How Do We Avoid Getting Caught by Surprise?

Why do we get caught by surprise at times? A competitor catches us off guard with an innovative new product launch. A new social trend emerges that shifts consumer tastes substantially. A sudden shift in workforce engagement and employee turnover stuns us. How can we avoid getting surprised by such changes?   

In a new study, Nir Halevy, Elizabeth Miclau, and Serena Lee argue that the traditional explanations may not suffice.  Conventional wisdom suggests that such surprises often occur because managers fail to gather, attend to, and evaluate information effectively.  They stick to pre-existing beliefs rather than adjusting their conclusions based on new data, or they dismiss those with dissenting views.  In short, people miss the signals because they are not processing information effectively.  Halevy and colleagues provide an alternative explanation.  In their paper, published American Psychologist, the researchers posit that, "strategic surprises emerge when individuals, organizations, and nations think too abstractly or too concretely during strategic interactions."  Stanford Leadership Insights summarizes the scholars' main argument:

"The researchers suggest that people and institutions can be caught off guard when they think too abstractly or too concretely about the information related to a particular situation. The quality of information matters, but so does the framework in which it is interpreted.  Overly abstract thinking relies on broad schemas that can lead decision-makers to apply poorly fitting mental models, misjudge possible threats or opportunities, or assume that others will behave in stereotypical ways. Concrete thinking, on the other hand, involves being deeply immersed in the minutiae of a specific situation, which can lead people to ignore broad trends." 

Thus, the scholars suggest that we shift between abstract and concrete thinking as we evaluate data about emerging trends, marketplace dynamics, and consumer preferences.  In so doing, we are more likely to arrive at robust conclusions.  You are less likely to get caught off guard.  

Who is More Empathetic: Intuitive or Analytical People?

The British Psychological Society's Research Digest features new work by Christine Ma-Kellams of the University of La Verne and Jennifer Lerner of Harvard. They focus on empathy, something that has gotten a great deal of attention in the management field recently. The human-centered design movement emphasizes empathy with customers as a key tool for driving innovation. Meanwhile, efforts to improve employee engagement have focused on the need for managers to empathize with their subordinates. La Verne and Lerner study how different types of people engage in empathy, and their results prove rather surprising. The Research Digest summarizes their conclusions: 

Reading what other people are feeling is an important skill that helps us navigate conflicts, deepen relationships, and negotiate effectively. So what’s the best way to approach this? New research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology suggests that most of us believe that the best approach is to trust our instincts. But the paper goes on to show that, on the contrary, accurate empathy comes from operating deliberately and analytically.

What explains this surprising finding that contradicts the conventional wisdom?  The authors argue that reading others' emotions often proves very difficult.  The cues are not always obvious or clear.  Therefore, it takes some effort to discern how others are feeling.   That's where a more analytical mindset has value.   Focusing on details, evaluating a situation comprehensively, and deliberately analyzing a variety of cues turns out to be crucial to empathizing with others in many situations.  Instincts alone do not always do the job.  

Depth of Analysis Inversely Related to Importance of Decision

On Monday, while teaching an executive leadership program, an executive made a terrific observation.  He said, "Often, it seems that the rigor and depth of our analysis is inversely to the importance of the decision."  He meant that the finance organization seemed to scrutinize investment proposals by lower level managers quite extensively.  Yet, when the CEO or a member of the top team wanted to make an acquisition or embark on some other major investment initiative, the proposal often received less scrutiny.  I was taken aback, because that observation rings true given my experience with many organizations from across a range of industries.

Why does that happen in organizations?  In many cases, lots of analysis does take place on the proposals put forth by senior executives, but those initiatives are essentially fait accompli.   The analysis cannot stop the deal from moving forward.  It may even simply be rationalizing decisions that have already been made.  Meanwhile, for lower level managers, their proposals get put through the ringer, because they don't yet have the senior level sponsorship.