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…

And below is my response to the writer, Alden Levy…

Alden – I like your post. I share your healthy skepticism about the “Law of Attraction.” While I believe that deeply-held thoughts can manifest in favorable and unfavorable ways, the New Age faith in fervent repetition of affirmations and positive thinking is misplaced. Your AHA idea of letting people know what you want reminds me of a book written a few years ago by Canfield and Hanson. I think it was called the Aladdin Factor where the oft-repeated refrain was “Ask, ask, ask.” Clearly this is a powerful approach, and too many of us resist asking others for help. On the other hand, there is a subset of folks who ask, ask, ask without any thought to reciprocation or feeling obligation for the help others give. Such people come across as users and takers, which is not an ideal brand to wear around. It’s best to keep away from such people.

This brings me to what might be a companion to your AHA Theory. I call it the Universal Reciprocation Law (URL). According to this law, a person first offers help in whatever form. Could be as simple as listening with compassion to a friend in need, or offering help to a customer prospect without having any guarantee that they will do business. Such a move can be treated as a down-payment for a return favor later. This may sound mercenary, but it’s also pragmatic. It is how humans have cooperated since the Beginning. Call if selfish-altruism. In any case, if you give a couple of times and see no evidence that the recipient is willing to reciprocate, stop giving! And if you feel like someone is being very generous, take steps to reciprocate meaningfully. It’s not exactly about keeping score and tit-for-tat, but to avoid an imbalance, one should pay attention to debits and credits in this game.

We all have beliefs, values and behaviors that form our personality and shape our view of the world and our perception of reality. Some beliefs, more like opinions, change based on new information or experience. In contrast, there are many perceptions and behaviors that are deeply “grooved” into our brain. So deep and habitual are these thought patterns that they exert powerful influence over how we think, interpret and act. Some such grooves may be consciously chosen, like our preferences for art and music, or our religious beliefs. Still others are so automatic and unquestioned that we may not even be aware of them. For example, some people faced with a challenge automatically respond with curiosity and optimism, while others respond with worry and pessimism.

I once worked with a client, Jim, who was thinking about launching his own business. In our work we talked about roughly three alternatives:

1) Staying put in his job.
2) Quitting cold turkey so he could devote himself 100% to the new business.
3) Building “stepping stones” to transition gradually from his current situation to his new venture.

I once worked with a client, Jim, who was thinking about launching his own business. In our work we talked about roughly three transition strategies:

One day a friend of his approached him about a sizeable project in Jim’s general area of expertise. Jim met with his friend and the friend’s boss to discuss the project. At the end of the discussion, Jim suggested that as a next step they meet with the owner of his company.

After Jim related the story, my first question was, “Given your plan to start your own company, did it not occur to you that this project and client might be a great stepping stone to YOUR new business?”

Jim seemed stunned by this idea. It had never occurred to him. So “grooved” was he about automatically feeding prospects up the chain of command, that he was blind to a possible entrepreneurial opportunity.

This situation also revealed another one of Jim’s grooves. While he has powerful expertise in his field of knowledge, he had never worked in the prospect’s particular industry. So his knee-jerk (grooved) assessment was that he lacked the qualifications to handle the project. When he expressed this view I asked him if he knew anyone in his field with such industry knowledge. If so, they could have partnered on the project. Again, he seemed stunned. The idea had never occurred to him.

This is how it is with grooves. The really deep ones are more like ditches that prevent us from seeing the wider picture. The narrower and deeper the groove, the less flexibility we have for thinking and acting. On the bright side, we have flexible minds capable of creating new grooves.

For example, I sometimes work with executives who are “too nice,” which can create problems when a situation calls for stern, assertive behavior. A friend of ours is strongly conflict averse, but she found there are limits to her niceness.

One day while vacationing on a beach with her children, she saw a woman walk by with her St. Bernard. The dog stopped and did his business, leaving a heaping “dog pie.” The woman failed to “scoop the poop” and walked back to her nearby cottage. This flipped a switch in our friend. She scooped the dog pie into a grocery bag and marched over to the woman’s cottage. “You left something on the beach,” she reported when the woman answered the door. She promptly handed over the grocery bag to the surprised woman.

“I don’t want this,” the woman said.

“Neither does the beach,” our friend said. With that she stalked off and never looked back.

So, what are your grooves? Are they helping or hindering you in achieving your goals? Is it time to grow some new grooves?

I was sitting in a coffee shop recently trying to write a blog post. It wasn’t happening.

Then a couple sat down nearby. I could not help but overhear some of their conversation. Seems they have a middle school son who is shaping up as a bit of a slacker. All he wants to do is play video games. He’s not doing his school work, he avoids his simple chores like making his bed, and he has shown no interest in extra-curricular activities at school.

The father was pretty worked up about the situation. He was talking about carrots, and even more about sticks. He talked about rules, guidelines and other structures that might help eradicate his son’s bad habits and replace them with good ones.

Mom, on the other hand, openly declared that she was concerned but not alarmed. She agreed that they could and should explore some avenues to improve the behaviors, but she was more of the view that her son was just going through a phase and would work his way out of it.

The conversation went on for some time. What struck me most was not the content of the dialogue, but rather, the mutual friendly and concerned tone. I can so easily imagine other situations where two adults would escalate the heat of the conversation, becoming increasingly defensive and/or increasingly aggressive about their differences of opinion. Maybe one would steamroll the other into capitulation and acquiescence.

A take-no-prisoners, give-no-quarter approach dominates our competitive culture where the loudest, most insistent voices seem to win – at least when it comes to talk radio and cable news.

But this couple did not pursue their difference with conventional win-at-all costs ideology. To the contrary, at one point I heard the mother say something like, “Although I’m not as worried about this as you are, I am curious about why you feel the way you feel.” A bit later she asked her husband what he was like when he was 13 years old. Still later she really won me over by saying, “Even though I’m not worried about this like you are, I will support whatever you want to do.”

The husband, for his part, did not try to convince his wife that she was wrong and he was right. He didn’t get louder or more insistent. He listened to her. He addressed her questions thoughtfully. He seemed grateful to be able to express himself fully without it turning into a tug-of-war.

Let’s look at a parallel conversation in the business world. One of my clients is a director, and one of her employees, a manager, has been on loan to a senior VP. When it came time for the company’s managers to provide preliminary ratings on their direct reports, my client gave her manager grades of As, Bs and Cs on various performance goals and attributes. Her evaluation was based on both firsthand observations and comments, sometimes complaints, from others in the organization. After submitting her rating through channels, it was bounced back to her. The SVP wanted the report card to read straight As. When she sought an audience to compare and contrast their different perspectives, the message was unambiguous: there is no debate; change the ratings.

What is the impact of this style of dialogue, or better put, lack of dialogue? First, the director feels disempowered and alienated. Second, she has already been approached by colleagues who learned of the top grades assigned to her manager. (It’s hard to keep a secret in any company!) They were steamed and blamed her, placing her in the difficult position of either accepting their scorn or throwing her boss under the bus. Third, and perhaps most unfortunate, a precedent has been set or reinforced that holds a VP’s opinion as sacrosanct.

Unfortunately, this director’s experience was not unusual; in fact it is probably the norm in most companies to accept without question the authority of the higher ranking executive.

Engaging in true two-way dialogue is not easy. It takes time. It goes against our competitive, litigious, right-wrong cultural sensibilities. It requires that we have BOTH the confidence of our own convictions AND the willingness to tolerate, even embrace, conflicting or alternative views. It requires that we set aside our ideas of power and politics and engage in true collaboration.

It’s not easy, it’s not common, but oh what a difference it can make.

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.