Tag

Decision-Making Archives - Page 4 of 10 - How to be Awesome at Your Job

738: How to Get Inspired and Be Inspiring with Alise Cortez

By | Podcasts | No Comments

 

Alise Cortez reveals what sets apart inspirational leaders, and how you can become one yourself.

You’ll Learn:

  1. The three principle sources of meaning
  2. How to get yourself out of a job rut
  3. What people look for in an inspirational leader 

About Alise

Dr. Alise Cortez is the chief purpose officer at Alise Cortez and Associates, a management consulting firm. She is also an inspirational speaker, social scientist, author, and host of the Working on Purpose radio show. Having developed her expertise within the human capital / organizational excellence industry over the last 20 years, she is focused on helping companies, leaders, and individuals across the globe to live with “gusto,” meaning, and purpose. She is the author of Purpose Ignited: How Inspiring Leaders Unleash Passion and Elevate Cause, and the Curator of Passionately Striving in “Why”: An Anthology of Women Who Persevere Mightily to Live Their Purpose. 

Resources Mentioned

Alise Cortez Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Alise, welcome to How to be Awesome at Your Job.

Alise Cortez
Thanks, Pete. Thanks for having me. It’s great to be on the other end of the mic.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to be chatting with you and to hear about your wisdom when it comes to purpose and inspiration and fighting burnout. But, first, I want to hear, you had an aspiration as a youth, tell us about this.

Alise Cortez
Yeah, let’s just be thankful that things change and evolve over time and, hopefully, very quickly. So, Pete, when I was in my elementary school years, and I asked a lot of people this when I’m doing my interviews with them, what do they want to be when they were young, like in elementary school, and I had a very, very strong singular aspiration in the second grade to become a horse.

And that was because my mother was married five times by the time she was 28. She finally found Mr. Right with her fifth marriage when I was in the second grade, and he moved us to this farm and I had my own horse, he was my best friend, and I thought, “Wow, if a being can be that magnificent, I want to be one of those.”

So, I, literally, Pete, would go around, I had two young siblings at the time, I would literally go around practicing being a horse. And so, I’d get on all fours and I’d give them rides on my back, and I practiced my whinny, and I was ready to be a horse. And my parents were, of course, horrified. I don’t know how long it took me to outgrow that, but that was my first aspiration.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, it’s interesting, they say, which is that’s a great question, “What do you want to do?” when you were little in terms of upon growing up, and there are often clues in that about your interests and passions and things. Tell me, were there some things about horses that connected to what you’re doing now?

Alise Cortez
What a thoughtful, beautiful question. As you ask me the question, I can connect the dots. No one has ever asked me that before, but, yeah, there’s something about, for me, horses are magnificent. They are elegant. They are elevated. They are graceful. And so, the work that I do today is so much is about stewarding consciousness. That’s so much of the work that I do.

And, yeah, so we’re on stewarding individual lives, organizations upward and toward magnificence, toward elegance, towards something bigger and beautiful, more beautiful. So, yeah, I think I can connect it, my fascination with horses to what I do now.

Pete Mockaitis
Cool. All right. Well, so now let’s chat a little bit about some purpose. You’ve got a new book, Purpose Ignited. What’s the big idea here?

Alise Cortez
Yeah, the big idea here is that each and every single one of us have the capacity and, frankly, the responsibility to be able to ignite that which is already within us in terms of our energy, our passion, our vitality. It’s always there and available to us but we lose it along the way in life as we go out and get burnt out and we get overwhelmed, etc. but it’s always there. And so, the book really teaches us how to remain vigilant and develop it and exercise it on a daily basis, first, as individuals and then as inspirational leaders.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, tell us, when it comes to, I’m thinking a little bit about if someone is listening and you’re an individual and you are not yet having direct reports but you are feeling your inspiration, motivation sagging and maybe burnout on the rise, what would you recommend are some of the top things they should do?

Alise Cortez
Oh, yeah, I got this, Pete. I got this. Okay. So, I haven’t introduced myself as a management consultant specializing in meaning and purpose and an organizational logotherapist but now is the time to do so. So, when it comes to logotherapy, what that really speaks to is healing and vitality through meaning. And I don’t think you can go a day without hearing about purpose and meaning, but what the heck are they, right? And how do we actually get to them?

So, as a logotherapist, a lot of the work that I’m doing is about helping people to access meaning in their lives and their work because when they do so, that is their ultimate turn-on mechanism, their ultimate energy source, essentially. That’s what logotherapy teaches and that’s what I embrace.

So, what I would say is I’ll share with you there are three principal sources of meaning according to logotherapy and when we can each access those and learn to presence them in the moment to moments of our lives, the more energy that we have and the more irresistible we’d become to other people. So, I’ll share those really quick, but before I do, do you want me to speak just to the individual piece or do you want me to speak to this model first?

Pete Mockaitis
Well, yeah, let’s hear about the individual and then the model.

Alise Cortez
Okay. So, let’s go back to from an individualistic vantage point. We each and every one of us have access to this notion of meaning in the everyday moments of our life and across our lives, and yet it’s up to us to be able to find that. And the more meaning we can find in our lives, the more lifted we are, the more energetic we are, and, frankly, the more irresistible we are to other people.

So, what does that speak to? How do we translate that to the world of work? As individuals, one, when we really understand what it is that lights us up, what do we love, we can opt-in to those opportunities and let anything else go that doesn’t actually fit that path or that pattern, if you will. And then, two, when are leading other people, or we want to lead other people, even if we’ve never done that before, when we’re so up to something that turns us on and lights us up and we’re passionate about, that is what is irresistible to others.

In fact, what we’ve learned in the leadership space, Pete, is that there’s all different kinds of ways that leadership has been taught about, categorized, and tried to develop over the years, but where we have come to with a lot of common ground with thought leaders in the same space is the one thing that we really need is inspiration.

We need inspirational leaders who actually show us the possibilities, something much bigger than ourselves, that makes us feel like we’re part of something much bigger than ourselves and that we belong to that, and helps us grow into the best version of ourselves. So, individually, what we really need is that path to meaning to steward us toward that higher being in ourselves.

Pete Mockaitis
Cool. All right. Well, so then, I’m curious, if we’re doing our own introspection and we want to tap into that ultimate energy source and get some more of that, how do we come to get a great understanding of what really lights us up?

Alise Cortez
Yeah, okay. So, then I want to get into the model then. So, according to logotherapy, there’s three principal sources of meaning. And so, the first one is creative, and that is what we give of ourselves to the world, that we can uniquely give of ourselves to the world. And I translate that word to passion. So, what is it that you can’t not do in the world? If nobody was looking and nobody paid you, what would you do? That’s the stuff and it’s always the thing that you put yourself into.

So, for me, as an example, one of the things for me is I have to go find someone on a daily basis that I can uplift. So, even if it’s in the grocery store, even if it’s walking down the sidewalk, I look for someone that I can say something kind about, not because I want something, Pete, but because when I do that, the act of giving that unique message from me to them lifts me, and that’s the energy source back that I’m talking about.

So, the more that we, one, know what our passions are and, two, exercise them, the more energy we get. So, when I’m out speaking with audiences, Pete, and I ask people that question, I ask an audience of a hundred people, five hundred people, a thousand people, “What are you passionate about?” Guess, Pete, what the number one response is?

Pete Mockaitis
Helping people?

Alise Cortez
Yeah, I’ll get that as a little response here and there. Some people will say families, some will say travel, but the universal response more in common is, “I don’t know.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. That was so funny. I was about to say I don’t know because I didn’t know. But I thought, “I want to give her a good guess. Let’s see.” I was like, “Wine, coffee, travel. Let’s go with helping people.”

Alise Cortez
Right. But those, again, are not really passion because those are just things you enjoy. You’re not putting yourself into them unless you’re like savoring the moment and letting the juices run down your chin as you drink that coffee or drink that wine or whatever. So, passion is your first source of meaning. The second source is experiential, and this is what the world gives you in the way of encounters and experiences, and I translate that to inspiration.

So, those are the moments that literally breathe life into yourself as you experience them, and so they are interactions, encounters. People might then say things like, “Travel is an inspiration,” or, “Watching somebody do something really amazing or great.” So, for me, there’s lots of sources of inspiration, and hosting my radio show is one of them. Each week, I’m having an amazing conversation with somebody who teaches me something, so that breathes something into me.

And then the third source of meaning is attitudinal. So, one important thing to understand is all of these sources have to surround themselves around a value that you hold. So, whatever it is, I value empowerment so, therefore, lifting others is part of the reason that giving of those experiences to others is meaningful to me. I value learning and growth, so hosting a radio show is why that works for me as an inspiration.

So, the attitudinal is that becomes a source of meaning when, especially when you face an encounter or faith in life that you cannot control but you turn that into the ability to recognize it as an achievement, but for the way that you allow yourself to put an attitude toward it, or your mindset. So, the one thing that we always have control over, Pete, no matter what, is the attitude that we take against whatever circumstances life puts forth through us. And it is that which we have control, and that is our brand.

So, whether you’re an optimist, or whether you’re somebody that say, “Oh, woe is me. I’m a victim,” all that is true because your mind told you that. So, you have an opportunity to be able to architect that mindset. And, for me, it’s all about, “What will you do with your one precious life? You have just one of them, what are you going to do?”

I just watched, by the way, last night, “14 Peaks.” If that is not inspirational and doesn’t teach you the sheer power of mindset, I do not know what does. Have you seen it?

Pete Mockaitis
I have not.

Alise Cortez
Oh, it’s incredible. It’s about a Nepalese man who finds a team against all odds. He summits the 14 tallest mountains over 8,000 meters – is it meters? – in less than seven weeks. Yeah, it’s amazing. It’s truly amazing.

Pete Mockaitis
Less than a week’s rest between each.

Alise Cortez
It’s like phenomenal. But that, Pete, is the power of the human spirit. And when you convince yourself, and you have that kind of a mindset powering your sails, there’s nothing you really can’t do.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s cool. That’s cool. So, okay, we got the three categories – the creative, the experiential, and the attitudinal. What discovery process or key introspection questions might you recommend we engage in to really zero in on a clear bullseye for these pieces for us individually?

Alise Cortez
Yeah, great question. And, by the way, you have a great voice, Pete.

Pete Mockaitis
Thank you.

Alise Cortez
You’re welcome. So, first, the creative, right? I can tell you that so many people have left their passions go over the years as they became “an adult.” So, there were things that you loved when you were a kid, in your earlier years, and you let them go because, oh, you didn’t have time anymore, you’re working, whatever, or there’s additional nuance that have come along that you just haven’t given time over to because you’re busy with other adult matters.

And so, really finding those things that literally light you up when you do them, and pay attention. Ask your friends, ask your family, “What do you think that I love?” They’ll tell you. They’ll know. You’re just the only one that forgot. So, first, giving space in your life for those things even if it’s only 15 minutes a day or some time per week because it’s the act of giving yourself over to those passions that gives you that vital energy back.

On the experiential front, I actually had somebody at my workshop last week asked me this very same question. She knew what her passion was, it was totally giving herself over into her children, but she didn’t know how to identify an inspiration. And I said, “Well, I think that’s a matter of paying attention to look around you.” For a lot of people, it’s nature, it’s beautiful music, it’s art, it’s being or hearing about phenomenal stories.

Like, for me, I think Nelson Mandela is one of the most inspirational human beings I’ve ever known about. That he can devote his whole life to this idea of exercising apartheid. It’s just amazing to me. So, if you look around, there’s so much to be inspired by. It’s just what do you value? Do you value eradicating world hunger? Do you care about climate change? Do you care about economic improvement in your backyard? When you go looking for the things that you value, and then you go see, “Who’s doing something about those things? Or, what’s doing something about those things?” I can guarantee you, you will find some kind of inspiration in that front.

On the attitudinal space, first and most importantly, examine what is governing you today. When you think about how you make decisions and what goes through your mind throughout the day, one thing that people do, Pete, is they’ll set like a timer every hour or every two hours, and in that moment just quickly record what was on their mind. And then you can start to see the pattern of what actually shows up in your mind throughout the day, “Oh, man, I’m constantly thinking about how bad my life is,” or, “I’m doing this wrong,” or whatever it is.

So, when you get a handle on what is that governing pattern of what guides your life and your thoughts, because most of the time we’re on autopilot for that. We don’t even know what is our mindset. You have to bring it to your awareness. And one way to do that is to record your thoughts for some period of time – every hour, a couple of hours – to bring that to light. And then just see how is that serving you, how is that working for you.

Pete Mockaitis
Cool. All right. Well, could you maybe tie this together with a story of someone who was feeling low on the inspiration, and then they did some discovery around these points and had a transformation?

Alise Cortez
Yeah, I was thinking about that. I didn’t know if you were going to ask me about a story, but I thought, “Gosh, I want to bring this home.” So, my PhD is in human development, and I started meaning in work and identity when I was doing my research. And then, several years later, I decided to expand that postdoc research into something much bigger, and I interviewed 150 men and women across 20 different professions about their experience of work and how their person was related to it, and I found these 15 modes of engagement.

I was getting towards the end of the data collection, Pete. I might get 110 people, I want 115, and I needed another chef as one of my categories. And I found somebody who had been referred to me, I called him up, I say, “Hey, I’m doing this research. It’s about meaning in work,” and he goes, “Oh, Alise, you don’t want to interview me. I hate my job.” And I’m like, “I definitely want to talk to you because I’m trying to understand the full spectrum of experience. Please, can we talk?”

So, we scheduled the in-person 90-minute interview at his restaurant, and I came one evening at like 6:00 o’clock and we had dinner together at his restaurant, and I interviewed him. And during the course of that 90-minute conversation, Pete, he fell into a pile of tears no less than five times. He was so miserable. He hated the fact that his family was at home while he was a chef working Friday, Saturday nights, all the weekends, and they were living while he was working.

He felt like he was trapped in his job. He made a lot of money, and he said, “I’m beholden to this because I have to pay my ex-wife all this alimony. My boss is a jerk. He yells at me every day. I walk on egg shells. I don’t get to serve the menu I want. I got to do what they do.” He just was so miserable. So, I finished collecting all this data, it was 2800 pages. I go and analyze all this data, and I come up with these 15 modes of engagement, all the way from transcendental connection, which is the highest, most fulfilled, to living your purpose, and all the way down to number 15, which is existential crisis, which is where I found him to be.

So, part of my research design involved sharing with each of my participants, “Here’s what I came up with. Here’s what I came up with the results. Here are the 15 modes of engagement. Here’s the one that I think you were exhibiting when we interviewed you. Do you agree? And since I’ve interviewed you, do you think you’ve changed modes, and to which one?” So, Pete, the day I go to, I scheduled the conversation with this guy, his pseudonym is McKinney, I am not looking forward to this conversation. Who wants to tell somebody they’re in existential crisis?

Pete Mockaitis
“It looks like you’re the worst. You’re in a weird tight spot.”

Alise Cortez
Who wants to give that message? So, the phone rings and I’m hoping he doesn’t pick up. So, he picks up, and he goes, “Alise, guess what? I’m all the way up to conflicted fit,” which is like six modes up from existential crisis, and I let a deep breath go. And I’m like, “Well, what happened? What’s going on?” He goes, “Well, Alise, after you interviewed me, remember when you sent me the transcript about our interview,” which is part of my design, “I shared that with my wife and my mother-in law, and when they read it, they wept. They had no idea I was so miserable.”

“And so, immediately, what that did was it opened them, and they just began to support me in a whole different way that I’ve just never had with them before. And so, suddenly, I just felt understood and appreciated in a way that I just never had.” And he said, “Today, I have the same boss. I still work, he still screams, I still walk on eggshells, I have the same crappy hours.” But he said, “You know what I’ve come to understand is I make good money. I can send both my kids to college. My kids are proud of where I work.”

And so, the only thing that has changed, Pete, is his attitude, about how he’s come to understand his work. So, conflicted fit, that particular mode, what that speaks to is you’re in the right kind of work but you’re in the wrong place or the wrong environment. That’s what that particular mode describes. Existential crisis speaks to having a negative view of yourself because of the work that you’re doing, and you’re literally on such an existential level that it’s literally chopping away your soul. So, it was quite a change for him.

But, again, all that speaks to is getting conscious, getting aware of, “Where are you today? What can you do to start to turn and other people and where you want to be in life? And how can you change, literally, what happens and how you decide what that means?” and that’s your attitudinal change. So, he’s a great example of, literally, in a matter of some weeks, he could change his whole life and his health and his relationships, but for the way that he was relating to his work.

Pete Mockaitis
Wow, that’s cool. Six rungs without actually changing the work itself. That’s pretty potent. Now, I want to hear a little bit about, when it comes to if we are trying to inspire others, what should we think about?

