A 1000-piece puzzle? F* that! I can't do that!

Have you ever dumped a 1000-piece puzzle out on a table?  Well, if you're great at puzzles, you might look at that pile and be inspired for the challenge. But for the rest of us non-dissectologists¹, looking at all those scattered pieces gives rise to many feelings. Feelings like, "I'm never going to finish this puzzle!" and, "I'm not even gonna start this thing!"

Now, if you aren't into puzzles, you'd probably have no reason to dump that box on your table in the first place, but that doesn't mean you don't have your own non-jigsaw variant in your head. I know I do, and it can feel overwhelming. In the past month, I've been guilty of thinking of all the things I have to do, both personal and professional, and as the list grew in my head it became that 1000-piece puzzle. "There's no way I can do all this," I thought (or, more accurately, I knew). "Why even try?"

Basic motivation theory informs us that if you don't believe you can do something, you won't try, because, why exert the effort when the outcome won't be positive. All else equal, why not put that effort toward something likely to be productive?

When I view my options as working on that puzzle, or binge- watching my favorite shows on Netflix, I know I can't do the former, while I certainly have proven I can do the latter; furthermore, I know I get enjoyment from the latter, while the former will almost certainly result in frustration. It's really a no-brainier to predict where my energy will be applied: to the option that I enjoy and know I can complete.

But the problem with that approach is that now my 1000-piece puzzle is more like a 3000-piece puzzle. An actual jigsaw puzzle on a table doesn't morph (note to self: invent morphing jigsaw puzzle), but the puzzles we create in our minds can. Ignoring all those things I had to do didn't make them disappear; some grew in relative importance and/or urgency, while others seemed to procreate, giving me a bigger, even more complicated puzzle.

So, what should any of us do when confronted with such puzzles? Turn to our friends the dissectologists for advice. There are several different strategies for tackling a jigsaw puzzle²

We can start with what's easiest, the corner pieces. Whether it's a 24 piece puzzle or a 24000-piece puzzle, if it's a rectangle it only has 4 corners. Get those corners, and then find the rest of the smooth-sided pieces. If you can create the outer frame, you've greatly narrowed your focus. This is similar to my earlier blog posting about fishbowls, aquariums and oceans³; with all the pieces strewn about the table with no order, the task seems too great to conquer, you're drowning in an ocean of puzzle pieces. If you can build that aquarium for yourself, the external frame of the puzzle, then you have a better line of sight of the scope of the task. Once that frame is in place, we can use other jigsaw strategies such as grouping. If the puzzle has discernible color patterns, grouping the pieces into colored sections can facilitate finding the fit. Jigsaw specialists will note that many puzzles have redundancies in their cut patterns. This means one can use already solved parts of the puzzle to guide placement for other areas.

Now that you have a handle on jigsaw strategies, you might wonder how they relate back to that metaphorical puzzle of tasks strewn out in your mind. Start easy. Just as the puzzle pros do, identify the easiest way to get a sense of what is on your plate. For me, that involves writing down all those tasks. While I normally prefer a digital medium, I find that physically writing on paper helps, and I like to use a pencil, because there's a greater chance I'll be able to read my own penmanship if I don't use ink.

Once I have the tasks all listed out - my frame - I go about sorting them. Many of the tasks go together (for instance, I had to sign my son up for baseball, pick my son up from school, drop off a research project at a colleague's house and buy milk). Whereas I have previously taken four trips for a similar number of tasks, by writing out my tasks, I saw where I could group similar items, even though some were personal and some professional. One trip, led me to my colleague's house, picking my son up, dropping off his baseball registration and buying milk in such quick succession that I even had time to enjoy reading with him after school, an activity that I had previously been unable to find time for.

Other tasks I had included grading quizzes, entering 3 grades into an online gradebook and creating an assignment template for my students. Each of these had redundancies. Grading the quizzes was simplified by completing the first page for all quizzes and then the back, making it easier to maintain focus on my answer key. Entering grades was simplified because by first inputting them into a spreadsheet, I could then import all the grades at once. Once I had imported those grades, I was already logged into the course management software which made creating and uploading the assignment template for multiple classes as easy as "click and drag".

I still haven't completed the whole puzzle, and I don't know that I ever will, because unlike the static jigsaw puzzle on my dining room table, the task puzzle does morph. But even if the task puzzle I face has a box-front like a picture at Hogwarts, when I look at my work in progress, I see that I've got a recognizable image, and more importantly a manageable challenge in front of me.


