Negotiating a Job Offer: Step Back, Think Broadly

As the new semester begins, many soon-to-be-graduates are deeply immersed in the job search process.  Some already have job offers and are contemplating whether to accept those positions.  During this process, many students and recent graduates ask me about negotiating with their potential employers.  Can I negotiate? What should be the focus of my negotiation?  How do I make sure that I don't harm the relationship before I even start working?   For those students, I highly recommend a Harvard Business Review article by my friend Hannah Riley Bowles and her co-author Bobbi Thomason.  They write:

Although reaching agreement on pay and benefits is important, failure to think more broadly about your career could mean losing valuable opportunities for advancement. For instance, women are increasingly urged to negotiate for higher pay as a way to close the gender wage gap. However, studies have shown that women’s “80 cents on the dollar” is explained more by differences in men’s and women’s career trajectories than by differential pay for doing the exact same job. Our research and our work coaching executives suggest that negotiating your role (the scope of your authority and your developmental opportunities) is likely to benefit your career more than negotiating your pay and benefits does. And at times of work-life conflict, negotiating your workload and the conditions that affect it (including your responsibilities, your location, and travel requirements) may be critical to remaining gainfully employed and moving forward professionally.

They offer terrific advice for job-seekers.  Step back from your focus on the job offer that presents itself at the moment.  Start instead by considering your long-term career goals and aspirations.  How can this job help you achieve those longer term objectives?  What will it take to achieve those goals?  How can you craft the opportunity in front of you to help fulfill those aspirations?  Work backward from this focus on career goals to the more immediate issue of the potential job you are considering.  Most importantly, think broadly about all aspects of the opportunity, rather than simply about compensation.  I find this last point so important, particularly for new graduates.  An extra $5,000 may sound enticing to a student with very little remaining in their bank account at the end of college.  However, taking the long view is so critical in that situation.  Investments in growth and development, with ample opportunities to learn, will provide a long-term payoff that far exceeds that extra compensation here and now.  

How to Ask for Advice (and Why Many Ask Incorrectly)

Source: WikiHow

When we ask for advice from others, we would like their independent opinion.  In other words, we would benefit a great deal if we did not influence their response.  However, many of us frame our question or request in a way that does bias the advice we receive.  

Jessica Reif, Richard Larrick, Jack Soll have published a new paper titled "The inclusion of anchors when seeking advice: Causes and consequences." They write, "Sometimes advice seekers include their own thinking in their requests for advice, providing anchors that make it difficult for their advisors to access their own independent judgments."  For example, you might ask a colleague: How many people should I interview for an open analyst position on my team?  Alternatively, you might ask: Do you think that interviewing five people is appropriate when searching for a new analyst for my team?  In the second case, you have anchored the other party by providing a number to them.  In the first case, the more open-ended request for advice improves the chances of receiving an unbiased perspective.  

It seems obvious, right?  Don't anchor others when seeking advice. Yet, many of us do just that. Why?  The authors find that people who worry about appearing competent and/or diligent are more likely to anchor others when soliciting advice.  In other words, we often worry about the impression that we are making.  Asking a completely open-ended question makes some us feel as they though we may seem clueless to the other party.  

How does one signal competence without anchoring the other party (i.e., while preserving the independence of the other party's advice)?  Feif, Larrick, and Soll demonstrate that one can do so by using a "preparation signal."  They offer an example: “I have calculated what I think is reasonable but am interested in hearing what you think."  In short, let the other party know that you have done some research and come to your own conclusion, but you do not wish to disclose because you want their unbiased advice.  In one of their studies, they tested the usefulness of such a signal.  They concluded, "The key insight is that a preparation signal– an indication that the advice seeker made an estimate prior to the interaction but is withholding it– may be similarly effective in accomplishing impression management objectives without introducing potentially biasing information into the advice interaction. This finding is important because it offers advice seekers a strategy for simultaneously accomplishing impression management and independence goals."

Withstanding External Pressure When Making Decisions

Source: NFL.com

Conventional wisdom often asserts that strong familiarity and cohesion within a group leads to a high risk of groupthink.  In other words, a strong sense of social belonging within a team can lead to pressures to conform, which in turn can diminish the quality of decisions that a team makes.  However, might that strong in-group familiarity be helpful when it comes to resisting external pressures?  Amanda Ferguson and her colleagues studied that question in a new paper titled, "Relieving the Pressure: Team Familiarity Attenuates External Conformity Pressure on Team Member Decisions."  