Alise Cortez
Yeah, I love that question. That’s a killer question. Well, if we want to inspire others, first we need to get turned on ourselves. That is job number one. You got to be turned on in your own life. People do not want to follow somebody who is a dill pickle, who wants to hear about all the negative stuff that’s going on in the world. That’s not who they want to follow.

They want to follow somebody who’s excited about their own lives and feels great about where they’re going and what’s happening around them, and in the process, they’re looking to see what’s amazing and great about you, “Wow, I’ve never seen anybody problem-solve like you do in such a creative way.” And, usually, people are like, “What? Really?”

And so, when you, as a leader, can see what’s amazing and great about your people, and you help them then lift to a higher version of that by giving them opportunities, and challenging them in a loving way to get them to be able to become higher versions of themselves, to realize more of their potential, that is an inspirational leader that people want to follow. People want to be able to realize their best, and they can’t do it alone.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, that’s the starting point. And then what?

Alise Cortez
And then from there, you got to hold them to that. So, if you do it right, you’re going to bring them to places where they’re scared to death, “What do you mean, Pete, you want me to go and do that project? I can’t do that project. I’ve never done that before.” “Mm-hmm, I know. So, here’s how we’re going to help you get through that.” And if they aren’t literally, if their knees aren’t knocking on occasion, you’re not doing enough.

Now, some people don’t want to be challenged to that quite so you got to understand a little bit of their appetite before you go pushing them over the edge. So, that means you got to really become a fantastic listener. And so, the best leaders, literally, do transform lives, and you know you’ve done this well when you give them appreciation and feedback, and the appreciation that you give them, literally, can move them to tears and when they want to stay in touch with you for years over time. They don’t want to let you go, then you know you’ve done this well.

But it’s really about transforming their lives, helping them to be able to see a greater possibility given the resources, to be able to create that within and for themselves, and introduce them to possibilities and opportunities that they couldn’t have by themselves.

Pete Mockaitis
And, likewise, could you share a story of this coming to life?

Alise Cortez
I’m going to share my own. And this is a great example of an inspirational leader. I grew up in a small town north east of Oregon, I couldn’t get out of there fast enough. My ticket out was Roland Harvel, who owned a small pumping company that I got to do a co-op job for, and he said the magic words, “If you ever find yourself in Portland, you’ve got a job with me.” I’m like, “I got to go. I’ll see you later.” I graduate high school, get to Portland, do a little bit of business college, go to work for him for 18 months in his commercial real estate development company as his administrative assistant.

Pete, great job, time of my life. I’m in downtown Portland, I’m working for a commercial real estate developer, and just thinking, “He teaches me so much. He’s funny. He’s bigger than life. He pulls me forward. He believes in me,” all this sort of things. Eighteen months on the job, one day out to lunch, he passes by my front desk, opens the door, walks out, over his shoulder he says, “You got to get out here. You got to go see the world. Get an education. Do something with yourself. But before you go, hire your replacement,” and the door shuts.

So, I’m wondering the whole time he’s gone, just the singular question, “Did he just fire me?” So, he comes through that same door a little over an hour, just merrily walks through and goes back to his desk, and I stopped him, I’m like, “Hold on just a second, Roland. Did you just fire me?” And he said, “Absolutely. It’ll be a crime to keep you here.”

So, here’s the magical thing about this, Pete. Before he said what he said to me, I did not know I could go to college. My parents were farmers and restaurateurs. They were very successful entrepreneurs. We didn’t talk about college. So, a bachelor’s, three masters, and a PhD later, I think I can check the education box. He told me to go see the world.

I lived in Spain and Brazil. I learned those languages. I speak five different languages. I’ve done work in many parts of the world and travel all the time. Still working on that “What do you do with your life?” That will be a forever thing. But this guy, we’re still involved. He’s 84 years old now, and he came to my wedding. He called me every weekend when I got my divorce in 2016. Today, my job is to cheer for him as he brings together his new invention – the interlude chair. So, we’re still connected after all this time, so a really great leader.

He totally saved my life, Pete. God, I don’t know how long, I’d probably still be there if he hadn’t…he saw something in me that I couldn’t see in myself. He showed me that vision and he led me to it, and it required, in his case, to kick me out of the nest. But what a saving grace and what a gift, and I’ll never be able to thank him enough for that.

Pete Mockaitis
And I’m curious, when you say he saw something in you, you did not see in yourself, I mean that sounds…in some ways, it just sounds like, “Oh, he has a gift. How lovely.” Can we learn to do that? And how?

Alise Cortez
Yeah, I love that question, Pete. You’re so good at this. Yeah, we sure can. And I use this phrase “Go looking for your people. Go looking for them.” Pete, he saw things my parents couldn’t see in me. They couldn’t see with their eyes. I do think he’s unique because he’s a Czechoslovakian-American, he survived getting out of the war, he was headed toward the camps, so I do think there was something special about him, and we can all learn from him.

So, if we will literally stop looking at “What’s wrong with people? What are they not doing right?” which usually translates to “What aren’t they doing like I do because my way is right?” and we start looking for, “What’s right about these people? What’s different? What’s unique? Why is it that Sally always asks these razor-sharp questions in meetings that some people find to be kind of put-off but they’re so incisive? What can we do with that?”

Like, go looking for the gem in every one that we have in our group, in our team, and talk with them about, “Where is your life going? What do you want to do? Do you know that you have this amazing gift to be able to really understand and make explicit that which others can’t see? Do you know that? Most of the type of people don’t know that.”

So, when leaders can go looking for what’s really right and different and special about their people, and help them, one, become aware of that, and then, two, if they’re interested, steward that, develop that, learn to apply it, that’s an amazing gift. That’s an amazing gift to people.

Pete Mockaitis
Lovely. Well, tell me, Alise, anything else you want to make sure to mention before we shift gears and hear about some of your favorite things?

Alise Cortez
I guess I will always emphasize the point of we really do just have one precious life as far as we know. And, really, it’s an opportunity, it’s your responsibility to do what you want in that, and it takes energy to do that, and it’s right there. Logotherapy teaches us that being able to find the meaning in the moments is the easiest cheapest thing that you can do to be able to steward that journey in an energizing, invigorating, vitalizing way. And it’s right there for you.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, now could you share with us a favorite

Pete Mockaitis
book?

Alise Cortez
It’s not a book but it’s a story. It’s called The Beast in the Jungle. Do you know it?

Pete Mockaitis
Mm-hmm.

Alise Cortez
I forget who the author is. I’m sure one of our listeners will remind us. I read it when I was in my late teens, and it was so powerful for me. This is the power of writing and the power of stories. But the essence of it, Pete, is that the author, the narrator is talking about this awful thing that’s going to happen to him in his life, and it he knows it and so he avoids all these relationships. And, also, that there’s something really, really special that’s waiting for him, too. There’s something awful and something special, and he spends his whole life protecting himself.

But he makes this friendship with this woman, and she totally buys into his vision of himself, and they become lifelong friends. At the end of this thing, we discover that their relationship was really, it’s hinted anyway, that their relationship is really was the beast in the jungle the whole time. It was the thing that he was afraid of and it was also his best gift. It just reminded me so much of how much we can lose in life when we’re not open to the experience of life unfolding, and that we don’t trust the magic of the moments that are right here in front of us all the time. So, it was such a profound book for me and it’s something I’ve never been able to forget.

Pete Mockaitis
And is there a key nugget you share that really seems to connect and resonate with folks; they quote it back to you often?

Alise Cortez
What people generally say about me is I’m energy and I’m inspiring. People remember the “What will you do with your one precious life?” People remember that “You have it within you to do what you want.” Those are some of the major takeaways that people get from what I speak.

Pete Mockaitis
And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Alise Cortez
My principal website is the easiest – AliseCortez.com. That’s the easiest.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Alise Cortez
Yeah, get really flipping clear about what you’re passionate about, and do that. Do that like to the hilt. That is your one opportunity to distinguish yourself, and, in so doing, you will totally energize and light yourself up.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Alise, this has been a treat. I wish you much purpose and inspiration.

Alise Cortez
Thanks, Pete. I got more books to write, so thanks for the opportunity to be on the show with you. I appreciate getting to share my message.

737: How to Make Decisions Smarter and Faster with Ralph Keeney

By | Podcasts | No Comments

 

Ralph Keeney reveals his simple process for making wiser decisions.

You’ll Learn:

  1. The three steps to making better decisions
  2. How to gain extreme clarity on your best options
  3. How to quickly move past indecision

About Ralph

Ralph L. Keeney has made significant contributions to the fields of decision analysis and value-focused thinking. He is a consultant, an award winning author, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering.

He lives in San Francisco where he consults on business, organizational, and government decisions in the United States and overseas.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

Ralph Keeney Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Ralph, welcome to How to be Awesome at Your Job.

Ralph Keeney
Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m so excited to chat with you, and you consulted on many decisions. Can you share with us one of the most, I don’t know, unique, or funny, or zany, or, in some ways, standout decisions that you consulted on? What’s the story?

Ralph Keeney
Well, in a sense, some of the biggest and maybe zany ones are usually for governments or large agencies.

Pete Mockaitis
Those zany governments.

Ralph Keeney
Did a lot of work on evaluating sites in the United States for a nuclear waste storage site, and that was quite a while ago. And once, I’m looking at long-term energy policy for Germany where we involved many, many stakeholders in Germany. And that included talking to leaders in both the Catholic and Protestant churches, and in many of the organizations that were big companies in Germany as representatives of them, and then to just normal citizens about what they wanted from the entire energy policy for all of Germany.

Pete Mockaitis
And were there any breakthrough moments that really were pivotal?

Ralph Keeney
I think there were some important ones because we had a lot of people evaluate some of the alternatives intuitively. And then we helped them systematically break their evaluation into parts and put them together. So, we had two kind of evaluations from many of the participants and we pointed out the distinctions between kind of their intuitive in the head judgment of the whole thing, what was the best thing to do, versus the more carefully thought out.

And then we said, “So, now that you know both of your responses, choose what you think is appropriate.” And most of them ended up about two-thirds of the way from their intuition to their more systematically thought-out judgments. And I think that spirit holds for a lot of personal decisions. We use intuition all the time, and we should. But if we think about it a little more carefully on decisions worthy of thought, we often come up with something different. And I think it’s often closer to when they put the parts together and decide what to do to follow their well-thought-out judgments and decisions.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that’s intriguing. And I’d love it if you could maybe share, is there a particularly surprising or fascinating consistent discovery you’ve encountered about decision-making that has come from your many years of working through them?

Ralph Keeney
Well, I can share a simple thing that came through some of that and it’s very basic. The only purposeful way you can influence anything in your life, at work, or your personal life, is through the decisions that you make. Now, a lot of people, when I say that, they say, “Well, I don’t think that’s true. If I decide to eat much more responsibly, that’s going to improve my life,” or, “If I exercise routinely, I’ll get in a little better shape, that will certainly improve my life.”

And I say, “All those are correct but none of that will happen unless you make the decisions to think about it, choose to do what is done, and then follow through on doing what you need to do to complete it.” So, it is the decisions, and that’s basically the thing that enables you to have some control over your life and offers you that control.

Pete Mockaitis
Yup, absolutely. That adds up to me. Well, cool. So, we’re going to talk a little bit about your process. And I’d love it if maybe we could start with a story in terms of someone who was struggling with a difficult decision and then they put a few of your particular suggestions or process or skills to the test, and came out with a cool outcome. Could you share such a story?

Ralph Keeney
I can but I’ll just start with one comment. How did we learn to make decisions? And the point is none of us learned how to make decisions. We just picked it up. We started very, very young. You’re hungry, so how do you communicate that? You holler. It’s maybe not such a conscious decision, and obviously the words are not known, but those were many of our actions when were very young. And decision-making is a skill but most of us have never learned it as a skill. In fact, we’ve never learned how to make decisions. It’s all picked up and it comes with some useful techniques that we all use. And it also comes with a large number of cognitive biases and shortcomings that we take that degrade the quality of our decisions.

So, to get to your point, let me give a rather simple decision but important that all of us probably have faced. It could be you have an opportunity to have a dinner with somebody very important in your company that might even help your job, or with somebody in another company where you might be interested in a job, and you’ve never met them,.

You’re excited. You think about, “What do I hope the dinner is?” And it’s, well, convenient restaurant to the hotel the guest is in, quality food and local cuisine, and you go to the hotel and ask the concierge, “Do you have a restaurant like this nearby?” Well, of course, they do, two blocks away, so you make a reservation. The important person comes, you’re excited, you meet them at the restaurant, you go in, the food is tremendous, but the evening is a disaster. It was way too noisy, you couldn’t have a good discussion, you didn’t learn much about them, and they hardly know who you are.

Now, that particular case could’ve been changed dramatically with a little bit of clear-thinking about the decision and, particularly, this example can illustrate the three fundamental components of every decision that are worthy of thought. And you might’ve not just chosen that restaurant, you might’ve asked for three or four restaurants nearby and just gone and looked at them the day before, or two days before, and you would’ve noticed that was way too noisy and you wouldn’t have chosen it, but maybe you still have though you didn’t do that, so you got the one alternative.

Before that then, you should think, “What are the objectives that I would have for the dinner?” Well, you certainly wanted to meet the person, that was stated. And so, maybe you should’ve recognized, “I want a good conversation and I need it to be quiet enough to do that.” Had you done that, you never would’ve chosen that restaurant.

And the third thing is it was perhaps the wrong decision problem. It wasn’t to find a place to eat. It really was to find a place where we can have a quality discussion that serves food. So, knowing the major objectives to get to know the person would’ve led you to a different alternative too. So, any of those three things – clarifying the decision you should address, better identifying what you hope to achieve, i.e., your objectives, or coming up with a few more alternatives to compare – would’ve led to a much better decision. Any one of those things.

And each of those is a piece of information relevant to your decision. It improves your insight about it and your ability to make a better choice. And I refer to that using the word that the behavioral economists use – a nudge. Each piece of information nudges you to make a better decision. In their work, and Richard Thaler won the Nobel Prize for his work on that in 2017 for his book with Cass Sunstein, Nudge. But their nudges are when someone else nudges you in your decision. And these types of nudges that I just referred to are when you nudge yourself by giving a useful piece of information to make a better choice.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes. Well, that’s cool. So, we got three fundamentals there – clarifying, then identify the objectives, and having a few more options. The previewing or sampling the venues in advance, does that fit under of the three or is that under a fourth?

Ralph Keeney
Well, I think that’s kind of looking for alternatives. I think that’s one of the three.

Pete Mockaitis
Got you, part of the alternative-seeking process. Okay. Cool. Certainly. Well, yeah, that’s great in terms of what you didn’t anticipate. And I think about this, I think, my decisions a lot when it comes to just like purchasing stuff in, like, Amazon.com, “What am I ordering? And why am I choosing this thing over that thing?”

And I think of returns, I find returns kind of painful actually. It’s like, one, it’s just a little bit of a pain, but, literally, in terms of just spending the time. And, two, it just feels like, “This is an acknowledgement that I did not make the optimal decision I had hoped. This thing I got did not work out the way I was hoping for it to.” But it’s fine. It’s somewhat easy to return. You iterate and you try again.

But, yeah, I think that’s dead-on in terms of that previewing or sampling can tell you a whole lot in all kinds of things because sometimes you have no alternative but to try it on for size and do a little bit of a demo or a trial or a sample or an iteration to get you where you want to go a few steps away instead of in one giant leap.

Ralph Keeney
Right. That’s true. And the other thing is once you get your decision clear with those three steps, of course, you don’t know how well the various alternatives measure up in terms of each of your objectives. That’s the second part of decision-making. Often, some clear thought about it can help you a great deal, and that’s the case with buying products online.

You can’t actually see a lot of the detail, you don’t know how they might look from various positions, and the nice thing you want to look good, where it is in your kitchen or in your office, etc., and you want it to function in certain ways that might be mentioned but it doesn’t do what you want. And you can’t get that information unless you see it, so that you buy it knowing you can return it is fine.

Now, if you’ve signed up for a vacation that’s expensive and you can’t know everything that’s going to happen there, especially if it’s a group vacation, some kind of tour or something, you’re committed and there’s going to be, as with all important decisions, uncertainties about how well the chosen alternative will measure up, or any of the other alternatives that you didn’t choose. And we make those decisions with the uncertainties there, doing the best we can. And you can have, of course, a good decision but the outcome isn’t so great.

