Netflix: Geography, Age, Gender Not Good Predictors

David Morris wrote an article this week for Fortune titled, "Netflix: Geography, Age, and Gender are 'Garbage' for Predicting Taste." Morris writes, 

"'Geography, age, and gender? We put that in the garbage heap,' VP of product Todd Yellin said. Instead, viewers are grouped into “clusters” almost exclusively by common taste, and their Netflix homepages highlight the relatively small slice of content that matches their taste profile. Those profiles could be the same for someone in New Orleans as someone in New Delhi (though they would likely have access to very different libraries)."

Why is this statement so fascinating?  To me, it speaks directly to Netflix's competitive advantage.  If geography, age, and gender were, in fact, accurate predictors of viewers' preferences, then Netflix would have a far less formidable advantage over rivals.  Why?  Well, those variables are easy to identify and measure.  Others can get access to that data quite easily and build predictive algorithms using that information.  However, if more accurate predictive algorithms involve data that are not as publicly available, then Netflix has a key advantage.  In other words, if the predictive power rests with variables that come from proprietary data that Netflix has collected about us, then the sustainability of Netflix's advantage over competitors rises substantially.  The same holds true for any company trying to take advantage of "big data" to develop predictive algorithms.   The key is to unearth variables that matter, but hopefully, variables that are not easily identified and measured by others.  

Andy Grove: Silicon Valley Legend

Source: Time magazine

Andy Grove died this week.   A Silicon Valley legend, Grove led Intel for many years.  In 1997, Time named him its man of the year for his profound impact on society as the leader of one of the firms behind the computer revolution.  

Grove wrote one of my favorite CEO-authored books of all time - Only the Paranoid Survive.  In the book, he discusses the importance of constructive conflict as a means of making sound decisions particularly at strategic inflection points.   Here's an excerpt:

It is important to realize what the purpose of these debates is and what it isn't.  Don't think for a moment that at the end of such debates all participants will arrive at a unanimous point of view.  That's naive. However, through the process of presenting their opinions, the participants will refine their own arguments and facts so that they are in much clearer focus.  Gradually all parties can cut through the murkiness that surrounds their arguments, clearly understand the issues and each other's point of view.  Debates are like the process through which a photographer sharpens the contrast when developing a print.  The clearer images that result permit management to make a more informed - and more likely correct - call.  The point is strategic inflection points are rarely clear.  Well-informed and well-intentioned people will look at the same picture and assign dramatically different interpretations to it.  So it is extraordinarily important to bring the intellectual power of all parties to this sharpening process. 

Empathy for Workers, not just Users

Much attention has focused in recent years on the need for product developers to demonstrate empathy for the users, so as to understand how products can be improved to suit their needs.  Empathy is at the heart of human-centered design.   However, more attention should also be focused on the notion that leaders need to show empathy for their front-line employees just as much as they should for their customers.   Here's Kamakshi Sivaramakrishnan, CEO of Drawbridge, explaining to Adam Bryant of the New York Times how important empathy is to her leadership style:

The one thing that has remained consistent is that I’ve always respected people who lead from the front. A sense of empathy is extremely crucial to being a good leader. And it comes much more naturally if you’ve walked in their path.  The best way to inspire respect in people is when you can do what they’ve done or when you’re in the trenches with them. You can’t do that every minute of every day, but that is certainly something that I have respected in strong leaders.

The Downside of Employee Recognition Programs

Could there be a potential downside to non-monetary award programs for employees? Management scholars Timothy Gubler, Ian Larkin, Lamar Pierce set out to examine this important question. They collected data from an attendance award program at an industrial laundry plant. The company recognized employees with perfect attendance at an all-hands meeting. From among those recognized, one person's name was randomly selected to receive a $75 gift card. 

