 |
|
|
|||||
David Marquet was formerly captain of the nuclear submarine USS Santa Fe and is the best-selling author of Turn the Ship Around, which tells the story of transforming that submarine from the worst-performing to the best-performing sub in the fleet. Since retiring from the Navy, he has worked with businesses globally as a leadership consultant. Mike Gillespie is an associate professor of psychology at the University of South Florida who studies how to make organizations more effective. He teaches organizational psychology and directs the Human Applied Cognition and Decision-Making Lab. Whats the big idea? Great leaders have a superpower that lets them remove many of their biases, see reality more clearly, and make better decisions: distance. By distancing themselves from situations along the dimensions of identity (what if I were someone else?), place (what if I was in a different position?), and time (what if I was in the future?) they can connect with the essence of what is truly important. Below, coauthors Marquet and Gillespie share five key insights from their new book, Distancing: How Great Leaders Reframe to Make Better Decisions. Listen to the audio versionread by Marquetin the Next Big Idea app. 1. We live in a curated reality. In the early 1980s, Gordon Moore and Andrew Grove, who were running Intel, faced a critical dilemma. Intel, founded a decade and a half earlier, was slipping in its original businessmemory chipsbut had developed a new product, the 4004 microprocessor. The two leaders remained paralyzed for over a year, unable to make the decision to shift the companys focus to microprocessors because the idea of abandoning memory chips was just too painful. The breakthrough came when Grove asked Moore a pivotal question: If we got kicked out and the board brought in a new CEO, what do you think he would do? Moore replied instantly, He would get us out of memories. And so thats what they did. No new information, no new market updates, no reprocessing of the data. Just a reframe that dropped the accumulated weight of all the decisions from the past and broke through a year of drift. This sudden clarity emerged because Moore and Grove exited their self-immersed state, where their identity was deeply tied to memory chips. The key to seeing clearly was to look at the situation from the perspective of someone who did not have that accumulated baggage and, even though it was imagined, it worked. Without our awareness, our brains naturally curate what we perceive and encourage us to protect our image, our sense of self, our precious ego. These so-called self-serving biases distort reality, hinder growth, and result in worse decision-making. Taking on a different perspective is a simple way to shed these biases. As a nuclear submarine captain, every once in a while, an officer would come to me with a plan that was optimized for their department but not for the submarine as a whole. I would ask them variations of the following: What would you do if you were me? Id leave them alone for a minute (typically, to get a cup of coffee), and when I came back, they had a new plan. A better plan that was optimized for the submarine as a whole. Again, no new information, no new analysis, just a reframe of the situation from the perspective of someone else. 2. Distance gives better perspective. As we distance ourselves from something, the details blur, and whats left is the essence of the thing. If that thing” is a decision, with distance our brain focuses on whats important in the big picture and doesnt get distracted by details that only seem so important in the here and now. Think about a tree. When standing right next to it, you see ripples in the bark and a beetle crawling up the trunk. You see not just the individual leaves, but the veins in the leaves. Then you start walking back. The bark blurs, and the individual leaves fade. Now you see a tree. You can tell it is an oak tree and discern the shape of its major branches. As you keep moving away, it becomes just a green dot on the horizon. Just a tree. You are down to the essence of the thing. The farther you are from the decision, the more your brain sees what matters most. Now replace the tree with a decision: What should I major in? Should I attend a conference? Should I get a new job? When should I retire? The same thing happens. The farther you are from the decision, the more your brain sees what matters most. Distance works whether you physically change your perspective (as in the tree example) or if you imagine a different one. For example, you can become someone else. It also works if you imagine yourself being somewhere else or sometime else. We explore these three dimensions in the book: be someone else, be somewhere else, or be sometime else. This is psychological distancing. With psychological distance, we think about things, ideas, or decisions differently. Distance changes the way we mentally construe things. The underlying science here is called construal level theory. As things move from closer to farther, our thinking shifts from a lower level of construalthe detailsto a higher level of construalthe essence or purpose. Higher levels of construal and the different forms of psychological distance all go hand in hand. This is why it seems normal to say long ago in a galaxy far, far away, while long ago in