Mike Lehr's Blog

I came across a book review in the October 11, 2010 issue of The New Yorker about The Thief of Time, edited by Chrisoula Andreou and Mark D. White. It’s a collection of essays on procrastination. Under an illustration there was this caption: Procrastination interests philosophers because of its underlying irrationality.

I never knew that procrastination received such puzzling attention. No one can really explain why we do it. Yet, it’s very common across all personalities. What makes it even more puzzling is that “indulging in it generally doesn’t make people happy.” In fact, according to Professor Piers Steel of the University of Calgary, “people who admitted to difficulties with procrastination quadrupled between 1978 and 2002.” He defines it as “willingly deferring something even though you expect the delay to make you worse off.”

Why is this important to intuition? Well, in order to appreciate intuition’s impact, we need to appreciate the degree to which our emotions influence our decisions and actions. Since procrastination is a frequent, everyday occurrence, it can serve as a tangible reminder to go beyond simple, rational analysis.

While many of us would acknowledge this, we often don’t practice it. Rather, we attempt to analyze problems in rational, logical and objective terms employing the best scientific analysis we can muster. We try to quantify then weigh benefits and costs without even considering the emotional weights of each. Then, we try to communicate our findings in the same way.

This can lead us astray because in reality emotions play a dominant role in people’s decisions and actions. Thus, when we try to be objective, we often aren’t realistic. Imagine not accounting for procrastination in planning because it’s irrational.

The other day a colleague forwarded this link to the BNET blog speaking to intuition. Embedded in it was a link to an article that appeared in Psychology Today back in November 1, 2002. It provided early insight into the scientific advancements into the study of intuition.

Whenever I speak to people individually or collectively about interpersonal skills for disciplines such as sales, management, leadership and influencing, I emphasize that the most dramatic advancements we’ll see in the next 5-15 years will not be in areas such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, communications or even sensors but rather in how we understand ourselves, especially our decision making and knowledge acquisition abilities.

Increasingly, science is finding – as the Psychology Today article noted back in 2002 – that we make decisions and acquire knowledge before we are consciously aware of them. Yes, there are problems with trusting intuition unquestionably; however, there are problems with doing the same with the most well reasoned and supported scientific findings. You cannot make decisions by facts and figures alone. There will always be unknowns; intuition helps here.

The key is integrating both intuitive and cognitive functions. The danger we face now as the article implied is that we are generally living under the illusion that our decisions are largely conscious (cognitive) ones. We are prejudice in thinking our consciences are in control. Of course, this control calms our insecurities; control is often analogous to safety and security. In reality, many factors beneath our radar influence our feelings and thoughts. They encourage us to choose rationales to justify our wants.

Thus, every one of our decisions has emotions influencing it no matter how rationale and scientifically supported we believe they are.

The scientific method’s usefulness falls far short of people’s belief in it. In other words, hype exceeds reality, and it becomes a panacea for solving problems of any type. The emotions behind this belief are so strong that people are often willing to deny, ignore or discount a reality if they cannot “prove” it. Since emotions and relationships often fall in this unproven domain and play important roles in many events, this belief can retard innovation and problem solving where intuitive approaches are viable solutions.

The inherent weaknesses of the scientific method are produced by its strengths as a disciplined inquiry. In its rigid quest to define observations and hypotheses, to control the experimental process, to quantify results and to present conclusions in a manner that can repeat results with different experimenters; the method excludes aspects of reality that aren’t easily observed, defined, controlled, quantified, presented or repeated. For example, something as obvious as good leadership being good for business cannot be addressed by the scientific method. The same holds true for proving that a good sales person sells more than a bad one or that good morale is better for business than bad morale is.

The proof of the scientific method’s inherent weaknesses is the common observation that what works in the laboratory doesn’t necessarily work in reality. That is why the idea must be reintroduced to reality via developmental and engineering phases. This is reflected in everyday life through disclaimers on product guarantees. For example, a window might be guaranteed but only if the homeowner uses the installer recommended by the window manufacturer. In other words, the best window in the laboratory might not be the best in reality because it’s too difficult to install.

Intuition’s most practical advantage to problem solving is the enhanced sphere of good solutions it offers. Generally, this sphere will produce five types of benefits. They will appear as solutions that can:

1. Address seemingly intractable problems
2. Save a tremendous amount of money
3. Reduce work and headaches to employ
4. Reach higher levels of effectiveness
5. Make objective- or scientific-based solutions better

Let’s look at some examples.

We can solve many customer service problems without necessarily solving them directly; we do it by listening, sympathizing and encouraging venting. We can save a tremendous amount of money on moral building efforts; we do it by employing our personal power to remember names, shake hands and extend “thank you’s” which don’t cost a cent. We can reduce the work and headaches involved in disciplinary efforts; we do it through the power of asking and of positive reinforcements. We can reach higher levels of effectiveness in change initiatives; we do it by organizing those emotionally adapt at change and by using compliments to encourage them. Any software rollout becomes better; we do it by selling the effort rather than commanding. Any training becomes better; we do it by influencing expectations beforehand and not just focusing on content and delivery during.

All these solutions employ emotional elements. Listening, sympathizing and venting encourage customers to feel better about a problem. Our personal power encourages employees to feel better about us at no cost. Asking and reinforcing encourages people to feel better about changing their behavior. Uniting emotionally similar people and complimenting them encourages them to feel better about change. Shaping how people feel about software and training encourages them to adopt the new practices.

In short, changing how people feel opens a vast, new sphere of solutions to the problems we face.

The important practical implication of intuition and emotions in decision making is this: if we don’t grasp the underlying emotions and how intuition is driving a decision, then we really don’t understand the decision. That means we expose ourselves unnecessarily to error.

Said another way, no matter how logical or reasonable a decision might seem its tap root is still emotional. Any appearance of logic or reason is purely cosmetic. Looked upon another way, the rationale becomes the “excuse” justifying a basically emotional decision.

This even extends to the scientific method and statistical analysis. You don’t need either to arrive at a good decision. They are rationales allowing the expression of certain emotions, many rooted in the need to feel secure about a decision. Therefore, a person’s intuition will encourage the selection of science and statistics to satisfy security needs.

In everyday life, we will tend to observe the implications of intuition and emotions in decision making when we present a rationale that trumps the one being presented and the decision does not change. We will also tend to observe extremely contorted rationales simply to justify a decision. This is the origination of the derisive expression, “You’re just rationalizing your decision.”

As an example, take a sales situation. If we base our sales presentation on what appears to be the inherent logic of that person’s objections rather than the intuition and emotions driving them, we failure is quite possible: we address the logic but gain no decision to move forward. In the end, we might even conclude that the person is simply being unreasonable. However, we are projecting; it’s unreasonable to expect reason to prevail in decision-making rooted in emotions.