Dan Erwin

Can You Really Trust an Opinion Poll?

Probably not.  Well . . . it all depends.  In a recent blog I discussed my skepticism regarding opinion polls and my fear that most people trust them, making opinion polls the deciding factor in far too many cases.  I also suggested that many people think that legislators should pay close attention polls, which, I’m certain would be folly.

To my delight Dalia Sussman has an article in today’s Times in which she points out the major issue of difficulty in polling:  the questions.

Her first example of polling differences clarifies my skepticism so well, that I’ll print the paragraph: Consider the way Americans feel about changing the health care system. In July, with debate at its most heated, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that 66 percent of Americans supported the so-called public option. Around the same time, Time magazine reported that 56 percent supported it, a Pew poll found 52 percent in favor, and a Fox News poll reported the support at 44 percent.

Each organization had good data to support its findings, but it’s appropriate to dismiss them all.

What’s going on?  Sometimes inconsistent results suggest that the respondents haven’t thought through what they think.  But as I wrote in my post, the most obvious issue may well be the questions.  

That was Sussman’s approach.  So to get an assessment of the problems surround polling questions, she went to an expert: Jon Krosnick of Stanford.  With the polling questions in front him, Krosnick explained how different questions in different contexts result in different conclusions. 

For example, many September polls on health care asked people whether they supported or opposed Obama’s proposed changes, but the Times CBS poll offered respondents the choice of saying that they did not know enough about the changes yet to say.  Nearly half of the respondents, 46 percent, said just that.  The other polls showed different degrees of support or opposition to Mr. Obama’s proposals largely because they did not offer the “don’t know yet” option.  The right approach is debatable.

What’s the takeaway?  I’d be very skeptical of polling, polling results, and policy built solely on polling.  We expect more than that from our legislators.

Why Chris Argyris Thinks Peter Drucker's Advice is Flawed

One of the most useful coaching skills I’ve ever gained was the result of Chris Argyris’ critique of Peter Drucker’s advice.   

 
In Overcoming Organizational Defenses, Argyris argues that sound advice, like that of Drucker and others, inhibits organizational performance.  Argyris’ argument is that “advice” is at a high level of inference and is not operational.  In other words, advice doesn’t spell out, specifically, how to behave.  It focuses on theories and fails to provide the data needed to understand the theory.

Argyris provides a number of examples, including three from Drucker who, he freely admits, is one of the world’s premier authors on mangement.  Argyris quotes first Drucker, and then critiques the statement.

“’Organizitis,’” self-inflicted hypochondria, should be avoided.”

How would other people identify “organizitis” and hypochondria?  How can someone avoid them if they are inflicting them on their organization?  How do they overcome the skilled unawareness that is required to implement the advice?

“Organizational change should not be taken often and should not be undertaken lightly. . . A certain amount of friction, of incongruity, or organizational confusion is inevitable.”

What criteria can be used to specify what is taken often and what is taken lightly?  How much of the inevitable friction, incongruity, and confusion is acceptable?  When does it become unacceptable?

“One can either work or meet.  One cannot do both at the same time.”

Why is it not possible to create problem-solving processes that combine meetings with work?

Suppose that instead of giving advice in your coaching, you chose to accompany your advice with actual statements that illustrate what you would have to say and do?  The following are examples from my white paper on asking questions.  The protocols and scripts are written to explain what to do and what to say when you want to ask questions without being perceived as a dumb ass.

Set the stage: Briefly summarize the project and your relation to it.

“Jim, as you may know I’m working on the . . . . project. This is my first major responsibility as a project manager. Currently, I’m focusing on the product advertising research.”

State expertise: Summarize your marketing research background.

“Jim, over the past three years I’ve had experience with a number of projects, and gained expertise in nearly all project segments including. . . . However, I have no experience in persuasion testing.”

Advice requested: Explain your need for senior expertise in persuasion testing. Ask for senior support person recommendation.

“Since, I have no direct experience in persuasion testing. . . . I’d like your recommendation for the best senior person to support us in that testing.”

