Geniuses in the office: more pain than pleasure?

Geniuses in the office: more pain than pleasure?

Have you ever worked for a genius?  I have. 

The year was 1979, and though the subsequent six years were emotionally painful (he had this unique ability to make you feel inept at every turn), there were positive results, economically speaking.

Those six years remain fresh in my mind, leading me to wonder, from time to time: if you work for a genius, should you bolt or should you stick?

That was the dominant thought that ran through my mind when I read Walter Issacson’s grueling biography of Steve Jobs. Jobs, of course, was a genius by everyone’s account, changing the course of five (yes, five) industries. Yet nearly every page of Issacson’s text revealed Jobs’ cruel and demonic treatment of colleagues. So I wondered: why did these people stick? 

Last week, I found the answer. 

It appeared on page 332 of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s glorious book “The Bully Pulpit” (which traces the intertwining lives of Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and William Taft).  The dynamic passage – authored by Ida Tarbell, the nation’s leading journalist a century ago – was written about Sam McClure, the nation’s leading publisher. But it could just have easily been written about Jobs, a century later.  Wrote Tarbell, of McClure (in a letter to colleagues):

“Never forget that it was he and nobody else who has created that place. . . He is a very extraordinary creature, you can’t put him into a machine and make him run smoothly with the other wheels and things. . . . . Able methodical people grow on every bush but genius comes once in a generation and if you ever get in its vicinity thank the Lord & stick.  You probably will be laid up now and then in a sanitarium recovering from the effort to follow him but that’s a small matter if you really get into touch finally with that wonderful brain. . . . If there was nothing in all this but the annoyance and uncertainty & confusion – that is, if there were no results – then we might rebel, but there are always results – vital ones. . . . The great schemes, the daring moves in that business have always been [his]. They will continue to be. His one hundredth idea is a stroke of genius. Be on hand to grasp that one hundredth idea.”

Hire or Fire?

So when it comes to genius, do we bolt, or do we stick?  Do we hire or do we fire?

The verdict is unclear.  Enthusiasts maintain that businesses need to actively recruit geniuses, in order to advance the organization. Others, however, insist that geniuses do more harm than good and should be led out to pasture.  Below are two contrasting views.  Take your pick.

Hire ‘Em – Dave Logan, writing for CBS Money Watch

Logan urges companies to hire geniuses, then learn to manage them. Logan acknowledges that often, as bright as geniuses are, they can be incredibly difficult to work with (Logan jokes: “. . . the chance that [the genius] will offend someone in a conservative culture is 100% - in the first week.” Nonetheless, Logan recommends that you pull the trigger, saying: “If the hiring manager knows the tradeoffs, they’ll often do the right thing for everyone by hiring the genius, and then working to minimize the deficits, or clean up messes when they happen.” 

Fire ‘Em – Scott Lowe, independent consultant, in an article for www.techrepublic.com

Says Lowe: “Eventually, when a serious attitude problem exists, it’s more than likely that you’ll need to fire the person for the sake of the rest of the team. . . For my own organization, I hire attitude first, skill second. . . . Look for people who fit our culture and have appropriate skills to do the job. . . . You can teach skills, but teaching attitude is much harder.”

Stick or bolt?  Hire or fire?  It just might take a genius to decide what to do.

##

How do you describe yourself?

“We’re like onions, and we have layers.” – Shrek

How do you describe yourself?

Are you cautious or care-free? Decisive or indecisive? An introvert or extrovert?

Humans love to label, and labels fall easily from our lips. We label everything in our path – from habits and character traits to style, tempo and drive.

But why? What compels us to do this? Are we not, as human beings, dynamic creatures who are constantly evolving? If so, why stick a label on it?  Leading to this nagging question: do self-imposed labels serve us well?  Or do they limit our ability to change and grow?

In today’s high octane culture, enveloped by intense media scrutiny (of every one, and every thing!), it’s difficult not to classify (e.g., he’s lazy, she’s a math whiz, he’s so forgetful), not just others, but ourselves (I’m not a risk taker, I’m too shy).  But do they serve us well?

