A Graceful Giant

Since this is my last post for 2015, I thought I should focus on a graceful subject: the teaching of Oliver Sacks.

Dr. Sacks, renowned neurologist, died of melanoma at age 82 on August 30, 2015. I can’t say that I am profoundly familiar with his books; however, the few articles I have read are enough for me to appreciate his vibrant energy and graceful spirit. And even though he was a total stranger to me, reading his musings on his impending death, “My Own Life”, and the New York Times’ obituary, I felt such a lump in my throat.

Many have written eloquently about Sack’s contributions; my writing skills are woefully inadequate to make songs about his very being. I just want to share some of Mr. Sacks’ accomplishments and words that are especially moving to me.

Maria Popova (www.brainspickings.com) described Oliver Sacks as “a Copernicus of the mind and a Dante of medicine who turned the case study into a poetic form.” Dr. Sacks’ “Awakenings,” detailed accounts of patients suffering catatonia, was turned into a movie of the same title with Robin Williams reprising the role of the doctor. Dr. Sacks’ books are popular for good reasons. Through his preternatural story-telling, Dr. Sacks demystified illnesses and gave dignity to the patients who lived lives, rather than just filled the patient charts or comprised yet another statistical graph.

Dr. Sacks was a prolific writer, not just about neurological case histories of people but also about music, chemistry, travel, deafness, swimming, language perceptions… Of course, he didn’t just care about his patients and their lives but also others who sought his consultation, either in person or by mail. According to New York Time’s obituary, Mr. Sacks wrote about 10,000 letters a year. “I invariably reply to people under 10, over 90 or in prison,” said Dr. Sacks.

So many readers feel identified with Oliver Sacks, probably because of his generous spirit, as well as his vast interests, ranging from weightlifting, motorcycling, music, chemistry, poetry, swimming, stargazing, anything and anywhere the mind and the body took him. One is bound to find some common interests with him. He even turned his fading hearing into a study for himself, and with his ever-present sense of humor, he could amuse himself (and his readers) with adventures of “Mishearings.”  And Sacks’ life was an embodiment of contradictions, as stated in his Time’s obituary, “[He was]: candid and guarded, gregarious and solitary, clinical and compassionate, scientific and poetic, British and almost American. ‘In 1961, I declared my intention to become a United States citizen, which may have been a genuine intention, but I never got round to it,’ he told The Guardian in 2005.”

In Dr. Sack’s February (2015) Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, he informed the public that his cancer was terminal, without any trace of bitterness, forlorn wishing, or regrets. The article was full of gratitude:

“Over the last few days, I have been able to see my life as from a great altitude, as a sort of landscape, and with a deepening sense of the connection of all its parts. This does not mean I am finished with life.

“On the contrary, I feel intensely alive, and I want and hope in the time that remains to deepen my friendships, to say farewell to those I love, to write more, to travel if I have the strength, to achieve new levels of understanding and insight.

“…But there will be time, too, for some fun (and even some silliness, as well.”

The words that touched me the most are:

“I cannot pretend I am without fear. But my predominant feeling is one of gratitude…Above all, I have been a sentient being, a thinking animal, on this beautiful planet, and that in itself has been an enormous privilege and adventure.”

I don’t get into New Year resolutions — and I am not about to — however, I will start reading Oliver Sack’s books, at least three next year. I am half way through his autobiography, “On the Move.”

In closing, let me once again borrow from Maria Popova, this time the beautiful closing of her tribute:

“What a privilege for this world to have been graced with this extraordinary human animal and his fully embodied mind. The only thing left to say is what Dr. Sacks himself wrote to his beloved aunt Lennie, who shaped his life, as she lay dying: ‘Thank you, once again, and for the last time, for living – for being you.’”

Let’s welcome 2016 with more grace.

Merry Christmas, and have a Peaceful & Joyful Holiday. Till next year,

 

Staying Sane and Charging Ahead.

Direct Contact: taso100@gmail.com

Seriously, It’s Not Always About Money

Why do people want to work? Why do you want to work? Is the paycheck the only incentive? Do only professionals care about “the meaning of work?” While there aren’t straightforward answers — and philosophical discussions are called for – Professor Barry Schwartz in his “Rethinking Work” informs us that empirical evidence has pointed to “we want more than just monetary reward from our work,” and it applies across the board

More than a decade ago, the Yale organizational behavior professor Amy Wrzesniewski and colleagues did a study on custodians in a major academic hospital. These custodians’ job description never included assisting patients in any manner, but many of the custodians would go out of their ways to interact with and assist patients and their families, such as joking around to lighten the mood, tucking in rumpled bed sheets, distracting patients while nurses hooked up tubes or drew blood, or even “dancing for them.” One custodian decided to postpone vacuuming the waiting room because some family members had fallen asleep. For these acts of kindness and considerations, the custodians never got extra pay; yet, it was the prospect of feeling useful that “got them out of the bed in the morning.”

Before you argue that it’s the setting – perhaps hospitals command compassion (not everyone’s experience) – that influences people, other studies also confirm that regardless of the type of work, some people always look for higher purposes in their work environments, including even call centers. I emphasize “some” because not all people desire autonomy and purpose, both professionals and laborers.

