Mike Lehr's Blog

We sometimes hear, “Nice guys finish last.” However, in genetics altruism creates a dilemma because it exists – and not just in humans. The question is why. Even Darwin considered it a challenge to his theory of natural selection. Why would any creature help another at a steep personal cost?

The article, “Kin and Kind,” written by Jonah Lehrer in the March 5, 2012 edition of The New Yorker, investigates altruism and its role in evolution. Whether its bats, bees, birds, ants or humans, the presence of altruism in these species suggests that kindness can’t be a losing strategy. In fact, insects displaying an extreme form of altruism called “eusociality” tend to dominate the insect world over their self-interested brethren.

E.O.Wilson, a main proponent of altruism as a positive contributor in evolution summarizes it this way:

Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups.

If we look at the Napoleonic era and the rise of the nation state, we find that the demise of mercenary (self-interested) armies began when citizen (altruistic) armies, cemented by patriotic and nationalistic emotions arrived on the scene. However, the reason why we don’t see more altruism in nature and our everyday lives is that a cohesive group must exist first. Again, context matters; encouraging self-interest will yield a self-interested culture, encouraging altruism will yield an altruistic one.

Of course, this prompts the question: Can a company built upon self-interested incentives triumph over a company with a cohesive, altruistic culture? Evolution suggests it won’t. Of course, that doesn’t mean a few self-interested people inside the altruistic cultures won’t try to take advantage of the others. Perhaps they are there to really test how cohesive and altruistic the company is?

Nevertheless, it seems that evolution could really be on the side of the nice guys.

Other posts in this series:

• Cooperation vs. Competition on the Business-to-Business Level
• Cooperation vs. Self-interest: Which Reigns Supreme?
• Cooperation vs. Self-interest (Pt 2): Context – The Great Influencer
• Cooperation vs. Self-interest (Pt 3): Empathy
• Cooperation vs. Self-interest (Pt 4): Intrinsic Rewards
• Cooperation vs. Self-interest (Pt 5): Humans vs. Apes
• Cooperation vs. Self-interest (Pt 6): Incentives & Rats

The research behind behavioral economics is full of emotional solutions to everyday problems. By tapping into the emotional biases behind our decisions, we can expand the range of limited solutions offered by rational thought models. The exploring of emotional solutions has gone big time as the article, “Nudge Nudge, Think Think” explains in the March 24, 2012 edition of The Economist by focusing on the amount of investments governments are making in this area.

Said simply, “How we phrase things matter.” I’ve written how this can change the taste of food and even change the reactions to a bonus plan. As the article explains, nudging “shows it is possible to steer people towards better decisions by presenting choices in different ways.”

For example:

• People were three times more likely to pay an outstanding vehicular tax when the letter was simplified and included a picture of the automobile.
• Boys did better than girls did when a technical drawing class was called “geometry,” and girls did equally well or better when it was called “drawing.”
• People were more inclined to use less energy when their consumption was compared to their neighbors.

Not only does this help us solve problems, it also helps us avoid them by being aware of what we say so we don’t sabotage our well-intentioned plans. Choosing the right words for a personality can go a long way in helping us to effect the change we desire by tapping the right emotions.

For example, my wife won a bet at a party by talking a friend’s six-year-old daughter into selecting a vegetable over chocolate to eat. Understanding and appreciating the power behind words’ connotations helps us immensely here, and Roget’s Thesaurus is invaluable in our efforts.

Remember, people eat escargot not snails.

In the March 26, 2012 edition of The New Yorker, I ran across the article, “The More the Merrier”, which sited the work of Zeynep Ton, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, that looked at four low-price retailers: Costco, Trader Joe’s, Quik Trip and Mercadona. The article cited these findings:

These companies have much higher labor costs than their competitors. They pay their employees more; they have more full-time workers and more salespeople on the floor; and they invest more in training them. . . . What’s more surprising is that they are more profitable than most of their competitors and have more sales per employee and per square foot.

In my previous post, “Business Profitability Paradox”, I expressed that a business that maximizes its profits every minute will eventually go out of business because no investments are made (which hurt profitability). The article cites the demise of retailers such as Circuit City and Home Depot when they cut labor costs (to maximize profits short term) only to see the first go out of business and the second to be a shadow of its former self.

Thus, when employers start demanding a good ROI (return on investment), I often ask, “Over what time period?” In this case, training and a good business culture don’t happen overnight; however, the costs do. Many times, as with Circuit City and Home Depot, profits rise immediately with the right cost cuts. However, the revenues it hurts don’t fall off until later.

Now, it’s easy to discount Ton’s study as solely a retail phenomenon, but the investment principles hold true beyond just labor.

Therefore, over what period do you want a good ROI? That answer will determine the type of investments you are willing to make.
 
Original post: Business Profitability Paradox

Related post by Zeynep Ton: Retailers Should Invest More in Employees

In response to my post, “Relationship Building Technique #4: Acknowledgement,” a reader emailed the following observation:

I often find this is a simple [technique], which has a very sensitive component to it and is frequently very “fake” . . . . I know of several peers whom I converse with who “appear” to be practicing acknowledging and listening to others. . . . I have noticed over time, for example, although they may seem engaged and interested at the very moment, they are either preoccupied (and do a good job of hiding it) or are insincere . . . . This is often evident in subsequent conversations with them as you realize they have very little memory of prior conversations. . . .

First, these techniques won’t have the same effect on everyone. Obviously, they didn’t work on this person. However, why this occurred isn’t simply a case of the speakers being insincere; it could just be that they were very different from the listener. The latter could have been born with  much greater sensitivity than the others were and thus greater sincerity.

As a result, despite the listener’s view, it’s very possible that the speakers felt that they were sincere. Furthermore, they might not even be self-aware enough to know they were coming across as insincere. It’s also quite possible that they didn’t care.

We need to remember that any human attribute will vary widely across individual humans. That’s why not remembering might be a sign of poorer memories than the listener’s and not just lesser abilities to express sincerity. Thus, the problem isn’t so much one of sincerity or listening but rather one of differences in personalities. It’s going to be very difficult for less sensitive people to convince those with higher sensitivities that they are being sincere.

People’s names are extremely powerful. Every day, opportunities to use names present themselves, but we don’t seize them. Names in emails, even the shortest ones, allow us to personify them, giving them personality. Just as people find pictures and news articles about people more interesting, the same holds true for emails.

For example, rather than send an email like this:

Can you meet me today at noon?

We can personify it this way:

Joan,

Can you meet me today at noon?

Linda

Thus, a generic email from by anybody to anybody becomes personal. Moreover, rather than use a formal address and closing, we can alter it by writing:

• Joan, can you meet me today at noon? ~Linda
• Can you meet me today at noon, Joan? ~Linda
• Can you, Joan, meet me today at noon? ~Linda

In these examples, we used the person’s name in the beginning, end and middle of the question. We can employ the same strategy longer emails:

I’m thinking about going out for lunch today. Can you meet me today, Joan, if I do? It would be great to see you.

Linda

We can also use their names more than once by combining the techniques above:

Joan,

I’m thinking about going out for lunch today. Can you meet me today, if I do? It would be great to see you.

I want to share a project I’m working. Joan, I really feel you might be able to help. If so, I’d like to introduce you to my manager.

Please let me know,

Linda

People aren’t light switches, so we can’t expect this to work instantaneously. Nevertheless, if we employ regularly and integrate with other techniques, we will accelerate better relationships and responses to requests over the long run.