Avoiding Leading Questions

In yesterday's blog post, I discussed the way you frame a question has a significant influence on whether others will reveal problems, risks, and bad news to you as a leader.   In this blog post, I would like to expand on the topic of asking the leading question.   

We often find ourselves asking leading questions without even being fully aware of our behavior.  We do not recognize how our mental models and assumptions have shaped our inquiries in ways that may influence the way people respond to us.   

Years ago, psychologist Elizabeth Loftus studied the issue of leading questions.  She found that small changes in the way that we phrase a question can matter a great deal (similar to the research cited in yesterday's blog post).   For instance, she showed research subjects the video of a car accident in one study.   For some individuals, she asked them how fast the car was traveling when it drove through a stop sign.  Fo others, she simply asked them about the car's speed when turning right, without mentioning the stop sign.   Later, not surprisingly, when asked if they had seen the stop sign, more people responded affirmatively if the question referred to the road sign.   Loftus describes the inclusion of the stop sign as a "presupposition" - “a condition that must hold in order for the question to be contextually appropriate.”

In a later experiment, Loftus examined the impact of including false presuppositions in our questions.  After showing research subjects a video of another car accident, she asked some of them, “How fast was the white sports car going when it passed the barn while traveling along the country road?” She posed others a similar question, but without mentioning the barn at all.   The barn actually never appears in the video.  Later, she asked all the research subjects if they had seen the barn in the video.  Sure enough, many individuals in the first group reported spotting the barn - they were led to believe it existed by the phrasing of the question posed to them.  

Do managers include presuppositions in their questions?  Sure, we all do at times.   Consider the question, “How much will market share rise if we increase our advertising spending?” This question presumes that more advertising spending will increase sales, and more so for the manager's firm than for competitors.  What if the advertising drives primary demand, increasing sales for the entire prodcut category (but therefore, not improving market share)?  What if competitors respond/match the spending hike, and therefore, it has no effect on market share at all?   The words "how much" at the start of the question may distort the responses that one receives.   

[This post summarizes the discussion of leading questions in my book, Know What You Don't Know.]  

Phrasing the Question: Start by Presuming a Problem

Julia Minson, Eric VanEpps, Jeremy Yip, and Maurice Schweitzer have published a new paper titled, "Eliciting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: The effect of question phrasing on deception."  They report their research regarding the impact that question phrasing has on a counterparty's willingness to reveal critical information.  They examine this issue in the context of negotiations and job interviews.  

Minson and her colleagues contrast three types of inquiries:  positive assumption questions (presume that no problem exists), negative assumption questions (assume a problem exists), and general assumption questsions (no mention of a problem). The authors provide an example of positive vs. negative inquiries. Positive: “This car doesn’t have any problems, right?” Negative: “What is wrong with this car that you are trying to sell me?”  

The authors conduct a series of studies to examine the impact that different types of questions have on a counterparty's behavior. They find that negative questions elicit the revelation of more critical information about problems.  In an interview with Knowledge@Wharton, Van Epps concludes, "“People are much more likely to disclose problems when you presume [there is a] problem.”  

These scholars examine questions in the context of job interviews and negotiations, but I think an even more important application might be for leaders assessing risk in their organizations.  We know that bad news often does not rise to the top in organizations.  How can leaders uncover hidden risks before small problems have become major crises?  This study suggests that leaders should ask probing questions that presume a problem exists, rather than inquiring in ways that assume things are going smoothly.  

We Underestimate the Power of a Thank You Note

Source: Pixabay

Several months ago, I drafted a blog post about a rather discouraging piece of research on gratitude. Jeremy Yip, Cindy Chan, Kelly Kiyeon Lee, and Alison Wood Brooks conducted a study regarding competitive negotiations. They discovered that "negotiators are likely to respond selfishly and opportunistically to gratitude expressed in competitive deal-making situations." 

Today I have some encouraging news about gratitude. Amit Kumar and Nicholas Epley have published some interesting work in Psychological Science based on a series of experiments that they conducted. The scholars asked people to write thank you notes to people who had a positive impact on them in some way. The researchers also asked each note writer to predict how the recipient would feel upon receiving the expression of gratitude. The British Psychological Society's Research Digest recently summarized the key findings from this research. 

