Mike Lehr's Blog

In 12Most I wrote about business lessons from various battles. Pydna in 168 B.C. – the titanic clash between two undefeated armies, the Macedonians and the Romans – illustrates flexibility’s inherent power by working with smaller units. We can become better problem solvers if we can train our minds to see the smaller aspects of everything.

At Pydna, the Macedonians fought as a single, massive phalanx in which soldiers fought using 20-foot long pikes. This created a massive wall of sharp daggers. The Romans fought in smaller cohorts; their soldiers used short, 20-inch swords called a gladius. Cohorts became buzz saws as they slashed and cut.

When confronting an enemy directly (Figure #1), the phalanx crushed him. However, the cohorts were flexible and surrounded the Macedonians (Figure #2). While those in front suffered heavily, the pikes did not allow the Macedonians to turn quickly enough to defend against the other Romans. Consequently, the Romans all but obliterated the Macedonians.

One of the best ways to train our minds to see the finer aspects of problems is to think about the differences in similar words. Don’t accept they are the same; if they were we wouldn’t need both. Also, don’t worry about being right; just try to come up with differences. It’s similar to physical exercise: doing is beneficial and winning unessential. As examples, I’ve written about the differences between clarity and truth, intelligence and wisdom, and optimism and Pollyannaism.

We can then apply this by writing the problem down, attacking definitions and breaking our description into smaller parts. Just as breaking change down into small, simple steps makes it easier to effect change, breaking problems down into smaller parts makes it easier to solve them.

The challenge is training our brain to see a solid unit as many parts.

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.

Someone once asked me, “What are the twenty most influential books in your life?” I listed Roget’s Thesaurus as one. It gives us appreciation for the relationship between definitions and connotations so we can:

• Defend ourselves since it’s a verbal martial arts guide
• Find appealing names for initiatives, projects and services
• Assess personalities better in real time since people’s words tell us much about them
• Solve problems better since we often think in words

For example, consider someone calling you “stubborn.” Using the Fifth Edition edited by Robert L. Chapman, I immediately find six words from which to choose: persevering, obstinate, strict, tenacious, inflexible and tough. So, in response to your critic, you can reply, “Thank you, I do consider myself persevering.”

Don’t like this selection? Pick one and explore it. Since Roget’s groups words by categories, we can easily find similar groupings of many similar words including “determined.” Using this same approach, we can find appealing names for new initiatives and projects.

Want to gain insight into personalities? Listen to people’s words. Through words’ connotations, Roget’s helps us discover patterns and insights into how people view concepts, plans, things and people. For instance, someone who uses many order-oriented words in a positive way probably won’t like a plan giving people a lot of flexibility in their decision-making.

Lastly, since we use words to form thoughts, by looking at words differently and from many more perspectives, this will expand and alter our thought processes. Rather than see stubbornness as a problem, we might see it as a solution by discovering it is determination instead.

However, don’t be fooled by the increasingly popular alphabetical thesauruses. They don’t group words effectively. Thus, they don’t have nearly the magic and potency of a Roget’s.

Words have power, not only in their definitions but also, more importantly, in their connotations. The article, “Making Murder Respectable,” from the December 17, 2011 edition of The Economist talks about an example of this power, euphemisms: “a mixture of abstraction, metaphor, slang and understatement that offers protection against the offensive, harsh or blunt.” They’re used across cultures.

In other words, euphemisms sugar coat reality and confirm in many cases the powerful scene from the movie A Few Good Men in which Jack Nicholson, playing Colonel Nathan Jessup, tells Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, played by Tom Cruise, “You can’t handle the truth.” As the article concludes, “A culture without euphemism would be more honest, but rougher.”

Often, we desire to believe our illusions because they allow us a convenient excuse to avoid action. For example, knowing a condition is undesirable forces us to address the question: Why don’t we take action to correct (cognitive dissonance)? This is a downside of believing our glass is half full.

Additionally, knowing our preference to live with our illusions, we expose ourselves to manipulation as George Orwell conveyed in his book, 1984. In it, the Ministry of Truth was responsible for fabricating history for public consumption; the Ministry of Love tortured criminals. In 1949 the United States renamed its War Department to the Defense Department. In business, we see the extension of euphemisms in the form of vanilla words, names of food, compensation plans and labels.

However, many times euphemisms permit sensitivities. For example, we say “passed” rather than “dead.” So, perhaps our illusions are reality because the reality is we cannot live without them.

