Tag Archives: Daniel Kahneman

Nothing to Lose: Effective Negotiating Even When “Powerless”

Michael Schaerer

Most negotiators prefer to have alternatives as a “fall back position.”
However, having no alternatives and less power than co-negotiators can improve outcomes, found INSEAD’s Michael Schaerer and Roderick Swaab with Adam Galinsky of Columbia.

Alternatives enable negotiators to gain concessions from co-negotiators because they have a BATNA – Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement, defined by Harvard’s Roger Fisher and William Ury.

Roger Fisher

Roger Fisher

When an alternative is weak, it can undermine negotiating outcomes more than having no alternative because it establishes an “anchor point” based on competing options.

Anchoring is a frequent cognitive bias characterized by overvaluing one piece of information, according to Hebrew University’s Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman of Princeton.

William Ury

William Ury

Typically, negotiators anchor on the value of their alternatives when making their first offer, so people with weak alternatives generally make lower first offers than those with no alternative.
“Lowball” first offers based on few or poor alternatives usually undermine a negotiator’s final outcome.

Professional athletes and their agents provide many anecdotal examples of negotiating better deals when they have no “back up” offers and “nothing to lose” because they can set ambitious anchor points.

Amos Tversky

Amos Tversky

In a separate study of job negotiation, Schaerer and team asked a hundred people whether they would prefer to negotiate a job offer with a weak alternative or without any alternative.
More than 90 percent indicated that they would prefer to enter the negotiation with an unattractive alternative offer, confirming the popular assumption that any alternative is seen as better than no alternative.

Another of Schaerer’s lab studies asked volunteers to imagine they were selling a used music CD by The Rolling Stones.
They randomly assigned participants to three groups and gave each group different information about their alternatives, ranging from:

  • No offers (no alternative),
  • One offer at USD $2 (weak alternative),
  • A bid at USD $8 (strong alternative).
Roderick Swaab

Roderick Swaab

Volunteers in each group proposed a first offer, and rated the degree of power they felt.
Not surprisingly, people with the strong alternative felt the most powerful and those with no alternative felt the least powerful.

However, people with a weak alternative felt more powerful than those with no alternative, but they made lower first offers, signaling less confidence than participants with no alternative.
Having alternatives, whether poor or attractive, may make people feel powerful but can undermine negotiation performance.

Schaerer’s team further explored this paradox by pairing participants as a  “seller” who was offering a Starbucks mug during a face-to-face meeting, and a potential “buyer.”

Adam Galinsky

Adam Galinsky

Before the meeting, the seller received a phone call from “another buyer,” who was actually a confederate.
For half of the “sellers,” the potential buyer either made a low offer or declined to bid.

“Sellers” without an alternative offer said they felt less powerful, but made higher first offers and received considerably higher sales prices than negotiators with a an unattractive alternative.

In another situation, half of the “sellers” concentrated on available alternatives (none, weak, or strong) and the remaining negotiators focused on the target price.

Volunteers with unappealing alternatives negotiated worse deals than those without other options when they focused on alternatives, but “sellers” avoided this pitfall by concentrating on the target price.
This is another validation of focusing on the goal when alternatives are weak, and of the power of first-offer anchors.

Negotiators with non-existent or unappealing alternatives benefit from caution in setting modest first offers driven by feeling powerless.
Instead, the situation can be reconstrued as an opportunity to set audacious goals, reflected in an ambitious opening offer.

  • How do you overcome lowball anchoring when you have few negotiation alternatives?

RELATED POSTS:

Twitter  @kathrynwelds
Google+
Facebook

©Kathryn Welds

Comparative Rankings May Reduce Gender Bias in Career Advancement

Iris Bohnet

Iris Bohnet

An “evaluation nudge” is a decision framing aid that may reduce biased judgments in hiring, promotion, and job assignments, according to Harvard’s Iris Bohnet, Alexandra van Geen, and Max H. Bazerman.

