When Leaders Mess Up

Chris Smith, writing for The High Calling, has a moving piece with the title “When Leaders Mess Up.” This is a pointed and worthy reminder for those of us who are leaders in some capacity, and that’s almost all of us. This is a good word for bosses, teachers, government officials, academic experts, doctors, lawyers, parents, and . . . well, you name it. Chris’ article challenges our tendency to hide, to defend, and even to lie in order to cover up our mistakes.

Thanks, Chris, for this fine reminder. I need it today.

How Can We Create a Culture of Experimentation?

If you’re a leader at any level in a business, government agency, school, church, non-profit, or you-name-it, you know how vital innovation is to the health and future of your institution. In a rapidly changing world, standing still is a precursor to lying still six feet under. In order to survive, not to mention thrive, we need to be innovating.

Yet not all innovation is equal. Some ideas are great; many are not. Thus, we who lead need more than just innovation. We need a culture that encourages innovation and, at the same time, carefully measures where new plans are good or bad. In other words, we need to be innovating and learning.

Yet we struggle with learning. We feel fond of the status quo. We like the old things we learned a long time ago. And we have a deep concern that our wonderful new plans will flop, so we’re afraid to test them in advance. New Coke, anyone?

A recent op-ed piece in the New York Times addresses the problem of a lack of learning in our day. David Brooks, in “Is Our Adults Learning?” focuses on the inability of the government to engage in a process of learning. Brooks draws from the work of Jim Manzi, who has been a leader and consultant for several major businesses. Here are some excerpts from Brooks’ column:

What you really need to achieve sustained learning, Manzi argues, is controlled experiments. Try something out. Compare the results against a control group. Build up an information feedback loop. This is how businesses learn. By 2000, the credit card company Capital One was running 60,000 randomized tests a year — trying out different innovations and strategies. Google ran about 12,000 randomized experiments in 2009 alone.

These randomized tests actually do vindicate or disprove theories. . . .

Finally, the general lesson of randomized experiments is that the vast majority of new proposals do not work, and those that do work only do so to a limited extent and only under certain circumstances. This is true in business and government. Politicians are not inclined to set up rigorous testing methods showing that their favorite ideas don’t work.

Manzi wants to infuse government with a culture of experimentation. Set up an F.D.A.-like agency to institute thousands of randomized testing experiments throughout government. Decentralize policy experimentation as much as possible to encourage maximum variation. . . .

The first step to wisdom is admitting how little we know and constructing a trial-and-error process on the basis of our own ignorance. Inject controlled experiments throughout government. Feel your way forward. Fail less badly every day. [I added the italics.]

I expect Brooks is right about the failure of government in general to create a culture of experimentation. But surely government is not alone here. I am most familiar with the institution of the church. And, while some notable churches have tried new things, in general churches tend to resist the kind of learning that is essential to their survival.

It seems to me that one of the main reasons we fail to experiment is that we’re afraid of failure. We don’t want to experiment because we sense that many of our experiments won’t work. So, we don’t take the risks that are required for experimentation. Either we get stuck trying to think everything to death so as to avoid failure, or we simply don’t innovate much, or we try something new and defend it endlessly even if it’s not working.

How can we create cultures of experimentation in the places where we work? Of course, the answer to this question depends on the extent to which we have authority in those places. If you are a leader in your workplace or community organization or family or whatever, you might consider the following:

• Learn to value innovation, experimentation, and learning, if you don’t already.

• Encourage people to experiment, to take risks, especially relatively small ones (“little bets”). Make sure they understand that the majority of experiments will not work, and that’s okay.

• Reward experimentation and those who experiment.

• Experiment yourself and let your people know how things worked out, especially when your experiment did not work. Model learning from failure, your failure.

• Do not penalize people for experiments that fail, but reward them instead.

• Emphasize the importance of learning in your organization and be an exemplary learner.

• Freely admit when you need to learn, when you don’t have all the answers.

I’m sure there are more ways to help create a culture of experimentation. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

I recently read a book that addresses this question in a wise and sometimes surprising way. I heartily recommend Little Bets: How Breakthrough Ideas Emerge from Small Discoveries by Peter Sims. Little bets are relatively small risks from which we can learn without “betting the farm,” as it were.

Want to Be More Creative? Then Think Outside the Box . . . Literally!

A recent column in the New York Times begins this way:

What ignites the engine of creativity? A popular metaphor in American business urges you to think “outside the box.” Folk wisdom advises that problem-solving is helped by thinking about something “on the one hand” and then “on the other hand.”

Is there any psychological truth to such metaphors for better thinking? Our research suggests that the answer is yes. When people literally — that is, physically — embody these metaphors, they generate more creative ideas for solving problems.

Here’s how the authors, Suntae Kim, Evan Polman, and Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks, explain what they mean:

Recent advances in understanding what psychologists call “embodied cognition” indicate a surprisingly direct link between mind and body. It turns out that people draw on their bodily experiences in constructing their social reality. Studies show, for example, that someone holding a warm cup of coffee tends to perceive a stranger as having a “warmer” personality. Likewise when holding something heavy, people see things as more serious and important — more “weighty.”

However, until recently it was not known whether bodily experiences could help in generating new ideas and solutions to problems. Our research, which will be published soon in the journal Psychological Science, discovered that it can.

What might be some of the implications of this research?

By showing that bodily experiences can help create new knowledge, our results further undermine the strict separation between mind and body — another box that has confined our thinking for a long time. In addition, although we’re only starting to grasp how catchphrases shape how people think, it’s possible to begin prescribing some novel suggestions to enhance creativity. For instance, if we’re performing a job that requires some “outside the box” thinking, we may have to avoid working in cubicles.

This research confirms something I have experienced time and again in my life. When I am grappling with a particularly difficult problem, and especially when I’m trying to be creative, I find great help if I get out of my office and go for a walk. Something about getting out of my “box” helps me to “think outside of the box.”

I wonder what implications this research might have for organizations that seek to enhance the creativity of their members? I think especially of groups that tend to do their brainstorming in boxy conference rooms. Maybe their creative process would be enhanced if they took a walk together or intentionally moved to a new location.

Do Happier People Work Harder?

A recent New York Times opinion piece asks the question: Do happier people work harder? Teresa Amabile, a professor at Harvard Business School, and Steven Kramer, a researcher, answer this question in a way that challenges both workers and managers. Here are some salient observations from their article:

Workers today feel worse about their jobs and work environments than ever before (according to a Gallup survey).

How you feel makes a major difference in how you work. “Our research shows that inner work life has a profound impact on workers’ creativity, productivity, commitment and collegiality. Employees are far more likely to have new ideas on days when they feel happier. Conventional wisdom suggests that pressure enhances performance; our real-time data, however, shows that workers perform better when they are happily engaged in what they do.”

Lower job satisfaction predicts poorer performance on the job. “When people don’t care about their jobs or their employers, they don’t show up consistently, they produce less, or their work quality suffers.”

Managers tend to neglect the significance of meaningful progress for workers. “Sometimes, all that’s required is that managers address daily hassles and help with technical problems. If those who lead organizations — from C.E.O.’s to small-team leaders — believe their mission is, in part, to support workers’ everyday progress, we could end the disengagement crisis and, in the process, lift our work force’s well-being and our economy’s productivity.”

For those of us who are in positions of management, are we committed to helping those we manage achieve progress in their work? Are we listening to the things that encourage them? That frustrate them? Will we strive to minimize the barriers to our employees achieving a sense of fulfillment through being able to do their work well?