A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

                                                                                                                        -German Physicist Max Planck

As Planck states, it’s not the superiority of new ideas that replaces bad ideas. Instead, it’s when those people with outdated ideas are no longer around, which allows fresh ideas to flourish and take hold.

Organizations advance the same way. The best ideas don’t win because of logic, rationality, or evidenced-based merit. The best ideas win when the old guard is no longer in the way. For companies, that means change happens one retirement at a time.

I remember attending a Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting around 2010.

Someone asked Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger: “I’m at a company and I want to change the culture. How do I do it?

Warren or Charlie responded something to the effect of: “You don’t. You just leave. You’ll never change the culture.”

And that stuck with me. Thinking you can go in and just revamp a company’s culture is noble, but foolhardy. Changing a group’s mindset is impossible, as most people prefer consistency and predictability vs. changing deep-held belief.

Continue reading…

I recently came across the most powerful yet underappreciated hiring mindset.

In a 2014 Manual of Ideas interview, Seth Alexander, current CIO of MIT’s endowment, explains how they hire:

We do not try and hire someone every year or anything like that. Instead, we hire opportunistically. If two great people came along in the same week who would both be a great fit, we would hire them. We are always looking to hear from passionate investors about working here and really encourage people to reach out to us.

This seems obvious, but rarely practiced. Hire when you find great investors. Not when you need or have budgeted for them.

Organizations have it backwards. They hide behind self-imposed budget and planning processes. Only then after several rounds of approval and justification can they begin the search.

Here’s the problem: great candidates don’t just magically appear when your budget process is done. Or when the planning committee finally submits approval.

If you wait to hire until you have a need, then you begin a forced process of settling for people as the great people have already moved on. It’s ensured mediocrity.

Click on the title to continue reading…

Most people are worried about looking good rather than making the right decision. This is one reason teams struggle to have vigorous, yet healthy debates.

One of the greatest communication superpowers is the ability to argue forcefully and honestly, while still showing respect and admiration for the other side. This is rare. It’s not a natural occurrence. Most people are either too aggressive and harsh or too passive and soft. There’s a balance you need to find.  

That balance comes down to “Arguing to Understand” rather than “Arguing to Win.”

Understanding this difference enables honest disagreement while still enhancing relationships.

It’s a shift in perspective that allows teams to debate forcefully yet calmly versus arguing with unrestrained emotion and ego.

Everyone likes to feed their egos. Any discussion, whether between 2 people or 20, gives us the chance to boost our ego by showing how smart we are. Wise decisions are not made by showing off. Instead, they are made after honest, deliberate, and disagreeable discussions. The only way to do that is to stop worrying about how smart you look and start worrying about how much you can learn.

In his book, Good Strategy, Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters, Richard Rumelt illustrates the folly of blind effort and unyielding motivation:

In Europe, motivational speakers are not the staple on the management lecture circuit that they are in the United States, where the doctrine of leadership as motivation is alive and well. Here, for example, is H. Ross Perot: “Most people give up just when they’re about to achieve success. They quit on the one-yard line. They give up at the last minute of the game, one foot from a winning touchdown.” Hearing this, many Americans nod in agreement. Many Europeans, by contrast, hear the echo of the “one last push” at Passchendaele. There, the slaughtered troops did not suffer from a lack of motivation. They suffered from a lack of competent strategic leadership.

Why do good ideas sometimes gain little traction and bad ideas flourish despite obvious flaws? It’s rarely related to the merit, logic, or evidence behind the idea. Instead, acceptance is based on political and cultural popularity. If it’s an unconventional idea that disrupts tradition, it will fail. If it’s a terrible idea, but falls within a group’s norms and expectations, it will likely succeed. The Overton Window illustrates why mediocre ideas triumph over great ideas.

Many management systems overlook the key component of any successful organization – the people. Systems and procedures are designed to meet various financial objectives, but rarely do they prioritize the human factor. But if you design systems to maximize the intrinsic motivations and fulfillment of your team, you’ll have a better chance of meeting your objectives than if you just focus on the objectives themselves.

The organizational approach to motivation, rewards, and incentives is still stuck in the past. There is still the belief that if you want to motivate your people, you just need to increase the rewards or increase the punishment.

In all walks of life, fear and stress loom on the horizon: they freeze cops in tight situations, paralyze concert performers on stage, and make skydiver’s brains lock up so much that they can forget the pull their parachutes. No one is immune.1

A crisis is challenging for all leaders. But they are exceptionally difficult for the people you lead. Of all the issues to navigate, managing your team’s psychology may be the most important. Not everyone responds well to adversity. Most people don’t. They perform at the lowest level of their training, which is next to nothing. Organizations don’t train to operate under stress. Because people are unprepared, it’s a leader’s job to anticipate reactions and make plans to manage it.

First, we need to understand how humans respond to a crisis. We’ll borrow the lessons of survival psychology to understand crisis reaction patterns. By understanding how people react, we can reduce stress and anxiety.

Second, we’ll discuss steps to proactively help our teams. Stop with vague, naïve advice. Start with evidence-based advice proven in real-world situations.