Ferguson and her colleagues conducted an ingenious study of NCAA football officiating crews.  They examined data from 2012-2015 to measure "crew familiarity" - i.e., how often had referees worked together.  Then, they evaluated officiating crews' performance during the 2016 football season.  Ferguson and her co-authors studied whether crews with more experience working together were more or less vulnerable to pressure from the home crowd when making penalty calls.  In short, the home crowd represented what they called "external conformity pressure."  They discovered a meaningful relationship between in-group familiarity and external conformity pressure, particularly when the stakes are very high: 

"Crews with 20 games of experience working together call 0.92 fewer penalties on the visiting team when under high pressure, and crews with 30 games of experience working together call 1.56 fewer penalties on the visiting team under these conditions. Although the magnitudes of changes in penalties may seem small, they represent anywhere from a 15% to 25% difference from the average number of visiting team penalties, which is consistent with effects reported in previous studies on the influence of crowds on referee penalty calls."  

In other words, in-group familiarity and cohesion seems to provide a protective effect, leading teams to not be as susceptible to external conformity pressure, particularly in high-stakes situations.  The scholars conducted a second experimental study examining the same factors.  That study largely corroborated the findings from the NCAA referee research. 

What's the practical implication for business leaders?  We know that many managers feel pressure to conform to industry standards and conventional wisdom.  Companies often tend to exhibit herd behavior in industries, with competitors mimicking the actions of industry market share leaders. Perhaps, more seasoned management teams with a history of working together are less likely to succumb to the pressure to conform to "standard practice" within the industry.  They might be more likely to take risks, be different, and stake out a distinctive competitive position.  Teams with less familiarity may not be able to resist the pressure to conform to conventional wisdom.   

Some of My Favorite Books That I Read in 2024

 

Here are some of the thought-provoking and interesting books that I've read in 2024.   I hope you enjoy taking a look at some of these stimulating reads.  

Selecting a Leader: Lessons from the Patriots' Jerod Mayo Experiment

Source: Yahoo Sports

Selecting a leader can be a vexing challenge for many organizations.  As the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance reported last year, the median CEO tenure in S&P 500 companies dropped by 20% from 2013-2022.  The median tenure of a CEO was 4.8 years according to that research.   The National Football League is even more challenging when it comes to leader selection.  The average tenure of an NFL coach equals roughly 3 years.  

Here in New England, a debate has intensified in recent days about the future of Patriots head coach Jerod Mayo.   The team has fallen mightily from its two-decade run of dominance with Tom Brady as its quarterback.   The Patriots dismissed their legendary coach, Bill Belichick, last year and replaced with him with young defensive assistant Jerod Mayo.  Now, the team has only won 3 games (against 11 losses) to date this season, and the young head coach has struggled badly.  Was it a good hire, and would it be wise to move on from a new coach after just one year?  Is that fair to Mayo?

First, we have to review a few basic facts that suggest Mayo would be an outlier if he succeeds as head coach.  

• According to an ESPN study from 2009-2018, the average head coach in the league had 19.5 years of coaching at various levels before becoming an NFL head coach.  Mayo had just 5 years of experience.
• That same story concluded that "It's common for new coaching candidates to have more than one influence."  Mayo had only played and coached for one man, Bill Belichick, in his entire playing and coaching career.
• Former Belichick assistants have mostly floundered as head coaches in the league, as I documented in a 2022 blog post. At the time, I compiled the win-loss record of former Belichick assistants. I wrote: "175 wins, 252 losses, and 1 tie for a winning percentage of 40.9%. That's awful. Only one of his former assistants managed to compile a winning record (Bill O'Brien with 52 wins and 48 losses).
• Finally, in another blog post from 2021, I examined the idea of the curse of expertise among NFL coaches.  I wrote, 
• "33 coaches have won the 54 Super Bowls that have taken place. Several coaches have earned multiple championships, including Bill Belichick (6) and Chuck Noll (4). Of those coaches, only 1 man made the Pro Football Hall of Fame as a player (Mike Ditka). Only 2 men earned Pro Bowl status as players (Mike Ditka and his mentor, Tom Landry, who made it to one Pro Bowl as a punter for the New York Giants in the 1950s). None of the other Super Bowl winning coaches earned Pro Bowl status as a player." 
• I attributed this lack of championship success by star players to the curse of expertise. I described this challenge as follows: "Put simply, experts sometimes have a difficult time teaching much less experienced and accomplished people. Why? They forget what's it like to be in the novice's shoes. They can't predict the types of challenges and problems that the novice will face when mastering a new skill. In many cases, the expert may not even be fully aware of the "how" behind certain highly effective results. It comes so naturally to them that they don't have a complete understanding of the process that leads to those successful outcomes."