The senders of the thank-you letters consistently underestimated how positive the recipients felt about receiving the letters and how surprised they were by the content. The senders also overestimated how awkward the recipients felt; and they underestimated how warm, and especially how competent, the recipients perceived them to be. Age and gender made no difference to the pattern of findings.

Other experiments showed that these same misjudgments affect our willingness to write thank-you messages. For instance, participants who felt less competent about writing a message of gratitude were less willing to send one; and, logically enough, participants were least willing to send thank-you messages to recipients who they felt would benefit the least.

Kumar and Epley believe that this asymmetry between the perspective of the potential expresser of gratitude and the recipient means that we often refrain from a “powerful act of civility” that would benefit both parties.

The lesson is clear... take the time to write that thank you note, becuase it will probably have more of an impact than you believe. You might just make someone's day, and it won't take much effort on your part to do so.

Should You Hire for Cultural Fit or Not?

For decades, executives have stressed the importance of hiring for cultural fit.  You often hear discussions about cultural fit among people on recruitment and selection committees, as well as by people working for executive search firms.   Recently, though, Adam Grant of the Wharton School has made an important point about the downside of hiring for cultural fit, and he's received a great deal of attention for his thought-provoking and insightful comments.  Here's what Grant has said, as reported in an interview with Dan Schawbel for Fortune. 

First, stop hiring on cultural fit. That’s a great way to breed groupthink. Emphasizing cultural fit leads you to bring in a bunch of people who think in similar ways to your existing employees. There’s evidence that once a company goes public, those that hire on cultural fit actually grow more slowly because they struggle to innovate and change. It’s wiser to follow the example from the design firm IDEO, and hire on cultural contribution. Instead of looking for people who fit the culture, ask what’s missing from your culture, and select people who can bring that to the table.

Is he right?  I htink he makes a strong argument for avoiding groupthink.  Managers do have a very unfortunate tendency to hire people who look, think, and act much as they do.  To be effective, leaders need to consider hiring people who think differently, who complement and augment their own skills and abilities (rather than replicating the expertise and modes of thinking already on the team).   

Having said that, I think there are some important aspects of "fit" that need to be considered when hiring.  Otherwise, new employees will either face organ rejection at their new firms, or they will have an adverse impact on the organization's effectiveness.  First and foremost, it's very important to make sure that a new hire shares the same values as the organization he or she will be joining.  Second, does the new hire believe in the mission of the enterprise?  Do they feel passionately about the organization's purpose?   They may have different views about the means to achieve those objectives.  That's healthy.   Finally, will the person's leadership approach enable others to succeed?  Hopefully, the hiring organization has leaders in place who have created a safe place where others can speak up, discuss mistakes, express dissent, and ask challenging questions.   New hires have to be able to create a safe climate for their employees as well.  If they a history of acting in ways that discourage others from speaking up, then they won't "fit" and they will have an adverse impact on the organization's effectiveness.  

Preparing for a Storm: Lessons for Business Leaders from Hurricane Research

Knowledge at Wharton features an interview this week with Professor Robert Meyer regarding his research on hurricane preparation (or lack thereof, by many citizens). Here's an excerpt: 

Knowledge@Wharton: How difficult is it to get people to be proactive?

Meyer: It varies. We’ve done some studies as to who is prepared for storms and who isn’t. What we find is that the people who are the most at danger of not preparing are those who have been through a storm but not a very strong one. Effectively, they think that they’ve survived a hurricane, but they actually haven’t.

On the other hand, surprisingly, people who are often better prepared are people who move into an area and have never been through a storm. They’re listening to the end-of-the-world broadcasts that are coming on television and saying, “I’ve just moved to Miami or the mid-Atlantic, and I’m going to believe what they tell me on the news, that I’d better really prepare.” These people do prepare. Unfortunately, what happens is that then when the storm comes through and they find nothing really happened, then the next time they figure, well, maybe I might prepare a little bit but not as much.