The findings from these studies have been widely cited, yet they never seem to have reached management in most organizations. Managers by and large still hold onto the “old” belief propagated by Adam Smith (and his disciples) in his “The Wealth of Nations.” Perhaps from his observations but certainly not from impartial evidence, Smith postulated that “it is the interest of every man to live as much at his ease as he can,” and therefore since people are that lazy, they would work only for pay. Remember, such assumptions were also the premise of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management that helped make assembly line work profitable. A reader, William Farina, author of “The Afterlife of Adam Smith,” responding to the New York Times article, “Rethinking Work,” informed us that Smith made the “lazy” assertion mostly based on his own profession at the time, a professor on a fixed salary. Further, Smith believed that “rivalship and emulation” would better motivate people. And even this assumption has been debunked.

Still, we keep the old assumptions like a security blanket; it may not smell great but it’s comforting…to children who need them.

I don’t presume to criticize Adam Smith’s seminal contribution; however, I resonate with Professor Schwartz’s perspective that we might have taken Smith’s assumptions for granted and created a self-prophetic process. If we assume people are fundamentally lazy, cheating and stealing at every chance, we would set up organizational structures accordingly, with rules and watchdogs. When people at work feel constrained, they find loopholes to give themselves breaks, release boredom, or just to rebel. And lo and behold, the manager spots rule breakers and confirms the assumptions that probably all people are lazy and want to cheat. By the way, aren’t managers workers too, more cogs in the organizational gears? And thereby also assumed to be lazy? The tragedy of such deficit thinking was what prompted me to start writing on these issues.

Human nature is complex; it has dark sides, positive sides, and a whole lot more than 50 other shades in between. How did we latch onto the negative assumptions made by Adam Smith? Why didn’t we instead try to explore and exploit the better sides of human nature? Even Smith’s assertion that there is a trade off between work satisfaction and efficiency – in order to gain organizational or production efficiency, we have to ignore employees’ job satisfaction – has been thoroughly refuted. Research findings have yielded strong evidence that where people find engaging, challenging, and meaningful work they help increase the organization’s overall performance and profits. Conversely, “there is a human cost to routinizing and depersonalizing work.” From this angle, Professor Schwartz’s last sentence in his article, “Half of our waking lives is a terrible thing to waste” is heartbreaking.

I know this post feels like a downer but we need to understand the sources of some of our organizational ills. Hence my constant rallying cry,

Staying Sane and Charging Ahead

Direct Contact: taso100@gmail.com

Socially Constructed Reality of Amazon’s Inner Working

The immediate responses to the lengthy New York Times’ article on the inner workings of white collar professionals at Amazon.com were almost as intense as article’s content. The 5,800+ readers’ comments are by far the most any New York Times’ article has ever elicited. The very next day, a post on LinkedIn provided a detailed rebuttal by Nick Ciubotariu, one of the system engineers/managers from Amazon. He emphasized that he wrote the piece totally on his own initiative. Amazon’s owner/CEO, Jeff Bezos, in addition to directing the employees to read Mr. Ciubotariu’s article, issued a public statement with the basic gist that the Times’ image of Amazon isn’t what he recognizes, and that all employees who ever witness the ugly stuff portrayed in the article should email him directly. (I wonder how many such emails he will actually receive? I don’t wonder that we’ll never know.)

I am not at all surprised that plenty of Amazon insiders would defend the company – otherwise cognitive dissonance would drive an employee crazy if she didn’t leave the company – nor am I surprised at the chorus of ex-Amazonians’ concurring with New York Times’ narrative of the company’s brutal working culture. What surprised me, sadly only a little, was how many people seemed to think that Amazon’s demanding working culture is unique to Amazon. Have they forgotten how Walmart locked in workers overnight? Do they not know the grueling hours medical interns (and sometimes doctors too) have to undertake? Of course, some people have pointed out that professionals in law, finance, or high tech also work 80+ hours a week, spending ½ of their vacation time chasing emails and fulfilling scheduled conference calls, or springing right back to work after a not-so-major surgery. Gee, is that supposed to make us feel better?!

What’s really depressing is that it doesn’t matter even when (some) companies offer generous policies for employees to take time off. If the organizational structure is such that people feel they have to stay competitive, most of them will forgo the offerings from such policies.

A little whimsical visual provides some counterbalance to this article.

What angers me most is the category of response that goes something like this: Work is not a child’s play; it’s hard. Deal with it. You shouldn’t expect a country club environment. Implicitly implied in the “country club environment” jab is that such a “cushy environment” would dull your mental state and lure you into shirking even more. This either-or dichotomous worldview is simply detrimental, full stop. Google, Apple, a few other tech giants, as well as some major players from other industries, are known for offering their employees a “country club” work environment or benefits, and we don’t hear, at least we haven’t heard, that their employees are just lazing about and taking advantages of their companies.

A second category of response that drives me batty is “data management.” While I am totally on the side of using evidence and data whenever possible, I object to the implied notion that as long as managers use data, all’s well and forgiven. Data is just information, which can be distorted. Decision, on the other hand, requires thinking, knowledge, wisdom and courage. Hiding behind data doesn’t justify pitting employees against each other, normalizing 80+ hours work weeks, and data definitely do not lend sympathy to those who suffer physically and emotionally at work and outside of work. Context gets lost in data. If data can dictate everything, let’s eliminate management.