The researchers discovered that people did respond positively to the incentive for perfect attendance. However, people also tried to game the system, and their attendance record sagged after they lost eligibility for the recognition. The scholars also found that, "The awards crowded out intrinsic motivation in internally-motivated employees, who were already performing well by coming on time in the absence of rewards. These employees had increased tardiness after the program was implemented and they lost eligibility." In other words, the recognition program caused a drop in motivation among those workers already doing the right thing with regard to attendance.  The drop in internal motivation by these good employees led to a slight drop in productivity in the plant overall. Gubler explained the findings to Science Daily:

"Conscientious internally-motivated employees who were performing well before the award program was introduced felt the program was unfair, as it upset the balance of what was perceived as equitable or fair in the organization. So their performance suffered -- not just in terms of their attendance but also through a motivational spillover that affected other areas of their work -- including productivity."

What's the lesson here?  I do not think we should conclude that organizations should not recognize the good work of their employees.  However, we should think about what precisely we are rewarding, and how it might affect the behavior of our best employees.  They might already be engaging in the behaviors we wish to encourage.  By rewarding people for what our best employees are already doing, we might be demotivating our stars.  

How We Teach Design Thinking at Bryant University

Holacracy at Zappos

Several years ago, Tony Hsieh (founder and CEO of Zappos) made a dramatic change in the company's organizational structure and culture.   The online retailer had achieved a sterling reputation for customer satisfaction and employee engagement since its founding, and that success led to an acquisition by Amazon.  However, Hsieh has always been an innovator, and he wanted to try a different form of organization.  He implemented "holacracy" or a self-management approach.  The results have been mixed, to say the least.  Here's an excerpt from a Fortune article about Zappos:

The emphasis on employees—to the near exclusion of the usual metrics used to evaluate business—has made Zappos, owned by Amazon since 2009, a stalwart on Fortune’s annual list of the 100 Best Companies to Work For. It has been so celebrated for its 10 core values—which include “Create fun and a little weirdness” and “Build open and honest relationships with communication”—that the company has its own consulting unit to help others emulate the Zappos way.But this year, nearing the third anniversary of a shift from a traditional management structure to “holacracy,” a system that replaces hierarchies and bosses with “self-management,” something is different. In between the rapping and the report on the company’s “Pawlidayz” initiative to support pet adoptions, Hsieh, 42, takes to the stage to report disappointing news. He announces that scores on Fortune’s Best Companies to Work For survey have tumbled on 48 of 58 questions. Indeed, Zappos has fallen off the overall list for the first time in eight years. Two questions that generated particularly dismal results: Do employees think management has “a clear view of where the organization is going and how to get there”? And do managers “avoid playing favorites”?

I've been following Zappos for many years.  In fact, I visited the company in 2009 just prior to the Amazon acquisition.   I admire their ability to delight customers and engage their employees.  However, this move has created many problems.   I have three thoughts on this radical shift at Zappos. First, the organization has always adopted the notion that you can achieve great success by putting employees first.  However, I wonder whether this move to holacracy is truly in the best interests of employees.  Creating such confusion and ambiguity can be harmful to many employees.   No wonder then that many employees have left, some as a result of a buyout offer the company provided.  In the end, confusing employees could harm the ability to delight customers.  Second, Fortune reports that Hsieh made this move because he felt that Zappos was becoming too bureaucratic.  However, removing hierarchy does not equate to reducing bureaucracy.   In fact, holacracy brought with it many rules and procedures for how things should get done now.  Many meetings ensued as well.  Some have described holacracy as "doctrinaire."  In other words, the new approach may, in fact, be quite bureaucratic, but just in a different way.  Third, Hsieh purportedly hoped to reduce politics at the organization.  However, political behavior is not simply an outgrowth of hierarchy.  Politics emerges for a variety of reasons in organizations.  A lack of clarity about decision rights and organizational responsibilities, coupled with unclear mechanisms for employee evaluation, can actually lead to enhanced political behavior.  