Source: Wikipedia

What's the lesson for business leaders?  How does this research finding apply beyond the scope of hurricane preparation?  Consider the types of competitive threats that your company faces?  Have you coped with similar threats in the past?  If you have, and if the threats were mild in nature, that might make you less likely to take future threats seriously.   You might think, "I've been through this before, and it wasn't so bad. It won't harm our business."   

Repeated mild threats leads to a sort of dampening of our sensivity to risk.  Diane Vaughan wrote about this concept many years ago in her research on the Challenger space shuttle accident.  She described the phenomenon as the "normalization of deviance."  Basically, the unexpected can gradually become the expected, which can then gradually become an acceptable risk.   To an outsider, of course, a threat can seem much more serious and severe. They have never seen this type of risk in the past.  The lesson, then, is that you might want to make sure that you engage both new leaders and incumbent managers in a constructive debate when assessing competitive threats.  The new voices can bring a necessary sense of urgency to the conversation, and they can perhaps help the organization assess the risk in a more accurate way.  

Generalists vs. Specialists: Boosting Creativity on Your Team

Scholars Florenta Teodoridis, Michael Bikard, and Keyvan Vakili have completed a new study regarding the role of generalists vs. specialists in the creative process. They posed the following hypothesis, as described in a recent Harvard Business Review post:

We theorized that the benefits of being a generalist are strongest in fields with a slower pace of change. In these fields (think oil and gas, mining), it might be harder for specialists to come up with new ideas and identify new opportunities, while generalists may be able to find inspiration from other areas. We also theorized that the situation flips for fields with a faster pace of change. In this case (think of quickly evolving fields such as quantum computers and gene editing), generalists may struggle to stay up to date, while specialists can more easily make sense of new technical developments and opportunities as they arise.

How did they study this question, and what did they find? The researchers examined the breakthroughs in mathematics by scholars in the Soviet Union from 1980-2000. They specifically wanted to look at the work being conducted during the Soviet era, when the pace of change was slow, to the period after the Soviet Union collapsed, when the pace of change increased substantially. Their detailed study confirmed their initial hypotheses. As they noted, "Generalists appear to be relatively successful as long as the pace of change is not too rapid, but their productivity decreases when the pace of change increases. At the same time, specialists appear to perform better when the pace of change accelerates."

Experts and Innovation

Stanford Professor Riitta Katila describes the role experts should and should not play on a team when it comes to developing breakthrough innovations. Check out the video clip below, in which she describes lessons from her research:

The Economics of Vacations

Kellogg Insight has published an interesting feature about key research findings from its faculty with regard to the economics and psychology of summer vacations. One of my favorite segments focuses on Tom Hubbard's research on demand shocks. Full disclosure: Tom , his sister, and I went to high school together. He's a terrific strategy researcher. Here's an excerpt, explaining what he learned about demand shocks by studying how the interstate highway system's development affected the gas station industry:

Perhaps you’ll decide to drive to your destination. You probably didn’t know that the gas stations you will pass reveal an interesting economic lesson about demand shocks.  Demand shocks represent a sudden rise or drop in consumers' desire to purchase a good or service. Empirical evidence of how companies and industries respond to demand shocks is hard to come by in large part because shocks, such as a particularly effective advertising campaign, happen everywhere at once.

Strategy professor Thomas Hubbard found inspiration for a way to study demand shocks in memories of family vacations.  "When I was a kid riding in the car to Florida, I-95 wasn't completed yet, and we had to take side roads," he says. What, he wondered, happened to the gas stations in towns after the interstate arrived? "I realized that these were demand shocks."

Studying demand shocks to gas stations during the construction of the interstate highway system was useful because "they're observable many times over many years in many regions," Hubbard says.  He combined government data on gas stations with data on when every mile of the interstate opened. He also poured over old maps to figure out what the best route was between two cities in the 1950s, before the interstate arrived, then measured how far that route was from the new interstate.

Hubbard found that when interstates were built close to existing roads, gas stations responded to the increased demand by expanding in size and hiring more employees, but few additional stations were built. When a new interstate opened several miles or more from the previous highway, entirely new gas stations opened up to service the demand, but the size of existing stations stayed the same.  The results suggest that entry opportunities in expanding markets are not as simple to exploit as they might seem.