Alexandra van Geen

Alexandra van Geen

Based on their research, they recommended that organizations evaluate multiple employees  simultaneously rather than each person independently.
This approach contrasts widespread practices like “Stack Ranking” (“Rank and Yank”), advocated by GE’s Jack Welch and critiqued in a previous blog post .

This approach is frequently used for hiring decisions, but less frequently when considering employee candidates for developmental job assignments and promotions.

Max Bazerman

Max Bazerman

Bazerman and Sally B. White, then of Northwestern with George F. Loewenstein of Carnegie Mellon, provided the original demonstration of preference reversals between joint and separate evaluation.

George F. Loewenstein

George F. Loewenstein

Lack of comparison information in separate evaluation typically leads people to rely on internal referents as decision norms, though these may be biased or stereotyped preferences, according to Princeton’s Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and Dale T. Miller of Stanford.

Dale T. Miller

Dale T. Miller

Additionally, lack of comparative referents can lead evaluators to rely on easily calibrated attributes, found University of Chicago’s Christopher K. Hsee.
Both of these shortcuts can lead to biased decisions, which may systematically exclude members of under-represented groups.

Christopher K. Hsee

Christopher K. Hsee

Still another problem is the “want/should” battle of emotions and preferences, outlined by Bazerman and Ann E. Tenbrunsel of Notre Dame, with Duke’s Kimberly A. Wade-Benzoni itheir provocatively titled article, “Negotiating with Yourself and Losing.”

Ann E. Tenbrunsel

Ann E. Tenbrunsel

They argue that the want self” tends to dominate when deciding on a single option because there’s less information and less need to justify the decision.
In contrast, the more analytic “should self” is activated by the need to explain decision rationales.

Kimberly Wade-Benzoni

Kimberly Wade-Benzoni

Bohnet’s team asked more than 175 volunteer “employees” to perform a math task or a verbal task, then 554 “employer” evaluators (44% male, 56% female) received information on “employees’” past performance, gender, and the average past performance for all “employees.”

“Employers” were paid based on their “employees’’” performance in future tasks, similar to managerial incentives in many organizations.
Consequently, “employers” were rewarded for selecting people they considered effective performers.
Based on information about “employee” performance, evaluators decided to:

  • “Hire” the “employees,” or
  • Recommend them to perform the task in future, or
  • Return to “employees” to the pool for random assignment to an employer.
Keith E. Stanovich

Keith E. Stanovich

The Harvard team found that “employers” who evaluated “employees” in relation to each other’s performance were more likely to select employees based on past performance, rather than relying on irrelevant criteria like gender.

Richard F. West

Richard F. West

In contrast, more than 50% of “employers” evaluated each candidate separately without reference to other “employees,” selected under-performing people for advancement.
Only 8% of employers selected under-performers when comparing “employees” to each other, and multiple raters for multiple candidates also tended to select the higher performing “employees.”

Team Bohnet suggested that people have two distinct and situation-specific modes of thinking, “System 1” and “System 2,” illustrated by University of Toronto’s Keith E. Stanovich and Richard F. West of James Mason University.

Keith Stanovich-Richard West System 1- System 2 ThinkingThese varied cognitive patterns can lead evaluators to select incorrect decision norms, leading to biased outcomes.

As a result, decision tools like the “evaluative nudge” decision-framing can reduce bias in hiring and promotion decisions, leading to a more equitable workplace opportunity across demographic groups.

-*What other evaluation procedures can reduce unconscious bias in performance appraisal and career advancement selection processes?

Related Posts:

Twitter:  @kathrynwelds
Google+
Facebook

©Kathryn Welds

Thinking in a Second Languages Reduces Decision Bias 

Boaz Keysar

Boaz Keysar

People who can think in a foreign language are more able to rationally analyze risk compared with evaluating risk in their native language, found University of Chicago’s Boaz Keysar, Sayuri L. Hayakawa, and Sun Gyu An.