I vote no. I maintain that labels, by and large, inhibit our growth and impede our ability to make the most of our lives. They limit us. They restrict us. They make it more difficult for mid-course corrections.

Part of the problem, of course, is the binary nature of self-evaluation. It’s common to describe people – and ourselves – as introvert/extrovert, optimist/pessimist, Type A/Type B, Republican/ Democrat, high maintenance/low maintenance.  Why, pray tell, are there only two categories?

A search of the literature finds some breaks in the binary stranglehold (ambiverts are now a recognized category, and I recently discovered what it means to be a Type C and Type D personality). Even Myers-Briggs, which graciously offers us 16 categories, hinges on a binary framework – introversion/extroversion, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling and judging/perceiving.

Aren’t humans a little more complex than that?

Which brings us to this brilliant piece written by a young woman who was asked, simply: “How do you classify yourself?” (her answer appeared on the website www.worldinconversation.org):

“I don’t like labels. In my opinion, people are people. Everyone has differences and everyone has similarities. As Shrek says, we’re like onions and we have layers. Why would anyone want to define himself or herself by just one of those layers? Labels have started wars, torn families apart, and caused heartache. I like to think that I’m made up of many things, and that just one thing doesn’t define me. However, for the sake of the prompt, these are what define me:

“I am a single white female. I am German and Hungarian. I am a sister, daughter, niece, granddaughter, great niece, and cousin. In the summer, I’m a child-care provider. The rest of the year, I’m a poor college kid. I’m a musician: I play trumpet, piano, and ukulele. I am a ballet, tap, and swing dancer. I’m a singer, an alto to be specific. I am a connoisseur of Lindor truffles, peach pie, Doritos, and raspberry smoothies. I am a lover of oldies’ music, high-heels, and vintage clothes. I’m an avid celebrity-rag reader. I’m a Jack Benny Program listener. I’m a collector of Smokey Bear paraphernalia, post-cards, Broadway show pins, and Snapple caps. I am a member of the Pennsylvania State Marching Blue band and the a capella group, Blue in the FACE. I am a world explorer.

“I am imperfect. I’m a crybaby. I am a complainer. I am a devil’s advocate. I’m a prep. I am indecisive. I’m a ‘goody-two-shoes.’ I’m a band geek. I’m a Harry Potter junkie. I am enthusiastic and loud when it’s not socially acceptable. I’m a lover of horribly written Meg Cabot novels like The Princess Diaries series. I’m a nervous giggler in inappropriate situations. I’m a too-cautious driver (and it caused me to have my first accident not too long ago)! I’m a grudge-holder when someone hurts my sisters.

“I am both an introvert and an extrovert given the right setting. I am a procrastinator and an over-achiever. I am a winter-lover and summer-baby. I love old people and toddlers. I love kids, but I don’t want kids. I both love and hate Walmart, but mostly hate. I’m am both an individualist and conformist.

“I am a left-wing bleeding-heart liberal. I’m a citizen of the world. I’m an advocate for the ONE Campaign, the campaign to make poverty history. I am pro-choice and anti-guns. I am a believer in the good in people. I am a Lutheran who believes in karma. I’m a registered democrat who has not missed an election yet. I am a strong-willed democrat. I am a fan of the Golden Rule. I’m a dreamer, pacifist, optimist. I’m a lover, not a fighter. I am nothing less than all of this. I am me.”

##

At what age will your mental abilities peak?

At what age will your mental abilities peak?

Well, it’s not 24. 

The notion has persisted for generations – that the human brain’s cognitive abilities peak in the early 20s and then begin a slow march downhill. 

Look around. Think about musicians, salesmen, actors, lawyers, engineers, painters, directors, sculptors, psychologists and novelists. When do their skills peak? To what degree does experience factor into the equation?