1. cf., http://www.thebcd.co.uk
2. e.g., http://www.dailyjigsawpuzzles.net/jigsaw-puzzle-strategies.html
2. http://profedelson.blogspot.com/2015/02/fishbowls-aquariums-and-oceans-how-to.html

Influencing others: Rational persuasion and the big problem with rational persuasion

Dale Carnegie wrote “How to Make Friends and Influence People” nearly 80 years ago, and the topic of influencing others is still of great interest to many. There are plenty of ways to influence someone. The nine most common (in ascending order) are: 

9. Consultation – asking others for help in either directly or indirectly influencing another 

8. Inspirational appeals – pulling at the heartstrings and/or emotions of the party you’re trying to influence

7. Coalitions – getting a group working together toward a common goal of influencing another 

6. Pressure – using threats or sanctions (when you have such power) to influence another

5. Ingratiation – make the person/group you’re trying to influence feel better – as they say, you get more flies with honey than vinegar¹

4. Exchange – works on the principle of give and take; this can be a direct quid pro quo arrangement whereby you give the other party something they want in order to influence them on a topic important to you

3. Personal Appeals – work when the other party likes you and you’ve asked for their help. You can influence them by appealing to them on a personal level – they don’t have to agree with the topic, but as long as they like you, that can be enough

2. Legitimating – refers to influencing someone based on the legitimate (or positional) power you have over them. Obedience to authority is stronger in some cultures than others, but saying “no” to your boss is a difficult proposition

1. Rational persuasion – using logical arguments and factual evidence to persuade others. 

30 years of research²  has shown that not only is rational persuasion the most common influence tactic used irrespective of hierarchical levels, it is also a relatively effective way of influencing others. But there’s a fatal flaw with using rational persuasion. Let me present the following situation: 

I was involved in a committee meeting the other day and presented a rational list of reasons for my proposal – I also used consultation in this case, building the rational case based on advice from experts in the field. One of the people in this meeting, who occupies the highest hierarchical position of those at the meeting, didn't like my proposal. My rational list wasn't impactful. Why not?  Because for rational persuasion to work, the individual you’re trying to influence actually has to be rational! My counterpart in this particular situation preferred to deal with philosophical musings, as opposed to concrete occurrences.

So what approach should I have taken, or take moving forward? Inspirational appeals are powerful –think John F. Kennedy and his vision to take us to the moon – but this topic wasn’t one that lends itself to such an appeal. I couldn’t pressure my counterpart, nor was legitimating an option. Personal appeals require a good personal relationship, and while I’ve worked with this individual before, we’ve clashed recently, and an appeal based on our friendship wouldn’t work. Exchange could have worked, in theory, but due to the positional power occupied by this person, I didn’t have much to offer.

Coalitions and ingratiation are the final influence tactics I could use. Ingratiation is most effective when it is perceived as honest, personal and well-intended, and it is most often perceived as such when infrequent. If you’re always seen as buttering someone up, ingratiation can backfire. In the committee meeting, ingratiation wouldn’t have been effective, as it could serve to alienate the other 10 people in the committee who I would want on my side.

Building a coalition of support is my final option to gain the support of my counterpart. And so it is, as the proposal I made and I have both been sent to another committee. At the end of the day, this second committee also reports back to the same individual with whom I had this conflict, but this individual isn’t present for that committee’s meetings. So if this second committee buys into my proposal, it goes back to the problematic individual with the weight of others who have better relationships and power positions in the organization.

So what’s the lesson here? Rational persuasion only works on rational people. But if you need to influence someone who isn’t rational, you need more persuasive tools in your tool-belt than just logic. I might even have to break out some honey, so I can finally catch this fly! 

*************************
1.  I’ll be honest, I’m not sure why you’d want more flies, but if you would, use honey.

2.  cf. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, J. (1980) Interorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452. 
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991) The importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416-423
Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003) Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 89-106

Unhappy at your job? Imagine how much more unhappy you'd be without it!

Today I am grateful that I have a sweet, sensitive 6-year old boy.

I want to start this blog posting with that note of gratitude, and by making a confession: I'm a cynic. I'm not always a "glass-half-full" kind of guy. And now I'm writing a blog post about seeing the best in situations, and focusing on positivity. I know, weird! But come with me on this trip, and hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from, and how I've tried to change my perspective.

Life sucks. Not always, and hopefully, not even often. But sometimes, for everyone, life sucks. That's just a basic truth. What we do when we're placed in a position that reminds us of that truism is what helps  us define our own paths from it. There are cycles or spirals of behavior that psychologists talk about. Spirals of negativity, the vicious spirals, happen when bad things happen and we can't break that cycle. Something bad happens, it puts us in a bad mood, we upset someone who then responds by contributing something else bad to our day, and so it continues. But spirals of positivity occur too, virtuous cycles. Someone is nice to us, that puts us in a good mood, and we work to maintain that "high".