Sayuri Hayakawa

Sayuri Hayakawa

When volunteers analyzed risks presented in their native language, they were risk-averse when considering potential gains and more risk- tolerant when considering possible losses.
However, they were did not show this risk assessment bias when they considered the same risks vs rewards in a foreign language.
Using a foreign language reduced loss aversion and increased acceptance of hypothetical and real bets with positive expected values.

Micheline Favreau

Micheline Favreau

This effect could occur because foreign languages are typically processed more slowly than in a native tongue, leading to more deliberate cognitive processing, argued Concordia University’s Micheline Favreau and Norman Segalowitz.

Norman Segalowitz

Norman Segalowitz

Foreign language processing generally requires greater cognition-intensive systematic, analytical effort, leading to increased emotional and cognitive distance than in a native tongue, suggested Princeton’s Daniel Kahneman in his distinction between Thinking Fast and Slow.

Stefano Puntoni

Stefano Puntoni

Even when people fully understand language nuances including colloquialisms, impolite words, terms of endearment and reproach, they react less emotionally in a foreign language, according to self-report and electrodermal measurements, found Erasmus University’s Stefano Puntoni, Bart de Langhe of University of Colorado, and Cornell’s Stijn M.J. van Osselaer.
As a result, more than half the participants preferred the riskier option presented in a foreign language instead of the native tongue.

Richard Thaler

Richard Thaler

This finding confirmed participants’ tendency toward myopic risk aversion, or greater sensitivity to losses when thinking and acting in their native languagedescribed by University of Chicago’s Richard Thaler, Amos Tversky of Stanford, Princeton’s Kahneman, and Alan Schwartz of University of Illinois.

Amos Tversky

Amos Tversky

Among more than 140 native Korean speakers and more than 100 English speakers in Paris, Keysar’s team confirmed the same pattern of enhanced deliberation and reduced framing effects in a foreign language in hypothetical low-loss, high-gain bets.
Just 57 percent of Korean-speaking participants accepted bets offered in Korean, contrasted with 67 percent when offered in English, suggesting heightened deliberation in a second language.

Daniel Kahneman

Daniel Kahneman

Likewise, more than 50 English-speaking volunteers who spoke Spanish as a second language received $15 in $1 bills, which could be kept or bet on a coin toss.
For every lost toss, participants lost $1.
However, if they won, they kept the $1 and earned another $1.50, a significant return on the chance bet.
When conducted in participants’ native English language, 54% accepted bets, whereas when presented in Spanish, 71% agreed to bet.

Alan Schwartz

Alan Schwartz

“They take more bets in a foreign language because they…are less affected by the typically exaggerated aversion to losses … People who routinely make decisions in a foreign language rather than their native tongue might be less biased in their savings, investment, and retirement decisions, as a result of reduced myopic loss aversion” wrote Keysar and colleagues.

-*How do you reduce “myopic risk aversion” in your native language?

Follow-share-like http://www.kathrynwelds.com and @kathrynwelds

Related Posts:

Twitter: @kathrynwelds
Google+
LinkedIn Groups Psychology in Human Resources (Organisational Psychology)
Facebook

Blog: – Kathryn Welds | Curated Research and Commentary

©Kathryn Welds

Debiasing Decisions: Combat Confirmation Bias, Overconfidence Bias

Philip Meißner

Philip Meißner

Cognitive and behavioral biases can contribute to “blind spots” in decision-making, leading to less effective outcomes.
To improve decision outcomes, University of Marburg ’s Philip Meißner, Torsten Wulf of HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management and HEC’s Olivier Sibony proposed a systematic checklist to identify potential decision derailment based on bias, along with rapid remedies.