It happens all the time in the market, but in everything in life. If there’s three different products you could invest in, and you carefully think about it and get all the information available then, no one knows for sure how well each of those products will do in the next couple of years, and yet you make a decision on, dead-on, which one will do better. And if you’ve made the decision with the best information available, and it doesn’t turn out to be the best one after the fact, you made the right decision, it’s just that it wasn’t the one that turned out to be the best.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. We had Annie Duke on the show and we discussed that phenomenon as well, is you may have made an optimal decision, even though the outcome is not what you desired.

Ralph Keeney
Yeah, there are just different things, and it happens to everybody all the time in life. And if it didn’t, you wouldn’t do a single thing because, with anything, there’s the chance that it doesn’t work out great. And I should say, as well as not doing anything has a lot of negative consequences.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, sure. Doing nothing is a decision in and of itself even though we don’t maybe think of it as such. Well, maybe now, could you maybe walk us through a demonstration of your decision-making process, step-by-step, with an example?

Ralph Keeney
Sure. Now, I should say one doesn’t have to do all these steps. That’s important. Because if you get one nudge, sometimes, like for that restaurant decision, you figure out, “I need a quiet place where I can have a great conversation,” and then you walk in two or three other restaurants, and one just really clearly meets that, that’s going to be the best place. You’re done. You don’t need to figure out more alternatives or even too many more objectives. The price, you maybe care about a little bit, but it’s just swamped compared to the importance of having a great discussion.

So, you don’t have to do all of the steps. But the first step, you want to make sure you’re addressing the decision that you want to address. In this aft, there’s a lot of shortcomings just in this one. And the reason is decisions come, like your car might be in an accident and you didn’t cause it but it’s damaged badly, and it’s an old car. Now, a lot of people will say, “Oh, now I got to get the car fixed,” and the first thing they would think of is, “Where can I get it fixed?” and they maybe have a routine place or an alternative if they take it there, and they’re done.

But in that situation, maybe they should’ve thought, “You know, that’s an old car and it’s going to cost almost as much as it’s worth just to fix it. Maybe I should get a different car, a better used car, or a new car, or maybe I should even go without a car for a while,” depending where you live, “and rent a car only when I need it.” So, it could change the decision that you should address by thinking more clearly and not rushing to kind of get it over with because it is a problem.

And then the second thing is you want to think, “What are the objectives that I have for that?” And it’s surprising perhaps, but most people often don’t identify a large number of their important objectives. An important example, it’s certainly relevant to all the people with jobs, is a study I did some years ago with a couple colleagues with the entire MBA class in their first year at a university in the east, and there were roughly 300 students in the first-year class.

And in between their first and second years, they have an internship at a company. About 30% to 40% actually get their job out of their MBA in those companies but they want to check out new areas in the country, new types of businesses, all kinds of things. And so, when I went to give the seminar on some of the topics we’re talking about here, I said, “I’ll be very happy to do it, but I want to have some questionnaires that they fill out.” And they were asked to fill them out, and they’ve done this homework assignments so people really thought about them somewhat.

And one of them was, “What are the objectives you had for your internship?” And the students wrote their objectives down, and it’s like, to learn a lot about a new field, see another part of the country, learn special things about how businesses work, meet some people in this field, all kinds of things. The average number of objectives, or values could be the word, things that they would care about in selecting it, turned out to be about 6.5.

Independently then, my colleagues that I’m working with, we thought about the objectives from knowing a lot of MBAs and things, and we created what we thought was a pretty full list because we put everybody’s objectives in that they had. We had 32 objectives once we cleaned them up.

So, later on in the survey of the students, showed them those 32 objectives, and said, “Check any of these that matter to you,” and they checked, on average, 20 objectives. So, they got six on their own, which were six of the 32, and they added 14 more. And you might think that the importance of the six they got were much more important than the 14 that they then identified on our list. So, we had a later question that showed them everything that they either got on their own or came from the list in a different order.

And so, we said, “Rate the importance of these on a scale from 1 to 9.” And the average importance of the ones they got on their own and the ones they missed and later picked up was almost identical, 6.21 compared to 6.28. That result happens all the time. It’s very hard to come up with all your objectives. If somebody asks somebody, “Write down your objectives,” they’ll be done writing in two minutes for a decision that they have.

And on decisions that are important, like that one certainly is, it’s worthwhile thinking about it a little bit over time and coming up with a better set because just recognizing one or two more objectives could eliminate an alternative that you might’ve chosen because it’s just not going to be good on something that you hadn’t thought of but is important, or it might suggest an alternative that you hadn’t thought of that would be great on that, and then, of course, it’s going to help you choose the best of the ones that are competitors.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that is intriguing. So, we have smart MBA students and thinking about a decision that matters a lot to them, career-related – MBA students tend to be into that – and we can list, on average, 6.5, unprompted from our own, generating it from our own thoughts, versus when selecting from a list, we would select 20. So, it’s like a third. It’s like we only get, can generate about a third of what matters from our own heads. That’s kind of startling.

And so then, I’m thinking, “Boy, what’s the antidote to this? Is it just like we need to have directories of checklists for all sorts of various and sundry decisions we might need to make?” It’s like, “When you’re considering your career, think about this. When you’re considering a product, think about that,” because, in some ways, it’s hard to anticipate every objective or value in advance but, apparently, we need some help and some prompts to get a full list.

Ralph Keeney
You’re absolutely right. And there are a lot of those prompts and you certainly want to use them.

Pete Mockaitis
Where can I go to get them?

Ralph Keeney
Well, there are two places that I know. One is I wrote a book on a lot of details on these three things called Give Yourself a Nudge: Helping Smart People Make Smarter Personal and Business Decisions. And things in there, I mean, one chapter is on how to really do a better job getting all the objectives you want. And I should say I missed some of my objectives on decisions too even though I do this, but I do a better job than I would if I was not aware of what can stimulate ideas that will help a lot.

And things that can really help you include, think of what emotions and feelings that you have relevant to this decision. And then from those emotions, kind of pursue, “Well, why do I care about that?” Because a way to stimulate the thinking is not necessarily, I don’t use the term objective then. It sounds technical. I say, “What do you care about concerning this decision? And anything you care about matters. Write it down.”

And then there’s no definition that’s kind of narrow to care about so they don’t think, “Oh, I’m not sure if this thing is something I care about or not.” They know. Whereas, objective, they might say, “I’m not sure that’s really an objective.” You don’t want to worry about technicalities then. So, any feelings matter. And then you think of any alternatives, just a few, and think of a terrible alternative. And then, “Why is it terrible?” There’s got to be something you care about. Think of what would be a perfect alternative, hypothetically, if it just existed. People can describe, “Why is it perfect? What makes it so great?” Those are going to suggest things too.

And then you can think of what might be goals or constraints, either one. Ask, “Well, what constraints do you have here?” And somebody might say, “Well, I wouldn’t want to pay more than a thousand dollars for that.” Well, that suggests that one of their concerns is the cost of the product, which is true for many things if you’re purchasing. You don’t want to use the constraints to say, “No alternatives over a thousand dollars,” because if you got one that’s fantastic for $1,010, and the $970 one, which met that constraint, was really much inferior, likely you would pay the $40 more. So, it indicates what’s important but you don’t want to use them inappropriately.

And then you think of disappointment and regret, “What could really disappoint me here?” Well, why would that disappoint you? What’s the mechanism? And how does it get back to, again, characteristics of the product or whatever it is that you’re going to purchase?” So, all these things can stimulate your mind to think a bit more clearly about what’s there. You want to do your own thinking first.

And then, for certain decisions, like important work decisions, or if you were thinking of moving divisions in an organization or something, once you thought about what was important to you, makes a lot of sense to talk to some of your colleagues there about what they think might be important to you, and, separately, about what would be important to them if they were making this decision, because each of those comments kind of stimulates them to think a little differently and anything they come up might help you think of something that’s important to you that you had missed.

So, it’s a lot of things you could do, and people would develop their own techniques. And then, for certain decisions, if you have an important medical decision, you know the basis of what you want, “Well, I want to get well. I’d like to minimize time where I’m incapacitated in some sense,” and the cost might be important there. But there might be some aspects, or consequences in the future about aspects of your health or your functionality of your body that you wouldn’t have any idea to even think mattered.

So, you might need to talk on some problems that are more complex from a particular field to experts in that field, but you’re going to have to ask them what the objectives are. Just to show you how important, and one simple example is a medical one. On many important medical decisions, like if somebody has a cancer case or anything like that, I think, partly because of the responsibility and role of decisions, they would say the objectives is to increase the chance that you live or perhaps that you live longer. But what they don’t include is what affects many people, the quality of their life when they’re living longer.

If somebody were 70 years old, and it looked like you could go through all this treatment but it was so horrendous and you had to follow things, but you’d live an average of 12 years, or you could not go through the treatment and have a much better time and your average expected lifetime was 10 years, a lot of people, and I’ve asked this question, would prefer 10 years of a quality life, from a basis of 70, to 12 years of a really degraded life. That’s important.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, Ralph, so much good stuff to chew on here. And I very much like your approach better than having an endless compendium of checklist that I need to reference, but rather generating your own ones emotionally, “What do I care about? Why? What would be a terrible alternative? Why is that a terrible alternative? What will be the perfect alternative? Why is that a perfect alternative? What are the goals?”

This reminds me of some of like the best coaching questions, really drive at these sorts of things, like, “What do you really want? And what else? Or, what does wild success look like? Or, imagine we’re looking back at the end of this, and it was a smashing victory or a smashing defeat, what happened and why?” That begins to surface it. And then I love it, once you get a nice list to start from, you can check in with somebody else and they can build up and develop it. And I like that question a lot, “What would be important to you if you were thinking through this?” and that very well could be something completely different.

I guess I’m thinking a lot of times with career decisions, I think there’s some research, maybe you know better than I, Ralph, there is some research that suggest that we could sometimes be shortsighted in terms of thinking about this one opportunity as opposed to what pathway does it lead us down into the next job, or the next, next job, or the next, next, job, over five, ten years in progression and pathways. But that’s something someone else, who’s been in the game, may very well flag for you, and so that’s cool.

And, Ralph, is there a magic number? Like, let’s say if a decision really counts big time, I imagine we’re going to be getting some diminishing returns in terms of if we talk to, I don’t know, two people, five people, 20 people, to get their input. Is there a sweet spot or point of diminishing returns you recommend when it comes to advisors or counselors?

Ralph Keeney
Well, sure, but it might depend on what the decision was. There are two things related to that one. You don’t want to make perfect decisions, whatever that would be. It would take you way, way too long. Or, I should even say always try to make the best decision. If that just means, “I do my best given the time available and appropriate for the decision,” that’s fine. But if it means, “I’m going to search till I find the best alternative,” it’s usually nutty. It takes way, way too much of your time, and it’s the same issue I just mentioned.

You degrade the quality of your life because all you’re doing is procrastinating and worrying about this decision and trying to do better. Whereas, if you would’ve just made the decision earlier with what you knew, it might’ve been a pretty good decision, and then you have time to enjoy your life. It’s worthwhile breaking life, with this point, into two things. The time you spend making decisions and the time you spend enjoying life as a result of your decisions.

And enjoying life could be doing work on problems in your company too because that’s interesting and it’s stimulating, etc., but, per se, that’s just getting useful information. The decision per se, you don’t want to spend everything making decisions. You want to spend, the overall thing is to have a productive and enjoyable life that contributes to you, your family, friends, and country, and whatever your objectives are. And that should guide all the uses of your time.

Now, there’s one other really key thing a lot of people don’t think of or that have a lot of control, and you think, “Where do decisions come from?” Well, a lot of them come from problems. And the easiest place to put it is personally, “If I get sick, I have a decision problem. I have to do something about it. If my car is an accident, I got a decision problem. I need to do something. If I’m not doing very well at work, I got a decision problem. I need to deal with it.” And all these are basically a consequence of other’s decisions or circumstances, like you got sick or a car wreck or somebody assigns you something. And often they’re problems.

And when those happen, the quality of your life drops a little. No one wants to be sick or have your car wrecked or not doing well at work. And so, you try to make the decisions to improve them to get back to where you were before these problems occurred, but you typically don’t give above where you were. The only way to get a better life is through what I call decision opportunities, not decision problems. And these are the decisions you create for yourself rather than the decisions that are, in a sense, dumped upon you by others or happenstance.

And if you’re at work, you can think of, “How could I contribute more to the organization?” And you want to think of yourself because there are two objectives in any decision in the company, I think, or an organization, “How can I contribute more to the organization? And how can I contribute to my life?” And you, that’s your decision, you think of, “What could I do that would do both of these?”

And I’ve certainly been in a situation that works when I went to a consulting firm in San Francisco. I said to the boss, there are 700 people there, and I said, “I think my responsibilities are to contribute professionally and financially to the firm. And subject to that, there’s no other constraints on me. Is that a correct representation?” And my prospective boss, executive vice president in the organization kind of sat up straight and thought about it, he’s never heard that before, and he said, “Yeah, I guess that’s about right.”

Pete Mockaitis
And, in a way, the law, please.

Ralph Keeney
And I could do that because I could bring in work where I work on decisions so they’d make money, and I think I could do that work well, and publish it and contribute to the reputation and knowledge of the skills of the company. And I knew it and they knew it, and then I could do anything I wanted. Not stupid stuff. It’s not like I had hours where I couldn’t take a time off any time I wanted it, because I made sure that I was definitely contributing more than I was taking, which was the pay.

And so, these decision opportunities at work, you can go. And in this firm, sometimes I’d go. There are all kinds of tasks that need to be done in any firm, and some of them your boss might do or others, and you think, “Gee, I might like to learn how to do that.” You can propose to do a task that your boss maybe spends four hours on a week to do and it’s a little boring for him or her. So, you say, “I’m willing to do that,” and learn how to do it and do it well. They might be very happy and you can often get out of something that’s four or even six hours a week that’s less important to the firm and a lot more boring by making this proposal. It’s better for you and better for the firm.

And that’s what you want to do to figure out decision opportunities or something to be pursued that really help your life at work or personally.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s lovely. Well, now, I’d love to shift gears and hear a few of your favorite things. Could you tell us a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Ralph Keeney
I think what really inspires me is people who think about what they really want and put in very good efforts to achieve those things. And some of the simplest cases is when what people want are kind of straightforward.

So, people who basically think about what they want, put in the effort, do their best, and achieve a lot of what they want inspire me a great deal.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And how about a favorite book?

Ralph Keeney
Well, the ones that really influence me, a few books on decision-making by people really starting in the field. And I guess one was a while ago by Howard Raiffa called Decision Analysis but was really starting the movement away from intuitive thinking into prescriptive thinking. There was a lot of work done descriptively. And then descriptively, I think one of the best books is the one I mentioned called Nudge by Thaler and Sunstein.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Ralph Keeney
An easy way to find out more about me is, and there’s things on there not about me, is just my homepage, so to speak, it’s RalphKeeney.com, no point in between Ralph and Keeney. It describes a lot of things. It has an awful lot of references there. And there’s one other thing that soon will be coming out by Oji Life Lab. OJI is Oji Life Labs, and it’s separate words that you can find at searching. It’s a product in beta testing that has an awful lot of the fundamental ideas to help people make better decisions at work.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, cool.

Ralph Keeney
And it’s done in a unique way.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, cool. Thank you. Well, Ralph, this has been a treat. Thank you and I wish you all the best in all your decisions.

Ralph Keeney
Well, thank you. I’ll work on it and I hope that you and some of your listeners got some useful points here, and also make some great decisions, or better decisions as a result of it. We can all do better, and I’m certainly one of those. So, thank you very much, Pete.

728: Uncovering the Hidden Elements that Influence Decisions with Eric Johnson

By | Podcasts | No Comments

 

 

Eric Johnson says: "You are a choice architect. You are a designer. You make the decisions whenever you present somebody with a choice."

Professor Eric Johnson shares compelling research revealing the tiny factors that have a huge impact on what we (and others!) end up choosing.

You’ll Learn:

  1. How changing order drastically changes what we choose 
  2. The key to minimizing indecision
  3. The biggest decision-making mistake people make 

About Eric

Eric J. Johnson is the Norman Eig Professor of Business and the director of the Center for Decision Sciences at Columbia Business School. He has been the president of both the Society for Judgment and Decision Making and the Society for Neuroeconomics. He lives in New York City. 

 

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

  • FSAstore.com. Use your flex spending account funds with the greatest of ease!

Eric Johnson Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Eric, welcome to How to be Awesome at Your Job.

Eric Johnson
Pete, thanks for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to dig into your wisdom when it comes to decision-making. It’s one of my favorite topics. We’ve had luminaries like Annie Duke and others on the show, so excited to get into your perspective. But I’d love it if you could kick us off by sharing a particularly tricky decision that you’ve had to make in life and kind what was hard about it and how did you, ultimately, come to that decision?