A new study out of New England – focused exclusively on cognitive abilities – stands ready to up-end the long-held notions that young is, by definition, better. Study authors Joshua Hartshorne and Laura Germine found that, when it comes to thinking, there’s no magic age.  In fact, some skills (e.g., vocabulary recognition) don’t peak in humans until age 65 or 70.

Here’s a quick-look summary of their findings, drawn from nearly 50,000 online participants (note: Hartshorne is with MIT, Germine is a research associate in Harvard’s Psychology Dept. and a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard-affiliated MGH):

·        Ability to recognize and remember faces – this ability peaks between ages 30 and 34;

·        Mental processing speed – as one might expect, this skill peaks around age 18 or 19;

·        Social cognition (the ability to detect other people’s emotions) – peaks in the 40s to age 50, with no notable decline until after age 60; 

·        Short-term memory – peaks around age 25, levels off for several years, then begins to drop at age 35;

·        Crystalized intelligence (measured as vocabulary skills) rises as one ages, not peaking until about age 65 to 70.

Randy Dotinga, journalist and President of the American Society of Journalists and Authors, identified some weaknesses in the study. Writing for healthday.com, Dotinga noted that it’s not a longitudinal study but instead is based on a single point in time. Dotinga also pointed out that the study only included people who are Internet-savvy (although, the author acknowledges, the researchers did analyze statistics from studies that were not online). 

Nonetheless, the fundamental message is unassailable: human brains are not simple machines which, as they age, begin to deteriorate. Instead, brain plasticity is at work, throughout the life span. Noted a study summary at www.psychologicalscience.org: “It’s not yet clear why these skills tend to peak at different ages, but previous research suggests that it may have to do with changes in gene expression or brain structure as we age.”

When does creativity peak?

Dean Simonton, psychologist and UC Davis professor, has studied the phenomenon of creativity for nearly 40 years, and he explains that “research has consistently found that creativity is a curvilinear (inverted backward) function of age – meaning that older individuals would not be creative. However, the empirical and theoretical literature shows that such a pessimistic conclusion is unjustified. Numerous factors operate that help maintain creative output throughout the life span. Indeed, it is actually possible for creators to display a qualitative and quantitative resurgence of creativity in their final years.” Simonton goes on to note that a range of professions – among them poets and painters – have their most productive and prolific years well past what we commonly call “middle age.”

So, when will your mental abilities peak? Well, it’s certainly not 24. 

##

When you praise someone (or yourself), are you doing it right?

When you praise someone (or yourself), are you doing it right?

Let’s start with some key research findings on the delicate art of praise:

·        Overly positive praise can backfire, leading children (particularly those with low self-esteem) to back away from future challenges;

·        Given the choice, use process praise (“You did a wonderful job”) instead of person praise (“You’re so smart”).  And here’s why, according to an article written by the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD): “. . . [P]rocess praise sends the message that effort and actions are the sources of success, leading children to believe they can improve their performance through hard work. Person praise sends the opposite message—that the child’s ability is fixed.”

·        When praising a child, it’s important to avoid the word “incredible”;

·        Parents deliver more process praise to boys than girls; and

·        Inappropriate self-praise can have negative effects.

In study after study, the overriding message is clear: honest, realistic praise (whether given to others, or oneself) is desirable.  So choose your words, and your internal thoughts, carefully. 

Process Praise vs. Person Praise

What’s the difference?  Said SCRD, in their article posted at www.psypost.org: “. . . [W]hen parents praise the effort children make, it leads children to be more persistent and perform better on challenging tasks, while person praise (praising the individual) leads children to be less persistent and perform worse on such tasks.”

In one longitudinal study, led by Assistant Professor of Psychology Elizabeth Gunderson (then with the University of Chicago), researchers examined the relationship between praise and challenge-seeking, in toddlers ages one to three years old.  They found that children who were praised for their effort (as opposed to praised as individuals) had a more positive approach to challenges just five years later. Said Gunderson, quoted in a psypost.org article: “This study suggests that improving the quality of parents’ praise in the toddler years may help children develop the belief that people can change and that challenging tasks provide opportunities to learn.”