This posting isn't about life handing you lemons and you making lemonade; it's about setting aside those lemons and moving forward. If you were going to make lemonade, well then, great! But if you weren't planning on a refreshing beverage, then go beyond that basket of citrus and do what you were going to do.

Shawn Achor, in his amazing TEDx talk (watch it, and it will be 12 of the best minutes of your day) notes that "your brain at positive performs significantly better than at negative, neutral or stressed. Your intelligence rises, your creativity rises, your energy levels rise." This Happiness Advantage, as he calls it, comes from positivity. Having a positive mindset, and being engaged in positive activities, like being grateful and actively acknowledging positive things in your life, has a positive effect on how our brains work.

So, yes, life sucks. But even when life sucks, and perhaps most importantly when life sucks, what about life doesn't suck? 

Let's say that you're unhappy at work, have a boss that doesn't appreciate or recognize the contributions you make, and your coworkers frequently have egg salad sandwiches in the work fridge. Life sucks right there. But not everything about life sucks. You have a job to complain about, so right there is something you can ironically be grateful for; if life sucks at work, take a second to imagine how much more life would suck if you were unemployed.

If the "grass is greener on the other side of the fence," that has to mean that there's a side of the fence where the grass is browner. If you are able to change your perspective from what's wrong with a given situation to what's right with it, you are on the way to positive change in your life. As Achor notes, positivity is a learned capacity. Train your brain in positive ways. Try to do those little things
you can to reinforce the positive in your life. Write down one (or more) things you're grateful for every day. They don't have to be life-altering great things, just things you sincerely are grateful for.

My wonderful sweet, sensitive 6-year old was sent home from school today for pushing and hitting another boy on the playground; I left work to pick him up. Life sucks. There are lots of things I could be less than grateful for in that situation; but I am grateful he didn't hurt the other boy, and certainly grateful we won't get sued! I am grateful this can be a learning experience for him, and I am grateful this can be a learning experience for me, as a father. I can practice patience and demonstrate to him the communication skills I want him to use instead of hitting. My world isn't perfect, far from it, often enough it sucks, but there are always things to be grateful for, and if that positivity can help me break a vicious cycle, get me into a virtuous cycle and energize me, to get me through to the next day, then it sucks a whole lot less.

This has been the third entry in my weekly blog posting (with a week off last week). Please comment, share and/or suggest new topics. Thank you for reading.

Fishbowls, aquariums and oceans. How to manage not being a fish out of water.

Management. Fish. What?

Let’s start our aquatic management journey with a fishbowl. Many of us can remember having a goldfish – maybe you won yours at a carnival, or maybe you were bought one to be your first “pet” so you could prove your responsibility before mom and dad put the life of a dog or cat in your hands. I had a goldfish, his name was “Barry”; I have no idea why I named him that. About a week later, I had another goldfish, “Barry 2”, a short while thereafter came “Barry 3”. They never met each other.

Barry and his successors lived their (short) lives in the same tiny fish bowl, the size of which you might think of when thinking of that first goldfish. Barry swam back and forth, and as you might imagine, it didn’t take him too long to get from one side to the other. I fed Barry and he swam. And I fed him more, and he swam more. And I might have fed him too much, and he floated. But enough about Barry’s swimming and overeating habits – think of his fishbowl. It was small and constrained any freedom he may have had or wanted. At the same time, had he been dropped in an ocean, he’d have been overwhelmed, and likely (literally) eaten alive. Ideally, Barry would have lied in an aquarium in my room. He’d have had room, and maybe even lasted long enough to meet some friends.

The same applies to your employees. As a manager, you need to find them an aquarium. Too many rules and bureaucratic structures in place will stifle your employees. Micromanagement serves that master as well and puts your employees in that fishbowl. But micromanagement isn’t always a conscious activity; micromanagement often finds its roots in a desire for high quality output – but you know what they say about the road to hell. For 40 years we’ve seen that employees, especially in a Western context, crave autonomy, the ability to participate¹ and the opportunity to be in charge of their work.  Give them a task, or even an end-goal, and let them create the path.

But, if autonomy is a good thing, is there too much of a good thing? You may have heard of the “Inverted U” – a phenomenon often demonstrated² whereby the relationship between an action and its effect isn’t linear, but rather is positive to some peak level, but negative beyond that, thus the graphic representation looks like an upside down letter “U”. This relationship has also been seen when it comes to autonomy³. Employees have shown a desire for autonomy – they don’t want to be limited to the boundaries of a tiny fishbowl, so should you throw them in the analogical ocean and let them find their way? Research I’ve conducted⁴ has noted that employees (especially entry-level professional employees) desire defined tasks and roles in the workplace.

