This post is an excerpt from a LinkedIn discussion. The author, Leland Russell, gave me permission to post this.  His blog is at:

Why do the “beholders” often see the “facts” so differently?

We are not the rational thinkers we sometimes imagine. Our thought processes are often flawed by common thinking errors caused by cognitive biases. A vast body of research has illuminated the fact that these common thinking errors can lead to bad or sub-optimal decisions.

While no one can rid his or her mind of these ingrained flaws, we can make a conscious effort to understand and compensate for them. There is quite a list to consider.

1. Selective Perception – Our brain fits facts into our established mental frameworks. We tend to remember something that is consistent with our worldview, and discount statements or unconsciously screen-out information that is not consistent with our current beliefs. We also tend to gather facts that support certain our worldview but disregard other facts that support different worldviews.

2. Information Distortion – We unconsciously delete, distort and generalize information to make it conform to our pre-existing beliefs. We also distort our memories of chosen and rejected options to make the chosen options seem more attractive.

3. Fundamental Attribution Errors – This is the well-documented human tendency to attribute better judgment, motives and morality to ourselves than we do to those we don’t like or with whom we disagree. We are inclined to judge their arguments to be untrue or irrelevant. We are equally inclined to accept a statement by someone we like and generally agree. We also tend to attribute our success to our abilities and talents, but we attribute our failures to bad luck and external factors. We attribute other’s success to good luck, and their failures to their mistakes.

4. Group Conformity Instinct – Social psychologists have found that individuals tend to lose their personal compass in group settings with either positive or negative consequences. The Group Conformity Instinct is most obvious in an organization’s culture. The prevailing mental norms (beliefs, values and underlying assumptions/mindsets) about how to do things exerts a powerful influence on individuals to conform.

5. Overconfidence – Most successful people tend to be overconfident regarding their:
Personal Performance. For example, a friend of mine who is atop executive development consultant asks senior executives to rate themselves against their peers and the vast majority rate (90%) themselves in the top 20%.

6. Wishful Thinking – We tend to want to see things in a positive light and this can distort our perception and thinking so we sometimes make non-rational decisions based on what is pleasing to imagine instead of making decisions based on objective evidence. Studies have consistently shown that holding all else being equal people will predict positive outcomes to be more likely than negative outcomes.

7. Comfort Zone – This is a range of thinking or behavior that is familiar or routine, a psychological space where we feel “at home” and comfortable. Most people have difficulty making decisions that are outside their comfort zone and, when faced with new circumstances, an unwillingness to change thought patterns that they have used in the past. Decision makers tend to display a strong bias toward alternatives that perpetuate the status quo.

While it is impossible eliminate all of these thinking errors, it is important for leaders to understand that they exist and try to compensate for them. The best defense is the leader’s awareness. Forewarned is forearmed.

The Dark Side of Selling

At it’s simplest, “selling” is the offer to provide something (product or service) in exchange for something else (usually money). It is a marvelous human invention; I’m pretty sure there are no other species that engage in selling. This phenomenon allows us to cooperate and collaborate on everything from life-sustaining food and shelter, to luxury items and entertainment.

The problem with selling is that in the past few decades, selling has evolved into a paradigm whereby sellers are trained to manipulate prospects into buying, and to “win at all costs.”  Buyers are not unaware of this selling approach.  So they construct protective force fields against be sold to. Think about walking into a department store. A sales clerk offers a cheerful, “May I help you?”  What is your most likely response?

“No thanks. Just looking.”

Why do most buyers reject “help” from the sales person? It is because we’re afraid we will be “forced” to buy more than we want to spend on things we don’t really want or need. On some level we understand that the sales person’s agenda is to sell more. They often get commissions, so we are simply a means to getting them more money. At least, that’s the prevailing perception.

Sales people know that they are regarded with suspicion or even contempt by the buying public. I know many sales people who, when introducing themselves at social functions, describe their work as marketing, business development, or account management. Some might say they are a company representative. While all of these may be the titles on their business cards, the point is that they don’t want to advertise that they sell for a living. They know that many people conjure up unfavorable associations with selling.

The dark under-belly of traditional selling is in how it has been made into a contest or competition. This aspect is best revealed in the phase of the selling process called “overcoming objections,” which usually occurs near the end of the selling process. 

To back up a bit: in the early stages of the selling process time has been spent building personal rapport and learning the prospect’s needs.  Then the sales rep makes a presentation that explains how they would solve the problem, and why they are the best choice. At the end of the presentation, the sales rep asks the prospect for concerns or objections.

The message that is explicit or implicit in sales training about handling objections is that a strong sales rep will satisfactorily refute every objection that is raised. If the client says, “Too expensive,” the rep is taught to speak of quality, value, superior features, etc. If the prospect says they are satisfied with the current provider, the sales rep might trot out unfavorable media coverage of the competition, or otherwise sow seeds of doubt. If the prospect seems to resist investing in new technology, the sales rep might insinuate that the most progressive companies are embracing the newer technologies. In other words, for every objection a sales rep is taught to say something that will convince the prospect that they are wrong, misguided, misinformed or irresponsible.

It is this part of the traditional selling process that is competitive, and sometimes even combative where the sales rep is pitted against the prospect.  Of course, it’s not a fair contest. The prospect is both a player and a judge in the contest. At any point, they can say, “No thanks.” Which makes the sales rep the loser. On the other hand, if the sales rep “wins” the new account and successfully closes the deal, it only stands to reason that the “loser” is the new customer. 