Meg Whitman: Listening to Millennials

Forbes has a great interview with Meg Whitman this week.  In it, she talks about listening carefully to millennials in her organization.  Here's an excerpt:  

Whitman says “entitled is too strong a word” to define new graduates, but even that isn’t so bad. In fact, the impatience of today’s youth is useful at a $50 billion sales corporation like Hewlett Packard Enterprise. “They refuse to work on things that do not matter,” she says. She receives emails frequently from young hires complaining that a project they are working on isn’t going anywhere. That’s surprising, but it’s also useful.  “You would be surprised how many projects we’ve killed because a 22-year-old says, ‘That’s stupid,’ ” Whitman told the audience. “It’s a little annoying honestly.”

I've argued in the past that senior executives need to listen to young people.  They hear about new trends, ideas, and perspectives from these people.  Moreover, they often represent a key target market for their goods and services.  Finally, as one executive told me, "They are stupid enough to tell me the truth."  It made me laugh, but it was also a profound statement.  He meant that these young people did not worry about offending the boss or losing their job.  They were more willing to speak their mind, in a way that some older workers were not in his organization.   Young people do not have the experience to always know the right answers on tough issues, but they bring a fresh lens to problems.  You do not have to agree with them, or give them their way, but you can learn from them.  

Controversy for Jessica Alba at The Honest Company

Source: Wall Street Journal

By now, you all know the story of actress-turned-entrepreneur Jessica Alba.   Four years ago, she co-founded The Honest Company.   The firm aimed to provide families with eco-friendly products such as diapers and cleaning supplies that would not be harmful to children. The Honest Company enjoyed remarkable success, skyrocketing to a valuation of $1.7 billion as of August 2015. Now the Wall Street Journal reports that the firm may have some problems with one of its products. The newspaper explained: 

One of the primary ingredients Honest tells consumers to avoid is a cleaning agent called sodium lauryl sulfate, or SLS, which can be found in everyday household items from Colgate toothpaste to Tide detergent and Honest says can irritate skin. The company lists SLS first in the “Honestly free of” label of verboten ingredients it puts on bottles of its laundry detergent, one of Honest’s first and most popular products. But two independent lab tests commissioned by The Wall Street Journal determined Honest’s liquid laundry detergent contains SLS.

The company has objected to these conclusions.   Here is where it gets very interesting.   The Honest Company showed the Wall Street Journal a certificate from its supplier, indicating that the laundry detergent had zero SLS content.  The supplier, Earth Friendly Products LLC, told the newspaper that they obtained the document from their supplier, Trichromatic West Inc.  The Wall Street Journal contacted that chemical supplier.  Here is what the firm told the newspaper: 

"Trichromatic told the Journal the certificate wasn’t based on any testing and there was a 'misunderstanding' with the detergent maker. It said the 'SLS content' was listed as zero because it didn’t add any SLS to the material it provided to Earth Friendly and 'there would be no reason to test specifically for SLS.' It said the product in question 'was fairly and honestly represented' to its customer. Honest said it didn’t deal directly with Trichromatic and declined to comment further on the certificate. Earth Friendly reiterated that it relied on Trichromatic to test the ingredient." 

What's the lesson here?  Companies need to have visibility deep into their supply chain.  They need to understand precisely how their product is being manufactured and provided to them.  Such visibility proves especially important if a firm is making claims to consumers about how healthy, eco-friendly, organic or otherwise "good for you" those products are.   A company selling to end users cannot simply rely on its direct supplier to monitor and control other suppliers effectively.   If there's ever a good lesson for every supply chain professor to teach, here's one that certainly fits the bill.  

Vertical Integration at Amazon

The Wall Street Journal reports today that Amazon will be moving aggressively to expand its in-house logistics capabilities.  Here is the lead of the article:

Amazon.com Inc. is taking to the air with a fleet of planes, part of a broader effort to reduce its inflated shipping costs. The Seattle retailer plans to shuttle merchandise around the U.S. using as many as 20 Boeing Co. 767 aircraft it will lease from Air Transport Services Group Inc. News of the deal sent the air-cargo transportation company’s shares soaring as much as 24% on Wednesday.