I applaud Bezos’ efforts of making his “leadership principles” actionable; it is especially remarkable that he seemingly has instilled in most of his employees the desire to also act on those principles. However, how sustainable is the intensity of Amazon’s work culture? Put it another way, can Bezo’s goal of “perpetual start-up spirit” at his company go on and on? The image comes to mind is stretching an elastic band. I said that I don’t know the answer to this question in the previous post. I still don’t. However, drawing analogies from the laws of thermodynamics, continuous improvement (link) of anything, productivity, safety and security, competition, or perpetual growth requires an infinity of resources just to fuel it, and another infinity of resources to combat entropic deterioration. Yes, Amazon can afford to have a high turnover rate, because despite its reputed hypercompetitive environment, there are always people who thrive in that kind of atmosphere, or people who just need a job. For now. However, it cannot go on in perpetuity. What remain unanswerable for me are:

• Is this high octane work environment what we will face all over the workplace in the not-so-distant future? One factor against this, is that a good portion of the millennial generation is rejecting such notion. But that’s just one factor.
• What would Amazon be like in 10 years?

Next time, I will ponder on the consumer angle of “working inside of Amazon.” Till then,

 

Staying Sane and Charging Ahead.

Direct Contact:  taso100@gmail.com

Suggested Readings:

• Jeff Bezos and the Amazon Way
• Inside Amazon: Reporter’s Notebook
• Can Companies Excel Without Making Workers Miserable?
• I Had a Baby and Cancer When I Worked at Amazon. This Is My Story.

The Cul-de-Sac of “High Achieving”

This time of the year, around the anniversary of my immigrating to the States, I tend to do a little more navel gazing. This year, I find myself reflecting on a term with which I have some issues, “high achiever.” The expression usually implies that someone has achieved more than…but what? It also connotes a high degree of competitiveness.

I hate competition. Competition makes sense in sports and in related environments where repetition or efficiency is the goal.  In the Chinese/Taiwanese education system, we are expected to be competitive; we need to make our parents look good. Such a burden. My mother, bless her soul, of course wanted all her children to do well (what parents wouldn’t?), but she would never brag about her children’s “accomplishments.” The high school I went to was the best (girls’) high school, and the atmosphere felt like the premed frenzy in this country, although I understood the comparison only after I came to the States. In my high school, we all learned not to let on how hard we had to study for quizzes and tests, and some would actually beam or strut around, albeit subtly, after besting fellow students. Those three years of high school were the worst time in my life.

I don’t accumulate degrees or awards as badges of honor; I simply enjoy learning and exploration. If that means getting degrees and awards, so be it. I don’t regard them as having achieved anything special because for me, it’s all about finding something to be excited about…and the weirder it is, the more fascinating it is.

And I know plenty of people who are like that, regardless of their educational background. Some of the people I most admire have “only” high school diplomas, and some of the PhDs I have known are downright obnoxious. Such superficial accolades are just that, superficial. Years ago, one of the entrepreneurs I met had a PhD in biology but eventually acknowledged and accepted that his true passion was – and still is — woodworking. When he and I compared notes, we discovered what “competition” meant to us both: It’s about competing against ourselves, against some amorphous standards we keep updating, based on everything around us.

The conventional “high achieving” environment is actually quite toxic because it’s based on zero-sum competition mode where my win would have to be at the expense of someone else’s loss. It’s a scarcity mode of being. In such an environment, most people lose by definition. This attitude partly contributes to the ever-increasing stress levels on students, particularly during their high school years, and on employees who see the managerial ladder as the only success measurement. (See the “suggested readings”.) After you achieve a 4.0 GPA – sorry, I mean, 4.75 – then what? After you become a VP, make tons of money, or build five casinos, then what? What will you have accomplished?

I don’t readily know how to make a distinction between “high achievers” and those who forever follow their curiosity and passion. I’d love to hear your take-on and suggestions.

Direct Contact: taso100@gmail.com

Suggested Readings:

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/27/tragedy-of-golden-daughters-murder-plot-against-parents-resonates-with-asian-immigrant-children/

• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/education/edlife/stress-social-media-and-suicide-on-campus.html

Emotion Isn’t the Enemy of Rationality

So…I have something to write about.

I am a huge fan of Pixar movies ever since “Toy Story.” I also love most of the short films before each of the feature movies. I am still in awe of Pixar’s latest, “Inside Out” which I finally caught on July 4^th weekend. It’s a story about the emotional tumult of an 11-year old girl, handling the uprooting of her life when the family moved from Minnesota to San Francisco. The various personified emotions, Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust, constantly jostle to control the young girl’s near-term and longer-term responses and development. Their headquarters is in the little girl’s head. This is but one of the many nuances, which I probably would not have noticed were it not for Terry Gross from Fresh Air. Not only did the writers of the movie get the science right (here & here), their delivery of the poignancy and complexity of human emotions is simply superb.

