Mike Lehr's Blog

One of the major characteristics of intuitive approaches for leadership is the dominance of intrinsic rewards over extrinsic ones. The demarcation between the two is most clear in studies of the effect of praise over money from immediate managers. A November 2009 article from McKinsey Quarterly, Motivating people – Getting beyond money, is but one example.

In addition to praise from an immediate manager, the article sited attention from leaders and opportunities to lead as two other nonfinancial rewards valued above compensation. However, the transition to nonfinancial rewards is difficult for many managers. A major reason the article gave was that “nonfinancial ways to motivate people do, on the whole, require more time and commitment from senior managers.”

While this is true, an important aspect that is rarely examined is that the tendency to praise is a function of personality. In order to praise and interact effectively, people need to have some emotional awareness and sensitivity. Just as some cars are better than others, some praises are too.

For instance, a manager who is more easily drawn to statistics, reports, information and finances might not have the personality necessary to encourage him to seek out opportunities to praise and spend individual time with employees. Moreover, while some extroverts can excel at networking a room, they can fail miserably at nonfinancial rewards. It’s one thing to have polite, congenial conversations in public but quite another to have involved, developmental discussions with an employee one-on-one. This is why some great public speakers can’t teach and some teachers can’t speak publicly.

Until companies look for personalities and aptitudes conducive to using nonfinancial rewards, overreliance on compensation to motivate will continue.

Management by objective is basic expectations setting 101; people will tend to achieve the expectations we set for them. Yet, when it comes to training sessions, we often don’t worry about any expectations until there are “cheeks in the seats.” At that point, we set them. The problem is that expectations for the training have already been largely set; it’s uphill trying to change them.

By this time, attendees have already read some sort of description of the training. Most likely, they’ve already heard their managers’ rationales for attending the training. If someone has already attended the training, the “grapevine effect” is in full force. Just as politicians, coaches and promoters work hard to set expectations before elections, games and events, the same should be done for training.

Here are some pointers on what to do prior to the training:

• Invest more energy on the training’s title than on its description; make it marketable yet accurate
• Script what managers or promoters of the training should say about it, including FAQ’s
• Give trainers as much access as possible to potential attendees (i.e. emails, promotional information, links)
• Ensure logistics (i.e. hotel, travel, directions, instructions) run soundly and a helpline exists
• Send a detailed agenda at least a few days prior
• If the training is part of a multi-day event, create opportunities for trainers to socialize with attendees
• Ensure all communication channels (i.e. materials, websites, announcements) are under control and delivering a consistent message

In short, the more you treat the announcement of your training as a marketing effort, the more likely you are to succeed in ensuring the right expectations are set when attendees walk through the door or log in.

Intuitive approaches require the identification of emotional drivers in influencing and problem solving. They generally work better than cognitive approaches because emotional drivers tend to impact behaviors, thoughts and decisions far more than logic, reasons and rationales. Therefore, if we want to effectively identify these drivers, we need techniques to help us. Our word choice is one such technique.

Generally speaking we can uncover feelings by simply asking, “How do you feel about . . .” If we ask, “What do you think about . . .” we’ll tend to receive a heady response rather than a heartfelt one. The word “believe” gives us more of a middle-of-the-road response. We need the mid-range approach because some people do not like to be asked how they feel about things. I once asked a woman how she felt about something, and she replied, “I hate it when you ask that question.” Therefore, we need a mid-range approach for these folks.

Furthermore, we can incorporate these words into our discussion, not just our questions. The more we use the word “feel” the more likely our discussion will hover on an emotional plane. Conversely, the more “think” is used the more likely it will hover on a logical one. In order to avoid redundancy we can incorporate more feeling words like emotions, empathy and sympathy. Thinking words would include reasons, rationale and logic and keep the discussion on a heady level.

If you will be teaching others how to use these words, you need to be aware that some people don’t like to even use the word “feel.” If so, they will have difficulty using this technique.