Does this vertical integration strategy make sense?  Let's start with the first sentence of the Wall Street Journal article.  Will the move reduce costs for Amazon?  One would find it hard to believe that Amazon can move goods around the country more efficiently than UPS and FedEx.  Clearly, they cannot match the efficiency of those established players at the moment.  One does not save money simply by doing something in-house.  Some managers think you save because you eliminate the profit margin earned by the supplier (UPS and FedEx in this case).  However, that is not the case because you must invest heavily in new assets in order to conduct this activity within the firm.  Moreover, you may not be as effective at conducting this activity as your supplier.  Thus, it's not clear that profits will automatically improve.

Why then would they pursue vertical integration?  There may be other valid reasons.  First, they may be trying to offset supplier power in this case. In other words, building an in-house capability gives them negotiating leverage with big players such as UPS and FedEx.   Second, UPS and FedEx may be worried about investing in assets specific to Amazon.   Economists call this situation the "holdup" problem that arises when transaction-specific assets are in place.  If UPS and FedEx invest in assets that are unique to Amazon, they may find themselves in a poor negotiating position vis a vis Amazon.  Thus, Amazon may have to invest in these assets because their partners are reluctant to do so.  Finally, Amazon may make their entire supply chain more efficient through closer integration of their ordering, fulfillment, and delivery services.   Conducting delivery in-house may enable that closer integration and perhaps some resulting efficiency.   

In the end, it will be interesting to see how the vertical integration strategy plays out.  Once again, though, Amazon will have more latitude than most publicly traded companies, because investors have proven to be quite patient with them.   Most publicly traded firms would have a hard time justifying this type of vertical integration strategy, which may take some time to pay off.  Amazon will likely have the time to develop this strategy and realize the efficiency gains over time.  

Google, High Performing Teams, and Psychological Safety

My former MBA student at Harvard, Charles Duhigg, has written an excellent article for the New York Times this week. The article is titled, "Google's Quest to Build the Perfect Team." Duhigg describes an initiative at Google code-named Project Aristotle. The company studied hundreds of teams to determine the attributes of the highest performing teams. They found it difficult to determine why some teams excelled while others did not.  Then they began to hone in on an important determinant of success.  Duhigg describes how the Google researchers focused on psychological safety.    The term comes from the groundbreaking work of my long-time friend Amy Edmondson, with whom I have developed case studies, written articles, and created the award-winning Everest Leadership and Team Simulation.   Edmondson defines psychological safety as the "shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking."  Duhigg explains what the Google researchers discovered:

When Rozovsky and her Google colleagues encountered the concept of psychological safety in academic papers, it was as if everything suddenly fell into place. One engineer, for instance, had told researchers that his team leader was ‘‘direct and straightforward, which creates a safe space for you to take risks.’’ That team, researchers estimated, was among Google’s accomplished groups. By contrast, another engineer had told the researchers that his ‘‘team leader has poor emotional control.’’ He added: ‘‘He panics over small issues and keeps trying to grab control. I would hate to be driving with him being in the passenger seat, because he would keep trying to grab the steering wheel and crash the car.’’ That team, researchers presumed, did not perform well.

Google discovered what Edmondson did many years ago.   High performance does not come from simply designing a team correctly.  It's about more than just picking the right people and putting in place the right goals, structure, rewards, etc.   You have to build the right climate.  That takes a great deal of work over time.   Leaders need to work at it persistently to establish and reinforce that safe climate.   Each team member must commit to maintaining that safe climate as well.  

Can Small Experiments Turn Around J.C. Penney?

The failures of J.C. Penney have been well-documented, particularly with regard to Ron Johnson's rocky tenure at the retailer.  Johnson embarked on a sweeping change initiative that failed miserably. He tried to hit a grand slam, making substantial changes in strategy, marketing, and merchandising all during his first few months on the job.  He did not take the time to test many of his new ideas before rolling them out nationwide.  The failures led to his ouster less than two years after taking the helm.

