environment always impacts behavior, part 2

Hi all,

My best professor in college introduced me to my favorite definition for understanding the effect of a given change to a system. An economics professor, he always walked his classes through the effects of an economic shock. A raise in tax rates, for example, might lead to a decrease in individual savings and consumption spending. At the end of the lecture, he often reminded his classes that true understanding came not when you could explain the effect of the same economic shock back to him but when you could explain the effect of the shock in the opposite direction (in the above, a lowering of tax rates).

Two weeks ago, I shared a story about a recent train ride and linked it to a problem I often encountered in my former position. I thought about how to encourage people in organizations who had good ideas but were unwilling or unready to initiate.

But what about the opposite? To use the original example- what if standing up before the train stopped was a highly dangerous activity that needed to be curtailed immediately? What if the problem is stopping the initiators so that the natural followers would keep their eyes on the road and avoid getting themselves into trouble?

One possibility is to worry only about the outcome and address the issue there. The MBTA could, for example, fine the first person who stood up before the train stopped. Ideally, stopping the initiator would keep the natural followers in their seats.

The problem with this approach is that you will only find out it is not working when it stops working. After all, a penalty is not a prohibition against the activity- it simply increases the cost of the activity. If someone riding the train wants to pay $50 to get off the train first, they will stand up and do it (1). And of course, once this person stands, everyone waiting will imitate.

Another approach is to get the initiators out of sight. Give them new assignments, transfer them to less process oriented departments, or just fire them. This seems the quickest and cleanest approach. But, be warned- it only addresses the outward manifestation of people's interests. Though one 'troublemaker' is gone, you will still be left with people who are ready to stand up as soon as the next initiator boards the train.

The only approach that I think truly works, long term, is to address the underlying feeling that drives the unwanted behavior. I think people stand up on the train because there is no guarantee made that the train will not start again before everyone is safely on the platform. A different transportation example highlights this point- no one ever stands up while an airplane is in flight because everyone knows the plane does not take off for the next airport with passengers still walking toward the exit.

In a work environment, digging into unwanted behavior to find the source of discontent, insecurity, or frustration is difficult work. But it is crucial for the health of an organization in the long term. Usually, what you find is some combination of a lack of definition for good work, a broken communication link, or a specific case of unfair treatment (perceived or otherwise) that is driving people away from a teamwork mentality. Fixing these core breakdowns will reduce or eliminate selfish behavior within any organization and will provide a lot more value than implementing complex systems which address symptoms while ignoring the underlying condition.

Until next Thursday, take care.

The Business Bro

Footnotes...

1. Incentive systems 
Airlines already offer such an option through their premium or preferred seating plans.

Another way to talk about a fine is to describe it as a negative incentive system. Incentive systems are really popular ways try and align compensation with performance- so in this case, the 'negative incentive' of fining a first offender is like reducing compensation for something that results in reduced performance.

A thought that I might explore more in the future is a problem I run into from time to time about incentives. Basically, the issue is that it seems like the people who implement incentive systems expect the presence of such a system to automatically lead to greater effort. I think this assumption is naive.

Sure, the incentives will motivate someone who is interested in the incentive to work harder. But what about the employee who does not care? The incentive system might work in reverse here- now, those who do not respond to the incentives will appear lethargic, apathetic, or just disinterested in comparison to their 'incentivized' colleagues. I cannot come up with a reason for why this would be a good thing for any organization.

if you can read, you can code

Hi,

Months ago, I read a particularly interesting line from Haruki Murakami's Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and His Years of Pilgrimmage- 'if you can read, you can cook'. Lately, I've found the line coming to mind whenever I am asked about my SQL programming experience during a job interview.

These questions range from informal (talk about your experience) to formal (please complete this questionnaire/assessment). The result is either a near philosophical conversation about database querying or a very detailed account of what projects I happened to work on in the past, respectively.
 
Both lines of discussion are useful in certain contexts, of course. One such case is when no specific role is being applied for.

But I struggle to understand how helpful they might be in learning about a candidate's programming ability to complete a specific role or project. The reason I toss this thought out there is because almost every programming script I ever wrote required me to do at least one of the following:
 
1) Read an old script I wrote that did a similar function
2) Search online for the correct syntax
3) Ask a colleague for guidance
 
Often, I would do all three. Since all three of these methods require reading (even #3, since I usually 'asked' via email), you could say my programming slogan is 'if you can read, you can code'. Just like with cooking, once certain basic knowledge about the programming language is known, you can pretty much solve any problem you want as long as someone else wrote down what you might need to know in a place where you can easily find it. But beyond listing those three points, it is tough to highlight that process-minded approach in an interview setting when the questions encourage strictly backward-looking responses.