As a social scientist, I know that life cannot be all positive all the time. Yet while watching the movie, I wanted Joy to take control, felt frustrated at Sadness’ clumsiness, was angry at Anger’s bone-headedness, wanted to kick Fear out of the picture all together, and could just about tolerate the juvenile Disgust. I allowed my emotions to go through the roller coaster ride with the movie narrative; I laughed and I cried. Afterwards, sipping coffee with my best friend, I said, “This movie is brilliant…in every respect.”

Nothing about human life, especially the mind and heart, is one-dimensional. We can’t be always happy, sad, mad, or apathetic. It is precisely the riot of all the emotions we possess that makes us who we are. We know that, yet we often insist on telling others to be positive, in responses and in moods. We want to suppress certain “unpleasant” emotions; however, all emotions can inform and guide us as to what to do. This doesn’t mean that we act on any particular emotion right away, but emotions can be our teachers.

Why is it that the only publically displayed emotional “outburst” we collectively accept in this society is joy? Every other emotional expression is frowned upon most of the time. We avert our eyes when someone cries; we ourselves would feel embarrassed if caught crying in the public. We disapprove when someone doesn’t contain his anger, and we offer platitudes at funerals. We seem to allow anger or other negative emotions to surface only in “approved” settings such as group protest.

“Inside Out” is multi-layered in its presentation; only in its subtle unfolding do we begin to accept the pairing of Joy and Sadness. But doesn’t this parallel reality? Often it is those who can subtly provide guidance are the most effective in their influence: There is a figure in the movie, the imaginary friend of the 11-year old girl’s earlier life, who when first introduced seems utterly unimportant. But [spoiler alert!] as the imaginary friend gradually faded into the abyss of the forgotten past, his final effort helped shape the trajectory of the next chapter of the girl’s life. Truly, sometimes, that which we pay little attention to, dismissing it as light and fluff, turns out to have a significant role in our life. As someone who typically eschews rituals, I had to stop and reexamine my own beliefs.

The ending of the movie is ingenious and hilarious. As the camera pans over other people’s and other creatures’ brains…it stops at a cat’s… and it’s hilarious. You just have to be there to appreciate the creativity.

 

Direct Contact: taso100@gmail.com

 

Abundancy In Full Circle

“When we enter the world, are we wired to be passive and inert? Or are we wired to be active and engaged?” I can’t imagine anyone with a functioning mind would answer the former. And as adults, wouldn’t we prefer to work in the latter mode, engaging our minds to be in charge?

One of the comparisons I learned from Mr. Dan Pink’s TED talk on motivation and his book, Drive, has become my favorite: In 1995, Microsoft began a monumental project to assemble the information needed for their “encyclopedia on CD-ROMs, and later online.” “On October 31^st, 2009, [they] pulled the plug on MSN Encarta.” Because? A bunch of hobbyists and volunteers put together a little thing called “Wikipedia,” launched in January, 2001. As of April, 2015, “Wikipedia includes over 35 million freely usable articles in 288 languages that have been written by over 54 million registered users and numerous anonymous contributors worldwide.” Would any experts in economics or management have predicted this?

Sunrise

Jeff Gunther, CEO of Meddius, in Charlottesville, NC., decided to try a ROWE model – a Results Only Work Environment – on his 22-person operation, allowing people to come in to the office whenever. At the beginning, most people were uncertain about this, but after a few weeks, they adjusted to it. “Productivity rose. Stress declined.” When the trial period was over, only 2 employees who struggled with the changes had left, and Gunther decided to adopt the ROWE permanently. This company develops computer software, involving creativity; the ROWE makes perfect sense. When people have autonomy over their own task, time, techniques, and team, their performance increases greatly, as well as their overall well-being. Some researchers at Cornell University conducted a comparison across 320 small businesses, half of which relied on a top-down conventional organizational model and the other half gave their employees autonomy. “The businesses that offered autonomy grew at four times the rate of the control-oriented firms and had one-third the turnover.”

What conventional motivational approaches have been good at is to get employees’ compliance. “Do this, then you get that reward…” It chokes creativity and dulls people’s minds and skills. Of course, we may still push ourselves to better our performance, but it’s likely to be small incremental steps. However, if we feel totally engaged at work, we have the desire to master our knowledge and skills. In his book, Mr. Pink cites Gallup research on “engagement” at work: “…in the U.S., more than 50% of employees are not engaged at work – and nearly 20% are actively disengaged. The cost of all this disengagement: about $300 billion a year in lost productivity – a sum larger than the GDP of Portugal, Singapore, or Israel.”

There are times and places for relying on a compliance mode, in survival, in safety, in routine work with predictable outcomes. But for creative work, personal fulfillment, or mastery, we absolutely need to feel engaged. (How often do I use the word “absolutely” in discussing social issues?!) And we can’t force others to be engaged; it has to come from an internal drive. It’s about “doing the things you love to do, on the days you don’t feel like doing them.” (Maybe that’s why I sometimes question whether I truly love painting!) In addition, mastery isn’t about the be-all-end-all perfection; it’s striving toward that non-existing and elusive “perfection,” whose definition evolves with our development. Such a journey might be painful at times, but when the mind is engaged, it can be paradoxically liberating and exciting. (See Carol Dweck’s work).