Word choice and phrasing (phraseology) are simple ways we can assess personalities. As I’ve said in previous postings, everything we think, do and say reflects on our personalities in some way. The challenge is determining what.

Understanding the two aspects of any word – definition and connotation – is a first step. Definitions trigger thoughts about words’ meanings while connotations trigger emotions about the impressions they create. Words can have similar definitions but vastly different connotations. A funny riddle expresses this:

Q: What is the difference between escargot and snails?

A: People don’t eat snails.

Phraseology works as an assessment approach because word choice is largely subjective. Yes, we need to consider the context of the conversation, but there is usually plenty of room for subjective inputs. This occurs because many times several words could suffice, but the final choice is intuitive and based upon the connotation the person prefers. For example, consider these pair of words:

• Determined – Stubborn
• Irrational – Passionate
• Focus – Restrict
• Organize – Standardize
• Fun – Undisciplined
• Rigid – Strong
• Stable – Stale
• House – Home
• Flexible – Soft
• Interesting – Fascinating

Many times we can simply discern from people’s phrasing whether they like something. We can also discern much deeper qualities of their personalities. For instance, they can tell us how they might approach a planning endeavor or collaborative effort. They can also tell us the degree to which they are influenced by qualitative or quantitative arguments or by logical or humanistic ones.

Therefore, the challenge is classifying various words according to such groupings as quantitative words versus qualitative ones, logical versus humanistic, individual versus collective, etc. Once we’ve made these classifications, we can correlate people’s personalities along these spectra by examining the dominance of certain words and phrasing.

Many things are obvious to us consciously but our actions often betray us. Initiating change among employees is one of those things. We might consciously know that people aren’t light switches but we often expect change as though they were. How often do we say to our bosses, “Yes, I told them about the new way,” in response to pressure as to why employees didn’t adopt a change? Such a response indicates we are expecting people to be light switches.

Switch (FIG #1)

Tomato Plants (FIG #2)

—–

Look at Figures 1 and 2. Which is more analogous to employees, the light switch or the tomato plants? If we select the plants, can we fully expect them to grow with only one watering or feeding? If we view them as light switches, then yes, we could. Flipping them to “on” has them adopt the changes we want and flip them to “off” has them stop the old habits.

As you can see, my wife is growing these tomato plants by having them grow within a circular, vertical wire frame. This allows them to grow taller so more vines can bear tomatoes. Yes, sometimes the vines extend out of the frame, so she works them back in to encourage them upward. She just didn’t plop down the frame and then expect them to follow it.

The same holds true for people. They require follow up and regularly observation. It usually takes at least five enforcements of the change over a couple months before the change becomes the new habit. Even then, depending upon the change, a periodic refreshing of it is needed. That is why as managers our follow up is more important than what we’ve said.

Recently, as I’ve heard on many occasions, someone said “This isn’t personal, it’s business.” A critical assumption underlying an intuitive approach is that everything we do, think or say says something about us. In short, everything is personal. Business is no different; it can tell you much about a person.

The advantage business gives us in assessing personalities is the financial tradeoff it encourages. The stress this often creates allows us to see deeper into people than otherwise possible. When someone says, “This isn’t personal, it’s business,” he is saying the decision is very personal to him. It’s a form of protesting too much. The statement is just the rationale he chose to emotionally justify his decision.

However, we can’t assume that such a statement automatically implies any particular emotions. For example, they could have a miserly orientation or they could be rooted in strong feelings for providing for his family. Many other types of emotions could be at work. Without context, it’s impossible to tell.

Nevertheless, the key point is to realize that this person has one or more emotions that are strongly connected to money. To him, money is very personal. Once you know what these emotions are, money becomes an excellent vehicle by which to influence him.