I think my overall sense is that these types of questions do not offer much insight into how a candidate would complete the jobs I am applying for. In other words, for these specific roles, I think it is generally not relevant to talk database philosophy (since the role is not for a computer science professor) or use an assessment that asks detail-level questions like what is the difference between a clustered and non-clustered index (since most jobs tend to allow access to the internet, a useful tool for answering such questions) (1).

But if my conclusion is true, so what? Or to put it more professionally, what is the best way to assess the skill level of a candidate?

In a broad sense, this is an example of perhaps the trickiest part in defining an open position- what skills are needed prior to starting the role and what skills are OK to learn as the new hire goes (2)?

In my prior role, I faced this question and concluded that we needed to see clear evidence of the things which could not be taught (or, the things I was incapable of teaching anyone) if we were to move forward with any candidate.
 
To make an attempt to answer my own question in this context- I would either try to confirm that a candidate has the bare basics needed to quickly learn, on the job, the programming required or offer a simple short term project/contract in which a successful outcome will utilize all the skills needed that the organization is incapable of teaching a new hire.

I'm not sure this will work perfectly but it is better than what seems to be the current trend. It does at least have the advantage of tailoring the recruiting process to fit the job opening as closely as possible. And I can't (yet) think of a good reason why that would not be a strong design for any job interview.

Signed,

The Business Bro


Footnotes?

1. OK, hotshot, we know all this is a way to hide that you have no clue what a clustered index is!

Who cares? Google it. Here is the first hit from my search. It took seven seconds to find, twenty seconds to read, and the rest of the minute to understand.

My technique for googling SQL concepts is very simple. Over time, I've come to a tentative conclusion that the website Stack Overflow is my preferred source for finding answers to my SQL questions. But, I do not find the navigation within the website very helpful.

To get around this problem, I almost always type my search terms into Google and include 'stack overflow' at the end. This takes advantage of Google's superior ability to filter and find websites while ensuring that, in the event of a tie, content from my preferred website is placed atop the list.
 
2. Passion...

From my own experience, doing this part of the process properly lead to very interesting insights. One such moment involved 'passion' for the role- surely, we would seek candidates ' passionate' about the industry we were in?
 
When I took a closer look at the existing team (and company), I realized that not a single person could be described as 'passionate' about the industry. They were passionate about many things- teamwork, completing high quality work, constantly learning or growing, etc- but not about the industry. So I played a hunch and dismissed it as a category for consideration.

Was I right to do this? Possibly not. Likely not. It may have been the case that finding someone passionate about the industry would have truly transformed the team. But the team had been transformed in the past by those without this passion, too. Ultimately, it seemed a better use of time to focus on other attributes in the hiring process.

What were those attributes? They were not technical skills. Rather, they were the basic components of fitting into the team- characteristics such as an enthusiasm to learn and the ability to communicate clearly in writing. The things I or the team could teach were assessed on whether a candidate reached the bare minimum level needed to learn from us.

environments always impact behavior

Good morning,

One thing I always wonder about when riding transit is whether I will join the group standing up to form a line at the door of a train, bus, or subway before its arrival at the next stop. The merit of the approach is obvious. For me, the potential downside of losing my balance is significant enough to prevent me from doing it. Still, if it works, more power to those queuing up.

A few weeks ago, I rode the train home from Norwood into Boston with a friend. Since the train was crowded, we stood together near the exit door. As the train approached Back Bay station, passengers began to line up behind us. By the time the train pulled to a stop, the line was about fifteen people deep. Entirely by accident, I had managed to not just join the 'early standing' group- I was a co-founder!

The surprising thing was what took place in the next car. I could see it from my spot by looking through the window on the door. What I saw was very much unexpected.

No line. 

When the train stopped, the passengers getting off the train stood up from their seats and walked through the door. Surely, the train was not divided into cars of people who stand up before arrival and those who wait until the train stops to stand. So, what happened?

My conjecture is that there were plenty of riders in the second car who would have stood up had they seen one other person do so first. But since there were no riders in that car who were willing to lead the way, the riders waiting to stand never got a leader to follow.