Torsten Wulf

Torsten Wulf

They argues that two types of bias contribute to most decisions that lead to undesirable results:

  • Confirmation bias, the unconscious tendency to believe new information that is consistent with existing beliefs and recent experiences, and to discount contradictory data,
  • Overconfidence bias, the out-of-awareness likelihood to overestimate one’s skills, insights, and judgment.
    This leads to increased risk-taking based on illusory sureness of the decision and ability to mitigate adverse outcomes.
Olivier Sibony

Olivier Sibony

Previously, Lovallo and Sibony articulated four related decision biases:

  • Pattern-recognition biases, countered by changing the “angle of vision,”
  • Action-oriented biases, mitigated by recognizing uncertainty,
  • Interest biases, minimized by explicitly highlighting these interests,
  • Social biases, reduced by depersonalizing debate.

Debiasing techniques such as checklists, can limit the negative effects of biases in decision-making by offering a disciplined, comprehensive analysis of downside risks and by systematically considering multiple viewpoints.

Atul Gawande

Atul Gawande

However, effectively implementing checklists requires consistent discipline, noted Harvard’s Atul Gawande, who cited examples of partial adherence leading to costly oversights and failures.

One approach, suggested by Princeton’s Daniel Kahneman and Gary Klein of McKinsey, is a “premortem.”
Decision makers imagine that the decision has failed and analyze sources and reasons for adverse outcomes, to more thoroughly assess points of failure and possible mitigation strategies.
Formal scenario-planning is another way to expose assumptions underlying a plan, as well as a competitor’s priorities and potential strategy.

Massimo Garbuio

Massimo Garbuio

Using a variety of debiasing techniques significantly increased the Return on Investment (ROI) in a study by University of Sydney’s Massimo Garbuio and Dan Lovallo and Olivier Sibony of HEC.
As a result, Michael Birshan, Ishaan Nangia, and Felix Wenger of McKinsey, argued that debiasing techniques should be embedded in formal organizational decision-making processes, particularly for high-impact, repetitive decisions.

Michael Birshan

Michael Birshan

Decision biases may be out of awareness, or unconscious, so it’s more effective to evaluate the process of developing a proposal, rather than focusing only on the content and merits of a proposal.

Decision-making safeguards can be built into standard analysis processes by including questions to expose:

  • Multiple data sources,
  • Diverse opinions and perspectives,
  • Downside risk,
  • Potential negative outcomes for company, industry, and broader ecosystem.
Daniel Kahneman

Daniel Kahneman

Proposals are considered ready for a decision only when multiple perspectives are available to mitigate confirmation bias and risk analysis is available to reduce overconfidence bias.
Responses to decision checklist questions can be quantified to indicate one of four action steps, according to Daniel Kahneman:

  • Decide, based on inclusion of robust safeguards against both confirmation bias and overconfidence bias,
  • Screening MatrixReach out, suggesting the need for gathering additional perspectives, opinions, and perspectives to prevent narrow assumptions to reduce confirmation bias.
    The Vanishing-Options Test, proposed by Stanford’s Chip Heath and Dan Heath of Duke University, can generate new ideas by imagining that none of the current proposals are available.
  • Stress-test, by conducting a pre-mortem or analysis by external devil’s advocate or provocateur to reduce overconfidence risk by.
  • Reconsider when both more perspectives and risk analysis are required to reduce both overconfidence bias and confirmation bias.
    This screening matrix helps reduce related decision-making biases:
  1. Self-interest Bias
    -To what extent is the proposal motivated by self-interest?
Ishaan Nangia

Ishaan Nangia

Recommendation
-Assess for over-optimism

  1. Affect Heuristic
    -How strong is the team’s emotional attachment to a specific proposal?
    -To what extent were risks and costs fully considered for both preferred and non-preferred options?

Recommendations
-Assess for strongly-preferred outcomes
-Reintroduce analysis of all options

  1. Groupthink
    -How many dissenting opinions were analyzed?
    -How adequately were all options explored?
    -Was dissent discouraged? 
Felix Wenger

Felix Wenger

Recommendations
-Encourage substantive disagreements as a valuable part of the decision process
-Solicit dissenting views from members of the recommending team, through private meetings

4. Saliency Bias
     -To what extent are decisions made based on a potentially incomparable, but memorable success?
     -What about the proposed analogy is comparable to the current situation?
     -What are relevant examples from less successful companies? What happened in those cases?