Virtually all of our decisions are emotionally based. Therefore, as we saw in my previous posting, Decisions: Roles of Intuition and Cognition, intuition (link) plays a vital role in decision making. We often notice this as our confusion about the reasons people give for their decisions. This is because if don’t have a grasp on the emotions causing people on a subconscious level to gravitate to a rationale justifying what they want.

Since the business world often demands we have a rational orientation, we faulty believe that people make decisions about their actions as shown in the left-hand figure below.  If they find Rationale #1 as having the best set of reasons, evidence and logic, then people will select the recommended action associated with it, Action #1. If Rationale #3 is the best, then they select Action #3.

Shopping Rationales: Cognitive vs Intuitive Decisions

However, the right-hand figure shows that intuition, based upon people’s wants and desires, will actually determine the action then the corresponding rationale to support it. So, if people prefer Action #2, they will tend to select Rationale #2 because it justifies their decision. However, as the above embedded posting suggests, this shopping for a rationale will likely occur subliminally. This means that on a conscious, cognitive level, people will tend to believe they are making a rational decision even though they are not.

What does this mean in practical terms? First, good insight into the decision maker’s personality will enhance our abilities to predict his decisions even if we don’t have complete knowledge of the problem. Second, any of his decisions, even if they aren’t similar to the problem, will further our insights into his personality. Taking such an intuitive approach works because personality will always be more consistent than rationales.

Since intuition is rooted in emotions and thus subjective, intuitive approaches allow us to see a single, objective situation as many. We see this most clearly when we tap two distinct, opposing emotions such as the fear of loss versus the joy of gain. The first is generally stronger in people than the second.

In the January 16, 2010 edition of The Economist an article titled “Designing Rewards – Carrots Dressed as Sticks” reported on a paper by Tanjim Hossain of the University of Toronto and John List of the University of Chicago outlining how they made a bonus plan more effective without changing one thing about the plan (i.e. more money, shorter time frame). Rather, they simply changed the wording of the letter outlining the plan’s details.

To one group, they communicated it in the traditional way: hit this target by the end of the week and earn the bonus. However, to another group they said that employees had “provisionally” earned the bonus but would lose it if they did not hit their targets; thus, pitting the “joy of gain” against the “fear of loss.”

Cognitively, objectivity says no difference exists. However, Hossain and List found that the second approach (fear of losing the provisional bonus) was much more motivational than the traditional approach (joy of gaining the bonus). Moreover, the motivational difference persisted over time even after employees understood the bonus better.

In effect, by tapping into the way people intuit different emotions (fear and joy) a single bonus plan becomes two distinct ones. That is the multiplying effect of an intuitive approach.

A special report on television in the May 1, 2010 edition of the Economist stated “. . . people seem unaware of their own behavior. In surveys they almost always underestimate how much television they watch, and greatly overstate the extent to which they watch video in any other form . . .”

One of the important assumptions underpinning intuitive approaches is that people are largely unaware of their behavior. This implies that personal descriptions of behavior are heavily laced with personal and collective emotional drivers. A similar effect occurs when different people describe an accident; descriptions vary.

This example is particularly fascinating for two reasons. First, for most people television occupies a large chunk of daily activity (4 to 8 hours). Second, they tend to watch over 40% more television than they think, and tend to think they watch other video formats almost four times more than they actually do! Therefore, we are not talking about insignificant activities or variations.

However, here is the important question unanswered by the article: What are the emotional drivers causing people to underestimate television viewing and to overestimate the viewing of other videos formats so drastically? Could television, while popular, still be viewed as the “idiot box?” Could other video formats, because of their better interactivity, give the user a greater feeling of control and thus greater cultural acceptability? Is so, perhaps people want to believe they aren’t idiots and they have their viewing under control?

A similar effect commonly occurs in business – but perhaps more consciously – when subordinates will overestimate the time spent on approved activities and underestimate disapproved ones. Regardless, the point is that applying an intuitive approach means having a handle on all emotional drivers – individual and collective – lacing any communication.