Eric Johnson
So, one of the things that was most devastating in my life was actually a diagnosis of stage 4 Hodgkin’s. Now, granted, that’s a buzzkill to kick this off, but one of the things that got me thinking about is how people make such serious decisions about treatment, and the way that people actually pose those options to people, changes what they choose. And I became madly obsessed with the literature, and that sort of kicked me off, a lot of my interests in choice architecture.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, now, that’s fascinating right there. So, life or death, high-stakes decisions, you would think, unlike software where you have like a bold, blue, highlighted choice of the two, which is nudging you that way, that people might be a little bit more robust in working through this. But can you expand upon that? Like, how might presenting the options lead people to choose one treatment or approach more or less often than another?

Eric Johnson
So, my experience is interesting but there’s actually a nice study that makes the point even better, and that is they were looking at, actually, patients who were at the end of their life. For some reason, this is going to be a depressing day today but I’ll try it not to be. And they gave them the choice of two different kinds of end-of-life care, “Just pre-check one box or the other. One is called comfort care. The other is called, essentially, extreme care. We’ll do everything we can to keep you alive and the other case, we’ll just take care of your pain.” And there was a 30% difference between people’s choices.

And the question is “Why is that the case?” It’s because that’s not something we’ve thought a lot about. So, you might think an important decision is something where it doesn’t matter how you ask the question. Well, this is an important decision we don’t get to make very often. Hopefully, almost never. And so, lots of the decisions we make in life are things where we don’t have a clear preference, and that’s one of them, but some of them are pretty common.

Like, “What are you going to eat in a restaurant?” You may have a rough idea, “I don’t like liver,” but there are a lot of options out there. You’re trying to predict what you’re going to like in a half hour when you’ve actually finished the meal.

Pete Mockaitis
Wow, yeah, that’s powerful and, in some ways, and I guess the why behind it being a number of things, it’s like, “Well, I don’t know, I guess this is what’s checked, that’s what most people do. I guess this is the standard or recommended go-to option if it’s the one that’s checked.” Or, maybe it’s like, “This decision is so overwhelming and intimidating that it’s kind of a relief that something has been sort of been checked for me, so I’m just going to roll with it.” We’re speculating here but what do you think is behind that?

Eric Johnson
So, you got two of the three things, I think, happens. One is basically it’s easier to take the default – ease. Second thing is endorsement. It’s as if the person who designed the menu, chose something for you so that must be the best thing. But there’s something that’s a lot more fundamental, which is we actually think about things differently depending upon how they’re framed.

So, there’s a great study I love, which actually gives people the choice between 70% lean hamburger or 30% fat hamburger. Now, you’re smart, your audience is smart, you realize that’s the same thing. But, yet, people, when they have the word fat as a description, think about the hamburger differently. They think about clogging their arteries. They think about it being juicy. When it’s lean, they think about protein and muscle mass. It’s actually as if they’re eating two different things even though the label is the only thing that differs.

When you ask about how much they’ll pay, they pay different amounts. Or, you ask people how good the burgers taste, they rate it differently. So, that study shows that when we’re in these situations, what I call assembled preferences, it’s actually the label that changes what we think.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that’s fascinating. And so, the 70% lean won on all the dimensions of measurement.

Eric Johnson
Except unless you like a really juicy burger.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Understood. Okay. Well, so that’s one big surprise right there in terms of just the way things are presented to us changes how we think about them, and, thus, what we select even if it’s high stakes. Any other really big surprises or discoveries you’ve made over your lifetime of work in this domain?

Eric Johnson
So, that first thing is called a default. I want to give it a name so we have a handy name. It’s not default like going broke. It’s like default in what happens when we don’t take an action. A second thing that surprised me, actually, as I was writing the book, is the effect of order. What you see first can be more attractive. This is why you go down to a supermarket, people actually pay to be in different positions of the aisle so you’ll see them. So, something at eye level is actually, typically, gets more attention and is seen first. So, it turns out when you look at the many studies that have been done, effective order is surprisingly large.

Pete Mockaitis
And first is where you want to be if you want to be chosen. Is that right?

Eric Johnson
Well, almost most of the time, particularly if it’s a place where the decision-maker is in control. So, they look at first, they look at second, and then they stop. So, on lots of websites, for example, people only will look at one or two options, click on them to look at them more carefully. But let me give you the counter example. Imagine, instead, we’re going back to the same restaurant we had the menu at before, but now the waiter, it’s a fancy place, is reading you the menu. Now, are you going to pick the first or what else is going on there?

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that’s so funny, that happened to me a few times, whatever that says about my dining choices, but I remember I feel like a little bit nervous, like, “Okay. All right. I really got to strap in, listen, pay a lot of attention.” And I’m thinking, I don’t know if this is what most people do, but like, “Okay, I got to think. I’ve got to give something, a judgment of like thumbs up or thumbs down.” Like, “You’re a finalist or you’re out,” like right away, or else I just can’t even process seven options given to me verbally.

So, I’m like, “Okay, don’t even need to think about that one. Okay, don’t even need to think about…oh, maybe. Prime rib. Interesting. Remember that one.” And so, I’m trying to hold finalists in my head, and then I usually have to ask them and repeat something, like, “What was the third one again?”

Eric Johnson
Right. Exactly.

Pete Mockaitis
So, that’s me but I might be an anomaly.

Eric Johnson
But you’ve gotten a great intuition for it. Because what happens, of course, is what’s the one that’s not going to be clobbered by the next one? The last one. And it turns out, in those situations, where the decision-maker is losing control, last has a big advantage. One of my favorite studies of this is, you may or may not have seen it, but there’s a famous song contest that’s been held for over 50 years in Europe called the Eurovision Song Contest.

And it turns out, people have done studies, last has a big advantage there because people remember it. Memory is really important in both cases, but, yeah, between the head, “Who knows what Estonia…” I’m sorry, any Estonian listeners, “But who knows what Estonia did in the second song?” You remember who was the last. So, order, to go back to your question, is surprisingly important.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Thank you. Well, it sounds like we’ve, maybe, potentially mentioned this, but just to make it explicit, can you give us what is the big idea, core thesis, behind your book The Elements of Choice? It sounds like we’re hitting it. There are things like this that are impacting our choices. Or, how would you articulate the main idea?

Eric Johnson
So, there are two main ideas. The first one is how questions are posed make a difference. But the second one that’s probably most relevant to your listeners is that you are a choice architect. You are a designer. You make the decisions whenever you present somebody with a choice, whether it be your spouse, someone who reports to you, someone you report to. Whenever you’re presenting choices, you’re actually a choice architect. You have control over many of these things, like what the default is, what the right order is.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so then give us some core principles then in terms of if I have something…Well, I guess, first of all, this presupposes that you’re offering people choices as opposed to saying, “This is what we’re doing now.” Now, I guess you may or may not have the authority or power, influence, sway, relationship, to just, by fiat, say, “This is what’s happening now.” But, maybe, before we delve into the how do we present choices, I’d love to get your take on under what circumstances is it optimal to present multiple choices versus just the, “Hey, I’d like to do this,” or, “How about we do that?”

Eric Johnson
Well, it’s interesting. You say it in a way that says, “How about if we do that?” and in your voice there was a question mark, as if I can come back and say something else. An extreme would be, by fiat, “We are going to go and order this,” and that certainly saves lots of work in decision-making but people often feel like they have lost a lot of power or input or it can be demotivating.

So, a slightly gentler version of that is how many options do you give somebody? Do you give them one, which is your extreme case, in which case, it’s not really a choice? Or, do you give them two, or four, or five? It’s actually quite an interesting aspect of choice architecture.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, yes. And so, I’m curious, are there certain…what are the criteria or factors which might lead me to think, “Hmm, I’m going to go with one choice or option versus a multiple choice or option”?

Eric Johnson
So, how well do I know the person making the decision? If I know a lot of their taste, I can cut down the number of things I show them. So, a menu, when I tell my wife, “What’s on the menu?” Let’s say I’m calling her and saying, “What’s on the menu?” because she’s running a few minutes late and wants me to order for her, if I know her taste, I can give two or three. If it’s somebody I don’t know, I’m going to expand the number of options. I’m going to try and figure out what options are different. So, the more I know the person who’s making a choice, assuming I’m trying to help them, the fewer options I can give them.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, it makes sense certainly as a principle. Okay. And then I’m thinking if it’s just from a general, like influence-mastery perspective, I’m thinking in the course of, let’s just say, I want boss, or collaborator, peer, to come my way with something. And I guess there’s a whole another set – we had Bob Cialdini on the show who was awesome – of principles associated with being influential. But here, it seems like we’re specifically zeroing in on, in a world where we’re sharing multiple options and we would like them to pick the one we want them to pick, how do we do that?

Eric Johnson
So, I think we’ve covered two things already. One is default, say, “If you don’t have anything else in mind, here’s the default.” So, I’ll give you an example of that that turns out to be very handy in my life. I could say to somebody, “Oh, we should get together for a meeting. What’s good for you?” That’s giving them, in essence, an infinite number of options. Instead, I could say, “Look, 9:30 on Tuesday is good for me, but I’m flexible.”

Now, from my perspective, as the designer, as I call that person, I’m going to increase the probability that gets chosen and it’s better for me. From the other person’s perspective, it saves them a little bit of effort. Instead of having to go through their whole calendar, they can look first and start with that as a starting point. And so, that actually probably makes both the designer and the chooser, or the person making the choice, better off.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, I like that. And then, it’s funny as I’m thinking about, I’ve had some conversations with some sales-type folk in which they’re reaching out, and they say, “Hey, would you like to meet at this time or that time?” And I’m thinking, “Well, neither of those times because I don’t want to meet with you at all.” Any thoughts on, I don’t know if you call that presumption, or when there’s a good possibility that they don’t want none of your options? Like, how does that come across in terms of this little…?

Eric Johnson
So, let me step back one second. The premise of the book is actually a little bit different than it would be if I was doing sales. And it’s basically you’re trying to make the chooser make the choice that’s in their best interest. And the world we’re talking about, of course, that may not always overlap but you probably want to get a time that doesn’t get somebody that has to drive into work an hour early for the meeting.

Pete Mockaitis
Sure. And if you’re an ethical salesperson, hopefully, your solution really is, worth their time and effort relative to the alternatives.

Eric Johnson
And, in fact, I’m an optimist, and I think they’re trying to get the right product to you or make you a repeat customer.

Pete Mockaitis
Sure, I’m with you.

Eric Johnson
So, default would be one. We’ve already talked about sorting, what would be first, second, third. And if it’s a salesperson, that’s actually getting closer to a place where it’s a verbal list so you have to be careful that the last is going to be something that’s also remembered. You have to be careful in that decision as well. So, those would be two very concrete steps you could make in setting appointments.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, certainly. And so then, let’s hear some of the others. We’ve talked about the ideal number of options. So, there’s the one or there’s the infinite, and then there’s some discrete numbers in between. How do we think about that?

Eric Johnson
Well, I think there, the issue is basically, again, a lot of us are going to be thinking about the decision-maker and how well you know them, but let me give you a sort of application that’s not exactly how to be great, at least on your job per se. But there’s a really nice example at dating sites. Dating sites differ in the number of options.

So, let me ask you how you do this. If you go to Tinder, the number is infinity. There’s actually something called Tinder thumb for swiping too much. Now, on the other hand, there was a site called Coffee Meets Bagel.
Pete Mockaitis
Yes, I utilized that back in the day. That’s great.

Eric Johnson
It gave you one option, originally, or a small number of options, and they were good. Now, the thing about the chooser who thinks about those two things differently. In Coffee Meets Bagel, you would read the profile and go beyond the picture.

Pete Mockaitis
So, you have more time.

Eric Johnson
Yeah, you have more time and you’re not screening. On the other hand, with Tinder, you’re looking at pictures, I suspect, and then pictures get a big weight, and all the other things like personality get almost no weight. So, it depends on what you want the person to do. If you want them to make a good choice, it’s probably a reason to reduce the number of options.

So, if I gave them too many options, that can result in a poor choice because they may be more shallow in their evaluation, kind of like a Tinder effect, versus if I gave them a limited number of choices, like, “Hey, here’s three really good options,” as opposed to, “Well, there’s 14 things we can do,” then they’re like, “Well, I don’t know. That consulting firm seems to have a cool name, so let’s go with them,” versus, “Oh, three. Okay, I can kind of get into a little bit of detail here and think through the pros and cons of this.”

Eric Johnson
That’s right.

Pete Mockaitis
Cool. All right. Well, so then, three, I said, was kind of arbitrary. But do you have some thoughts on two versus three versus four versus five?

Eric Johnson
Right. Well, one of the things that’s very tempting to write a book like this is to say five is the magic number. But imagine we’re designing an airplane, would I say, “Two engines is always the right number of engines”? No, it depends on the kind of plane it is. So, rather than say three, I want to give you the principles to think about, which is one thing is that you increase the number of options, people get more variety, but they tend to get overloaded.

So, there are lots of cases where you want to give people variety, particularly if they don’t know you well, but I don’t want to go, like the New York City school system gives kids 769 different high schools they could choose between. That’s a bit too many.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Well, I’m thinking about my toddler, I kind of give him two shirts, generally, to choose from, and that seems to work pretty well. What do you think?

Eric Johnson
As they get older, they may want a little more, a couple more. But, notice, you’re doing something super important there, which is you’re limiting the choice or the options you want by assuming…you picked those two shirts.

Pete Mockaitis
It’s cold outside so I’d like the long sleeve situation, “This one is cleaner than the other one and a nice shirt.”

Eric Johnson
A friend of mine solved a problem, how to get their three-year old, so this might be useful, to bed by changing it to, “Do you want to go to bed or not go to bed?” to, “Do you want to fly in the bed or do you want to bounce in the bed?”

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, yeah. I did that one.

Eric Johnson
No more fighting but, notice, control of the choice set is a lot of control there. And I think, as a parent, you’d argue it’s in both your and their best interest.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s excellent. Like, “Do you want to fly to the car like an airplane or hop to the car like a kangaroo?”

Eric Johnson
You’ve done this before.

Pete Mockaitis
I can’t get away with that with grownup professionals. “You pay them with a check or with Venmo?”

Eric Johnson
Right. But you could, for example, limit…let’s take a common that many of your listeners have, which is pension plans. How many pension plans are you offered? Which ones? That’s a real-world example that I think is really important. And the funny thing is, for many of these things we’re talking about, people aren’t aware of their effects.

So, the defaults, people have actually done studies where they say, “Okay, now you’ve made a choice,” people see different defaults, they choose different things. And you say, “Did the default affect what you chose?” And they say, “No. It might affect other people but I made my decision based on what I wanted.”

So, the interesting thing for folks here is that the choices you make as an architect, as a designer, actually are things that will influence people and often they won’t realize the influence you have.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s powerful and the results can be massive when you come to retirement age, like, “Oh, shoot. There might’ve been a whole lot more money had I chosen a different option,” or a whole lot less. So, okay, we got a number of elements. Any other key elements you want to cover?

Eric Johnson
I think we’ve gotten a big list. The only other one that I think would be important is when you give people choices, you often describe the choices.

Pete Mockaitis
Got you.

Eric Johnson
So, what might be called attributes, so price, quality. For a car, it’s how many miles per gallon it gets, how fast it gets. Another thing that a designer does is present attributes. Imagine you’re giving someone a choice between two consulting assignments. You might use travel. You might use challenge. You might use opportunity for advancement. You, as a designer, get to choose which attributes are first and what’s presented.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s true.

Eric Johnson
So, I know it’s a long list but these all are things that you, as the designer, have as tools.

Pete Mockaitis
And when you describe choices or attributes, are there any best or worst practices there? Because, again, I’m thinking about the overwhelm, I guess there’s relevance, like, “I might not care about your liter is a turbo horsepower or whatever. Like, those numbers don’t mean things to me.” And maybe I should be better educated about vehicles. That’s come up before. “But I’m just not.” So, any pro tips on best and worst practices for great descriptions within the attributes?

Eric Johnson
So, I think one of the things that is a classic result is imagine calories. Now, if you’re really concerned about your weight, you probably understand calories, but a very nice example is to convert that into the number of miles walked you would have to do to walk off those calories.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, yeah. Got you.