Although my example can be viewed as a canned approach, I’ve found that not only entry level workers, but senior managers and execs are constantly asking for this kind of help.  I get questions such as, “How would you say this?  What can I say when someone pushes back as a result of my input?”

Once clients start using my protocols and scripts they come back with more complicated requests.  For example, last week a client said, “One of my customers used a a false analogy to request a service,saying,  ‘So and so did such and such. . . why can’t you do this?’  What can I say to deal with irrelevant analogies without offending the person?”

All of these examples emphasize the necessity of making it possible to actually implement advice.  Giving advice, I’ve learned, is of little value without specific protocols and scripts.  With two or three hours of input and practice writing scripts, professionals at the highest level of an organization have a new approach to improving performance.

Quotation of the Week: Alan Wolfe

Democracy is not government by public opinion poll, and legislators have an obligation to do what is right.

--Alan Wolfe.  Professor of political science at Boston College.  Wolfe is writing a book on political evil.

The quote is taken from a review of a new book by Derek Bok, former president of Harvard.  The book is in the new discipline of behavioral economics and is entitled, The Politics of Happiness.

In a recent post, I commented about my fears and skepticism regarding polling the public.  I believe polling inherently results in people thinking that legislators should pay serious sense to polls.  That's utter nonsense.  It's pretty clear that much of the most significant policy is not driven by public polls.  Certainly, I'm aware that paternalism or elitism accompanies that view.  But what might make people happy is not necessarily what will promote well-being.

Six Myths--and the Real Facts About Creativity

The real facts about creativity are especially good facts.  They’re good not merely because they enlighten us about creativity, but also because most of the better paying jobs in the years to come will have creative and innovative dimensions to them. 

A number of scientists have documented the fact that creativity is at its heart a highly collaborative competency, not the lone genius in his/her workroom.  Keith Sawyer, one of the leaders in the field of creativity research and on the faculty of Washington University has published 10 books and more than 50 scholarly articles in the field.  His book, Group Genius, is packed with important implications of creativity research for individuals, organizations, the Web, the economy and much more.

A unifying idea throughout all his research which debunks society’s closely held myths—even seemingly solitary artistic pursuits, involves improvisation, collaboration and communication.

In an interview of Sawyer, which appeared in the Wash U Alumni news, Sawyer described his work and the conventional wisdom surrounding creativity. 

Here is a selected set of myths followed by highly condensed facts to chew on, in Sawyer’s own words:

• Creativity comes from the unconscious.  (“It is mostly conscious, hard work.”)
• Children are more creative than adults.  (“Children aren’t as creative as we think they are.”)
• Creativity represents the individual’s inner spirit.  (The works represent “the characteristic markers of our culture and time period.”)
• Creativity is spontaneous inspiration.  (Formal training and conscious deliberation are essential.”)
• Creativity is the same thing as originality.  (“All creativity includes elements of imitation and tradition.  There is no such thing as a completely novel work.”)
• Fine art is more creative than craft.  (“Our culture is biased toward creative products that have no function other than pleasure.  But this division is culturally and historically relative.”)

In business we tend to think of beautiful designs such as architectural masterpieces or Apple Ipods as the creative.  The fact of the matter, however, is that though business always needs creative masterpieces such as the two above, business needs far more creativity and innovation in mobilizing talent, allocating resources, developing processes and building strategies.  It’s important to notice, as Sawyers indicates in the last myth, that the bias toward creative products is only one piece of the creative pie.  Business has just as many creative needs in the highly competitive areas of service, manufacturing and people processes.

Do you think about creativity in those terms?

How to Become a Positive Deviant--in Business!

The other day while skimming through Atul Gawande’s book, Better, searching for a piece of research I got to the Afterward in my search and I had to reread it.  It’s not just Gawande’s brilliant, readable style, but the substance, his ideas about how to become a positive deviant in medicine, apply just as readily to business careers. 

 
The Afterward lays out,  in brief fashion, 5 ways that a physician might make a “worthy difference.”  Here are his suggestions:

• Ask an unscripted question.
• Don’t complain.
• Count something.
• Write something.
• Change.