We tend to assume that the purpose/goal for for-profit organizations is making a profit, and that people working for these places are about making as much money as possible. However, “profit motive, potent though it is, can be an insufficient impetus for both individuals and organizations.” This isn’t just idealistic talk; there is research evidence that when people are motivated by only material gains, their “goal” is essentially unreachable, their need is unfulfillable and therefore, they can never be happy. In one of my dissertation cases, a café owner’s mother demanded at least three gifts from her children annually, for her birthday, for mother’s day, and for Christmas (even though the family was Buddhist). And anything less than $500 (back in the mid 90s) would be deemed insufficient. Yet, the mother was not a happy person; she was never satisfied with her living conditions.

Of all three elements in Motivation 3.0, autonomy, mastery, and purpose, purpose is probably the most amorphous one to define, yet is probably the most foundational in providing meaning for the other two. However, organizations imposing purpose onto their employees do so at their own peril. Just take a look at all those “elegantly” written ethical standards at many corporations – Enron offered one of the best – which then provide meaningless or weak structures for employees to meet the standards. For example, when employees just need to check off a list of expectations they are rarely inspired to take the high road. Yet, as human beings, our innate nature is to seek and recognize, or create, our own purposes. If organizations offer people autonomy, they do not need to fret over providing purposes. Top management can define organizational purposes, but it’s up to the individuals to find the fit between their own goals and purposes and the organization’s.

Sunset

I started my blog in October, 2011, introducing some bad management teaching and countering with description of abundancy mode, appreciative inquiry. Now I have come full circle with Dan Pink’s abundancy mode, “motivation 3.0.” While I admire Pink’s work – and I certainly have quoted him and used his work numerous times — the frequency with which I find myself repeating certain works and concepts has made me realize that perhaps I am running out of things to say. I think this is a good time to quit. Once in a while, I may “park” an article on this site because I need to get something off my chest, but the weekly posts will cease.

Thank you for reading my writing. I wish you well, in both your organizational life as well as your personal life.

 

Good-bye.

 

Can We Please Let Go The Carrot-and-Stick Shtick?

When I read my previous post’s suggested article, How Successful People Overcome Toxic Bosses, I felt more depressed than hopeful. Evidently, there are a lot of horrible bosses out there, requiring us to develop strategies to keep them at bay. What a waste of energy and time, both of which are such precious resources for our work and life. A different perspective that places more responsibilities on bosses evokes in me a slightly more positive reaction. Managers who develop relationships with their direct reports approaching trusted “alliance” are in a better position to keep staff from quitting. Always easier said than done, right? But can we afford not trying?! For good reasons, I keep going back to Dan Pink’s articulation of autonomy, mastery, and purpose for his motivation 3.0 as the blueprint for managers to build a long-term healthy workforce.

In his 2011 book, Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us, Mr. Pink lays out in greater detail why and how autonomy, mastery, and purpose should replace the primitive “carrot-and-stick” motivation system, which he terms motivation 2.0 and, with slight tweaks, motivation 2.1. (Motivation 1.0 was hunter, predator and survival instinct…really old). Largely relying on external motivational forces, the old systems worked for a time, but our new technologies have created needs for business models that embrace different ways people in the 21^st century operate. Intrinsic motivation has always been a major part of us, but it’s especially critical in today’s business world.

When Maslow proposed his “hierarchy of needs,” he had already offered a truer picture of the more complex nature of human motivation. His hierarchy starts with the most basic needs, food, security, shelter, etc., and moves up to self-esteem and self-actualization. Based on Maslow’s model, McGregor’s Theory Y posits that there is intrinsic motivation behind peoples’ desire to work; they want more responsibility (with authority) to do their work. Further, “carrot-and-stick” (C&S) ultimately limits a person’s productivity. And Theory Y was introduced in the 60s!

Yet, in 2015, we still see most organizations operating on C&S assumptions, even in the face of preponderant evidence demonstrating otherwise. In many new business models, such as Wikipedia or Google, “open source” is the operating principle; people join the force because they enjoy it or find it challenging. Other new business models, such as “social business,” aim to maximize purpose instead of profit; they downplay profit-making and emphasize social missions. Carrot-and-stick model is outmoded for these new types of business. In fact, the C&S model isn’t especially effective on animals, as horse and dog whispers have demonstrated to many pet owners; so what’s with managers who still hold onto C&S?

So why doesn’t carrot-and-stick work well? It usually ends up with “giving us less of what we want and bringing us more of what we don’t want.”

All organizations, of all natures, want high performance, creativity, and good behavior from their employees. Numerous studies have found, time and again, that giving and increasing rewards, in the long run, reduces performance, creativity, and good behavior. Mark Twain, typically keen of observation, noted such a relationship in Tom Sawyer, “…that Work consists of whatever a body is OBLIGED to do, and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.”

In the early 70s, Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett, focusing on preschoolers, studied the relationship between reward and intrinsic motivation. This study is now considered a classic and has been widely cited. The researchers arranged to observe some preschoolers during their recess; they were intrigued to see some children preferring to stay behind and draw. So, they set up their research procedures in this manner: For one group of preschoolers, they offered the children, upon completing drawings, a “Good Player” certificate, complete with the child’s name with a pretty ribbon. This was the “expected-award” group. For the second group, “unexpected-reward,” the children only received the certificate when they finished their drawing; they were not told in advance that this would happen. And the third group, “no-reward” group, they just drew as they usually did.