Eric Johnson
The general principle is making sure the attribute is in a concrete way that people understand.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes. And I think that’s a great in terms of I think like computer things, in terms of like I understand very much what the impact of a 1-terra byte versus a 2-terra byte drive is, and I just bought a 2-terra byte, versus others, like, “What’s that even mean in terms of movies or songs or pictures or whatnot?” Because I often find myself, if I’m reading something and I’m just sort of out of my depth, I don’t know, I’m thinking about power tools or drills or impact drivers or something, they have numbers, like, “Is that good? I hope. It’s probably not horrible if you’re telling me about it. So, certainly, it has to be kind of relevant and understandable.”

And I guess I’m also thinking about just like, “How much is too much?” And now I’m thinking about sales landing pages on websites. And some of them can just go for dozens of pages, like, “Wow, people are reading that?” And others are pretty darn quick in terms of header, subhead, couple bullets, and then that’s that. How do you think about how we make the decision for more versus less?

Eric Johnson
The really interesting thing about your point is that people seem to be very sensitive to the initial cost of information. So, if you land on a page that has an ugly font and it’s hard to look at, even if the offer is attractive, you’re likely to bail. So, we know a lot just by watching firms do their customer funnel, how they actually acquire customers, that each click is very important, and to minimize the effort for each of those clicks is terribly, terribly important in attracting customers. And, again, if you think about trying to get somebody at work to sign on for a project, very similar stories apply.

Pete Mockaitis
So, reducing the friction, making it as easy as possible to do that.

Eric Johnson
Particularly at the beginning.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, then I’m curious about, so the flipside, any sort of like mistakes, or cognitive biases, or things we really got to be on our guard for when we are trying to make optimal decisions and present choices optimally to others?

Eric Johnson
So, the first big mistake is most of us don’t realize we’re designers so we’re doing this very haphazardly. So, we use what is first in our mind is what we tell people. So, if you’re saying, “Where do we go to lunch?” well, what happens is the thing that you think of first, it may not even be where you want to go. But, in general, I think neglecting choice architecture is the biggest mistake that we make. It’s because we don’t think it affects us, and, in fact, we don’t even realize how it affects other people. So, there are now a lot of studies showing that people don’t do things that would be in both their best interest and that chooses best interest.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Good. Thank you. Well, tell me, anything else you want to make sure to mention before we hear about some of your favorite things?

Eric Johnson
Well, I think the only thing I would say is realize that deciding how to present information to people is almost a secret power that you have, that it’s actually something that is a source of your ability to help other people, that if you don’t know about it, you’re neglecting a really important aspect of your job as a boss, or as a colleague, or as a report, any of the above.

Pete Mockaitis
And when you talk about power, that makes me think, can you share with us some more of the most sort of eye-popping sort of results or case studies and how little changes make huge differences? So, that pre-checked thing, that was pretty wild in terms of, “How do you want to be taken care of in your final years?” I mean, wow, what a huge impact just to pre-check can make. Any other striking examples or cases that leap to mind?

Eric Johnson
Well, let me talk about another of the tools we’ve talked about, which is order, what’s presented first. It turns out, on ballots, somebody is first, someone is second, etc. What research shows is the first choice gets about 2% more vote even in presidential elections. So, if we think about go back to the year 2000, Gore versus Bush, remember it all came down to Florida. In Florida, there was like 500 votes separating them.

It turns out, Bush, George W. was first in the ballot in Florida because the governor, his brother, Jeb, got to pick who was first. And, of course, any governor would pick the member of their own party. It wasn’t because it was his brother. That probably made the difference in who was elected president of the U.S.

Pete Mockaitis
Hotdog. That was a big case study. Thank you, Eric.

Eric Johnson
It’s not my research but it’s actually there was a case, by the way, in Texas where two Supreme Court justices who ran against each other, Pete Greene versus Rick Greene, whichever Greene, there they randomized. That’s how we know it made a difference. They picked one first in half the time, the other first the other half the time. There was a 20% difference between who got the vote depending upon who was first.

Pete Mockaitis
Wow! So, it was 20% when we actually got to randomized it, so it might be much bigger than 2%.

Eric Johnson
Right. In that case, because they had the same last name, and nobody knew who they were, that’s one of the reasons it’s 20%.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, fair enough. Well, that’s really heavy. I’m just sort of sitting and processing that for a moment. And then for our elections in the U.S., is that normally how it goes, the governor gets to pick? Or is alphabetical? Or does it vary state by state?

Eric Johnson
It varies a bunch by state by state but often it’s, in some places, the incumbent, which gives them an advantage. In other states, it’s the party in power that gets to be first. In Delaware, it turns out, just to be equally surprising, the Democrats always are the first slot in the ballot.

Pete Mockaitis
Always. Okay. All right. Well, now, could you share with us a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Eric Johnson
So, something I’ve thought a lot about is a quote that I saw when I was a young person reading science magazines, and it was a Browning quote, “For a man’s reach should exceed their grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” In other words, keep striving. You’re not going to get there, but go for it.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, lovely. And how about a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?

Eric Johnson
Well, I think I have to admit that I very much like one that I did, which used the default manipulation to change people’s willingness to be organ donors.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, tell us the result. What went down?

Eric Johnson
Well, basically, if you look at people’s willingness, not necessarily to be a donor, but to be willing to be a donor, there is a 40% gap between those people where you are a donor by default, which happens in several European countries, and countries like the U.S. where you have to choose to be an organ donor. So, the default actually can change people’s willingness to be an organ donor.

Pete Mockaitis
Hotdog. And a favorite book?

Eric Johnson
When I was very young, I read two books at the same time practically, and they would change my life. One was Jack Kerouac’s On the Road. The other was Tom Wolfe’s The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. And growing up in New Jersey and not seeing much of the world, this really opened up my eyes.

Pete Mockaitis
Cool. And a favorite tool, something you use to be awesome at your job?

Eric Johnson
I actually use, I’ve tried a lot, like many people, many different kinds of planning software. I use something called Marvin, but the important point is not the software. It’s basically sitting down every day and doing a to-do list that includes time, not just, “I’m going to do it in this order,” but, “I’m going to do it at this time.”

Pete Mockaitis
And is there a particular nugget you share, something that really connects and resonates with folks you’re chatting with?

Eric Johnson
One of the things that I find interesting about using social media and, particularly, to promote the book, is to see what other people are saying. And I think one of the things that I hear people are repeating, so I let them choose, is basically, “Being a choice architect is something that’s a power that I didn’t know I had.”

Pete Mockaitis
And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Eric Johnson
Well, really good, Twitter is @ProfEricJohnson. And there’s also a nice website on TheElementsofChoice.com.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Eric Johnson
I think, basically, realize that you actually have the power whenever you present choices to another person that, if you don’t think about it, you’re going to waste an important part of what you can do on your job.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Eric, thank you. This has been a treat. I wish you much luck with all of the choices you make and present.

Eric Johnson
Thank you very much. It’s been a lot of fun, Pete.

696: How to Separate Truth from Bullsh*t for Smarter Decisions with John V. Petrocelli

By | Podcasts | One Comment

 

 

John V. Petrocelli discusses the communicative perils of bullsh*t—and what you can do to stop it.

You’ll Learn:

  1. Why BS is more damaging than you think 
  2. Three ways to sharpen your BS detector
  3. Six clarifying questions to help you call out BS 

About John

John V. Petrocelli is an experimental social psychologist and Professor of Psychology at Wake Forest University. His research examines the causes and consequences of bullshit and bullshitting in the way of better understanding and improving bullshit detection and disposal. He is the author of The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit. Petrocelli’s research contributions also include attitudes and persuasion and the intersections of counterfactual thinking with learning, memory and decision making. His research has appeared in the top journals of his field including the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Petrocelli also serves as an Associate Editor of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 

Resources Mentioned

John V. Petrocelli Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
We’ll get a few seconds of silence for the audio engineers and away we’ll go. John, thanks so much for joining us here on the How to be Awesome at Your Job podcast.

John Petrocelli
Well, thank you. Thank you for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m so excited to dig into the wisdom of your book The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullsh*t and we’re going to be ducking the S word a bit just so that the podcast will not be censored and unavailable in certain countries. So, BS or bullsh*t, that’s what we’re talking about. And you say you’ve come from a long line of bullsh*tters. What’s sort of your backstory here?

John Petrocelli
Well, I think everybody does actually. When I tell people what I do and my work, most people have readily available examples of how their friend or their colleague or their Uncle Larry is the world’s greatest bull artist, or half the time it’s Maurice on the second floor in marketing in their company, and people usually have these ready-made examples, and they’re convinced they all seem to know the same person.

So, I’m convinced that we are constantly surrounded by BS artists and, in general, I think most people are, I wouldn’t call most people BS artists, but the average individual, I think, generates their fair share of BS themselves. So, it’s everywhere, it’s in every walk of life, and it’s something that I think is not as harmless as we like to think. Usually, we kind of say, “Oh, Pete’s just BS-ing us,” or, “We’re just sitting out here on the porch BS-ing.”

But we often think that it doesn’t have the devastating effect that it can actually have for our wallets, or for our career decisions, for our interpersonal decisions. Really, all over the place, you’re going to find this insidious communicative substance that we often refer to as BS.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, I want to definitely hear about the impact and the damage and what’s at stake here. But, first, you’ve got a bit more of a precise definition than I think most of us do. So, how precisely do you define what is bull? And how is it distinctive from just straight up lying or fraud?

John Petrocelli
Yeah. So, I use Harry Frankfurt’s original definition. He was a philosopher at Princeton University. And, in 1986, he wrote a book, or actually in 1986 he wrote a small article-turned-book 15 years later, and the title of the book was called On Bullshit, and that’s where he defined BS and the definition that I use, which is simply a communicative substance that emerges when people communicate about things that they know little to nothing about, and in which they have no regard or concern for what we would call truth, genuine evidence, or established knowledge.

And so, the behavior of BS-ing is often characterized by a wide range of rhetorical strategies designed to communicate without any regard for truth, evidence, or established knowledge. And that might come out in the form of exaggerating one’s competence or their knowledge or their skills in a domain, or it may come out in the form of trying to impress others, fit in with others, influence or persuade them, or to embellish, or to confuse, or to simply hide the fact that they really don’t know what they’re talking about.

And that’s a pretty broad definition but the core of it, again, is simply talking about things that one really doesn’t know much about, and doesn’t have any regard for truth, evidence, or established knowledge. And that’s very different from lying because, when we lie, to do it successfully, we have to know what the truth is. If I wanted to detract you from the truth, it’s a good idea to know what the facts are. So, the liar is usually concerned about the truth or they know the truth, whereas the BS-er doesn’t care. They pay no attention to truth and they could care less.

And, in fact, by definition, what the liar says is categorically false to the extent that they do know the truth, and they successfully tell us something that’s false. But if the BS-er is truly BS-ing, they may, by chance, accidentally say something that is correct. But even the BS-er wouldn’t know it because they’re not paying any attention to truth, established knowledge, or evidence.

And the social reaction, too. The social reaction that people have towards BS-ing and lying is completely different. So, usually, if a friend or a colleague lies to us, and we find out that they’ve lied, we respond with anger or great disdain, and they’re going to have to tell quite a few truths in the future to gain our trust back. But, with BS-ing, often we let it slide. We give the BS-er a social pass of acceptance because we often think it’s harmless.

Rarely do we say, “Oh, we’re out here sitting on the porch lying to one another,” or that Pete is lying. Because lying oftentimes is associated with fighting words, but BS-ing is we assume that it doesn’t have the same kind of negative effect.

But not only my own research but certainly lots and lots of examples where people have lost money, they’ve made very poor decisions in their life, in their work, in their interpersonal relationships, that are truly grounded in BS. And I’m convinced, I’ve got treasure troves of data now, Pete, in my experiments from thousands of participants, and looking at what they write about no matter what types of events I ask them to write about and explain why they have the opinions and attitudes that they have.

I’m convinced that the personal, interpersonal, professional, and societal problems that we have are often rooted in indirectly or directly in mindless BS reasoning and communication, and being so closely married to BS preferences and so adverse to truth comes at a great consequence to decision-making.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, so then let’s hear it then if lies or fraud really does sound a lot worse than BS, but you’re saying there’s a lot at stake. Can you share with us some of the most hard-hitting data points of studies that show, “Hey, this is actually really damaging”?

John Petrocelli
Absolutely. So, what I’ve focused on in my own research is what people believe to be true because truth, what you believe to be true, is fundamental to the decisions that you make. So, in my experiments, I’ve used very simple statements that can be readily recognized as true or false, and demonstrated as true or false. And I give people false statements like, “Sydney is the capital city of Australia. How interesting is that?” “Steinbeck is the author of The Agony and the Ecstasy. How interesting is that to you?”

Now, both of those statements are false. And when you mix those with a lot of other statements, what you will find is what we call an illusory truth effect. So, people will overestimate how true something is just because it sounds familiar.

And what we find is when we say that, “Well, the author of those statements that you read, the author was told to lie on some of them. They were told to write half of them that are true, and half of them that are false. All right? Now, we want you to determine whether or not these statements are true or false.”

And another condition, what we do is we say, “Well, the author of these statements, they were asked to write half of the statements that are true, and then the other half not to really worry about truth and not to worry about fact-checking, how true these things are. You can really just write whatever comes to mind.” And then we looked at the illusory truth effect in that case.

And what we find is that when the author is BS-ing, you get a stronger illusory truth effect, so people are much more likely to tag things as false if they’re told, “Well, some of these things are lies.” But they do treat the BS differently. It’s tagged as potentially true or potentially false. It’s not categorically tagged mentally as false as we do lies. Like, if I tell you, “Hey, I just lied to you about a fact,” well, then you know that it’s false. But if I said, “Hey, I just BS-ed you on that,” it’s possible, to the extent that it sounds feasible and plausible, it could be true. So, people treat those things differently.

Then we also find that in some cases the conditions are right, that BS can be quite persuasive even in comparison to strong arguments for an issue. So, we have compared what we call evidence-based communication with BS communication. So, evidence-based communication is the exact opposite of BS. It is grounded in truth, genuine evidence, and established knowledge.

Now, if I give you two arguments that are strong, and in one case I tell you, “I’m concerned with the evidence. I’ve actually looked this up. I’ve actually considered what the data looked like, what the readily available data looked like.” That’s the strongest strong arguments that you can produce. But if I said, “I don’t care what the research suggests. I don’t care what the data is on this issue. This is what I believe,” and I say the same exact thing. Now, I’ve weakened the strong arguments, so that makes sense.

But with weak arguments, I could say, “Yeah, I think we should have comprehensive exams at our university as a requirement for graduation for these reasons. And one of the reasons is, well, Duke University is doing it.” That’s a weak argument. Now, if I give you evidence-based cues to that same argument in comparison to BS-based cues of the same arguments, there’s no difference. There’s no difference in evidence-based and BS-based cues and the potency that it has on your attitudes.

So, BS tends to weaken strong arguments, but if anything, it strengthens weak arguments. And we think that this happens because people tend to shut down. When you know that someone is BS-ing you, they’ve given you enough cues that they don’t really know what they’re talking about, and they really don’t have any interest in the truth, people tend to shut down. And, if anything, they will change, their attitudes will be influenced by what we call peripheral cues, how attractive someone is, maybe how tall they are, how quickly they talk, what their authority position is, their perceived credibility.

That’s not where people recognize the difference between strong and weak arguments. So, BS tends to get people in a perspective or in a mode of thinking in which they’re really not thinking very well, and they’re not thinking very clearly about the strengths of arguments, and they don’t even recognize the difference between the strengths of arguments. So, those are really big problems.

Pete Mockaitis
So, I guess therein lies the danger, is that because we’re susceptible to this, weak arguments plus a lot of BS, results in many, many suboptimal decisions being made everywhere and at all times that discourses is occurring and, thusly, it’s a whole lot of damage accumulatively. Is that kind of your take?

John Petrocelli
Yeah, and we’ve studied this also in a procedure that we call the sleeper effect. So, if I tell you really great things about an attitude, what we call an attitude object, in our studies we’ve used a pizza, a gluten-free pizza, and we tell you all these great things about this gluten-free pizza and how great it tastes and how healthy it is.

And then we tell you, “We want to know what your attitude is.” Well, we’ll see that people have attitudes about Ciao’s pizza that’s rather positive. But then we say, “Oh, you know, there’s a consumer protection agency that did a study and they found out that Ciao’s pizza marketing team, well, they lied. They lied on three things, and here they are.”

Now, over time, you have two pieces of information now. So, initially, the attitude was positive but then you’ve been given a discounting cue. They tell you’ve been lied to. So, immediately people reduce their attitude, they say, “All right. Well, Ciao’s pizza is not so great then.” But, two weeks later, when we survey people’s attitudes about Ciao’s pizza again, what we find is sort of a rebounding effect, which is the attitude becomes more positive, closer to the positivity that it initially was. And the idea is that people forget the discounting cue faster than they forget the initial information that was positive.