Decision Making QuestionsRecommendation
-Carefully scrutinize analogies’ similarity to the current decision situation
Solicit additional analogies using reference class forecasting:

.Select reference class,
.Assess distribution of outcomes,
.Intuitively estimate project’s position in distribution,
.Assess estimate’s reliability,
.Correct intuitive estimate.

  1. Confirmation Bias
    -What viable alternatives were included with the preferred recommendation?
    -At what stage in the decision analysis were alternatives discarded?
    -What efforts were undertaken to seek information to disconfirm the main assumptions and hypotheses?

Recommendation
-Request two additional alternatives to the main recommendation, including analysis of benefits and drawbacks
-Acknowledge unknowns, risks

  1. Availability Bias

    Max Bazerman

    Max Bazerman

    If you had more time to gather date, what information would you seek?, asked Harvard’s Max Bazerman
    -How can you access similar data now?

Recommendation
-Use checklists to ensure comprehensive analysis of data required for each decision type

  1. Anchoring Bias
    -What data sources are used to analyze decision?
    -Which data are estimates? By whom? If so, from which data were estimates extrapolated?
    -To what extent could there be:
  • Unsubstantiated numbers?
  • Extrapolation from non-equivalent previous situations?
  • Attraction to specific anchors?

Recommendations
-Present data from other sources, benchmarks, or models
-Request new analysis

8. Halo Effect
     -To what extent does the analysis team expect that a person, organization, or approach previously successful in one context will be equally effective in different situation?

Phil Rosenzweig

Phil Rosenzweig

Recommendations
-Question potentially inaccurate inferences
-Solicit additional comparable examples
-Question attributions of success and failure to leaders’ personalities instead of chance factors, advised IMD’s Phil Rosenzweig.

9. Sunk-Cost Fallacy, Endowment Effect
     -To what extent are recommenders attached to past decisions?

Recommendation
Disregard past expenditures when considering future costs and revenues

  1. Overconfidence, Planning Fallacy, Optimistic Biases, Competitor Neglect
    -To what extent is the comparison case unwarrantedly optimistic?

Recommendation
-Adopt an outside view by using relevant simulations or war games

  1. Disaster Neglect
    -To what extent is the worst case scenario realistically and sufficiently negative?
    -How was the worst case generated?
    -To what extent does the worst case consider competitors’ likely responses?
    -What other scenarios could occur?

Recommendation
-Conduct a premortem, suggested by Gary Klein of Applied Research Associates:  Imagine the worst case scenario occurred, then propose likely causes, mitigations   

  1. Loss Aversion
    -To what extent is the evaluation and decision team risk averse?

Recommendation
-Realign incentives to share responsibility for the risk or to reduce risk

  1. Planning Fallacy focuses only on the current case while ignoring similar projects’ history and statistical generalization from related cases.
    -To what extent does the analysis rely on “top-down, outside-view” comparisons to similar projects?
    -Did the evaluators use a “bottom-up, inside-view” to estimate time required for each step?

Recommendation
-Statistically analyze a broad range of similar cases to avoid over-estimates from “top-down, outside-view” approaches and underestimates from “bottom-up, inside-view”
-Differentiate accurate forecasts from ambitious targets

  1. Loss aversion
    -To what extent are evaluators more concerned with avoiding loss than achieving gains?
    – How concerned are evaluators with being held responsible for a failed project?
    -To what extent has the organization specified acceptable risk levels?

Recommendation
-Seek risk tolerance guidelines from organizational leaders.

Decision-making tools like checklists can significantly reduce unconscious biases, provided that they are consistently and systematically applied.

-*What strategies have you found most helpful in reducing biases in decision-making?