a nearby galaxy sounds weird. Another way of saying this is that at lower levels of construal, we are more concerned with the how of the thing, and as we move away toward higher levels of construal, we think more about the what and ultimately the why of the thing. We move from how to make memory chips to what should we even focus on, and why. 3. Be someone else. A great way to get out of our own head is to be someone else. Going back to the Intel story, we see that by asking What would our replacements do?, Moore and Grove invoked the be someone else dimension of psychological distancing. This is particularly effective if you think your attachment to the current situation is making it hard for you to see reality and alternatives in an unbiased way. It does not matter as much who you choose to be so long as it isnt you. Weve seen people imagine themselves as various different others: their replacement, their boss, their grandchildren, their coach, a good friend, and so on. It does not matter as much who you choose to be so long as it isnt you. Almost any distancing will work. So, when you have a decision to make, imagine you are someone else. What would that person say to do? 4. Be somewhere else. We can also mentally teleport to a different location to gain perspective. William Ury is a Distinguished Fellow of the Harvard Negotiation Project and coauthor of the bestselling book Getting to Yes. In it, he describes the problems that arise from becoming overly immersed in a negotiation. Once we take a position, we argue for it and defend it. We identify with the position and assimilate that position into the image we have of ourselves. That position coul be $100 million for a strategic acquisition (and not a penny more!) or the number of inspections a country is allowed to conduct to verify the absence of nuclear weapons. Compromising on our position means giving up a piece of ourselves. Our brains frame it as a personal loss. In addition to, or even replacing, the original objective of the negotiation, we now have a new objective: saving face. This hijacks our focus from completing the task to protecting our image. But Ury has a trick to keep himself focused on the task at hand: go to the balcony. In the heat of the moment, he likes to take a pause mentally and imagine hes on a balcony, looking down at the negotiations, rather than sitting in his chair at the negotiation table. This activates the distancing mechanisms that create a higher construal level, refocusing on the essence of the task. We can mentally teleport to a different location to gain perspective. So, to gain distance, view the situation from the balcony. Do this in preparation for a stressful event or during a pause in the action. This will keep you on task. 5. Be sometime else. Mental time travel is another powerful way to gain perspective. When Moore and Grove became their replacements, they also took on a bit of a future perspectivebecoming both someone else and sometime else. Becoming a future version of ourselves is a powerful reframe for making better decisions. Jeff Bezos had to make a tough decision to leave his job to start Amazon. He had a great job on Wall Street, and he went to his boss with his idea to sell books on the internet. This was in 1994. His boss told him it was a great idea for someone who didnt already have a job, so he should think about it for a couple of days. Bezos then imagined it this way: When Im 80, what am I going to regret more? Trying and failing or not trying? He imagined himself far from the decision, far from this years bonus and next months rent. When you jump to the far side of a decision and look back on it, your brain reframes it in terms of regret, not change. This biases us toward action as opposed to the inertia of the status quo. In the modern world, where change is happening at an unprecedented rate, this reframe often results in better decisions and a more fulfilling life. So, fastforward to the far side of the decision. Imagine youve already made it, and events have already unfolded. How did it turn out? How do you feel about the different likely scenarios? Now, what would you choose? This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
Category:
E-Commerce
Not long ago, I sat across from a senior leader who proudly described the culture of transparency he believed he had built. My door is always open, he said. I tell my team I want the truth, even when its hard. Later that afternoon, I spoke with one of his direct reports. She paused when I asked her what it was like to work for him. He says he wants the truth, she said quietly, but the moment we challenge him or bring up a concern, he gets defensive or shuts the conversation down. So weve all just stopped trying. Hes not a bad guy. Hes better than a lot of bosses around here. But he doesnt want the truth the way he claims to. She wasnt angry. Worse, she was resigned to the fact thats just who he was. And she wasnt alone. The team had learned that what their leader said and what he actually did didnt match. His open door had become symbolic of a broader disconnectand trust was eroding fast. The leader didnt see the gap. He genuinely believed he was creating a safe space. But his behavior told another story. And thats the thing about saydo gaps: were often the last to know we have them. What do you do when your