Don’t believe it? See what happens when you strip people of their illusions.

In this series’ previous post, I wrote about using Wordle to help identify word usage and phrasing trends by people as a prelude to identifying personalities in a real-time sense. In this series’ first post, I wrote about using everyday conversation to identify personalities. In this post, I will combine the two concepts to validate our findings, which I call extrapolation. Essentially, we try to predict responses to our questions by changing topics.

For example, after listening to someone, we notice he talks extremely pragmatically about things. Extrapolating, we can ask him a couple decision-related questions such as, “Why do you like your house?” In our minds, we predict a pragmatic response. If he does respond with answers such as, “It’s close to work,” “In the school district we want,” and “We were able to get a good price,” then they support our findings. However, if he responses with, “The setting is beautiful,” “We liked the ambiance when we walked in,” or others, we know we need to work further.

Again, the challenge is being able to spot trends in word usage. The series’ previous post lists five other word pairs in addition to the one here: pragmatic versus emotional. Another challenge is avoiding iron-clad perceptions of people; our observations and conclusions should be ongoing and fluid as new discussions arise. It is quite possible for people to assume different personalities in similar situations depending upon their moods.

For instance, people will often behave one way when they’re happy and another when they’re angry. That’s why results from classical self-reporting personality assessments can vary. The book Was That Really Me? by Naomi Quenk does an excellent job highlighting this phenomenon.

However, this only reinforces the persistent point that personality assessment requires ongoing practice and modification.

Other posts in this series:

• Assessing Personalities thru Everyday Discussions (1.0)
• Real-time Personality Assessment (Pt 2): Important Qualities
• Real-time Personality Assessment (Pt 3): Word Themes

The words people use tell you much about their personalities. The challenge is trying to see a theme. While not every word is important, it’s not readily apparent which ones are. Furthermore, the subject matter might encourage certain words.

As an introduction to the concept, I often refer people to Wordle. By inserting a bunch of text, Wordle creates a picture of the used words by bolding and sizing them according to their usage. Using Wordle to compare word usage from people about the same topic allows personalities to emerge. It’s common to identify whose group is whose if the people are known.

When it comes to identifying themes, the variations are endless but here are some of the more common pairings I try to identify in the workplace:

• Hard vs. Soft
• Thinking vs. Feeling
• Flexible vs. Structured
• Conceptual vs. Detailed
• Personal vs. Impersonal

Words reflect personalities because of connotation, the emotions that words convey. People tend to choose words that harmonize with their emotions. Thus, hard words reflect a hard personality, flexible words a flexible personality, impersonal ones an impersonal personality, and so on.

Since Wordle isn’t available while we’re conversing, it’s vital that we do two things to ensure we can do this in real-time:

• Expand our appreciation for words’ connotations
• Finely tune our listening skills

It helps to change subjects in a discussion. It not only might help us to identify word themes but it can also verify ones we’ve identified. It’s important to not “close the book” on a person. A future conversation might lend us new information. Thus, this is not only a real-time personality assessment method but it’s an ongoing one.

Other posts in this series:

• Assessing Personalities thru Everyday Discussions (1.0)
• Real-time Personality Assessment (Pt 2): Important Qualities

Our names unconsciously influence people. We humorously smile at actors who change their names making them more appealing. Yet, some people relate because they wish their parents had given them better names.

Even in a field striving for objectivity such as science, your name can influence the peer review process. In the August 20, 2011 issue of The Economist, the article “A Black and White Answer” reports racial name research by Donna Ginther of The University of Kansas indicating it does. The article also references the 2003 racial name study, Racial Bias in Hiring, by Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan at the time of Massachusetts Institute of Technology in which names influenced who received job interviews.

While the article focused on the racial connotation of names, an October 23, 2008 article of The New York Times mentions research about non-racial correlations focused on similar names, initials, sounds and letters. Of course, if we overlay the concept of branding from advertising on these two areas of research and the territory between them, we come back to “what’s in a name?”

From an intuitive perspective, what connotation does each of our names have? What feelings do people get when they hear it? How do we feel when we run across names far different from ours, ones we can’t pronounce? Subconsciously, do they trigger our defense mechanisms? All you need to do is look at popular baby names to know we do not distribute names randomly even if we account for ethnicity.

What we can learn from science in this research is that no matter how objective we think we are it is no match for the unconscious emotions truly driving our decisions.