Follow-share-like http://www.kathrynwelds.com and @kathrynwelds

Related Posts:

Twitter:  @kathrynwelds
Google+LinkedIn Groups Psychology in Human Resources (Organisational Psychology)
Facebook
Blog:  Kathryn Welds | Curated Research and Commentary

©Kathryn Welds

 

Do “Hot” Emotions Lead to Better Decisions?

-*Do people in an agitated emotional state tend to make decisions they later regret?

Popular wisdom counsels against making decisions when influenced by “hot emotions” including feeling HALT – Hungry, Angry, Lonely, Tired,
This guidance is based on the assumption that these physical and emotional experiences lead to regrettable decisions, such as relapsing to substance use.

Shane Frederick

Shane Frederick

Contradictory theories and research findings compete to explain the process of emotional decision-making.
One view, suggested by Princeton’s Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman with Shane Frederick of Yale, is that these two modes operate sequentially:  Intuitive judgments (“reflexive system”) are rapidly generated, whereas the analytical decisions (“reflective system”) are slower, and involve monitoring and modifying initial intuitive responses.

Andreas Glöckner

Andreas Glöckner

A contrasting view is that the two thinking modes work in parallel, and are applied in different decision environments, proposed by Max Planck Institute’s Andreas Glöckner and Tillman Betsch of Universität Erfurt.

J. Scott Armstrong

J. Scott Armstrong

Similarly, there are two divergent views of the quality of emotional decision-making.
One position is that the intuitive mode’s emotional approach may lead to faulty decisions, argued by Decision Research’s Donald MacGregor and J. Scott Amstrong of Wharton.

Marius Usher

Marius Usher

A counterpoint view is that the intuitive mode yields equal or better decisions compared with the analytical mode, offered by Tel Aviv University’s Marius Usher, Ran Brauner, and Dan Zakay with Zohar Rusou of Open University of Israel and University College London’s Mark Weyers.

Antonio Damasio

Antonio Damasio

Consistent with this view that intuitive thinking can enhance decisions, University of Southern California’s Antonio Damasio suggested that uncomfortable physical states like hunger, can provide access to unconscious processes that may determine decisions later rationalized with more rational explanations:  We feel, therefore we are, despite Descartes’ contrary assertion, he argued.

Dan Zakay

Dan Zakay

An integrative view is that decision quality depends on consistency (“transitivity”) between thinking modes during decision-making and characteristics of the decision, proposed Tel Aviv University’s Zohar Rusou and Marius Usher, with Dan Zakay of IDC Herzliya in their comparison of thinking during intuitive or analytical tasks.

Based on these views of thinking during decision making, the HALT theory that physiological arousal leads to poorer decisions was tested by asking hungry people to make complex choices.

Denise de Ridder

Denise de Ridder

Utrecht University’s Denise de Ridder, Floor Kroese, Marieke Adriaanse, and Catharine Evers asked volunteers to avoid eating and drinking between 11 p.m. the night before the experiment and 8:30 – 9:15 am, when they arrived at the lab.

Antoine Bechara

Antoine Bechara

Half of the participants received breakfast before beginning the task, whereas the remaining group immediately began the Iowa Gambling Task, developed by University of Southern California’s Antoine Bechara, Antonio Damasio and Hannah Damasio, with Steven W Anderson of University of Iowa to simulate real-life decision making using uncertainty, rewards, and penalties.

Iowa Gambling Task

Iowa Gambling Task

Participants received four decks of cards and were told to earn as much money as possible and lose the least possible when they selected one card at a time.
Cards in decks A and B had a 100 Euro payoff, whereas those in decks C and D has a 50 Euro reward.

In addition, decks A and B also had cards with a larger penalty than in decks C and D.
Consequently, selecting cards from decks A and B resulted in a loss, whereas cards from C and D led to a gain.

Floor Kroese

Floor Kroese

Hungry participants selected more cards from decks C and D, leading to greater financial gains.
Similarly, hungry participants made equally astute decisions about long term payoffs when choosing between 50 Euros in 21 days instead of 27 Euros today.