Two weeks went by before the researchers returned to observe the children again. The No-Reward and the Unexpected-Reward groups of children drew just as much, with the same relish, as ever. However, the children who expected reward “showed much less interest and spent much less time drawing.”

Here is the important key to understand and grasp. The reward by itself didn’t dampen the children’s spirit; it’s the contingent if…then (if you do this, then you’ll get that) that produced the negative impact. It took away the children’s autonomy.

This research has been replicated in different manners on different age groups across different cultures numerous times. But as Mr. Pink said and wrote, “This is one of the most robust findings in social science – and also one of the most ignored.” Many economists have researched in the business settings, and their conclusion? “We find that financial incentives…can result in a negative impact on overall performance.”

Please understand that no one is advocating not giving financial compensation, but when people’s basic levels, “baseline rewards,” are met, they yearn for better working conditions. It’s when people are underpaid, when they have to worry about how to feed themselves and/or their families (and shelter and security…Maslow’s basic needs) that they get angry at the “unfairness of their situation and the anxiety of their circumstances.” Employers get limited productivity from underpaid employees.

I’ve written often enough about how extrinsic motivation kills creativity (examples here & here), so I will not repeat that here.

Using carrots not only has limits, it can be counterproductive. Extrinsic motivation often gives us more of what we don’t want, such as unethical behavior or short-term thinking. For instance, if we make our own goals, we are motivated to reach them. If goals come from higher management, they can lead to bad outcomes. When Sears imposed a quota on auto sales parts, workers overcharged customers or repaired parts that didn’t need repaired. Enron set a very high financial goal, and guess what happened?! So, some business professors now actually suggest that goals should come with a warning label, “Goals may cause systematic problems for organizations due to narrowed focus, unethical behavior, increased risk taking, decreased cooperation, and decreased intrinsic motivation. Use care when applying goals in your organizations.” I wholeheartedly concur.

Next week, let’s take a closer look at autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Till then,

Staying Sane and Charging Ahead.

Direct Contact: taso100@gmail.com

Suggested Reading:

• How Some Men Fake an 80-Hour Workweek, and Why It Matters. 

When Science Meets Reality – final part

Scientists understand social cues and are, like the rest of us, equipped with human emotions. Their take on socially constructed reality might be slightly askew (by whose standards?), but their social construction of reality is just as valid as another group’s social construction. Managers in R&D organizations face the same kind of relational issues and group-intergroup dynamics as all other managers. So, the education of future scientist-managers should touch on the same fundamental principles as for management in general. And I stress “general.” When it comes to education, my bias is toward the liberal arts tradition that strives to provide a broader base of knowledge.

Wide view.

I find resonance for this broader education focus in Fareed Zakaria’s “Why America’s obsession with STEM education is dangerous,” published in Washington Post a few weeks ago. In contrast to the current calls from many sectors in the society to emphasize STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), Mr. Zakaria lays out reasons why a broader education agenda would be more beneficial for society: “A broad general education helps foster critical thinking and creativity. Exposure to a variety of fields produces synergy and cross fertilization. Yes, science and technology are crucial components of this education, but so are English and philosophy.” (Remember what “STEM” was called in the 18^th and 19^th centuries: Natural Philosophy.) While his argument is targeted at broadening science education, I regard his argument as pertinent not just science but also to management education as well.

Part of the push for STEM comes from our collective angst over mediocre performance of US students in international ranking in sciences, math, and reading. However, as Mr. Zakaria points out, even during the post-WWII golden era of our scientific and technological dominance, American children’s academic performance wasn’t all that impressive by global standards. While US continues lags in test scores these days, it is still highly rated internationally in innovation and entrepreneurship, along with Israel and Sweden, whose test scores are mediocre as well. Zakaria attributes the economic success of these countries to the following common traits: “They are flexible. Their work cultures are non-hierarchical and merit-based. All operate like young countries, with energy and dynamism. All three [countries] are open societies, happy to let in the world’s ideas, goods and services.”

There are plenty of examples of how technology/science interplays with consumers’ needs and wants. For instance, computer designers have to understand what people desire to produce marketable products. So it is for all technological and scientific products, even if usage may be confined to smaller groups, such as exploration of outer space or medical treatment for rare illnesses. Even when starting from limited usage — generally for very expensive endeavors — the transfer of science and technology to more popular consumption eventually comes from people who can imagine beyond the formulae and equations. The ability to think creatively does not come from, and certainly does not require, a STEM-focused academic background.

Up & close.

Of course, no one suggests that we should applaud ourselves for mediocre performance on international tests (or for that matter, mediocrity in anything); being mediocre doesn’t automatically lead to creativity and innovation. However, the solution is not to narrow our education focus. Taking away art classes, shortening recesses, eliminating gym…all would contribute to students’ feeling boxed in, stressed out, and short-changed overall. Like Mr. Zakaria, I also came from a system in which the students are taught how to take tests and driven to score well on tests (although the normal distribution curve still applies). For me, I didn’t feel that I was truly engaged in my own education until I came to this country to finish my undergraduate education. And for the first time in my life, I felt unfettered and excited to pursue whatever my imagination would lead me toward … though it still took me a long journey to allow myself to imagine, without guilt and apprehension. In Taiwan (and I suspect in China as well), we were never taught to have fun; in fact, admitting having fun was frowned upon. Babysitting experience during my undergraduate years in the States taught me a lot about Americans’ childhood.