So, now, if I tell you, in the same paradigm, “Oh, consumer protection agency found that Ciao’s pizza marketing team was bull*, and they don’t even know if it’s true that most people loved this pizza and has all of these great qualities.” Again, the attitudes are reduced, but two weeks later it’s even stronger and actually at the same level than a control condition who had never gotten the discounting cue in the first place.

So, here now, we have a case where what discounted the initial information is completely forgotten and it’s no longer worked into the attitude. So, people will say to you, “Well, you’ve got to hear these false things maybe 16 times,” I used to believe that. Well, it’s not true that you have to hear it 16 times to believe it. You only have to hear it one time.

The same thing happens in the illusory truth paradigm. You only have to present these falsities one time for people then to confuse them, either confuse them as true because they sound familiar or they forget the false piece of the information, and the part that sounds true remains. And it comes back to shaped attitudes. And, again, what we think is true would be devastating to decision-making.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. Well, so that paints a really clear picture then in terms of just given how we interact with information and conversation, how we can form perspectives on what is true that are not at all appropriate or actually true, and that can sort of have all kinds of cascade negative impacts. So, then what do you recommend we do in terms of as we’re navigating life, doing research, making decisions, to as much as possible become immune to the negative effects of this BS?

John Petrocelli
Yes. Well, one of the first things I think that is critical to that is accepting the possibility that we are susceptible to BS and the unwanted effects of BS. So, that’s one of the biggest problems with BS is that people feel, one, that they can detect it, and that, two, it really isn’t harmful and it doesn’t affect them very much. But my research suggests they couldn’t be more wrong.

So, the first step would be accepting some susceptibility to it. And, in fact, there’s a lot of research, we call it the Dunning-Kruger Effect that has been studied for over 20 years now, that suggest that the people who are most confident in their abilities in a particular cognitive domain are oftentimes the most susceptible not only to BS but, also, they’re most likely to overestimate their actual skills. So, the cognitive skills that you need to be competent in a domain are the same cognitive skills that you need to recognize competence.

So, often the most confident people, sort of they think that they’re protected against BS and deception, often those are the easiest people to dupe with the BS. So, that would be the first thing. The second thing, I think, is recognizing the difference between explanation and evidence. Explanation and evidence are two totally different things. If you asked people why they believe what they believe, oftentimes they will go into explanation. They’ll give you reasons why they believe what they do. They’ll talk about values, they’ll talk about things that are rather abstract, and sort of the heady things. They’ll talk conceptually.

They won’t give you boots-on-the-ground hard evidence demonstrating the process as to how they came to the conclusions that they’ve come to. So, evidence is something that verifies or demonstrates or supports a claim or an assertion. And people often treat the two things very similarly but they are very different. So, recognizing the difference between those two things.

And then I think the third thing would be to ask questions, to simply just ask questions. I cannot tell you how much money I’ve actually saved myself showing that asking these basic questions actually work. And they’re really basic critical-thinking 101 skills. And the first question that I would ask, when you suspect, “Well, I may have just been exposed to some BS,” is to ask the communicator, “What? What exactly is the claim?” to clarify the claim.

And what you’ll often find, and my research shows this and my own personal experience, I can tell you that people will often take a couple of backpedal steps, and they’ll start to clean the bull up immediately because they see, “All right. Someone is interested in my claim, and maybe they kind of want to hedge it, they want to qualify it in some ways.” So, clarification is a strong antidote to bullshit, so just ask, “What?”

Pete Mockaitis
And so, when you clarify the claim, can you give us an example? Is that as simple as saying, “Wait a second, John. So, were you claiming…?” precise sentence. And then they say, “Well…” You’re saying that’s all it takes?

John Petrocelli
Well, oftentimes, that’s all it takes. If they tell you, “Well, there’s going to be some changes in this company but no jobs will be lost.” “Well, what do you mean? At what level? What exactly are you talking about? Are you talking about this month or this year or what?” And just to ask clarification, “What?” questions just to get people to talk about it, to clarify the claim.

And once you get through “What?” which is nice because you can immediately expose yourself to less BS if they are willing to clean that up for you, then you’d ask, “How? How is it that you have come to this conclusion? I’m really interested in your claim or your assertion. How do you know?” So, if you ask, “How?” what people will usually do is they will provide for you a more concrete level of abstraction, and they will talk about actual evidence if it is readily available, or if they can recall some from memory, or if they can access it.

Now, a lot of times they’re not able to do that. If they’re truly BS-ing, they probably haven’t really thought through or gone through a logical rational process to come to their conclusion. So, you just ask “How? How do you know this?” or, “How is it that you know this?” And then the third question would be to ask, “Well, have you considered any other alternatives? I hear you saying X, Pete, but what about Y? Don’t this conflict? How do you reconcile these differences?”

And all three of these questions are essentially designed to diagnose the communicator’s actual interest in truth, genuine evidence, and established knowledge. If they’re unable to answer these questions, people are very reasonable when they’ve got enough information. Now, if they rely on what they usually rely on, which is just their own personal or professional experience, they’ll often ignore the fact that personal experience is often very, very messy. It’s a very, very messy data collection method. It provides data that’s random, that is unrepresentative. It’s ambiguous. Oftentimes, it’s incomplete or inconsistent, indirect, and often surprising or counter-attitudinal, not something that we necessarily want to think or want to believe.

Pete Mockaitis
Right.

John Petrocelli
And that’s not a good way to collect data.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. And I love that example associated with, “Hey, there’s going to be some changes. No jobs will be lost.” The distinction between BS-ing and a lie, it’s a lie if he knows darn well that dozens of people are going to get laid off within a few months, versus BS-ing which is like, “Hey, he’s got a general sense that we’re probably going to be okay.” But if you’re considering your own job opportunities and economic situation, that’s not good enough.

And so, with those questions, the “What?” and the “How?” and “Have you considered?” I could really just kind of imagine what a great answer versus a poor answer. It’s like, “Are you saying that no jobs will be lost over the next year?” He’s like, “Well, yeah, we’re pretty sure there probably shouldn’t be any.” It’s like, “Oh, that’s a bad answer,” versus, “Yes, we’re absolutely certain that there’ll be zero jobs.” “Okay, that’s a commitment.”

And then, “How have you come to know this?” This is like, “Well, hey, we’ve taken a look at our cashflows, with our reduced revenue situation that we’re at from the pandemic or whatever, a negative event, and we’re still cashflow positive, so we have no trouble making our payroll over the course of the next year.” And then, “Have you considered, well, hey, what happens if it gets a little bit worse?” Like, “Yes. Well, we have a couple years of reserves in savings to work with so even if it gets a little worse, we should be okay.” Now, those are great answers versus, “Yeah, we’re feeling pretty good about this. Hey, this thing should turn around any week now, really.” Like, “Oh, okay. You don’t actually know.”

And then, yeah, that kind of makes it all clear for me, the distinction between the lying and the BS-ing is that’s where it is. And then, in some ways though, John, what would be your take on this? If someone sort of acknowledged upfront, like, “Hey, I’m just speculating about this but here’s my read on things right now,” it seems like that could diffuse a good amount of the dangers of BS. Is that fair to say?

John Petrocelli
Absolutely. I’m totally agreeing with you, Pete, because in that case, you have communicated that you are actually interested in the truth and in reality but you don’t actually know for sure. You haven’t given this vague, ambiguous, pseudo-profound kind of answer that everyone is hoping to hear, and you’ve been specific about your interest in the truth. And so, exactly, if you say it, if you qualify, “I’m only speculating. I don’t actually have the data. I haven’t consulted other available sources yet and I don’t know this for sure, but here’s my sense, here’s my opinion so far but it’s not well-informed.”

That’s one of the problems with BS is that the people are often so ready to offer BS because our communicative culture, there’s an underlying implicit assumption that we are supposed to have opinions about everything but it’s impossible to have a well-informed opinion about everything, and everything is so large now, especially since the dawn of the internet. We’re supposed to have opinions about seemingly countless things now or, otherwise, we don’t sound interesting, we are non-factors in conversations, and that doesn’t bode very well especially with people with a high need to belong to the various groups that they do belong to.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, the need to belong, to appear competent, and like you must have an opinion on these things. It’s funny, as I’m imagining if someone asked me…you’re changing my worldviews, John. Good work. If someone asked me a question, I don’t really know the answer to, I think it might be refreshing if I were to say, “You know, I can only offer you speculation on that. Would you like to hear it or not?” And then it’s like, “I’m not going to be offended if you say, ‘You know, no, I don’t want to hear your speculation.’” And I’d probably appreciate being asked if I’m on the receiving end of that.

John Petrocelli
Yes.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s good. Well, tell me, any other? I love those three, they’re very prescriptive questions, the “What?” the “How have you come to know this?” and the “Have you considered?” Any other key words, phrases, questions, scripts that you find super helpful as you navigate this, both as the BS-er or the recipient of the BS?

John Petrocelli
Yes, I gave you examples of when you can communicate directly with the potential BS-er but there’s lots of cases where we’re exposed to BS where we can’t communicate directly with them.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, just on the internet.

John Petrocelli
And there’s another basic critical-thinking skills, 101s, three-point question, and that is, “Well, who? Who am I getting this information? Who is telling me this? Or, who is the claim coming from? What is their expertise? What is their credibility?” So, you start with “Who?” Well, then the next question is now, you’re back, “Well, how? How do they know? How is it that they possibly came to this conclusion? Is there anything in their presentation or their assertion, their claim, that they have communicated that would hint at how it is they would know this given their credibility, their level of expertise?

And “What?” back to “What?” But this time it’s “What agenda might they have? What are they trying to sell me? What are they trying to sell us?” So, now, instead of “What?” “How?” and “Have you considered?” you can sort of just mentally go through, “Well, who’s telling this? How do they know? And what are they trying to sell me? What’s their agenda?”

And it’s also useful to turn these kinds of questions onto ourselves because one of the most potent BS-ers that we’ll ever meet in our lives is ourselves, it’s the BS that often goes unchallenged, it’s the BS that we tell ourselves things that we would like to believe, that just ain’t so half the time, probably half the time.

So, it’s good to turn these questions onto the self, and say, “What level of evidence do I actually have? And do I have any? What am I basing this on? Do I have anything conclusive that actually leads me to this conclusion? And what about other people? What about my friends and colleagues? Do they have the same beliefs? They have an important perspective too. What about asking them?” Collecting more data instead of just remaining in one’s box and one’s head can do wonders for the types of data collection that are needed to combat the BS that we hand ourselves.

Pete Mockaitis
What this brings back for me is I remember I needed to get a new roof and I didn’t know what I was doing, and I was having trouble getting someone to show up, so it’s like, “To heck with it. I’m calling every roofer that I can.” So, I called like 20 and, sure enough, I had like five show up, so I was like, “Hey, that worked. Nothing succeeds like excess.”

But then they were telling me contradictory things, like, “Oh, you got to tear this off,” “No, you don’t need to tear it off. You can put another layer.” And then it’s like, “Oh, you can just put a coating on the top. You don’t need to do more material at all than a coating.” And so, I was like, “Well, how the heck am I…? I don’t know anything about roofing. You’re the roofing masters and you’re telling me completely different things. How do I get to the heart of this?”

It was tricky, it’s sort of like…but I guess I followed your principles in terms of what was their agenda. And so, when someone told me, like, “Hey, I can’t work on your roof until you’ve fixed this masonry situation over there because you’re just going to have leaking.” I was like, “Okay. Well, this guy is walking away from perfectly good money, so I think that’s probably true.” So, looking at the agenda part of the story.

And then someone else actually offered evidence, like, “Hey, do you see how this is sagging and do you see from this side angle there’s already three layers? Well, the Chicago building code only allows for this thing.” I was like, “Okay, now that’s some evidence.” And it was funny how in hindsight…

John Petrocelli
It’s a picture of your roof not someone else’s roof.

Pete Mockaitis
Right. It’s funny how, in hindsight, like that’s what cuts through the clutter, but because I felt overwhelmed and it was a large expense and these are the experts who are contradicting each other, I find it very stressful. But by following your guiding lights there, I probably could’ve been like, “Okay, I’m disregarding what you say, and you say, and getting the mason and we’re tearing it off and, hey, that was easy. Could’ve been a lot quicker.”

John Petrocelli
Yes. Well, I would say, Pete, you did 100% exactly the right thing in that situation. And it sounds like you asked a lot of follow-up questions, and that is another antidote to BS, because only through follow-up questions are you going to reveal the inconsistencies and are you going to reveal other things about a person’s personality and their agenda that will come through if you follow up with as many follow-up questions as you can.

I had a similar instance recently where I had to have a breaker box to our AC unit switch, and I had two separate electricians come out. The first one said it was basically a $2,000 repair, so they wanted to replace the entire two-breaker panel, and I thought, “Wow, gee, that’s really expensive. I’m going to have to definitely get a second opinion on that.” But I went out with him and we looked at it, he explained everything, and I asked him so many questions, Pete, by the time he left, he was coaching me on how to speak with the home warranty representative on the phone on what to say and what not to say because it ended up being really a minor repair that cost $80 with the second.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay

John Petrocelli
There was no damage. The breakers were actually a mismatch. They were sort of apples and oranges and we discovered this, but there hadn’t been any damage to the box itself. So, I could suspect that with something that I thought, “Well, this probably won’t be more than a couple hundred dollars of repair,” and, all of a sudden, it’s 2,000. My detector went off and I just asked questions. Again, I said, “Well, show me what that looks like,” because he said there was damage.

But when he pulled them out, they looked brand new to me so it was harder for him to then kind of continue following down that path because there didn’t appear to be any burning or there didn’t appear to be any kind of any marks. They looked brand new. And so, just asking questions. We did the same thing with what I’ve called the masters, the well-trained artists, the BS artists of all time must be people who sell timeshare agreements for vacations, hotels.

Pete Mockaitis
“It’s a marriage insurance, John. Can you put a price on that?”

John Petrocelli
So, these people are highly-trained BS artists. So, they will bring you in to maybe Myrtle Beach for two nights, they give you free two nights to stay, and they’ll say, “All right. Well, on Saturday, all you have to do is agree to watch a one-hour presentation that we’ll give you. It’s a marketing presentation and dinner is on us and all of this stuff.”

Well, what they do is they’ll bring you in at 10:30 a.m. because they know you’re not going to have lunch before 10:30 a.m. and they sit you in the waiting room until about 12:30 so now you are starting to get hungry for lunch, and then the presentation starts at 12:30, and then that takes an hour, and then they want to show you some of the properties. And then they want to BS you on how great all this whole package is going to be. Before you know it, it’s 5:00 p.m. and then they want you to make a decision. So, you’re exhausted.

And people, we know, are less likely to detect BS if they are fatigued, if their what we call the self-regulatory resources that are the resource, the mental resources that you use to maintain, to change and maintain your thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. And when people are depleted of those basic psychological resources, they don’t always make the best decisions, they don’t always behave in the ways that they normally would if they are full of these resources. And detecting BS, and even producing BS, are affected by these resources.

And what they do is they drain them, and then they ask you to make a decision.

But even in those cases, if you ask enough follow-up questions, people will usually come to reasonable decisions if they’ve got good information. When they don’t have good information, or incomplete information, they often make very poor decisions.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, John, this is a lot of great stuff. I want to shift gears and hear about a couple of your favorite things. Could you now tell us a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

John Petrocelli
Yes, my favorite quote actually is by Neil deGrasse Tyson, and he says, “When you know how to think, it empowers you far beyond those who know only what to think.”

Pete Mockaitis
And how about a favorite book?

John Petrocelli
It’s got to be Harry Frankfurt’s On Bull, but I think a close second would have to be anything by F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby. Just beautiful. The writing is just beautiful and that’d have to be a close second.

Pete Mockaitis
And is there a particular nugget you share that seems to connect and resonate with folks; they quote it back to you a lot?

John Petrocelli
Well, I would say that what I’ve been trying to do with the book, too, is just to normalize calling BS. And when I think people have commented that, well, some of the things I’ve talked about in earlier talks, and in my research that they’ve read, they said, “You know, this actually works,” and you don’t have to use the word BS.

You can do it in a very considerate way and maybe even in a private way such that people don’t feel uncomfortable being called on their BS because, as you probably know, that calling BS can be a serious conversation-killer, and perhaps fighting words in some parts. So, I would think that doing it in a considerate way works best and maybe even in private.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

John Petrocelli
Yeah, I’m available on Twitter as @JohnVPetro or you can look me up at Wake Forest University Psychology, you’ll find me there.