New Version of Columbia Multimedia Case Study

I'm pleased to announce that Harvard Business Publishing has released a completely updated version of the award-winning multimedia case study about the Columbia space shuttle accident that Amy Edmondson, Richard Bohmer, and I created, along with our research associates Erika Ferlins and Laura Feldman.  The updated technology provides a much better experience for students and instructors, while maintaining the rich detail about the communications and information flow among managers and engineers during the shuttle mission.  The case offers important lessons about how to manage ambiguous risks and threats, create a culture where people feel comfortable speaking up and sharing bad news, make timely and effective high-stakes decisions, and build high performing teams.  Thank you to the entire technology team at HBS for working so hard to design this updated multimedia experience!  

Design Thinking is Hard on the Brain

In a new article published in Research-Technology Management (When Cognition Interferes with Innnovation:  Overcoming Cognitive Obstalces to Design Thinking), my colleague Allison Butler and I offer one plausible explanation for why many individuals struggle with the design thinking process. We argue that design thinking is "hard on the brain."   In developing our argument, we draw upon six years of work in curriculum design, teaching, and research on design thinking - including the creation and execution of Bryant University's IDEA program (an intense, three-day design thinking experience that all 850+ first-year students undertake each year).   

We believe that all individuals have the capacity to be creative, yet we often think, reason, and process information in ways that hinder our ability to innovate. Our brains are wired to operate as efficiently as possible, which is ideal for making our way in the world in daily life, but an impediment to successful design thinking.  The article examines the cognitive obstacles at each stage of the design thinking process, and we offer strategies for overcoming these impediments.  

For instance, we describe how our tendency to engage in top down processing when we observe a situation can cause us to miss important details about user behavior.   Moreover, we explain how inattentional blindness and confirmation bias afflict many people trying to conduct field research and empathize with users.  During the ideation stage of the design thinking process, fixation becomes a significant problem.  People get stuck on ideas within a particular category during the brainstorming process, and they fail to generate a sufficiently diverse range of concepts and solutions.   Finally, during the prototyping and testing stage, a number of cognitive obstacles impede our ability to learn, adapt, and iterate effectively.  For instance, our tendency to rationalize our own failures as due to external circumstances rather than internal causes (the fundamental attribution error) prevents us from using feedback effectively to iterate and improve our solution.   Similarly, the sunk cost effect means that we often find ourselves throwing good money and effort after bad, rather than abandoning solutions that receive negative user feedback. 

How do individuals overcome these obstacles?   That's the key contribution of our article.  Based on our work with many students and practitioners, we describe countermeasures to address these cognitive obstacles.  The article offers a number of such strategies.  One of my favorite is the notion of engaging in parallel rather than serial prototyping.  We draw upon research that shows how parallel prototyping can help people avoid fixation and premature convergence on one type of solution, and it can help individuals receive and utilize user feedback more effectively.   For an in-depth explanation of each our countermeasures, I hope you will take a look at the article.  

Looking for Labor Market Inefficiencies

Miriam Gottfried and Laura Cooper have written an article in the Wall Street Journal this week about billionaire investor Robert Smith and his private equity firm, Vista Equity Partners. The article examines the company's secretive "formula" for evaluating investment opportunities and enhancing performance in portfolio companies. I was particularly struck by the fact that the company uses an intelligence test to evaluate job candidates. Here's an excerpt describing this test: 

A proprietary cognitive assessment, similar to an IQ test, includes questions on logic, pattern recognition, vocabulary, sentence completion and math. The test inspires consternation and fear among existing employees, according to former employees. Vista primarily hires job applicants who do well, often young people with modest credentials or experience. These are its “high performing entry-level” workers, or HPELs.

Later in the article, Gottfriend and Cooper describe the people often hired by Vista Equity Partners:

Most of the people Vista hires score highly on the cognitive test. Often they are young employees with less-impressive credentials or experience. These HPELs, as they are known, may have gone to state universities and be willing to do a job for $75,000 that an Ivy League graduate in a high-cost market would demand twice as much for.

I've always been highly skeptical of using intelligence tests to evaluate job candidates for several reasons. First, I'm never quite sure of the validity of the tests being used. Second, I think performance on the job is driven by many factors beyond raw intellectual horsepower. Emotional intelligence, ability to work on a team, communication skills, and other skills play a major role in a new employee's success in the workplace. Finally, I wonder if these tests do have a bias toward younger candidates who have recently completed school (the article discusses this point). 