Now, none of these statistics suggests that Mayo has no chance at turning things around in New England.  Some great coaches have had awful starts to their career and then gone on to remarkable success (see Bill Walsh and Tom Landry, for example).  They inherited terrible teams, embarked on a lengthy turnaround process, and learned from early stumbles.   

Some news reports suggest that the Kraft family wishes to stick with Mayo despite the tough first year.  However, the Kraft family has to consider whether they might be succumbing to the sunk cost trap.  Are they reluctant to cut their losses because of how much they have invested in Mayo?  Is he truly better than other alternatives that are going to be available this offseason?

Companies face similar challenges when hiring leaders.  Sometimes, they choose to value attributes and skills, or even personality, rather than emphasizing depth of experience.  That might be the right call; experience is not the only valuable element of a person's qualifications.  However, companies should question whether they are, at times, under-rating the value of experience - both in terms of years and quality/range of past work.   Are they being wowed by charisma, or simply blown away by how well someone interviews?  Understanding the types of experiences that are most likely to help someone succeed is crucial.  Learning on the job is difficult for any leader, but particularly for those who don't have a reservoir of relevant experiences upon which they can draw in challenging situations.  

Amplifying Ambiguous Risks at Nvidia

Source: Getty Images

How do leaders make sure they are hearing the unvarnished truth? How can they cut through the bureaucracy and access unfiltered information? Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, Ben Cohen describes one technique employed by Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia. Cohen draws from a new book by Tae Kim (“The Nvidia Way").   Cohen and Kim describe the infamous T5T memos that Huang reads each week. 

T5T notes (Top 5 Things) come from employees at all levels of Nvidia.  Huang reads them all.  They describe issues that they are noticing, concerns they have, or simply exciting and interesting things that they are working on in their areas.  He reads them all while sipping a glass of his favorite Scotch on a Sunday evening.  Cohen describes Huang's rationale for reading all these emails:

"The documents that make it to a typical CEO tend to get so watered down along the way that they’re liable to leave a puddle on his desk. Huang doesn’t bother with any of them. He doesn’t believe in formal strategic planning or status reports, either. “Status reports are meta-information by the time you get them,” Huang said last year. “They’re barely informative.” He doesn’t want information that has already made its way through layers of management. What he wants is 'information from the edge,' he said last month in a public interview with Laurene Powell Jobs."

In research with Amy Edmondson and Richard Bohmer, we have described how organizations tend to downplay ambiguous risks. Leaders and their teams discount warning signs that are unclear and fraught with incomplete information. As a result, organizations miss opportunities to recover from initial problems and develop solutions. Larger, more serious failures result from the inability to assess ambiguous threats effectively. Huang seems to be purposefully using the T5T memos to identify and amplify these ambiguous risks, and to make sure that the bureaucracy doesn't dampen or paper over important threats.

In Kim's book, Huang explains, “I’m looking to detect the weak signals. It’s easy to pick up the strong signals, but I want to intercept them when they are weak.”

Do You Really Want a Team Full of Self-Starters?

Is it effective to have many proactive members on your team?   You might think the answer is quite obvious.   Who wouldn't want a set of self-starters on a team?  Well, think again.  Kyle J. Emich and his co-authors have written an interesting new paper titled "Better Together: Member Proactivity Is Better for Team Performance When Aligned with Conscientiousness."  Interestingly, they used the Everest Simulation that I co-authored with Amy Edmondson as the basis for one of two studies conducted for this paper.   

These scholars find that the alignment of proactivity with conscientious leads to the best results.  In other words, teams are most effective if highly proactive individuals are also quite conscientious.  Meanwhile, teams are better off if the least conscientious members are not very proactive.   Why does this alignment (high-high and low-low) work best for teams?  The scholars find that it leads to more effective coordination among team members. They write:

At the outset of this paper, we asked how organizations should create teams that are proactive, but that also engage in the planning necessary to coordinate that proactivity and perform well. Taken together, our studies reveal that teams in which member proactivity and conscientiousness align within team members across the team are more coordinated and perform better than teams in which these attributes are unaligned.

It makes intuitive sense to me.  You do not want self-starters who take initiative, but then are unlikely to do the hard work required to follow through on their commitments.  We have all been part of groups in which some people don't fulfill their commitments.  Think about the Project Aristotle research project conducted at Google by Julia Rozovsky.  She and her colleagues studied more than 150 teams at Google, and they tried to identify the attributes that distinguished the highest performing teams from the lowest.  Dependability was one of the five key characteristics of the highest performing teams.  In those groups, members could count on others to do what they said they would do.