There must be a better way…

As passengers gathered near the gate to board our flight, I saw a father sharply scold his young son who seemed more interested in looking out the window at the big planes than getting in a bustling line. He was shocked by his dad’s flare of temper and the sudden scolding, not realizing that he had done anything wrong. In fact, from his point of view he had not committed any offense. He simply was not on board with Dad’s plan. It was only a matter of moments before he started crying. Actually, it was more like wailing. I prayed our seats would be far apart.

My intent is not to condemn the father. I can sympathize with him. Travel is stressful, and even more so with young ones. His behavior was understandable, and, in my experience of watching parents and children, typical. Unfortunately, it was not effective if his goal was to maintain harmony and good spirits.

On the return trip I observed an entirely different approach to parenting, also around boarding time. A little girl was fascinated by the looks and sounds of people, concession stands and neon signs. As boarding time approached, her mother got down on a knee so she was eye to eye with her daughter. I didn’t catch all the words – I try to be subtle when I’m eaves dropping. But the gist of her dialogue was explaining to the little girl what was going to happen next. They would join the line to get on the plane – “and we’ll be among the first in line. Won’t that be cool?!” Then there will be the finding of seats, and mommie might need your help. Pretty soon after that we will drive down the runway and then lift off. That’s when we’ll be really flying. Then they’ll come around to offer us a snack and soda, so be thinking about what you might like to drink.

The little girl gladly gave up her preoccupation with the airport sights and sounds so she could join this exciting new adventure. I decided I wouldn’t mind sitting near this parent-child team.

There could be many factors accounting for the two different parenting scenarios. We all know that some kids are easier to “manage” than others. The temperaments or circumstances of the parents might also have played a role. But putting those elements aside, what I found most compelling, and most transferable to management, was how the second parent took time to explain things to her daughter. It was not a story of convincing the little girl to do what mommie wanted, but rather she told the girl a story about a compelling future that easily aroused the girl’s interest and enthusiastic followership. Perhaps just as important, the parent began the conversation by getting on her daughter’s level, in effect seeing the world through her daughter’s eyes.

Adults, like children, make up stories about the information presented to them. Anyone, adult or child, confronted with sudden unfavorable conditions for apparently random or whimsical reasons, will naturally feel upset, shocked, hurt or angry. But if such adverse events are placed in the context of dialogue that helps the adult or child understand the current situation and see a possibility for a promising future, the reaction will usually be far more agreeable.

Because managers are overwhelmed by many demands on their time, one of the things they tend to sacrifice is quality time with direct reports. I’m not saying managers need to spend hours each week relating to and bonding with employees. All it takes is a few well-chosen, intentional minutes per day letting people know what’s going on, finding out what’s happening in their worlds, listening, sharing, coaching and clarifying. All of this goes a long way toward helping them connect their work lives with the goals and performance of the company. It has them feeling listened-to and cared about. It has them less surprised or alienated by crises when they occur.

Such small investments of time can be the difference between smooth sailing and mutiny.

So, if you’re ready to take a deeper look at the circumstances of your business, the place to start is the mirror of your own perceptions. Ask yourself these questions:

· Overall, how is the business doing? What is the evidence for this? (Hint: Look at revenues, profits, customer satisfaction, retention of key accounts, etc.)
· How am I doing as a leader? What is the evidence for this? (Hint: Look at morale, turnover, the performance of others, the quality of employee input to discussions, etc.)
· What are my 2-3 greatest strengths as a leader?
· What are my 2-3 areas most in need of improvement?

While many people might squirm at the thought of such pointed questions, a self-aware leader committed to a successful business will find it relatively simple and easy to answer those questions. The follow-up questions about evidence are meant to stimulate objective answers to the questions. “I feel like things are going well,” is less compelling and believable than, “Revenues are up, profitability is higher and employees are often arriving early and leaving late without being asked. So it seems we’re doing well.”

Before asking questions of employees, it is important to create an appropriate and safe mood and posture. Genuine curiosity and openness work better than a perfunctory check-the-box attitude. Here are a few sample questions to ask employees:

· Overall, how do you think the business is doing? Tell me more about your view. (Don’t prompt them. It will be interesting to find out about their benchmarks for performance.)
· What do you like most about your job? What do you like least?
· Compared to the best leader you have ever worked with, how am I doing?
· What are my 2-3 greatest strengths as a leader?
· What are my 2-3 areas most in need of improvement?
· If you could change one thing about me, what would it be?
· If you could change one thing about the company, what would it be?

Armed with that feedback, what’s next? The answer depends on how closely, or not, your self-perception differs from the consensus view of employees. Even if there is close alignment, a leader seriously committed to improvement needs to circle back with employees and describe the key insights and commitments to change. Otherwise, employees will dismiss the initial conversations as insincere and a waste of time.

“Thank you for your candid feedback on how we’re doing as a company, and how I am doing as a leader. This was an enlightening process for me. As a result of comments from you and others, here are the three things I intend to do differently from this day forward (list the three). As a company, we are going to look at a couple of new initiatives, including (fill in the blank). I am counting on you to continue to give me feedback, both positive and negative, with regard to these areas of improvement and anything else you might see.

So, if you tend toward the image of an ostrich with its head buried in the sand, it’s time to pull your head out of the ground and take a look around. There are many things worth seeing.