Having said that, the interesting part of Vista's strategy seems to be its use of the test to target exceptionally intelligent candidates from lesser-known colleges and universities. Vista seems to recognize that companies often pay a hefty premium for graduates from elite institutions such as Columbia, where company chief executive Robert Smith earned his MBA. Companies have a hard time evaluating young candidates, and so they use a diploma from an elite school as a signal of quality. 

However, firms may be missing the opportunity to recruit great talent if they focus exclusively on the "signal" provided by a degree from an elite institution. What if a firm could identify the best talent from the non-elite schools and thereby acquire great talent at a much lower price? That seems to be the question that Vista has asked and tried to answer using this intelligence test and other tools. They appear to be using the test to exploit a labor market inefficiency. The article, unfortunately, does not have too much detail on the Vista approach, given the highly secretive nature of the firm's methods. It would be interesting to know more so as to ascertain the merits and drawbacks of this aproach.

Shrink to Grow: Why Don't More Companies Adopt This Strategy?

As we witness the breakup of GE, a thought comes to mind regarding a rarely used corporate strategy - namely, the "shrink to grow" approach.   Many years ago, I went to work for General Dynamics after graduation.  When I began working there, General Dynamics was #44 on the Fortune 500 list of the largest American firms by revenue.  However, the company had been hit by acquisitions scandals and a string of very disappointing financial results.  Then the firm witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the US government began to shrink defense spending in key areas affecting the firm's businesses.  The company's leadership knew that consolidation needed to occur in the defense industry.   General Dynamics sold many of its major businesses, including its largest business unit (which manufactured the F-16 fighter jet) as well as smaller units such as its Cessna Aviation division.  

By the mid-1990s, General Dynamics had two major divisions remaining:  one unit produced nuclear submaries, and other manufactured tanks and other armored vehicles.   In 1996, General Dynamics ranked only #350 on the Fortune 500 list.  In the years that followed though, the company began to grow again, building on these two remaining platforms.  It acquired Bath Iron Works, for instance, to expand its shipbuilding business beyond submarines (Bath produced destroyers).   It made a series of other acquisitions as well.  By 2005, General Dynamics had risen to #115 on the Fortune 500 list.   Moreover, the company became highly profitable and delivered strong shareholder returns in this era.   

Why don't more companies adopt a "shrink to grow" approach when experiencing poor financial results and/or other crises/scandals?   Many executives hate the thought of shrinking, of leading a much smaller organization.   They focus on the top line (revenue) and market share, rather than thinking about how to position the organization to thrive in the long run.   As we watch GE shrink now, perhaps we will see that it positions the organization to succeed and grow again over time.  More companies should consider this strategic approach. 

The Downside of Open Office Environments

Harvard scholars Ethan Bernstein and Stephen Turban have published an intriguing new study regarding open office environments. The study is distinctive because of its methodology. The scholars used sociometric badges and microphones to monitor the face-to-face interactions of employees before and after the switch from cubicles to an open-office layout. As a result, they did not rely on people's feelings and perceptions about the layout, but instead, they collected objective data about the impact that a change in office environment had on human interactions. The scholars discovered that face-to-face interaction dropped substantially after the shift to an open-office layout. Here is a summary of the research findings, from the British Psychological Society's Research Digest:  

The results were stark: after the shift to an open-plan office space, the participants spent 73 per cent less time in face-to-face interactions, while their use of email and instant messenger shot up by 67 per cent and 75 per cent respectively.

A second study involving 100 employees at another Fortune 500 company was similar but this time the researchers monitored changes to the nature of the interactions between specific pairs of colleagues before the shift to an open-plan office compared with afterwards.

There were 1830 interacting dyads and, of these, 643 reduced their amount of face-to-face interaction after the workspace became open-plan, compared with just 141 showing more physical interaction. Overall, face-to-face time decreased by around 70 per cent across the participating employees, on average, with email use increasing by between 22 per cent and 50 per cent (depending on the estimation method used).