Pete Mockaitis
And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

John Petrocelli
I’d say call to action would be to, I think, this would be for leaders and for managers especially, to try to create a communicative culture that is open to asking questions, one that is open even to possibly challenging. One of the most frequently used BS words in all of the workplace is best practice, to challenge things like that, and to just create the sort of atmosphere to make that kind of thing okay. And I think decision-making will be much more optimal in that type of communicative culture.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. John, this has been a pleasure. I wish you much success and BS-free exchanges.

John Petrocelli
All right. Well, thank you. Thanks so much for having me, Pete.

695: How to Take Risks Confidently with Sukhinder Singh Cassidy

By | Podcasts | No Comments

 

 

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy says: "When nothing is sure, everything is possible."

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy shares valuable insight on how to take smarter, more calculated risks with confidence.

You’ll Learn:

  1. Two easy ways to build your risk-taking muscle 
  2. How to stop the fear of failure from holding you back 
  3. One question to help you make smarter, more calculated risks

About Sukhinder

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy is a leading technology executive and entrepreneur, board member, and investor with twenty-five years of experience founding and helping to scale companies, including Google and Amazon. She served as president of StubHub and as a member of eBay’s executive leadership team. Sukhinder is the founder and chairman of theBoardlist, a premium talent marketplace that helps diverse leaders get discovered for board and executive opportunities, and the author of CHOOSE POSSIBILITY. 

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, sponsors!

  • Setapp. Try out up to 200 of the best software tools in one streamlined place at setapp.com.

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Sukhinder, thanks for joining us here on the How to be Awesome at Your Job podcast.

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Thank you for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m so excited to dig into your perspectives associated with your book Choose Possibility. Can you tell us, what’s the big idea here?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
The big idea is that we all have a rather terrible relationship with risk-taking and a rather kind of, I would say, ill-conceived view of what risk really looks like. And so, the book was written to help us reframe risk for what it is, really the pursuit of possibility, and offer really pragmatic ways to rethink how you approach risk-taking in order for you to be able to unlock more of its benefits.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’ll take right away the pursuit of possibility feels a lot better than the word risk just in the gut, as you sort of feel the words side by side and their valance. So, very cool. Now, your own career has had some interesting possibilities and risks and wild successes and disappointments. Can you give us a little bit of view for some of the wildest rides and how you’ve thought about risk and what happened for you?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Sure. Sure. Well, as you noted, I consider myself someone who’s taken hundreds of risks in my career. I have been at large companies when they were growing, like Amazon and Google. I’ve been a CEO of large companies like StubHub, but I’ve also started three of my own, been an early-stage investor, a mid-stage investor, a late-stage investor, a board member at startups, a board member at large public companies, and so I feel like I’ve navigated and traversed risk-taking throughout my career.

And if you said sort of, “What are some of the wildest rides?” Well, they include quitting my job as a president at Google when I was arguably among the top 15 executives in the company, and going to a startup as a CEO, and, honestly, having it fail ferociously as a career move within six months, only to have to figure out how to recover and navigate my way to my next career choice and, ultimately, find the unlock for myself in terms of the rewards I took for the risks I took. As you can imagine, that career left me feeling like risk-taking is not what people think it is, and the reward relationship with risk is anything but linear, which is how we tend to conceive it.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I absolutely want to ask about that specific point, so let’s roll with it. So, the risk-reward relationship is not linear. What does it look like?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
I think of the relationship between risk-taking and reward is not only non-linear but, in some ways, very circuitous. And so, let me explain what I mean. When we make a move, any move, or take any choice, I bet you we’re looking for not just one reward but multiple rewards. We might be making a career choice that we’re hoping will fulfill us financially, that we’re hoping will unlock some outsized career, win like a title change, or step up in responsibilities, and maybe brings us a lot of personal happiness. So, we’re making a move that has effectively three choices within it that we’re trying to optimize for.

Yet, when it comes to sort of how things unfold, as we execute our way through a choice we’d made, the reality is we’re measuring it on these three different choices or goals we have, and we won’t get the results all at the same time. We maybe figure out if it’s going to be a financial win for several years. We may figure out if it’s a happiness win within a year. We may or may not achieve the career ambition we wanted in terms of title.

And so, when you think about all the reasons we take the risk to begin with, the rewards don’t unfold in sequence, they don’t unfold at the same time, and each reward may have its own relationship to our execution or to the factors that are entirely outside of our control on whether or not we sort of achieve we originally intended against that specific goal.

So, when I say it’s non-linear, I mean it unfolds at various points in time, big and little risks don’t correlate to the size of the ultimate reward, and so you look at the whole thing, and you say, “Gosh.” Whatever you imagine going in, you may or may not achieve it going out, but I bet you that you will still be able to collect the benefits of risks even if they don’t look like the rewards you originally imagined.

And I think that is the key, how you take risks and make sure that if it’s a non-linear and circuitous relationship, you can still gain benefit from the risk you take and understand what the relationships and the benefits might be every time you take a risk even if it’s not the ones you originally imagined.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, boy, I think you could chew on that for a while and really get to some great places. It’s funny, when I was thinking about a non-linear relationship doing risk and reward, I was just thinking from a strictly kind of a finance thing, it’s like, “As there is a higher standard deviation and the returns of the given asset class, risk, there is a higher reward, like percent, money, return.”

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Yeah, percent return. Right. Yes.

Pete Mockaitis
But as you sort of zoom out and think about kind of the long game and your life and time and how things unfold, it doesn’t look like that at all.

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Yeah. Well, it’s interesting. So, actually, let’s back away, let’s look at your asset, my view versus your view, and back way. First of all, there is a thesis that I have in the book that if you actually look over the extent of your lifetime, you will actually find maybe that linear relationship but through multiple choices and multiple cycles.

So, if people were to chart my career, they’d say, “Wow, Sukhinder, there’s a pretty linear relationship between risk and reward because you started at one place and you took a risk and, gosh, look where you ended up.” So, it looks like a straight line over your lifetime but, really, what you’re doing is mapping through a bunch of cycles of choices and individual risks and individual rewards, each of which may or may not have worked out.

So, to your point, it’s like a stock pick. Any given stock pick may or may not work out. You and I would agree. When you’re building a stock portfolio, what are you trying to do? You try and actually make multiple choices. You’re diversifying your risks in order to maximize your overall return. By the way, as you keep picking stocks and watch pattern matching, I bet you become a more calculated stock picker over time.

And over the course of a long timeframe, let’s say 10 years, in which you are managing a stock portfolio, you’re getting better and better, though never perfect, at picking stocks, diversifying risks, taking parallel risks at the same time. And over the course of that entire period, you may say, “Wow, there was a relationship between starting to be a stock picker in my ultimate value of my portfolio.” But that doesn’t mean every individual stock you picked worked out.

And I think therein is the opportunity, and therein is the miscalculation of how most people think about risk. Most people think about risk as one mighty choice for one mighty reward. And I think, to take your analogy further, you will see the compounding benefits over a long period of time, but it will be an amalgamation of many individual choices or risks taken, each of which may or may not have worked out. And that’s why I think risk-taking has to become a skill rather than a single event we imagine.

Pete Mockaitis
So, when we think about risk-taking as a skill, how do you recommend we go about getting better at this skill of risk-taking?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
First and foremost, it’s probably no surprise, I think about starting early and often. I will say to people, you imagine and look at the biggest risk-takers in the world, and we somehow celebrate their biggest choices and we act like that’s the only choice they ever made and that’s why they’re such a mighty risk-taker when, in fact, most started taking risks long before we knew it, and they took risks of different sizes.

So, if I were to say to you, “How did you become good at managing your portfolio?” or whatever it is you’re doing, I bet that it started by doing it early and often. So, I say to people, first and foremost, find reasons to take risks in your everyday life, in your everyday career. And most people will say, “Well, I took a risk. I made this choice to go into this career. I took a right turn and decided to join a startup.” Okay, well, that’s one risk but we have opportunities to take risks every day.

I always say to people you could take the risk to learn something new. You could take the risk to discover more opportunities. You could take the risk certainly to achieve an outsized ambition, or you could take a risk to avoid harm. Like, those are four different reasons we might have to take risks every day. And so, I say to people, early and often is the way to really build your risk-taking muscle.

The second thing I talk about with people is many people believe that risk-taking first requires a lot of planning. I don’t know. Have you ever seen this, Pete, the person who plans a lot, and plans judiciously, and plans in great detail before they ever take a risk? Because we think the more perfect our plans, the better our risk-taking will be and the more we can control the outcome.

And one of the other pieces of advice I say to people when they’re trying to get going and just start to take risks is, “Hey, as oppose to the perfect plan from afar, spend less time planning, create a rough plan, and then the most important thing you can do is get proximate to the choices you’re thinking about making, or the risks you’re thinking about taking.”

If you’re thinking about taking a risk to be an entrepreneur in a big company, one of the best ways to do it might, first and foremost, be proximate to people who are entrepreneurs. Learn what it looks like to be an entrepreneur. Get proximate by joining a startup. Become an apprentice before you make a final choice.

And so, I think people presume that risk-taking requires a perfect plan. And, instead, I kind of advocate for a rough plan, what I call a whiteboard plan, “What’s the direction in which you want to head?” And before you make your choice, take the little risks to get proximate and closer to the opportunities you seek, and learn before making your final choice.

Pete Mockaitis
Now, we’re using the phrase take risk a lot, so let’s get clear with definition, shall we? When you say, “Take a risk,” what precisely do we mean by that?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Well, I think of a risk is anything that has an uncertain outcome in pursuit of a goal. So, if you look at the standard definition of risk in Merriam-Webster, it’s to avoid injury or harm. That’s the kind of risk-taking we all imagine that keeps us from ever acting. If you look at the definition of risk-taking, it talks about literally entering an uncertain situation for the pursuit of a goal.

So, for me, a risk could be speaking up in a meeting. That’s ego risk. That’s psychological risk. It’s not financial risk but why don’t people speak in meetings? It’s because there’s a risk involved to their psyche or to their sense of what others think of them. And then risk-taking obviously follows more classic definitions if you know. You might decide to, as we said, empty the money from your bank account and put it in your first startup. That’s a bigger risk but it’s still a risk.

So, I think of risks as micro-actions, medium-sized actions, and larger-sized actions, all of which are uncertain but they’re decisions you make to try and unlock more impact. And what keeps you from doing it is obviously these fears we have, whether they’re related to our ego, financial, or kind of personal risks.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, yeah, so let’s talk about the fear. And maybe we’ll zoom out for a moment and get to a conceptual or theoretical optimal relationship to risk. Like, is your take that we should neither be fearful and take zero risks nor reckless and just do every nutty thing that we think about? Or, what does optimal look like in the realm of risk-taking?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Sure. Well, let’s start with what I call the universal risk-taking equation.

Pete Mockaitis
All right.

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
So, I want you to imagine two phrases, they’re pretty simple. One is FOMO, fear of missing out. I’m sure you know FOMO. The other of FOF, fear of failure. So, many people have fear of failure, many people have FOMO. So, I think of the universal risk-taking equation, put this in your head, the one that guides us all.

It’s goes something like this. If our fear of missing out on something is greater than our fear of failure, we’ll likely act, we’ll likely move in the direction of a choice we’re contemplating that has some uncertainty. If our fear of failure is greater than our FOMO, we’ll likely fail to act, it will equal inaction. So, let’s imagine risk-taking framework that looks like that.

First of all, you’ll notice two things. In that universal risk-taking equation, there isn’t the absence of fear. There are actually two fears that we are managing at any point in time – our fear of missing out, which is kind of what we would all think of as a positive fear, it’s the fear that induces us to act, and this fear of failure.

So, if you think about that concept, I think the world largely tells you that if you want to act, you just have to visualize the positive. Keep visualizing the positive because we’re going to ramp our FOMO. Makes sense. It’ll be like, “Hey, if you want to get that risk-taking equation working in your favor to act, just ramp your FOMO.” That doesn’t really do much for the way most people live, which is with a lot of fear.

So, just visualizing the positive doesn’t really do anything to help shrink the denominator in the equation, which is fear of failure. So, you could have a lot of FOMO, like you could have a lot of positive visualization, but if you can’t conquer or find a way to shrink your fear, you just won’t act, even though you know intellectually that there are all these things you’re excited about.

So, I often say to people, first of all, embrace both fears. I have an executive coach that I’ve worked with for 10 years through a number of my career choices, and he says to me, that I think is absolutely right, most people have a rather immature relationship with what he calls our inner risk manager, that voice inside of us that is, on the one hand, sometimes goading us forward, but more often our risk manager is trying to keep us from acting by sort of signaling all the dangers that’s going to happen to us, they’re trying to keep us safe.

So, he always talks about this immature relationship with our risk manager, and managing that formula I just talked about is about having a more mature relationship with your risk manager. And so, while it’s all good to kind of visualize the positive and ramp your FOMO, and I certainly recommend it when you’re creating goals, or when you’ve made a big choice and you’re trying to keep yourself motivated every day. What I often say to people is, “Let’s work actively on reducing our fear of failure,” and, “What are the strategies we can use that would help us reduce our fear of failure and allow us to act also?”

And there are a couple that I strongly recommend. One comes from our favorite risk-taker of all time, Jeff Bezos. Bezos wrote in his very famous shareholder letter to investors when he was going public, that most decisions Amazon makes, and he says that, “Most decisions we make, as people, are what we call decisions with two-way doors.” We often imagine that we make a decision and it’s a one-way door, there’s no way back. But the vast majority of things we do or try, there’s a way back. If you say something in a meeting that it doesn’t work out the way you want, it’s not like you can never say anything again.

Pete Mockaitis
“You’re fired.”

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Yeah, “You’re fired. Are you kidding? You said that terrible thing. Nobody thought you were smart.” Like, that’s absolutely ridiculous. If we said, “Hey,” you want to take a new job opportunity and it’s at a startup. If you’re very employable, and your current company lets you, it’s not like there’s not a way back if you go and it doesn’t work out.

So, the vast majority of things we think about are not one-way doors; they’re two-way doors. And so, I often advocate, and I advocate certainly in the book, that if you want to have a good relationship with your fear of failure, let’s start by not avoiding what those risks are. Let’s name them. Let’s size them. And they get sized as big if they’re one-way doors. If they’re two-way doors, they’re likely smaller, medium-sized risks, and go one step further.

I say, like, imagine the choice after the choice. Imagine you say that thing in a meeting and it doesn’t work out. Well, what’s the very next thing you would do? Imagine you go to that startup and you hate the job. What’s the very next move you would make? And the minute you can imagine the choices after the choice, and if you can come up with several, well, that’s probably not as large a risk as you think it is. And imagining what you would do actually helps us confront those fears of failure as opposed to avoiding them.

So, I often think about that universal risk-taking equation, and while I’m all for FOMO, I actually believe that we own each strategy to sort of look and shrink our fear of failure in order to get us into action. And those are some of the things I think about a lot and talk about a lot when I advocate for people to take more risks.

Pete Mockaitis
And so, you say you advocate for people to take more risks, is it fair to say that most of us don’t take enough risks and relatively few of us are wild and reckless? Or, what’s your take about the breakdown of the…we’ll just say United States professionals?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Well, you’re asking a question that’s near and dear to my heart. If you want to go to the website for the book called ChoosePossibility.com, you can take a risk quiz, interestingly, to figure out what your natural risk-taking style is because I wanted to know the answer to the same questions as I was writing the book and certainly bringing it to market as we launch it.

And so, we actually created a simple risk survey, and then we surveyed the US population, obviously not the entire population but a sample, before putting the risk quiz on LinkedIn and on the site where you can take it. And to your point, what we found is that we sort of named four archetypes for risks, and we found that the vast majority of people taking the risk quiz, like 60%, are what we call contemplators, which is very good at being calculated and measured in laying out the pros and cons of any decision.

But where they self-identify is having challenge is in actually making a decision. And these people self-identify saying, “Hey, I can look back and I have a decent amount of regret about choices I didn’t make and actions I failed to take.” So, the majority of the population in our risk quiz are contemplators. And then let’s think about what comes on either side of a contemplator.

A contemplator who is more negative, who sees more easily the cons of any given situation, who’s always trying to keep safe and keep away from harm, we call a critic. On the other side of being a contemplator is what we call the calculator, the person who also does the analysis of pros and cons in any big decision, and certainly probably does a faster analysis or more efficient analysis on smaller decisions, but is comfortable making a decision within a given time period. So, they’re always calculating and kind of biased towards making a decision more than the contemplator.