In his discussion of change, Gawande points out that in medicine, just as in anything else people do, individuals respond to new ideas in one of three ways.  A few become early adopters, most become late adopters, and some never stop resisting and very seldom change.  Wow!  That brought a flood of memories.

My basic sense of what drives the response to new ideas comes from Everett Roger's’ textbook on the diffusion of innovation.  Rogers defines diffusion as “the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system.” The bell curve by which Rogers explained adoption rates became a template for me to understand acceptance and resistance toward new ideas or innovations. The resistance may be either personal or organizational.  Understanding change through his model is widely accepted in communications, sociology, agriculture and technology.  In fact, Geoffrey Moore’s Crossing the Chasm drew from Rogers to explain how and why technology companies succeed. 

What’s intriguing about Rogers’ research is the insight into who does and who does not adopt readily.  The research reveals that about 2.5% of the population as innovators, with the next 13.5% as early adopters.  The majority of the population, representing about 75% according to Rogers, take far longer to adopt new practices and another 13.5% rarely make change until they’re forced to.

So when Gawande recommends that physicians look for opportunities to change, and to become early adopters,  he’s challenging them to lead in ways that differ from most of the population.  Be willing to recognize the inadequacies in what you do and to seek out solutions.  As successful as medicine is, it remains replete with uncertainties and failure.  His recommendation applies just as well to business careers.

Gary Hamel, the well-known business guru, argues that what fuels business success is not operational excellence or new business models, but management innovation.  Similarly, I argue that what fuels career success, keeps you interesting to your colleagues, and provides new options is the ongoing desire to make change, to become an early adopter.

New ideas, well-researched ideas are regularly surfacing from business research, just waiting for people to pick up on them.  The better magazines and journals such as Wired, Fast Company or Harvard Business Review are filled with new ideas.   So, as Gawande writes, find something new to try, something to change.

P.S. If you’ve recently tried on something new, I’d be very interested.  Send me an email through my website.  Thanks very much.

How Were Jobs Found Over the Past Twelve Months?

Who was successful in their job hunt?  The research, reported in the Wall Street Journal, reveals that in 2009, 51% of all full-time positions were filled with existing employees.  The study by CareerXroads, a staffing-strategy consulting firm, included 41 companies that employ 1.8 million U.S. workers. 

External recruits (49%) found most jobs through referrals (27%).  Another 22% came through company website, while 13% of the external hires came through job boards. 

Mark Mehler of CareerXroads said that the data meant that networking remains the most effective strategy for new jobs.  “Job seekers should use job boards and corporate sites to find information about openings, but they should use their network to apply.”

More On Networking

Twitter versus real networking

Job Search: Clearing the human resource hurdles

Three steps for fleeing a dying industry

Quotation of the Month: Pooja Bhatia

If God exists, he's really got it in for Haiti.

--by Pooja Bhatia, Haitian journalist, writing in the Times.

George Packer's article in the New Yorker quotes a number of Haitians, many of whom understood the earthquake as god's retribution.  It wasn't just Haitians that interpreted the earthquake that way. It was the view of Pat Robertson and others.

It's a common view, not merely by those with little education, but also those who supposedly are literate.  Many still view tragedy as retribution.  There's no such thing as undeserved suffering to those of that ilk.

Thankfully, Obama's response was the opposite: "Rather than claiming to know the mind of God, he vowed that America would not forsake Haiti, because its tragedy reminds us of 'our common humanity.'"

From the times of Jonathan Edwards, the notion of divine retribution has been a singular thread in American history.  It shows up not only in religious beliefs but also in popular American proverbs about the good work of suffering.

Poll Shows Americans of Both Parties Oppose Supreme Court Ruling

In a just-released poll, Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations and unions unlimited spending on political campaigns.  Furthermore, they favor new limits on such spending according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

In a recent post, I argued from two distinct perspectives that the Court had seriously blundered. 

• The action showed a monstrous lack of awareness of the political facts on the ground, and the role of special-interest groups. 
• The action showed an originalist or fundamentalistic handling of the Constitution that is not only asinine, but profoundly lacking in perspective.