This post is similar to my previous post about changing the message by how people feel about the messenger. In the case of food, you can alter the taste of it by altering how people feel about the food.

One way is to alter how you describe the food. Apparently, PepsiCo is conducting extensive research here.* For instance, they are running “fMRI studies to test the hypothesis that calling a product ‘healthy’ may lower taste expectations in the brain.” They also use cameras to record these tests because “what people say about the way something tastes is a lot of times not what they really are thinking.” This latter point reinforces an earlier post that people often are not aware of what influences them.

For instance, in addition to the way we describe food, we can indirectly alter food’s taste by changing the:

• Presentation of the food: how it’s delivered and how it looks on the plate
• Ambiance of the eating environment, whether it’s clean or dirty for instance
• People with whom the eater is dining such as good friends or co-workers
• Food’s price; people will tend to feel expensive food tastes better
• Silverware, plates and other utensils with which to serve and eat the food
• Packaging of the food; beverages are a prime example of the importance of this

Even though cooking professionals and restaurateurs are emphatic about these, very few people would agree. They would refer to objective factors such as length of cooking time, seasoning, sauces, saltiness, etc. As PepsiCo discovered people don’t do a good job of attributing what really influences them.

From a problem-solving perspective, knowing these indirect ways of influencing people opens the door to a vast range of potential solutions for simple, everyday problems.

*John Seabrook, “Snacks For A Fat Planet,” The New Yorker, p. 65, May 16, 2011 [Note: Link does not provide complete access to this article because of subscription restrictions.]

My post, “Beauty as Power”, resulted in a commenter questioning, “Is beauty the same as attraction?” The short answer is, “No.” However, elaboration helps us to position beauty better as an attracting force by comparing and contrasting it to other attracting forces. Beauty is just one such force. Many things attract us not just beauty.

For instance, we can find ourselves attracted to low prices, flashing lights, accidents, disasters, loud noises, foods, water, statistics, designer labels, celebrities, power and many other things. On hot days, ice cold drinks attract us, on cold ones, hot beverages and soups attract us. Sporting events, musical performances, movies and plays attract some of us. Advertisers, merchandisers and politicians certainly work hard to attract us. News programs and publications attract us with bad news. Politicians attract us with negative advertisements. Some reality shows attract us by displaying personal conflict.

Some of us will find beauty in all and some of these things. Beauty is a higher form of attraction. Beauty is to attraction what skill is to work and what talent is to effort. It’s true that beauty attracts us, but not all things that attract us are beautiful. This also explains the difference between beautiful and attractive. Beauty is a far stronger attracting force than attractiveness alone. Beauty is the qualitative aspect of attraction in the same way a fine restaurant is of all eateries.

What this means in terms of beauty as power is that beauty is more powerful than attractiveness. In other words, the attraction we have for certain things becomes more powerful if we also find them beautiful. It also means that as we discover the beauty in something or someone that thing or person will come to exert more attraction on us.

Related link: Beauty as Power

I received a question about Emotional Intelligence and Leadership in a comment about Leadership vs. Management: The Difference (Part III):

What are your thoughts on Emotional Intelligence(EI) and whether you feel there is a way to objectively measure EI and if it is a measure of Leadership?

Essentially, EI is a head thing; my work is a heart thing. EI is about being “intelligent” about emotions; it’s not about feeling. If you look at EI’s definition of empathy, this becomes clear:

Ability to understand the emotional makeup of other people.

With intuition, I define empathy as:

Ability to feel what the other person is feeling.

Understand is a “head” term, not a “heart” one. Feel is about the heart not the head. EI helps people read the reactions of other people to understand their emotions. In contrast, a true empath (someone who is empathetic) will tend to feel what the other person is feeling even before needing to see a reaction.

Since EI is learnable and is all about understanding and not feeling, a psychopath could learn to become more emotionally intelligent because he can understand without feeling. Empathy, on the other hand is only developed from the emotional sensitivity given to us at birth. It’s analogous to us only being able to develop our athletic capabilities from our given physical attributes.

As for leadership, EI aids it, but it does not objectively measure it for two reasons. First, other personal attributes contribute to leadership which EI does not measure such as our ability to communicate and influence. Second, EI is not measured objectively. As with any personality assessment tool, EI is dependent upon the assumptions and benchmarks underlying it. Those are subjectively determined by the tools’ creators based upon what they feel will work best.