All these arguments apply to general management education as well. I recall a conversation with a group of executives from Hong Kong, a much more westernized place than most other Asian countries. Many of them commented to me about how they admired and envied the Americans’ creativity and innovation. Yet, in the next breath, they’d complain about Americans’ irreverent attitude and how it bordered on being disrespectful of laws. As you’ll have suspected, I pointed out that all these things come in a package: You cannot ask people to be creative by telling them what to do and expecting them to obey exactly. I still remember the reaction on their faces: Oh!

Our business schools have been adopting a STEM-like framework, inculcating MBA students with “the important” tools and skill-set without emphasis on reflection, philosophy, or arts (not necessarily painting or sculpturing, but perhaps language arts, learning appreciation for fine-tuned expressions, effective capture of emotions, influential choices of words). (Ironically, in many technical organizations, new employees are taught technical writing!) Real time management often involves exercising the art of decision-making or making “wise” choices, i.e. making judgment calls. Patents discuss prior art, make note of “those skilled in the art,” and make other references to art. “Art” and the wisdom to recognize and appreciate it in its broadest sense and definition are essential for STEM. Data and evidence are important but they have their limits. Wisdom comes from wider views, richer experiences, and a diversity of interactions with the world.

A mid-range view.

My words and reflections are woefully inadequate in addressing complicated issues like education. But I know that putting more focus on STEM can only be one component of a starting point. Similarly, management education needs to go beyond strategy, economic principles, marketing tools, metrics…

Till next time,

 

Staying Sane and Charging Ahead.

Direct Contact: taso100@gmail.com

Suggested Reading:

•  Starving for Wisdom 
•  Toward a General Theory of a Pathological Science 

Smart Technologies…may need some EQ (emotional intelligence)

There is always tension between wanting to be apart from others, asserting our individual identity, and desiring to belong to a collective, be it an organization or a culture. And this tension is more evident and acceptable in some societies than in others. For instance, in Chinese culture, the desire to be more individualistic is certainly not encouraged and often actively suppressed, whereas in the States, coexistence of individualism and belonging seems to be ubiquitous. Perhaps it is inevitable that the need for individual expression and our collective penchant for conveniences brought about by high tech would clash from time to time. Particularly in computer software where the algorithm is all about finding and creating a platform of commonalities, how does individualism come through?

While most of us welcome the conveniences technology has afforded us, both at work and in our social world, some of us also yearn for a few truly smart technologies that would provide us with more individual design…something that’s uniquely “me.” Yet, however fast the ever-improving technologies are, or however “smart” the devices are, they still cannot satisfy some of our basic emotional needs. Sometimes, these supposedly smart things are downright annoying. Nothing new here. So now a trend is developing in “positive computing” to address individual needs. Rafael Calvo and Dorian Peters of University of Sydney propose a higher calling of technology “to support well-being, wisdom and human potential.” A few universities and Google have begun to take on the challenge.

Gourds are only useful when they are empty…unless you turn them into object d’art.

“Positive computing” responds to the harassed feelings most of us seem to have acquired regarding the growing and expanding technologies. I think part of that stressful feeling comes from the constant demands from every direction with little regard to “who we are” individually. Since technologies seem to make everything happen instantaneously, we want not just something now, but something that I need or want now. In this cacophony of “I want,” “Listen to me,” “Now,” “Where is mine?” we paradoxically feel lost as individuals. It’s not blatant; it’s subtle, but the loss is palpable. I mentioned computing algorithms supporting finding and tapping into the commonalities among humanity. These may try to give us some individual control over a few areas but they require us to behave repeatedly the same, in order for the software to work.

When Facebook provided the “Year in Review” at the end of 2014, the majority of its users probably either welcomed it or shrugged it off as another marketing ploy. However, in some unfortunate and exceptional cases, souls could be crushed by this little “innocent” app. Surely it is not that unexpected for people whose year might have been marred by serious illnesses, injury, or death, to not want this particular feature. Would you like this app to hit you with the “smiling face” of someone whose life was yanked out of your existence? One web designer, Eric Meyer, lost his young daughter that year. The picture of the daughter on Mr. Meyer’s FB page under the banner, “Year in Review,” did not exactly lead to happy feelings.