Now Marvin Ellison, a former Home Depot executive, is trying to turn things around.  While sales are moving in the right direction, the profit picture is still not sound.  Still, I think it's interesting to note that Ellison is focusing on small experiments as a means of innovating and changing the retailer. Here's an excerpt from a lengthy story in Fortune on the Ellison approach:

Question: If you wanted to buy a pair of men’s shoes at a department store, would you look for them next to (a) Men’s Clothing, or (b) Women’s Footwear?  Most shoppers would probably answer “a.” But at J.C. Penney, the 114-year-old retailing mainstay, the answer until very recently was “b.” Women make up about 80% of Penney’s clientele, and Penney managers believed that, generally speaking, those women were likely to buy shoes for their spouses and beaus, just as they did during the Kennedy administration.  “It was a terrible idea,” says Marvin Ellison, shaking his head as he walks a reporter through a Penney store in Frisco, Texas. “It took space away from women’s shoes, and it made it very difficult for men to want to buy shoes.”  

Ellison, Penney’s newly minted 51-year-old CEO, had a better idea. He ran a test to see whether men’s shoes would sell faster when showcased next to, say, men’s suits; once the data showed that they did, he instituted that change last summer across the company’s 1,000-plus stores. Since entrusting guys to buy their own brogues and boots, Penney has seen double-digit sales gains in footwear. “That reset has been one of the smartest things we’ve done,” says Ellison.  This Frisco store, not far from company headquarters in Plano, north of Dallas, serves as Penney’s retail living lab, and as he continues the tour, Ellison proudly points out similar changes. Fashion jewelry now sits closer to its Liz Claiborne apparel brand, so women can try on accessories to go with a dress they might buy. The decor has been gussied up at the store’s traffic-driving in-house salons....As the adage goes, “Retail is detail.” And if the details Ellison is addressing seem forehead-slap obvious, signs of how far J.C. Penney had fallen behind its rivals—well, welcome to his world.

Who Judges Creative Ideas Well... and Who Doesn't

Stanford Professor Justin Berg has conducted some interesting research on people's ability to evaluate creative ideas.   He asked over 300 circus professionals to forecast how popular a series of circus acts would be with audiences.   He then tracked their actual popularity with more than 13,000 circus audience members.  What did Berg find?   The people who actually created the new circus acts are not very good predictors of their success with audiences.  Interestingly, managers are not very good judges of their success either.   Who is a better judge than either the creators or the managers?  It turns out that peers of the creators were more accurate judges.  In particular, peers of the creators were much better at identifying the potential success of novel/unconventional circus acts.   The research found that, "managers tended to undervalue novel ideas in favor of conventional performances."  Interestingly, this finding about the lack of accuracy of managers' predictions holds despite that the fact that many managers were indeed creators themselves at one point in their careers. 

This finding reminded me of the value of the "Brain Trust" at Pixar.   At the animation studio, the brain trust is a group of people who gather to provide unvarnished feedback to the director of a new film.  The brain trust often includes a few higher-level managers at the firm.  However, the focus of the brain trust is peer-to-peer feedback.  Other directors offer their constructive criticism to the person leading a particular project.  The Brain Trust's success at Pixar seems to reinforce the findings of Berg's experimental research.  

Can You Have Too Much Grit?

Amy Morin writes in Forbes this week about an interesting new study about grit. The study, is titled "When the going gets tough: Grit predicts costly perseverance." The authors are Gale Lucas, Jonathan Gratch, Lin Cheng, and Stacy Marsella.  Note that a lengthy stream of research over the past decade or so has extolled the benefits of grit.  What is grit? University of Pennsylvania Professor Angela Duckworth defines grit as "perseverance and passion for long-term goals." Duckworth has studied grit extensively in her academic career. She has found that intelligence is not always a good predictor of academic or professional success. Grit matters. For instance, she has found that, at West Point, a cadet's grit score is the best predictor of success in "Beast Barracks" – the incredibly challenging, six week summer training regimen that all new cadets must endure. Grit predicted success more so than intelligence, leadership ability or physical fitness.