Avoid Inflated Praise (and the word “incredible”)

What constitutes inflated praise?  Often it’s the word “incredible” (e.g., Inflated praise: “You made an incredibly beautiful drawing!” Non-inflated praise: “You made a beautiful drawing!”).

Said Utretcht University psychologist Eddie Brummelman, as quoted in an article at www.psychologicalscience.org: “Inflated praise, although well-intended, may cause children with low self-esteem to avoid crucial learning experiences.”  The article continued: “Specifically, the researchers write, rave reviews for a mundane accomplishment can convey an unintended message: Now that you’ve excelled, we’re going to hold you to a very high standard. Since youngsters with low self-esteem are driven by a desire to avoid failure, this can prompt them to avoid challenges.”

Girls vs. Boys

Gunderson’s longitudinal study (cited earlier) found that boys and girls receive the same amount of praise overall, but that boys receive “significantly” more process praise than girls. Not surprisingly, said the researchers, “boys were more likely to have positive attitudes about academic challenges than girls and to believe that intelligence could be improved,” according to the SRCD article. The article quoted Gunderson, who said: “These results are cause for concern because they suggest that parents may be inadvertently creating the mindset among girls that traits are fixed, leading to decreased motivation and persistence in the face of challenges and setbacks.”

Praising Yourself

Research led by Young-Hoon Kim, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, found that it’s important for adults to accurately assess their performance, and that falsely boosting their self-esteem can have unintended negative consequences.

According to a press release from the American Psychological Association: “People who try to boost their self-esteem by telling themselves they’ve done a great job, when they haven’t, could end up feeling dejected instead.” Said lead author Kim, as quoted in the APA release: “These findings challenge the popular notion that self-enhancement and providing positive performance feedback to low performers is beneficial to emotional health. Instead, our results underscore the emotional benefits of accurate self-assessments and performance feedback.”

Added co-author Chi-Yue Chiu, of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore: “Distress following excessive self-praise is likely to occur when a person's inadequacy is exposed, and because inaccurate self-assessments can prevent self-improvement.” The study involved young people from both the U.S. and Hong Kong.

##

Does the moon influence the human body? (next full moon? July 2)

Does the moon influence the human body?

The question has stirred for ages, and a group of scientists in Switzerland recently reported that they’ve found evidence (they called it “statistically significant”) that human sleep suffers during a full moon. The study, though well controlled, was small (just 33 individuals) and skeptics were quick to challenge their claims (Fred Turek, a chronobiologist at Northwestern University, told NPR: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and the new study, said Turek, falls far short of providing that evidence).

Nonetheless, the scientists’ claims were noteworthy. Said the study report: “We found that around the full moon, EEG delta activity during NREM sleep, an indicator of deep sleep, decreased by 30%, time to fall asleep increased by 5 minutes, and EEG-assessed total sleep duration was reduced by 20 minutes.” So less total sleep, diminished deep sleep and lower melatonin levels. 

The researchers, led by Christian Cajochen, who studies circadian rhythms and sleep at the University of Basel, added: “. . . to our knowledge, this is the first report of a lunar influence on objective sleep parameters such as EEG activity during NREM sleep and a hormonal marker of the circadian timing system (melatonin) in humans . . . .”  They went on: “This is the first reliable evidence that a lunar rhythm can modulate sleep structure in humans when measured under the highly controlled conditions of a circadian laboratory study protocol without time cues.”  In other words, the subjects were in lab rooms for days on end, without any cues from natural light.

Author Niall McCrae, in a piece written for www.theconversation.com, noted: “. . . [T]he results suggest that humans might have an innate circalunar rhythm, that is, a body clock of physiological activity with a length that roughly correlates to the length of the lunar cycle (29.5 days).” Quoting the study, McCrae said that “at full moon, the peak in melatonin levels was delayed by around 50 minutes.” Concluded McCrae, author of a book on the moon and its influence on mental illness: “Christian Cajochen and fellow chronobiologists [have] provided perhaps the strongest indication yet that the moon really does affect the mind.”