And then the last archetype we identified is what we call the change seeker. And you and I probably know lots of change seekers, which are people who are so easy to see opportunity that, in fact, they may move very spontaneously. Some would call them reckless, some wouldn’t. Some would say that they’re the life of the party and the people who never miss an opportunity even if it costs them overcommitting or, in some ways, moving rashly.

And so, when we look at these four archetypes, and as I said, you can identify which you are by taking the quiz on the site, I think the majority of people certainly are comfortable with the idea of a pros and cons list, but when it comes to action, they maybe sit on the sidelines a little bit more than they wish they would. And, obviously, that’s what prompted me to write the book.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, let’s talk about some particular strategies and tactics when it comes to doing some decision-making. So, I liked how you discussed how we can shrink our fear of failure by thinking through, “Hey, is this a two-way door? If this went south, what would be the very next step?” What are some of your other favorite approaches? Or, do you have a master framework when you sit down and say, “Okay, Sukhinder, decision time”? How do you get to your answers?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Well, let’s put it this way. First of all, in our risk quiz, I’m a calculator, which means I’m never without my own spreadsheet. Make no mistake, I think of my own relationship with risks as, “Yes, here’s that formula.” But to answer your question, I do believe that for smaller choices, it’s about doing the rapid formula and moving yourself to action because as soon as you realize that a risk is of rather small size, hopefully you can get into action fairly quickly without needing a gigantic spreadsheet.

But, believe me, when it comes to bigger choices in my own life, I have a pretty gigantic spreadsheet too. And some of the things that you would find on it might surprise you. So, in my frameworks for taking risks and making bigger choices, there are probably two things that I do, and I weigh in my framework that most people don’t weigh.

When most people create a framework for making a bigger choice, they really do a pros and cons of like what we might think about like how they will execute, they say, “Gosh, this could go right and this could go wrong.” But they really act as if the entire risk and thing worth rating are like their own execution ability. Like you say, “Oh, this could go right or this could go wrong if I do this or I fail to do this.”

In my own risk-taking frameworks, actually, I not only look at how something compares to my goals or my own skills and capabilities, like, “Gosh, am I likely to succeed or fail in my efforts?” But I have two dimensions that I think most people fail to add. Number one is what I call the people factor. So, most people try and make a choice sort of on the what of the thing they’re pursuing.

So, let’s put it this way. I want to go to a startup. I’m thinking about the what that that startup does and is that startup likely to be successful or not? Is that a winning idea? I often, and this has certainly been something I’ve learned the hard way in my career, but I’ve also had the benefit of, I’ve really, in all of my frameworks, I overweight the people I am going to join in any new choice or endeavors. So, I call that the “I put the who over the what,” and that’s one big piece of advice I have for people when creating around framework and doing your own pros and cons list. You have to add and rate the people factor of any dimension.

And people say, “Well, why is that important?” I think it’s important because many of us have been told to take risks in the direction of our passions, as an example. Like, “Hey, go overweight moving towards something that’s in the direction of things you enjoy.” That’s great. But 99% of our careers and how successful we are on the job are done in collaboration with others, with peers, with a boss, with a CEO who might be guiding the direction of the company, so with people who share or don’t share our values, let alone complement our strengths.

And so, when I overweight the people, what I’m really overweighting is, like, “Hey, I’ll get to have fun in my job or do the things I’m passionate about or good at dependent on the people I go to work with every day. And if I go to work with extraordinary people, people who have skills I seek to acquire, or people whose values fit my own, there’s a far better chance that I’m going to enjoy the day-to-day of my job and do my best work.”

And, yes, all the better if it’s in the direction of my, let’s say, stated passions in terms of topic area. So, putting the who over the what is one big factor in my frameworks that most people don’t really rate enough or rate highly enough when they make their choices. And the other one that I often tell people is missing from their frameworks, and I would add to any framework or pro-con choice, is what I call the things that aren’t in your control, the headwinds and tailwinds of any situation.

We tend to believe that we go into any situation, and what I call the neutral state, like it’s just waiting there for our immense and amazing execution in order for us to be successful as if that is the only factor at play in things that work and don’t work. But if we take the time to rate the situation we’re entering, as it’s like, “Does it have momentum and tailwinds?” People often give me a lot of credit for my choices, but my friend, I came to Silicon Valley in 1997. Ahh, that was a good time to come to Silicon Valley.

Let me tell you, there are so many tailwinds that if I made a bad choice, I could still pivot into good choices. And, in fact, that happened to me in my first job in the Valley. I quit in six months but there was so much opportunity that I could pivot into and so many companies that had tailwinds, that I had plenty of what we call room to fail and still be successful.

And so, I think objectively rating the situation you’re entering, “Does it have headwinds or tailwinds? And what does that mean for your ability to execute?” is a huge other factor in the frameworks I build around any big choice.

Pete Mockaitis
I like that concept right there, room to fail. I guess I could just flip it around. As I was contemplating, “Should I launch this podcast? Oh, it’s going to be a lot of work. And, hey, I’ve tried a lot of business initiatives that didn’t work out.” And one of the things I loved about this, as a concept, was that there were just so many ways to win, financially. I already knew it was going to be fun talking to people like you about stuff I love.

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Of course, right?

Pete Mockaitis
But I thought that there are so many ways that this can win, whether it’s just from sponsorship, or selling courses, coaching and training, licensing and monetizing. Like, there’s a lot of ways. As opposed to a lot of businesses are like, “Well, hopefully people like this thing,” whether a product or service, and if they don’t, then that’s kind of all there is to it.

So, room to fail or many ways to win is a cool parameter to embrace and to value and to consider.

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
I love it. This comes into like embrace your inner calculator. Like, lay out all of these things because sometimes, as you know, like one of the things I found in the book is if you look at the research, people often make decisions quickly because uncertainty feels so uncomfortable.

But when you lay out all of these paths, as you said, all the ways your podcast could monetize, like you’re not only ramping your FOMO, you’re also, in many ways, like dealing your fear of failure. You’re saying, “Oh, my goodness, here are like the three ways. If this one doesn’t work, this one could work. If this one doesn’t work, this one could work.” So, I bet you, that thought process got you into action by confronting all of these thoughts early and being calculated in taking this risk, not just like a hope and a prayer, but laying it out in order to get yourself into action.

And so, I mean, I love it. Yes, room to fail all the time. But room to fail means you take the time to confront the things that not only you would love about doing this, but the things that you fear, and laying out all the possible paths you could pursue. That’s what gets me into action, it’s not just sort of dreaming in the abstract.

Pete Mockaitis
And that’s a really compelling point right there about folks moving quickly because they don’t want to linger in the discomfort of those, the moments of uncertainty.

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Yes.

Pete Mockaitis
I think there’s some real wisdom there. And so, any pro tips with regard to if folks are in a position, like, “Ah, I’ve just been thinking about this too long. Aargh!” How do you recommend sort of calming the system, or, maybe just in general, like when emotions are running hot, like to get back to a place of calm, wise rationality?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Well, I’ll tell you what I do because I certainly love to act and I’m somebody who makes decisions, relatively speaking, fast. But when it is a weighty decision, or when there is something bothering me, the first thing I do when something is like I’m prompted to act quickly, almost too quickly, and I feel myself becoming reckless, is I try and step back and ask myself, “What am I trying to solve?”

And, often, what reveals itself is that there is not a one-stepper but a two-stepper. So, first of all, when we’re feeling anxious, it’s because something in our current situation is maybe feeling threatening or negative to us. You know people who are like, let’s say, take the first job offer they get. And you say, “Well, why are you going to jump into that job? Like, just step back. What are you trying to solve?”

And when you ask yourself the question, “What are you trying to solve in making the decision now?” usually, what you find is you’re trying to solve in a one-stepper something that’s effectively of two-stepper. So, what do I mean by that? Let’s say your current job sucks. Like, you’re fighting with your boss. So, the first job that comes up, you feel like, “I’m going to take that. That’s the one. I’m saying yes on Monday.”

I would say, “Okay, figure out why you want to say yes on Monday. Before you say yes on Monday, figure out what you’re trying to solve.” So, first of all, you’re trying to solve your current discomfort at work. That might involve going in on Monday and having an honest conversation with your boss about something that’s not going right. That is a distinct decision and risk to take from the risk of what job to go to next. That’s the two-per. Like, number one, solve the current discomfort. Number two, then decide if you were in “a neutral state” and try and pick the best possible job choice, “Would you pick this one? Or, would you now take the time, having solved your immediate discomfort, to go lay out five job choices because maybe you’re going to find one that’s even better?”

And, certainly, I say to people, like, “Step back. Forget what you’re trying to solve. And if it’s a two-per, lay out your two independent goals because they may be solved separately. And that allows you then, my friend, to setup the next choice, that next possibility, and I’m not like, “Hey, go live forever in uncertainty,” then I’m more in there like, “Hey, if you were in a neutral place, maybe you would have the time to go figure out the three jobs that would be your dream job. Go have two more conversations and set yourself a timeframe to still make the decision but it doesn’t need to be yesterday.”

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I think that is an insight that’s applicable in many circumstances, that this isn’t a one giant leap but rather maybe two or three or four steps and components. And in asking that question, “What are you trying to solve?” you can see that and take appropriate action. And what’s fun is that you may feel all the more empowered and emboldened and equipped to have that conversation with boss because, like, “I don’t know if this is going to go well.” It’s like, “Well, hey, if it’s horrible, at least I have something.”

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Yeah, I have something. I have a bird in the hand. Yes, absolutely. But it’s just about forcing those things apart when we’re feeling reckless. So, the point is that I think our relationship with risk tends to be risk is for the risk-takers among us. Okay, not true. Risk is a skill that anyone can build, point one. And then, number two, on this point of like, “Okay. Well, if you want to build those risk-taking muscles, think about these choices in increments.” You’re often not making, as you said, one choice. You often have the opportunity to make two, three, four choices.

And you know what that does for us when we know we have the ability to make two, three, or four choices? It frees us from the pressure of one big choice, which is what people think it needs to be – one big choice. I call this the myth of the single choice, “I’m going to make one big choice and it’s going to be either a raging success or an abject failure,” and then there’s so much pressure on that one choice. The minute you say, like, “I have multiple choices and risks to take or choices to make,” it really frees us up from this myth of the single choice. And, in fact, we can get the compounding benefits of choosing again and again and again.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s beautiful. Well, Sukhinder, tell me, anything else you want to make sure to mention before we shift gears and hear about some of your favorite things?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Well, I think mostly it’s what I said. If you think that risk-taking is for the risky among us, reframe your thinking about what risk really is. It’s a small or big choice that you can make multiples times a day, a week, a month, a year that get you into action now and sort of unlock your learnings so you can choose again. And it’s about this freedom to choose and choose and choose again that really helps us create compounding benefit to the risks we take.

Pete Mockaitis
Lovely. Well, now, could you share with us a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
My favorite quote is probably one from the book, which is, “When nothing is sure, everything is possible.” And so, we often think about, as I said, this idea that uncertainty is daunting, but let’s just remember, like, uncertainty is literally the definition of possibility. When nothing is sure, everything is possible. So, that’s a pretty awesome place to dwell, right?

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, thank you.

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
And we don’t tend to think of it that way.

Pete Mockaitis
And how about a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Well, one of my favorites is actually, I don’t know about, but have you ever read the book Good to Great from Jim Collins?

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, yeah.

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
So, that’s one my favorite older books, but one of my favorite newer books, in fact, I had it in our book club at StubHub. I made the entire leadership team read it, it was this book Growth Beyond the Hockey Stick from a set of McKinsey partners. It’s one of my favorites. It’s a 30-year study of companies that non-linearly outperform over time.

And what it really finds, which I think is so fun, is it sorts of reinforces or validates through data the research that the companies most prone to failure over a long period of time are companies that fail to take any move rather than companies that made multiple moves, some of which were wrong, actually have a much better chance of what they call, what McKinsey calls moving up the power curve to become non-linear, you know, outsize successes over time in terms of shareholder returns. So, failing to move is far more likely to have you, what we call go, whereas making multiple moves, imperfectly, is far more likely to get you to grow. Very neat analogy, obviously, to the book.

Pete Mockaitis
And how about a favorite tool, something you use to be awesome at your job?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
My favorite tool to be awesome at my job, you would laugh, but it’s my iPhone notes. Like, when people talk about having, like, “I always have a plan,” but I’m moving all the time, so although I’d love to have a whiteboard. The reality is my iPhone notes is my whiteboard. If you went into it, you would see notes on everything from business ideas, to what I need to get done today, to my grocery list, to tips for what are the things I want to remember to mention on this podcast. So, I would say one of my favorite tools is a pretty simple one – iPhone notes. All the time. Goes with me all the time. I can erase it, modify it, but it’s always there.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite habit?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
These days it’s tennis. I don’t know what your favorite COVID habit is but I have become much more regular as a tennis player, and I’m loving it.

Pete Mockaitis
And it sounds like you may have already shared a couple of these, but is there a particular nugget that you articulate that gets quoted back to you frequently and people are loving?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
I have a quote I often give people that does get played back to me all the time. It’s called, “You manage me or I manage you. Which would you prefer?” And when people are like, “What do you mean by that?” I often say in leadership talks, “Okay, like literally, if you’re a leader, you have a choice, you can say to your people, ‘You manage me or I manage you. What would you prefer?’”

And most people presume that the right answer is, “Well, gee, like I would prefer to manage others.” And I say to folks all the time, I’m like, “Really? I prefer for somebody to manage me.” They’re like, “What do you mean?” I’m like, “No, no, I really prefer that they manage me. Like, I’m a CEO, so if you walk into my office and expect to be managed, and I’m an opinionated person, there’s a pretty good chance I’m just going to spit out whatever is in my head and tell you to do it. That doesn’t mean it’s the right answer. It’s also not a super empowering place to be.” So, if you presume that my job is to manage you, that’s not a particularly fun place to be.

Now, let’s reverse it. Now, if I say, like, “Gosh, your job is to manage me. That means you’re likely to walk into a meeting with me with an agenda of your own. You take control of the conversation. You probably have a problem and a solution you’d like to propose. You’ve thought it out. You lay it out.” Now, guess what that means for me as your leader and manager? It means that I get to have a really highly leveraged interaction with you where you’ve clearly thought it through. You get to lay out your vision. I get to respond to it and add to it my vision and my insights. And then you leave out my office in 10 minutes versus an hour. You’re feeling super empowered. And guess what? I’m feeling pretty leveraged and we both go on to have a better day.

So, I always say to people, like, reverse your thinking on management. If you think the purpose of management is for you to manage down to others, imagine what life looks like when you ask people to manage up to you, what it looks like for them and what it looks like for you. That, to me, feels like real leverage for both parties.

Pete Mockaitis
That is a beautiful perspective. And one of my mentors, Victor Cheng, in episode 500, he said that that’s how he would approach his conversations with new direct reports. So, he’s the boss, he’d say, “I work for you and here’s how it works. You tell me what you need, what resources, what decisions I need to provide to you so that you can do your best work. And then that’s what I want to with them, and get out of your way, and we’re going to have great things happen.”

It’s sort of a reframe but it is lovely. I could tell you, with employees, it is refreshing and wonderful for all of us when they say, “Hey, Pete, here’s what I need from you.” I was like, “Okay, cool. Well, hey, you’ve got it. Is that it? That was quick.”

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Isn’t nice? It’s awesome, right? It’s quick and efficient. Now, make no mistake, your friend sounds pretty graceful and patient. My problem is I’m actually impatient and fairly opinionated. So, I always say to people, “The problem is if you walk in with a blank sheet, you’re far more likely to walk out with my sheet, and I’m not sure that’s a good thing. It may or may not be but the problem is I always have something to say, so I would much rather you come in with what you have to say because that is a fun place for me to be as well.”

And sometimes personalities like mine, you definitely don’t want to be walking out just presuming that because I have an opinion, it’s always the right one. What I’d really love to do is get into an interaction with someone, which is quick, efficient, highly leveraged, and fun because we’re both learning something from it.

Pete Mockaitis
And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Well, you can always find me on LinkedIn, just at Sukhinder Singh Cassidy. You can find me on Twitter but, honestly, I hang out more on LinkedIn because it’s a fun place to have career conversations with folks. And, certainly, you can, if you are so inspired, you can always preorder the book Choose Possibility on the website, and it comes out August 17th.

Pete Mockaitis
And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
I would say my call to action is take the risk quiz but, more importantly, understand that it doesn’t matter what your natural style is. Every single one of us can be what I call a chooser. And so, my call to action is be a chooser versus kicking the can down the road. Make the little choices today that unlock incremental possibility.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, Sukhinder, thank you for this. This is a real treat. And I wish you lots of luck in all your possibilities.

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Well, thanks so much. Thanks for having me.