The new study by Lucas and her colleagues examines whether grit may come with some negative consequences.  Could it be possible for someone to exhibit "too much" grit in some circumstances, leading to poor results?  In a series of studies, Lucas and her colleagues had subjects tackle very challenging tasks.  What did they find? 

Across three studies, we found that higher grit individuals invest more effort and persist in tasks that are not going well. Grittier participants were less willing to give up when failing even though they were likely to incur a cost for their persistence. In Study 1, grittier participants were able to complete fewer problems in an anagram task where some of the items should have been passed over (i.e., unsolvable items). This provides initial evidence that they persisted at a cost to themselves, in this case the cost of getting to attempt more problems. Because we incentivized performance (with entries into a lottery for $100), it seems that grittier participants were specifically trading off greater chances at monetary gains to persist at the more difficult questions. Compared to participants with lower grit, grittier participants not only increase effort when they are losing a game (Study 2), but also are more likely to stay and keep fighting a losing battle when they could quit (Study 3).

The Decline of Sears

I've been saying for years now that Sears is doomed to fail.  I just don't see light at the end of the tunnel.  The company's revenues have been dropping for years.  Multiple restructurings have attempted to pare costs, but none of these moves have recharged sales.  Adam Hartung has a good article for Forbes about the reasons for the decline under CEO Ed Lampert.   Two of the reasons cited by Hartung are: "micromanagement in lieu of strategy" and "seeking confirmation rather than disagreement."   For more on the latter point, here's an excerpt from Hartung's article:

Seeking confirmation rather than disagreement. Mr. Lampert had no time for staff who did not see things his way. Mr. Lampert wanted his management team to agree with him – to confirm his Beliefs, Interpretations, Assumptions and Strategies — to believe his BIAS. By seeking managers who would confirm his views, and execute rather than disagree, Mr. Lampert had no one offering alternative data, interpretations, strategies or tactics. And, as Mr. Lampert’s plans kept faltering it led to a revolving door of managers. Leaders came and went in a year or two, blamed for failures that originated at the Chairman’s doorstep. By forcing agreement, rather than disagreement and dialogue, Sears lacked options or alternatives, and the company had no chance of turning around.

I would one other key point to Hartung's insightful analysis.  The Sears decline began long before Lampert took over.  Yes, he has mismanaged the retailer and accelerated its fall toward bankruptcy. However, in many ways, the crisis at Sears stretches back decades.  Harvard Business School Professor Jay Lorsch has said that gradual crises are often much more dangerous than sudden crises. When a sudden jolt occurs, firms often mobilize resources and attack the problem with a sense of urgency.  However, when a decline occurs over many years, beginning with small decreases in performance, managers often find ways to rationalize the diminishing results.  Denial sets in during these crises that unfold over lengthy periods of time.  Sears seems the perfect example of what Lorsch calls gradual crises.  

Whole Foods: Could it Get Stuck in the Middle?

Companies pursuing a differentiation strategy often face a serious challenge when low-cost competitors begin to infringe on their turf.   Some customers may opt for lower-priced options.  As growth slows for the differentiated player, it may try to boost profits by cutting costs.  If it goes too far though, the differentiated player may further erode willingness-to-pay on the part of some customers.  The company may get caught "stuck in the middle" at some point, no longer clearly as premium and differentiated as it once was, but clearly with higher costs and prices than the most efficient low-cost and low-priced rivals.   