Reconciling a desire for autonomy, participation and control for their work with the “too much of a good thing” effect means we need to find an alternative that meets a balance between the fishbowl and the ocean. That alternative is the aquarium. Give your employees room to swim, but enough guidelines and framework for their work that they don’t get lost in the ocean. Given them autonomy and direction.

Manage, don’t micromanage, and get your employees in an aquarium.

This has been my second blog entry in what is planned to be a weekly business blogging habit. Please feel free to share, comment and/or suggest topics.

---

[1] See, for example:

·         Hespe, G. (1976) The demand for participation among employees. Human Relations, 29(5), 411-428

·         Spector, P. E. (1986) Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39(11), 1005-1016

·         Jønsson, T., & Jeppesen, H. J. (2013) Under the influence of the team? An investigation of the relationships between team autonomy, individual autonomy and social influence within teams. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(1), 78-93

[2] See, for example:

·         Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011) Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 61-76

·         Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013) The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313-338.

[3] See, for example:

·         Langfred, C. W. (2004) Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 385-399.

[4] See, for example:

·         Edelson, S. A., Haynie, J. M., & McKelvie, A. (2012).  Working for a Start-up? Investigating the role of 'Venture Personality' in the Recruitment of Human Capital. in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2011. A.Zacharakis, S. Alvarez, M. S. Cardon, J. O. De Castro, F. Delmar (eds.). Babson Park, MA:  The Arthur M. Blank Center for Entrepreneurship. 

Snobs are horrible. I'm a snob, and you should be one too!

We all know somebody who's a snob. And are they ever annoying! Whether it's the "wine snob" whose (perceived?) knowledge about wine makes any dining experience with them a chore, or the "organic food" snob whose desire for all things "natural" makes you loathe to invite them over for dinner, snobs are just horrible, aren't they?

I have a confession, though, I'm a snob. I'm a coffee snob. And I'm horrible about it, too. Honestly, I want coffee, I don't want that brown-colored hot water that is masquerading as coffee in your mug. I want strong, black coffee that tastes like coffee. And I'd prefer to have water, tea or possibly arsenic to the communal coffee pot that spews out weak, flavor-hampered mud-water.

So, yeah, I'm a snob. And like all other snobs, I see it as a type of calling to bring you over to my side -- in the case of coffee, literally, the dark side. Other snobs want you to see their metaphorical light, and appreciate why they're right, and why it makes sense to be a snob. To be a snob means to never settle for anything but the best.

Today I'm here to tell you, the snobs are right. You should be a snob. But not about wine, or organic food, or even coffee. You should be a snob about the employees you hire. The employees you hire are the lifeblood of your company. This applies equally to big companies with massive HR departments and structured recruitment & selection activities as it does to small, young firms whose hiring strategies may be more informal.

Just like I wouldn't "lower myself" to accept just any cup of coffee presented to me, neither should you hire a candidate simply because they're looking for work, and you're hiring (which is something I've actually heard a candidate say in an interview). Be patient and deliberate in your hiring process, and the return on investment can be significant. Many big firms recognize this - they invest the time and resources that many young and/or small firms may find tough to prioritize on hiring. But no matter the size of your company, don't despair -- prioritize - be a snob!

Getting key employees can be the difference maker for your organization. Whether you buy into the notion of sustainable competitive advantage (as espoused by Harvard Professor Michael Porter and others since the 80s), or "The Death of Competitive Advantage" due to the transience of competitive advantage (as suggested in the book by that name by Columbia Professor Rita Gunther McGrath), employees are still a potential source of differentiation for your company - big or small.

McGrath argues that companies need to recognize and capture opportunities quickly and exploit them decisively and move on before they're fully exhausted. Professor Jay Barney (currently of the University of Utah) has long been a proponent of the resource based view as the basis for sustainable competitive advantage with resources which are valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable (the VRIN framework).  I propose that one way to meet both McGrath and Barney's direction for organizational success is to do so with a flexible and talented workforce.

Clearly, talented, flexible employees who can meet the demands of high environmental dynamism and complexity are valuable and rare. But they're also very hard to imitate and substitute -- trade secrets and technology can be reverse-engineered, and patents expire, but human resources can be the VRIN resource basis for sustainable competitive employees who have the ability and drive to meet the challenges of a dynamic environment are those who provide you with a sustainable competitive advantage in a transient competitive world.

And how do you get these flexible, talented, highly sought after employees? Well, start by not taking the first cup of coffee offered in the morning. Hold out  for the freshly ground beans, brewed in a mesmerizing fashion with the pour-over. In other words, be a snob, a hiring snob. Get the best. Get the advantage. Never settle.  

This has been my first blog entry in what is planned to be a weekly business blogging habit. Please feel free to share, comment and/or suggest topics.