words and actions dont match? Most leaders dont wake up in the morning intending to be dishonest. But every time we make a promise we dont keep, fudge a number to hit a target, or stay silent in a moment that demands courage, we open what I call a saydo gapthe space between what we say we value and what we actually do. It may feel small in the moment. Harmless, even. But these gaps come at a steep cost. In my 15-year longitudinal study analyzing over 3,200 interviews across more than 200 organizations, my team and I discovered that when employees perceive misalignment between their leaders words and actions, they are three times more likely to lie, cheat, and behave unfairly. Thats more than a culture problem. Thats a leadership choice problem. And more often than not, its an unconscious one. Why Leaders Rationalize Their Gaps Saydo gaps dont usually come from malice. They come from pressure. From the fear of looking weak. From not wanting to disappoint or disrupt. When leaders find themselves under firetight deadlines, investor demands, internal conflict, stress at homethey reach for rationalizations: Ill course-correct later. This isnt the hill to die on. No one will really notice. The problem is, they do notice. Employees notice everything. The skipped apology. The inflated projection. The performance standards you hold others tobut not yourself. They notice when you declare a new set of values in a town hall, then continue rewarding the same old behaviors. And slowly, silently, trust begins to erode. The Hidden Cost of Misalignment We tend to think of dishonesty as dramatic: embezzlement, fraud, lying, or corruption. But in most organizations, dishonesty takes a quieter, more insidious form; people withholding ideas, exaggerating results, throwing each other under the bus, or simply saying yes when they mean no. Our research showed that environments where identitypurpose, values, and cultureis misaligned are nearly three times more likely to foster this kind of behavior. Over time, these gaps corrode collaboration, innovation, courage, and employee voice. People become transactional. Cynical. They disengage not because they dont care, but because they no longer trust that honesty is safe or worth it. In short: saydo gaps cost more than you think. They cost your peoples belief in you. Your say-do gaps increase the odds of those around you by a factor of 3x that they will join you in legitimizing their own gaps. Why Its So Hard to See Our Own Gaps The human brain is wired for self-protection. When our actions fall short of our espoused values, we tell ourselves a more flattering story to preserve our identity. We become the hero of our narrative. The pressure was impossible. The budget left no choice. The timing wasnt right. But in order to be honest with others, we have to be honest with ourselves. If we cant see our own dissonance, we cant close the gap. As one executive confessed to me after a disastrous acquisition: We all knew it would fail, but we kept our mouths shut. Deal fever took over. We lost sight of who we wereand couldnt admit it. The result? A $3.5 billion mistake, shattered careers, and broken trust. How to Start Closing the Gaps If you’re serious about rebuilding trust and becoming the leader people want to follow, here are four practical ways to begin: 1. Name Your Gaps, Out Loud Ask yourself: Where am I most tempted to say one thing and do another? Where have I rationalized a disconnect between my values and behavior? Then share that reflection with your team. Vulnerability creates clarity. And clarity is what people crave. 2. Make Your Values Observable Dont let purpose statements live in frames on walls. Embed them into how decisions get made, who gets promoted, what gets rewarded, and how conflict is handled. When your actions reflect your values without you having to say a word, alignment becomes contagious. 3. Invite Truth Tellers Every leader needs someone who isnt impressed by their titlesomeone with permission to challenge and point out blind spots. Create that space. Ask your team regularly, Where do you see misalignment in me? and thank them when they answer honestly. 4. Look for the Pattern Your saydo gaps arent random. They have a pattern. Look back over your calendar from the past two weeks. Where did your actions bely your stated values? Be brutally honest. Then ask: what triggered the gap? What did you gain by not acting in alignmentcomfort, control, approval? Those choices serve a purpose. They make you feel safe. But until you name the pattern and uncover its origin story, youll keep repeating it. Reflection is the first step toward repair. Closing your saydo gaps isnt about perfection. Its about taking responsibility for the moments where your humanity falls short of your ideals. We all have them. Your people are wondering if you know yours. The most honest leaders Ive worked with arent flawless. Theyre just relentlessly committed to shrinking the gap between who they say they are and how they show upespecially when its hard. And in doing so, they earn something far more valuable than compliance. They earn trust. And once youve earned trust, performance, loyalty, courage, and innovation follow. So, if youre serious about leadership that inspiresnot just instructs or directsstart here: say what you mean. Do what you say. And keep closing the gap.