Mr. Meyer penned “Inadvertent Algorithmic Cruelty” on his blog. As a web designer, he did not lambast FB’s people as others might have; he understood their business priorities. However, his own personal grief allowed him insight that obviously escaped most software designers. He offered two measures to modify the assumptions that everyone wants to share their year of pictures on FB. First, “don’t pre-fill a picture until you’re sure the user wants to see the pictures from their year.”   Second, offer people the option of not wanting the app, and honor it (and don’t pester them at interval periods). Mr. Meyer further proposes that perhaps the computer designers should use “worst case scenarios” as base instead of assuming best cases for everyone. Not knowing much about computer programming, I cannot say. However, knowing human nature and logic, I think the fundamental problem is that algorithm doesn’t give much space for individual discretion, best or worst scenarios.

lucky symbols

What’s more heartening about Eric Meyer’s story is the follow-up, a somewhat unexpected turn of events. His original blog post created a firestorm for FB, especially the “Year in Review” team. It wasn’t Mr. Meyer’s intention. The FB “Year in Review” product manager personally apologized to Mr. Meyer, and in turn, Mr. Meyer was even more humble with his own apology. He did not mean to dump it on FB; the problem with algorithm is its “thoughtless” nature that defines the industry. (sidenote: Would your or my case elicit a personal apology from the product manager?) And Mr. Meyer took time and space to actually defend FB against some very nasty comments/reactions to his first post. The irony he pointed out was this: In attacking FB for being insensitive and inflicting blind imposition, many commenters “inadvertently” made assumptions about FB programmers that might or might not be true. How was this different from the algorithm’s blind assumptions?

Indeed, are we doomed to want to impose on others standards from which we ourselves want to be excluded?

The central feature of all this back and forth, between Meyer’s blog posts, his readers’ comments, FB’s responses, and our desire to have our unique features in the universe of algorithms, is Eric Meyer’s humility. In his grief and sorrow, he still found sympathy for the programmers and offered lessons for all to contemplate. I think that’s the ultimate challenge for “positive computing/technology:” How to capture that uniquely humane spirit in a world of sameness? Personally, humility and creativity rank the highest for me. What would be you yours?
Till next time,

Staying Sane and Charging Ahead.

Direct Contact: taso100@gmail.com

Machiavelli & Lao Zi

I am truly behind in my reading, more than 500 years in some cases. I have heard of Machiavelli’s The Prince for years, and I have certainly used “Machiavellian” often enough to be curious about its origin. It’s only recently that I read the thin but impactful manuscript. What a read. It’s also amusing to follow up on Lao Zi’s non-intervention principles, of last week, with Machiavellian’s downright meddling principles. I contend that skillful and effective leaders and managers employ both Lao Zi’s and Machiavelli’s ideas.

Regardless of historical speculation regarding whether Machiavelli wrote The Prince as satire or as earnest advice for princes in their governing, the convergence of analysts’ opinions is that he was pragmatic. Machiavelli focused on the governing of actual kingdoms rather than imaginary or theoretical governing bodies. Lao Zi’s The Way is both philosophical and idealistic, almost poetic, and with little reference to any governing bodies.

To be “Machiavellian” is to be manipulative, calculating, and downright cold- blooded, and it isn’t just applied to politicians but to anyone who plays politics in any environment. However, there are Machiavellian principles (somewhat oxymoronic?) that hold true in today’s organizations. For instance, one of the recurring themes in The Prince is this: If a prince acquires his kingdom through easy means, such as, by inherence, quick conquer, or by appointment, he has to work much harder to earn his subjects’ support and/or loyalty. On the other hand, if a prince has won a state by arduous methods, he would have an easier time to gain his new subjects’ respect. Isn’t that true in modern organizations? Those new managers who appear on the scene having more charm (or rich relatives) than actual credentials usually have to work much harder to win the direct reports’ respect…if they care to win such respect. And the ones who reluctantly accept their promotions, probably after some persistent persuasion, generally would be on better footing for winning respect from others.

The book is unnerving because Machiavelli lays bare the side of human nature that most of us call ugly, not just concerning princes, but their minions, soldiers, townspeople, etc. Yet, the most disturbing aspect of reading the book is that it doesn’t disturb me that much. Though an optimist and idealist in general, I am also a realist who has studied human behavior and psychology. Machiavelli made a penetrating study and his sparse writing exposed our dark side quite accurately; it is that he makes this exposure without any apology that makes it unnerving.

What fascinates me is the application of some of the Machiavellian principles in modern management. The really successful managers – though not quite rendering their positions pointless (see last week’s post) – often anticipate obstructions and detect bumps ahead of others. They head off these traps for their people to ensure better and smoother operations…yes, by manipulating a few people, bypassing or maneuvering around a few rules. As a result, people reporting to these managers can do their jobs more effectively and even joyfully. The managers with humility would not expose their manipulative techniques, and as a result, on the surface, their people might not realize all the behind-the-scene work. Managers in such category are both Machiavellian and Zen (It’s Zen because they massage the work environment without seemingly doing much).

Though a fictitious figure, Dumbledore of the Harry Potter series is consummate in mixing some Machiavellian methods with Zen principles. For real figures, look at Presidents Lincoln or Roosevelt (FDR). Indeed, Dumbledore manipulates many things and many people, particularly Harry, but he does so to lead the willing ones toward their own enlightenment. Yes, Dumbledore teaches his students how to fish instead of giving them fish. In the final encounter between Potter and Dumbledore at King’s Cross, I find Dumbledore’s words particularly apt for modern management:

“It is a curious thing, Harry, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it. Those who, like you, have leadership thrust upon them, and take up the mantle because they must, and find to their own surprise that they wear it well.” In another context, at an earlier and happier time in the story line, Dumbledore imparts other words of wisdom, “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”

It is in such spirits that I find often it’s those “reluctant” leaders who do best for all.

Till next time,

Staying Sane and Charging Ahead.

Direct Contact: taso100@gmail.com