Whole Foods faces this conundrum today, as reported this week by the Wall Street Journal.  The company faces slowing growth, in part because low-cost rivals such as Kroger have expanded their organic food offerings, while offering consumers much lower prices.  Whole Foods has responded by announcing a  plan to "save about $300 million a year by September 2017, partly by eliminating more than 2,000 jobs." That plan involves centralizing some key tasks and streamlining processes to generate more efficiency.   Whole Foods Co-CEO John Mackey understands the risks. He said, "We want to evolve the structure in such a way that we take out redundancy and waste, and at the same time though, we’re not diminishing the culture, the empowerment efforts that make Whole Foods Market special." 

 The Wall Street Journal article goes on to explain, "Transferring more authority to headquarters and automating more tasks risks harming Whole Foods’ customer-friendly reputation and turning off shoppers who place a high value on local products, such as blueberries and hometown pasta sauces, and niche items, said Jim Hertel, senior vice president at retail consulting firm Willard Bishop,a unit of Inmar Inc."   

Whole Foods clearly still has a solid position as one of the premium players in the supermarket industry.  However, the warning signs are there.  They must be careful about compromising their well-crafted and highly successful competitive positioning, as they cope with lower growth rates.  

Recognize What Happens When You Enter a Room

The best leaders recognize how they change the climate of a meeting when they enter the room.  They understand whether people are reticent to speak candidly in their presence.  They discern the way in which the dialogue changes, whether people become more or less energized, and how attentive people are to their statements.  They recognize the behaviors that they engage in that may have positive or negative impacts on the team.   Kellogg Professor Karen Cates talks about this issue in more depth in a recent Kellogg Insights article.  Here's an excerpt from the article, in which she describes social awareness and self-awareness - and the importance these concepts have for leaders: 

As Cates sees it, the biggest challenge for leaders moving up in an organization is to cultivate awareness. “People who rise in organizations are usually good self-managers,” she says. “They figure out a job and get it done. They also have great social skills—they know how to work with a team and communicate up and down the hierarchy. But as you get further along, awareness becomes the difference maker when it comes to energizing people.”

Cates distinguishes between two kinds of awareness: social awareness and self-awareness. Social awareness is more or less the ability to read a room. Self-awareness, by contrast, is the understanding that when you enter a room, you change the room. “Being aware of who you are and how you impact other people’s ability to do their work is one of the hallmarks of a good leader,” Cates says. Awareness, a concept linked to emotional intelligence, ties back to the issue of alignment: aware leaders are better able to foster trust by purposefully aligning values and policies—and are better at noticing when they are not in sync.

Varied Practice: Key to Learning New Skills

Charlie Sorrel writes about some fascinating new research on skill development in an article at Fast Company this week.  Sorrel describes research by Johns Hopkins University professor Pablo Celnik.   His studies focus on how people develop new skills.  Celnik has found that how you practice new skills affects the speed with which you acquire and develop those capabilities.    Celnik summarizes his findings:  "What we found is if you practice a slightly modified version of a task you want to master, you actually learn more and faster than if you just keep practicing the exact same thing multiple times in a row."   

Most athletes instinctively understand this finding.  No good coach directs his or her players to engage in the very same practice drills over and over.   Instead, the best coaches vary the routine a bit, while working on the same fundamental skills.   Consider a softball coach working on fielding ground balls.  He or she doesn't just keep pounding grounders at players and asking them to throw the ball to first base.   The coach finds a variety of ways to work on the key skills required to field grounders effectively.  

What's going on when we vary our practice routine a bit?   Celnik describes the process as "reconsolidation."  Natalie Tronson and Jane Taylor have conducted research on the neuroscience of memory.  Consolidation refers to the process by which memories stabilize and solidify over some period of time.   Tronson and Taylor describe reconsolidation as a "distinct process that serves to maintain, strengthen or modify memories."   People retrieve a memory and actively consolidate it again, and in so doing, they strengthen the existing memory.   

Interestingly, Celnik found that reconsolidation works best when you change the task being practiced slightly.   Too much change inhibits the reconsolidation process.   He explains, "If you make the altered task too different, people do not get the gain we observed during reconsolidation. The modification between sessions needs to be subtle."