People in a “hot” emotional state like hunger actually made better decisions involving uncertain outcomes because recognized the risks of loss associated with higher rewards, concluded de Ridder’s team.
This team’s findings contrasts to conventional belief that impulsivity impairs decision-making.

  • When do you make better decisions in “hot” states like “HALT”?

Follow-share-like http://www.kathrynwelds.com and @kathrynwelds

RELATED POSTS:

Twitter  @kathrynwelds
Blog – Kathryn Welds | Curated Research and Commentary
Google+
LinkedIn Open Group Psychology in Human Resources (Organisational Psychology)
Facebook Notes

©Kathryn Welds

Perseverance Increases Skill Increases Luck: “The Harder I Work, The Luckier I Get”

Samuel Goldwyn

Samuel Goldwyn

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson

Samuel Goldwyn recast Thomas Jefferson’s earlier observation: “I am a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it.”

Michael Mauboussin, of Columbia University, and previously Chief Investment Strategist at Legg Mason Capital Management Inc. investigated this relationship between effort and luck in his book, The Success Equation.The Success Equation

Michael Mauboussin

Michael Mauboussin

Mauboussin, an innovator in behavioral finance, adopted Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould’s “paradox of skill” to analyze the interaction of effort, skills, and luck, and best strategies to optimize outcomes in investing, sports, and career performance.

Stephen Jay Gould

Stephen Jay Gould

He posits that as skill improves in activities where outcomes are affected by skill and luck, the standard deviation of skills narrows.
In this case, luck becomes more important in determining outcomes:

Whenever you see an outlier in sports, it is always a combination of really good skill and really good luck… (Often) they are about one and a half or two standard deviations away from the average…not all skilled players have (winning) streaks, but all (winning) streaks are held by skillful players.”

For example, as investors become more sophisticated and have access to advanced computational tools, as athletes benefit from targeted training and development regimens, and as students are groomed for admission to top universities, differences among these skilled performers decreases.
Chance influences can determine outcomes.

Mauboussin says that luck has several elements:

  • Affects an individual or organization,
  • May be evaluated as “good” or “bad”
  • Another outcome could have occurred
  • The outcome is uncontrollable, but is comprised of several elements

To increase luck, he advises assessing each contender’s strength in the situation and finding “…something completely different to get you on the right side of the tail of the skill distribution,” such as employing an unusual or unexpected tactic.

The stronger player has positive asymmetric resources, so the effective strategy is to simplify the game.
In contrast the underdog should seek to complicate the game, such as through disruptive innovation, a flank strategy or a guerilla tactic.

Because most people have a bias toward optimism and overestimate personal capabilities, it may be difficult to assess oneself as an “underdog” in a performance situation.

Daniel Kahneman

Daniel Kahneman

Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky explained that individuals who adopt an inside view gather substantial information, combine it with their own inputs, then project into the future without considering “distributional information” about a wide variety of previous instances.
This approach risks developing an idiosyncratic, overconfident perspective by underestimating costs, completion times, and risks of planned actions, while overestimating benefits.

Amos Tversky

Amos Tversky

In contrast, people who adopt the outside view consider the problem as an instance of a larger reference class and consider the entire distribution of outcomes when this type of situation occurred previously.
This approach can reduce overconfidence.
However, this approach could discourage entrepreneurs, who will realize that a small percentage actually succeeds.

In addition, besides the bias toward overconfidence, people tend to “under-sample” instances of failure when a previously successful approach is applied in a new situation and doesn’t succeed.

Nate Silver

Nate Silver

Sabermetricians like Nate Silver, posit that worthwhile statistics provide:

  • Persistence or correlation from one period to the next, a strong indicator of high skill
  • Predictive value or high correlation with the target objective

Nate Silver-The Signal and The NoiseThe Oakland As baseball team uncovered these principles in determining that  a superior measure of athletic performance in this sport is on-base percentage rather than the traditional measure, batting average.

