Questioning Our Beliefs: Confirmation Bias

Human beings make bad decisions all of the time. We use rules of thumb or “heuristics” in order to speed up decision-making. A recent article in Psychology Today, “Deadly Mind Traps” by Jeff Wise, shows several cognitive errors that humans are likely to make.

One of these traps is called confirmation bias. Once we have decided upon a belief, value or decision, we tend to seek out information that supports our position, while ignoring or rationalizing away information that dis-confirms our belief.

Last week, I wrote a post stating that leaders are born not made.  You wouldn’t believe the fuss among leadership development experts on twitter.  You would think I had just announced that the earth was flat.

What was interesting to me is that very few people were willing to question their own beliefs that leadership is something that can be developed, despite the fact that there is some pretty good research suggesting that leadership requires intelligence, drive and desire. There is also good research that suggests that height, gender and physical appearance all play a role in what followers are looking for in leaders.   Further research suggests that character traits such as humility and courage may not contribute to leadership success.

My guess is that we would like our leaders to have courage, humility and other traits that are perceived as generally positive.  But the real world doesn’t appear to reward those traits.

My purpose in writing the born vs. made post was to prod readers to be skeptical about their beliefs, assumptions and feelings. So the post was particularly provocative, perhaps overstating the case for the innate, born traits of leadership.

I believe that leadership is a function of both traits we are born with and the collective experience of life.  I do believe that our current cult of leadership, with its unending focus on leadership development, sets some people up for failure and disappointment. It also denigrate the importance of engaged followers.

When you read or hear something you disagree with, do you automatically respond, “that’s wrong”, or do you think about why your view might be wrong?  Who is your Devil’s Advocate? Do you question your assumptions, think about the evidence, or do you merely follow your instincts and confirm your own opinion?

There is no “War for Talent”

Yet again, consulting firms are making their money on a phony war. This time its a re-run of McKinsey’s War for Talent. The Hay group recently published a report on Leadership 2030. They believe that shifting demographics are creating a war for talent among developed countries. As the population ages, Hay group believes that the economy will suffer, and innovation will decline, while the younger populations of the developing world will be dynamic and robust.

This demographic argument makes the assumption that older workers are not innovative or as intellectually “with it” as younger workers. Research suggests that intellectual capability does not being to decline until after retirement. If we continue to use our minds to learn new things, our intellectual capability does not decline significantly while working.

The “war for talent” also assumes that one must “select” or “recruit” for talent. A recent study by Matthew Bidwell, of the University of Pennsylvania, shows that people who are promoted from within the organization had significantly better rates of performance over the first two years and lower rates of voluntary and involuntary exits than those hired from outside the organization. And those hired outside the organization were paid 18% more than those promoted internally.  External hires tended to have higher levels of education and experience.

Bottom line? The “war for talent” is fool’s gold. It looks like you are hiring talent because they look good on paper.  But these external hires cost more, are more likely to leave the organization and perform less well than internal promotions. Funny how consulting and recruiting firms are promoting this “war for talent”, isn’t it?

Instead of hiring external “talent”, managers need to focus on developing technical, interpersonal and leadership talent within the organization. Not only will it cost you less to develop your own talent, it will increase organizational commitment and reduce turnover within your organization. Quit looking for a miracle performer, and get down to the hard work of developing your existing workforce.

Source: Bidwell, Matthew. (Sept 2011). “Paying More to Get Less: The Effects of External Hiring versus Internal Mobility”. Administrative Sciences Quarterly.

Strategies for Success

I’m reading “The Winner’s Brain” by Jeff Brown, Mark Fenske, with Liz Neporent. Based on solid neuroscience, this book identified eight strategies to achieve success. Successful people use their brains differently than the rest of us. By working hard and using these strategies we can improve the likelihood of achieving success. Here is my favourite quote from the book:

One of the earliest casts of Rodin’s great bronze statue The Thinker can be found in the gardens at the Musee Rodin in Paris. If you look closely at this famous muscular man perched deep in thought, you discover he is not a passive figure in any sense of the word. He leans forward, pressing his fist against his teeth and curling his toes around a rock, his entire body actively engaged in the effort of contemplation. He is powerful and  full of intention. He’s on the verge of putting his ideas into motion. As Rodin once remarked, “The fertile thought slowly elaborates itself within his brain. He is no longer a dreamer, he is a creator.”

Thinking is indeed hard work. It requires that we stop, focus, and process. It demands that we learn self-awareness, motivation, and focus. The good news is that we can, with effort, develop these skills. We just have to make that choice.

Top Leadership Gurus

Wow. I just googled top leadership experts and got this link, Top Leadership Gurus.  Do you notice any patterns in the list?

First, the list was predominantly US driven.  Kind of ignoring the whole globalization thing. Second, there were two people of colour and one woman on the top 25 in the list. In other words, mostly old, American, white guys. Third, very few of these experts rely on solid research. If you rely on their advice, you are relying on opinion and beliefs that are based on personal experience. There’s nothing wrong with personal experience, but it can contain significant bias.

For example, many research “gurus” believe that courage is an important aspect of leadership. However, research suggests that at least some of the time, courage can lead to failed leadership, not successful leadership. We’d all like to think that it is important to have a courageous leader, but that is what we’d like, not necessarily the reality of organizational life.

The lack of women, visible minorities and cultures outside of the US on this list suggests to me a couple of things.  First, that we’re still using old models of leader, white, male and hero driven. Second, that we still see these old white guys as having a monopoly on the discussion of leadership. In other words, we’re letting old white guys define what leadership is. I resent this as an old white girl.

We also need to push past the opinion based conversation we’ve been having into a more evidence based view of leadership. We make far too many assumptions about the nature of leadership that have not been tested.

Let’s stop listening to the so called gurus, and start asking for the evidence.