Category:
E-Commerce
A lot of people are getting fed up with how powerful people and institutions benefit themselves while things get worse by the day for the rest of us. Especially younger generations. But it seems to me that choices made by everyday peopleoften in how they spend their dollarshave the effect of increasing inequity. Middle and working class people buy into systems that increase unfairness and tilt the scales further towards the wealthiest in our society. Take Robinhood, for example. When the investment platform launched in 2013 as the first major broker eliminating commissions and minimums for stock trading, it positioned itself as democratizing finance for all. The supposedly disruptive trading platform got 56% of its 2024 revenue from payment for order flow from large financial institutions. Another 12% came from Citadel, an extremely successful hedge fund controlling 40% of trades from nonprofessional individual investors, called retail investors. Yet it purported to democratize investing for retail investors. When 56% of revenue comes from one type of financial institution, it suggests that those are Robinhoods real customers. Not to mention, the platform has been fined and sued over issues like the trading gamification, misleading communications, and risk oversight. Robinhood incurred outages and technical difficulties during high market volatility periods, costing users substantial losses. And dont forget January 28, 2021, when Robinhood halted the purchase (but not the sale) of certain stocks that were the focus of grassroots retail trading campaigns, notably GameStop and AMC, citing risk management and clearinghouse deposit requirements. Its no surprise to skeptical investors that market makers (like Citadel) had significant loss exposure to the stocks in question. In the hedge funds pockets The trading platform that named itself after the famous mythical character who steals from the rich and gives to the poor was doing just the oppositeproving with its actions it was in the monied hedge fund crowds pockets all along. Youd think that Robinhood was delivering on its promise by looking at its stock price chart. The company is a Wall Street darling, its stock continuing to climb, often supported by investments from the 32% individual retail stock owners. Our company, Prospero.ai, is a free investment research platform with a newsletter suggesting stock picks to retail investors. For a long time, we warned of Robinhoods dangers because it exacerbates the established market players existing advantages. But Robinhoods stock gained such a groundswell of retail and institutional support that we recently flipped to recommending the stock on the same basis that a lot of people seem to use it. My attitude when we flipped our stance was, Our signals love this stock; we have an obligation to report on the best investments and not cloud our recommendations with personal moral judgements. While this might seem like a sad capitulation, and it is, there is a silver lining. The power of the individual You see, Prosperos algorithms only show how the market is moving in aggregate. To give truly good and unbiased investing advice, I feel obligated to follow the very accurate results our signals indicate. But all of Prosperos collected data are built on many, many small decisionsoften made by individuals. When analysis increasingly rules decision making, individuals have the power to move markets if they are willing to adhere to their own principles, and not institutions principles. If individual investors stop using and investing in Robinhood, investing algorithms like ours at Prospero will not continue favoring Robinhood. And this applies to all systems. There are more middle and working class people than uber wealthy people. If the collective puts actions behind principles favoring themselves, our societys principles will have to change too. The crypto revolution This brings me to the next horizon in the financial industrythe crypto revolution. We have been similarly concerned with the structures it creates but also unable to ignore the extreme positive momentum. For example, COIN (Coinbase) has been one of our more consistent recommendations the last few years. I cant help but see even bigger risks here, though. Few things have gotten the American people up in arms more than a massive financial crisis. Yet with all of the talk about crypto improving things, we have seen it be a hotbed of criminal activity, and the systemic risks posed by increasing capital into it are astounding and seemingly never discussed. For example, crypto products and platforms frequently fail to provide full or accurate information about risks, operations, management, or associated costs to users. Crypto platforms also reuse client assets as collateral for multiple loans, creating cascading chains of leverage that amplify systemic risk far beyond what’s visible. Conflicts of interest and insider dealings can be hidden in crypto markets, unlike traditional regulated financial markets that require comprehensive public disclosures. Platform operations and market making in crypto can be nontransparent, allowing exchanges or insiders to profit at customer expensesometimes even trading against their own users. Scams, phishing attacks, and exchange hacks are rampant. The irreversibility of crypto transactions means most victims never recover their assets. This hasnt stopped crypto from becoming a more interesting space for retail investors who own 20% of stocks versus 85% of Bitcoin. I hope this information has the appropriate impact. Whenever we let institutions and insiders add too much leverage, the system breaks. The more money in crypto, the harder the system will break. Why do retail investors help usher in self-destructive systems? Crypto investors and market makers are operating for themselves. When will individuals learn to do the same? The world changeswhen people stop feeling defeated and start living by their principles. If we all exercise our power, the masses will become unstoppable. Look at our current society. Youll find scorn and distaste for the billionaires galivanting the country on the backs of the working class. But at least these billionaires have figured out something valuable: how to operate for themselves. Dont take this writing as a call for middle and working class people to band together to act in one way. Act for yourselfnot for institutions. Act in ways that will truly benefit you and your family in the long term. I have a feeling that if we all do that, it will lead to a more equitable society, which is where I, for one, want to live. George Kailas is CEO of Prospero.ai.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||