Do animals have a circalunar clock?  Cajochen and colleagues cited recent research which found such a clock in a marine midge. “This circalunar clock is thought to tick inside many animals, running in synchrony with the tides and working in conjunction with the animals’ circadian clock.” The researchers cited a study by Wilelski and Hau which “found that those Galapagos marine iguanas with the most accurate circalunar clock were most likely to survive tough times, presumably because they were the best at reaching feeding spots first . . . . ”

So, while Cajochen and fellow chronobiologists keep looking for answers (said the report: “It remains challenging to unravel the neuronal underpinnings of such a putative lunar clock in humans”), you might consider going to bed a touch earlier this Thursday, July 2. After all, it’s a full moon.

##

Becoming an expert: is 10,000 hours still the mark?

Becoming an expert: is 10,000 hours still the mark?  

The notion has been circulating for decades: to become an expert, you need to practice for 10,000 hours (and in case you’re wondering just how long that is - and I was – if you practiced two hours a day for nearly 14 years, that would equal 10,000 hours). 

But the notion, like so many, has come under fire, leading to these poignant questions: does this theory apply equally to skills which are physical (e.g., tennis, violin), cognitive (e.g., chess) and social? And how do you account for the fact that some athletes, and chess players, become proficient in far less than 10,000 hours?  Further, is it any type of practice? Or something more specific?

The most recent challenge was logged by a group of psychologists from five universities (Michigan State, Rice, Southern Illinois, the University of Liverpool and Edith Cowman University in Australia). They rebuffed the 10,000-hour claim made popular by Malcolm Gladwell in his 1993 book Outliers. Said the researchers, as quoted by Shaunacy Ferro in a piece for fastcodesign.com:

"The evidence is quite clear that some people do reach an elite level of performance without copious practice, while other people fail to do so despite copious practice."

Both Gladwell and Andrew Ericsson (the Florida State University psychologist whose work generated the 10,000-hour finding) have taken issue with their critiques – Gladwell maintains that the rule applies to “cognitively demanding tasks” (e.g., chess, violin) “and not physical attributes,” according to a Forbes.com article. And Ericsson argues that “his critics had examined too many beginners rather than expert performers,” according to Ferro’s piece.

Practice, these critiques maintain, can only explain one-third of the variation in performance, according to Ferro, who concludes: “. . . practice alone won't make you Yo Yo Ma. It could also have to do with personality, the age you started, intelligence, or something else entirely.”

So what does it take, to become an expert?

Apparently, it’s something called “deliberate practice,” which its author maintains is neither work nor play: 

“Deliberate practice is . . . not just business as usual. . . . Deliberate practice is not work and it is not play. Those activities are important, but they don’t count toward your 10,000 hours. 

Work is where we exercise the skills we already have. . . . [The] performance improvement from time spent at work is minimal compared to time spent in deliberate practice. That fact that you’ve managed a team for 10 years doesn’t automatically make you a world-class manager. Work isn’t deliberate practice.”

So what is deliberate practice? According to expertenough.com: "Deliberate practice is a highly structured activity engaged in with the specific goal of improving performance. Deliberate practice is different from work, play and simple repetition of a task. It requires effort, it has no monetary reward, and it is not inherently enjoyable. When you engage in deliberate practice, improving your performance over time is your goal and motivation."

Daniel Goleman, in his book Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence, quoted Ericsson as saying:

“You don’t get benefits from mechanical repetition, but by adjusting your execution over and over to get closer to your goal.”

So, the question is, in your bid to become more proficient (say, at tennis, golf, or as a performer), how much “deliberate practice” are you putting in?  In other words, is your practice focused on improving?  Or is it more repetitious in nature? 

Think now, for a moment, about the world-class tennis athletes who took the world stage the last two weeks at the French Open in Paris. How many hours have they put in? And how many of those, do you think, involved deliberate practice?