In this case, on-base percentage has a higher correlation from one season to the next and a higher correlation with run production than batting average, fulfilling both criteria.

Daniel Kahneman also suggested that skill, expertise, and intuition render more uniform results in a predictable environment.

Thinking Fast and SlowHowever, many organizational environments are unstable and non-linear, rendering experts less accurate because they cannot employ an effective predictive model.

Collective judgments through “the wisdom of crowds” may mitigate the challenges of unstable contexts because they provide more data points.

Mauboussin advocated considering the continuum of stability vs instability in which the issue is situated to determine strategy and to beware of applying simple heuristics that are vulnerable to bias, and social or situational influences.

He suggested the guideline “think twice” to prepare, detect and correct for common mental traps, including:

  • The Inside-only View
  • Tunnel Vision
  • Oversimplification
  • Situational Power
  • Overvaluing Expert Knowledge

-*How do you optimize your performance when chance elements can affect your outcomes?

Related Posts

Twitter:   @kathrynwelds
Google+:
Blog: – Kathryn Welds | Curated Research and Commentary
LinkedIn Open Group Psychology in Human Resources (Organisational Psychology)
Facebook Notes:

©Kathryn Welds

Happiness-Money Connection: Halo Effect of Happy Mood? Part 2

Daniel Kahneman

Daniel Kahneman

The Happiness-Money Connection: Halo Effect of Happy Mood? Part 1 outlined studies by Nobel Prize winner and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, with Angus Deaton and by British researchers Jan-Emmanuel De Neve and Andrew Oswald, documenting the long-term positive impact of subjective positive emotions on life outcomes including academic attainment, employment status, and income over time.Michael Norton’s research added the insight that money can buy happiness – if it’s used for other people.

Taken together, these findings point to the value of cultivating positive emotional states.

Martin Seligman

Martin Seligman

Distinguished psychologist Martin E. P. Seligman was one of the first researchers to empirically investigate correlates of happiness and well-being, and his recent book,

Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being recasts his

Flourish

earlier emphasis on Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment.
He opined that “well-being” is a more accurate concept, defined by the acronym PERMA:

  • Positive Emotion
  • Engagement
  • Relationships
  • Meaning
  • Accomplishment

Authentic Happiness

Though this is largely a conceptual model, he offers several exercises like considering one’s “signature strengths” and “three blessings” or things that have gone well during a day.

Sonja Lyubomirsky of UC Riverside synthesized happiness-enhancing recommendations from self-help books in The How of Happiness: A New Approach to Getting the Life You Want,  and provided familiar happiness-enhancing strategies:The How of Happiness

  • Cultivate optimism, consciously stop negative thoughts
  • Avoid “overthinking“, social comparison
  • Practice kindness
  • Invest time in social relationships, family
  • Develop coping strategies
  • Forgive self, others
  • Increase “flow” experiences, do enjoyable things
  • Savor life’s joyful experiences
  • Live in the present
  • Commit to goals
  • Organize space, work, life
  • Participate in religious or meditative practice
  • Keep self-reflection Journals

The Happiness Project

Gretchen Rubin combined some of these recommendations with erudite references to great philosophers’ and thinkers’ guidance, health recommendations, and time-tested common sense in The Happiness Project.

Daniel Gilbert of Harvard’s bestseller, Stumbling on Happiness , synthesized social science research about imagined expected future outcomes and control over them in relation to the experience of happiness.Stumbling on Happiness

He noted that human imagination and prediction are inaccurate, so he suggested using “surrogates” of future events to more accurately test future satisfaction with real-life choices like having children, moving to a new home, or working in a new job.

Other ways to cultivate the Emotional Intelligence capabilities of positive emotional experience are highlighted in related Posts:

-*How have you cultivated happiness?
-*How have happiness and money been related in your experience?

Twitter: @kathrynwelds
Google+
LinkedIn Open Group The Executive Coach
Facebook Notes
Blog: – Kathryn Welds | Curated Research and Commentary 

©Kathryn Welds