On the other hand, the car I was riding in had a clear example- my friend and I- so everyone waiting for at least one other person to stand was comfortable enough to do so once they saw us by the door.

This moment on the train reminded me of one of my most consistent challenges in my last role. Often, I would speak or meet with someone and they would say something about how things worked in the company. 'Why can't we just do it like this?' or 'I don't understand why it happens like that!' were common expressions in these conversations. A week or two later, I might chat with someone else and hear the same thing.

The challenge I refer to above is the question of how to motivate someone to initiate. How do you get a colleague to turn an idea into a prototype?

Some companies use policy to encourage the overly cautious. They make the environment safer for failure by setting aside time each week for work on individually initiated projects. Google's use of this policy led to the creation of something I use everyday- Gmail.

These policies focus on process over outcomes. Of course, a results-oriented approach has its time and place- sometimes, all hands need to be on deck. But too much focus on narrowly defined measures of success often comes at the detriment of efficiency and accumulates costs in unmeasured areas. Such an environment is likely to discourage creativity, particularly if colleagues absorbed by the measuring results are openly skeptical of new ideas.

From my own experience, I found that pointing out an example of someone taking initiative elsewhere usually proved enough to get a reluctant colleague to try a new idea. Usually, I would say 'look at so-and-so, they had idea X last month and gave it a shot'.

It does not have to be exactly this way, of course. The main idea is to help people feel supported when they act on their conviction. Creating an environment where people feel safe to try new things is hard work but successfully doing so will lead to the growth and innovation that every organization states they are seeking to achieve.

Signed,

The Business Bro

a warm welcome from the business bro

Hi all,

Welcome to The Business Bro. This very simple space is going to highlight what I have learned (or not learned) over the years about leadership (1). Each post will cover one idea and, if possible, I'll try to highlight it with a clever, insightful, or symbolic example.

I'm sure there are questions. I've tried to anticipate a couple below in a 'Q & A' format. But do get in touch if you have more.

Q: What is a business bro?

A: A business bro is someone who talks knowledgeably about a topic in which they possess little to no knowledge. Anyone can be a business bro at any time and the topic does not need to be about business (or even about your brother). It could be anyone talking anywhere about anything. But this space will focus initially on business applications.

Q: Why should we read this?

A: I suspect I know what I'm talking about, at least most of the time. On the other hand, I was laid off from my last job as a manger so I obviously have very little idea about what I am talking about (I think this fact makes me The Business Bro, at least for now). Maybe the best approach is to read a couple of posts and decide for yourself.

Q: So is this going to be a cata-blog of your failures?

A: Possibly. One of my preferred learning techniques is to study other people's failures. That way, I can learn from them without failing on my own. I think it is only fair that I detail my own failures so others can do the same. Maybe this blog should be renamed 'Failure Potluck'.

Also, there will be puns. I should warn everyone about that now.

Q: What is the schedule for this nonsense?

A: Not entirely sure yet. Nothing would submarine the concept of this blog faster than posting when I have nothing to say.

At this time, expect one post a week of just about five hundred words or so. I'll post on Thursdays unless I have more to say than usual- in those cases, I'll let you all know that an extra post is coming and on what day.

Q: When is the next post?

A: Next Thursday (8/11) between 11am and noon. After that, I'll do a post each Thursday at the same time until I run out of ideas.

Q: Why then?

A: I think the posts are going to cover ideas aimed at long-term success. Thursday is a good time to think about long term things. And if you think hard enough, you might come up with something to work on during a light Friday.

As for the hour, well, people get bored at lunch. Maybe they'll spend a minute or two here before getting a pizza slice. I'm more committed to posting in this hour than I am to posting on Thursdays.

Any other questions?

Q: I thought I was asking the questions?

A: A good business bro always asks questions. It is a good way to cover up a lack of actual knowledge.

Q: I see.

A: ...

Q: Are you done yet? I want to hit 'refresh' on my inbox.

A: That's enough for the first day, I think.

Thanks for reading, everyone. See you next Thursday.

Signed,

The Business Bro

------------------------

Footnotes...

1. Why today?

Today marks a six year anniversary of sorts since my first day of full time work (August 2, 2010). So that is why we are starting today- though if I did cook up this idea sometime in March, I likely would not have waited until today to start. So maybe today has no real significance.