The bottom line: it now seems a touch obvious that proficiency, in any realm, is more a matter of concentration and focus than mere hours.  In his book, Goleman noted:

“After about 50 hours of training – whether in skiing or driving – people get to that ‘good-enough’ performance level, where they can go through the motions more or less effortlessly. They no longer feel the need for concentrated practice, but are content to coast on what they’ve learned. No matter how much more they practice in this bottom-up mode, their improvement will be negligible.”

Or, perhaps, expertise is connected to love. Here’s what wisdomgroup.com had to say:

“The elite don’t just work harder than everybody else. At some point the elites fall in love with practice to the point where they want to do little else.”

##

Conservatives vs. liberals: who takes more risks? Why don’t they see eye to eye?

Conservatives vs. liberals: who takes more risks?  Why don’t they see eye to eye?

In business, who takes more risks – conservatives vs. liberals?  It’s the conservatives, according to a new study out of Ryerson University. Said the researchers:   

“Contrary to the widely held perception that, on average, conservatives are risk-averse and liberals risk-taking, we find that in the financial domain, political conservatives show a higher propensity to take risks. . . . ”

Specifically, the researchers, led by assistant professor Becky Choma, found that “when there is much to gain but also much to lose, political conservatives show a willingness to engage in risky financial activities.” The study abstract added: “[W]ith regard to new business ventures, conservatives were generally willing to take risks unless perceived risk was high and expected benefit was low, whereas liberals were generally unwilling to take risks unless perceived risk was low and expected benefit was high.”

Summarized Eric Dolan, writing for psypost.com: “Conservatives were . . .  more likely to endorse financial uncertainties in high-risk, high-reward business situations . . . .”

In conducting the study, Choma and her colleagues divided risk-taking into five domains: financial, ethical, health, social and recreational.  The study confirmed the notion that conservatives are more risk-averse than liberals in the recreational and ethical domains, explaining: “Liberals tend to be more comfortable than political conservatives with violating social rules and are open to novel and thrill-seeking experiences.”  

Why conservatives and liberals don’t see eye to eye

Biology may be at work, according to a study out of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 

In a series of experiments, researchers monitored physiological reactions and eye movements of study participants who were shown combinations of both pleasant and unpleasant images. According to a UNL study summary: “Conservatives reacted more strongly to, fixated more quickly on, and looked longer at the unpleasant images; liberals had stronger reactions to and looked longer at the pleasant images compared with conservatives.”

Observed lead author Mike Dodd, assistant professor of psychology: "It's been said that conservatives and liberals don't see things in the same way. . . . These findings make that clear -- quite literally."

Co-authors Kevin Smith and John Hibbing, both UNL political scientists, maintain that the study lends credibility to the notion that political leanings are, in part, linked to our biology. 

The UNL report quoted Hibbings, who said: “The results might mean that those on the right are more attuned and attentive to aversive elements in life and are more naturally inclined to confront them. From an evolutionary standpoint, that makes sense.”  The UNL report continued to quote Hibbings, who added: “The results also are consistent with conservatives' support of policies to protect society from perceived external threats (support for increased defense spending or opposition to immigration) and internal ones as well (support for traditional values and being tough on crime).”

The findings, according to Dodd, Smith and Hibbing, might provide a pathway to turn down political polarization in the country (the study was conducted prior to the 2012 presidential election).  Said the UNL report: “Rather than believing those with opposite political views are uninformed or willfully obtuse, the authors said, political tolerance could be enhanced if it was widely understood that political differences are based in part on our physiological and cognitive differences.”

Hibbings offered this final note (as quoted in the UNL report): "When conservatives say that liberals are out of it and just don't get it, from this standpoint, that's true. . . . And when liberals say 'What are (conservatives) so frightened of? Is the world really that dangerous?' Given what each side sees, what they pay attention to, what they physiologically experience -- the answer is both sides are right."

##