Keeping Millennials Engaged at Work

Consultant Tracy Benson has written a terrific post this week for Harvard Business Review.  She focuses on how to engage Millennials at work.  Benson argues that work-life balance is important to them, and flexible work policies can attract them to your firm.  However, keeping them engaged, and retaining them, takes much more than just flexibility about hours and location of work. Engaging them requires providing them a compelling sense of purpose, building an entrepreneurial environment, loosening the traditional career ladder, and providing technology that promotes collaboration.  These suggestions make good sense.  Beyond that, I also think we need to challenge them.  They need to be stretched intellectually.  At the same time, we need to provide them excellent learning and development opportunities.  In that way, they will have the tools to succeed at these stretch assignments.  What if they face adversity or fail?  Many may fear failure a great deal.  They have been hovered over for years, and their self-esteem has been boosted relentlessly. Thus, we have to be ready to address their anxieties as they take risks, face adversity, and perhaps stumble badly at times. We have to challenge them to pick themselves up, fix their mistakes, and climb back on the bike. 

Brainstorming vs. Question-Storming?

I read a terrific article by Stephanie Vozza in Fast Company this week.  The article focuses on the notion of asking great questions.  She argues that the best leaders ask good questions so as to enhance their learning and engage more effectively in meetings.  Toward the end of her article, Vozza highlights a particular technique proposed by Hal Gregersen of the MIT Leadership Center.   He proposes that teams should employ "question-storming" sessions from time to time, particularly when they have reached an impasse on a tough issue.  Vozza explains:

Have your team generate at least 50 questions about the problem. At about question 25, Gregersen says it will stall. "I have watched this a hundred times around the world," he says. "People say: 'I don't have any more questions, I am stuck.' Keep going, because it's that pass forward that can sometimes give you some of the greatest questions."  Question storming a long series of questions gets you closer to the right questions that will give you the right answer, says Gregersen. "And that's where question storming complements traditional brainstorming," he says.

I like the notion.  In fact, I think question-storming might be useful at the front end of some challenging problem-solving processes, rather than simply as a tool for when a team is deadlocked.  Generating a list of thoughtful questions can insure that a team looks at a problem from multiple frames, and it can help inform the research that needs to be done to generate key insights about an issue.  

Behavioral Science & Effective Super Bowl Commercials

Great Super Bowl commercials engage us with wonderful stories and some humor as well.  Is there more to it than that though?  Could we use cognitive science to understand why some ads have a bigger impact than others?  Ad Age magazine sat down with Carey Morewedge, associate professor of marketing at Boston University.  Professor Morewedge explained how certain principles from the research on cognitive biases help us explain the power of certain very memorable commercials.  First, Morewedge points to the legendary "1984" ad from Apple as well as last year's BMW Super Bowl commercial.  In both cases, the representativeness heuristic is at work.   Ad Age's Michele Fabrizi explains: 

"Analogies transfer positive associations with a good, old idea to the new idea. In scenes evoking the well-known novel "1984," the hammer-wielding young heroine smashing the existing norm heralds the societal sea change promised by the introduction of Apple's Macintosh.  We see the same principle effectively used again -- albeit with ironic humor -- in last year's BMW "New Fangled Idea" (No. 23 on Ad Age's list). Here a look back at Katie Couric and Bryant Gumbel's failure to initially recognize the massive future impact of the internet is juxtaposed against their confused first response to an electric car."

Morewedge also points to the principle of loss framing as a mechanism by some commercials have a powerful impact on us.   Fabrizi explains: "Loss framing offers an approach to elevate the importance of a brand's benefits. This principle tells us that the pain of losing a thing we own is about twice as powerful as the pleasure we would feel acquiring it." FedEx ran an ad called "We Apologize" that took advantage of loss framing. It didn't focus on the benefits of FedEx's timely service. Instead, it showcased (with humor) the dangers of bad service and delayed deliveries.