; they can make sense of events and provide a bigger picture. In business, they are key members of teams, providing perspective and wisdom but not always getting credit.”

Thinking Mode #3: Stimulator

Stimulators, report Kosslyn and Miller, “. . . often create and execute complex and detailed plans . . . but fail to register consistently and accurately the consequences of acting on those plans.  They don't update or correct their plans when events unfold in unexpected ways. Such people may be creative and original, able to think outside the box even when everybody around them has a fixed way of approaching an issue. At the same time, they may not always note when enough is enough. Their actions can be disruptive, and they may not adjust their behavior appropriately.” Who do the authors believe fall into the “Stimulator” mode?  Tiger Woods and social activist Abbie Hoffman.

Thinking Mode #4: Adaptor

Alex Rodriguez and Elizabeth Taylor are considered “adapters,” according to the authors, who explain: “[Adaptors are people who . . . are not caught up in initiating plans, nor are they fully focused on classifying and interpreting what they experience. Instead, they become absorbed by local events and the immediate requirements of the situation. They are responsive and action-oriented and tend to ‘go with the flow’. Others see them as free-spirited and fun to be with. Because they can easily embrace the plans of others, those who typically operate in Adaptor mode can be valuable team members. In business, they often form the backbone of an organization, carrying out essential operations.” 

And how did my test turn out? After 20 questions, they said that my thinking style is “stimulator.” My report said simply: “You think in situational Stimulator Mode: you tend to make and act on plans, but do not always register consequences and adjust plans accordingly, but are particularly context dependent.”  Perhaps. But these four areas now help me understand why my wife and I get along so well – we have totally different thinking styles. 

Steve Ferber is author of “21 Rules to Live By.”


##

Saturday, January 4, 2014

Procrastination: 6 tips for doing today . . . what you’d rather put off ’til tomorrow

My favorite tip is #6, called "positive procrastination" which, honestly, sounds a bit oxymoronic. It's a phrase that I've never heard before and is one of six tips I’m about to share on the art-of-putting-things-off.

But before we explore each tip, this brief historical interlude: in the 1970s, roughly 5% of Americans admitted to regularly procrastinating; today it’s an impressive 26% (based on a survey a few years ago). Leading to this wanting question: do we procrastinate more, or are people just more willing to admit it?

On to the six tips:

Tip #1: Give your friend $100

This could get expensive.  It’s called a "commitment device" and here’s how it works: give your friend $100 and if you complete the task at hand by, say, 8pm, you get your $100 back.  It you don't make the 8 o'clock deadline, you're out the $100 and your friend now must donate the funds to the charity of their choice.  Explains author Eric Barker, writing for www.bakadesuyo.com: "The most important thing is the default position.  You can’t say: 'I will give them $100 if I fail.' No, you give the $100 first."

Tip #2: Manage your mood

This may sound a bit obvious, but people tend to procrastinate more when they're in a bad mood. Knowing that, the trick is to find a way to improve your mood, and then contemplate tackling that dreaded task.

Says Barker:

"If you’re really going to be motivated, you need to feel something. Having a rational goal in mind or thinking you want something just isn’t enough.  What moves you? What inspires you? Try that . . . because glib as it may sound, changing your mood can change your mind."


Tip #3: Take a minute (yes, just one) to create a plan

With pen and paper in hand, set your stopwatch, or kitchen time, to a single minute. Your challenge is to sketch a quick-and-dirty plan to tackle that daunting task list (e.g., paying the bills, doing your taxes, vacuuming, weeding the yard).   Given that you're only planning for 60 seconds, this step-by-step can't be comprehensive. Instead, simply jot down a start time (e.g., Tuesday night, from 8pm-9pm), a rough schedule, plus the first action step. 

Tip #4: Break the project into smaller concrete tasks

Explains Jocelyn Glei, writing for www.99u.com:

"It turns out that the manner in which a task is presented to someone – or the way in which you present it to your brain – has a significant impact on how motivated you will be to take action. A study led by researcher Sean McCrea at the University of Konstanz in Germany recently found that people are much more likely to tackle a 'concrete task' (e.g., writing about the steps to open a bank account) 'than an abstract task' (e.g., writing about why someone might want to open a bank account)."
  
Tip #5: Use deadlines to create opportunities

For most of us, 'deadline' is dirty word.  But Glei objects, and explains: 'The default take on deadlines is typically to consider them to be cumbersome and stressful. Yet, from another perspective, a deadline can be viewed as a huge benefit to any project. Without the urgency of a hard deadline pushing a project to completion, it's easy for you, your team, or your client to lose focus. We've all worked on agonizing projects where the timeline just bleeds on and on, merely because the flexibility is there."  As illustrator Christoph Niemann pointed out in a 99U interview, "Deadlines can actually help us by creating a fixed window of opportunity that requires us to be focused, pragmatic, and decisive."

Tip #6: Create Positive Procrastination

Barker, writing for www.bakadesuyo.com, quotes Dr. John Perry (author of "The Art of Procrastination") who insists that the key to productivity is to make more commitments – not less, but "to be methodical about it," according to Barker. Barker explains: "At the top of your to-do list, put a couple of daunting, if not impossible, tasks that are vaguely important-sounding (but really aren't) and seem to have deadlines (but really don't). Then, farther down the list, include some doable tasks that really matter." Barker quotes Perry, who says: "Doing these tasks becomes a way of not doing the things higher up on the list."

A similar tip is described by Piers Steel, author of The Procrastination Equation:

"My best trick is to play my projects off against each other, procrastinating on one by working on another." Dr. Steel says it's based on sound principles of behavioral psychology: "We are willing to pursue any vile task as long as it allows us to avoid something worse."

##