What was striking to me about the poll was the level of rejection.  Eight in 10 poll respondents opposed the high court's decision "to allow unfettered corporate political spending.  Furthermore, the poll revealed little difference of opinoin among Democrats, Republicans and Independents. 

What does this mean?  The Post suggested that it implied a strong reservoir of bipartisan support on the issue for President Obama and Democratic legislators who are crafting legislation to limit the effects of teh ruling.

I am inherently cautious about drawing much from polling results until I know the size of the sampling, something about the actual form of the questions, who commissioned the poll, and the size of the results.  There was enough information available in the article on all of those subjects, except the actual form of the questions.  But when ABC and the Post commission the poll, that's a fairly trustworthy sponsor.

It will be very interesting to see the response to the poll and whether previous supporters of the decision back off from their support.  What do you think?

Quotation of the Week: Meryl Streep

Recently, Meryl Streep was interviewed by the Harvard Professor, Henry Louis Gates, for a four-part PBS series about family roots.  In the interview, Mr. Gates tells Ms. Streep that on one side her roots go back to the founding fathers and a Quaker who left his church rather than cease agitating for independence from the British. 

Streep, mockingly responds:

I know it should make me feel even more important than I already am.

It takes a lot of self-confidence and chutzpa to come up with a classic line like that.  When I read it aloud to some friends, it brought howls of laughter. 

Self-deprecation:  communication that expresses something negative about its originator without being called for in the context by others, disparagement of one's own ability.

HEADS UP!  Humorous self-deprecation can be a highly useful rhetorical device in business communication.  Furthermore, humorous self-deprecation is a serious subject that can connect you with your audience. Typically, it has two important consequences:

1. It can dilute emotions of anger, frustration, even sadness.
2. Its affects are imperious, powerful and can't be ignored.

FYI:  Research shows that speakers who use tasteful, self-deprecating humor are rated far higher by all listeners than speakers who avoid its use.  Of course, that kind of humor requires a great deal of self-confidence.  At the very least, it requires us not to take ourselves too seriously.

In my previous life, I worked to develop self-deprecating one-liners, though I used them sparingly.  It still shocks me to have someone I've known for years comment on a self-deprecating one-liner long after I assumed it would have been forgotten.  It always comes with a smile of respect and liking. 

And by the way, respect and liking have been shown to be among the most powerful "weapons" of social influence.  Self-deprecation used sparingly and appropriately dominates conversations.  It enhances our credibility.  For nearly three centuries, scholars from Aristotle to the 21st century have looked at the factors of influence. Credibility is always the most powerful form of persuasion, far more than good reasons or the artistic use of emotions. 

Why is Meryl Streep such a great, influential actor?  It is not merely her acting skills, but first and foremost her genuine humanness, illuminated by hilarious self-deprecation.  There's a moral for all of us in her humorous self-deprecation.

McKinsey: Five Myths About Job Creation

Both economists and government leaders have been saying a lot about job creation.  But let’s get real.  As a recent article from the McKinsey Quarterly put it, America’s jobs’ challenge is a marathon, not a sprint.

We’re all glad that job creation is the number one national priority and that the President has called for many approaches to jobs.  But packed inside all the messages from numerous sources, McKinsey says, are five myths.  The full article is available to you through my link, but here’s a brief summary of the five myths:

1. There’s a quick fix.  Nope.  The scale of the challenge is far too large.  Over the past two years, 2 million jobs have been lost, many put out of existence permanently.  That means it will take more than 200,000 jobs per month for the next seven years to get us back to where we were before the recession.
2. The key to boosting employment is to help small businesses.  From 1987 through 2005, nearly a third of all jobs were created by companies with more than 500 workers.  The size of the company is only a small piece of the pie.  During the latest expansion, most of the jobs came from service sectors, which are made up of both small and large businesses.
3. High-tech jobs will solve the problem.  Green businesses, biotech and other emerging  industries, though part of the solution, can't create the jobs needed right away.  Currently those businesses are too small a piece of the business pie to ramp up fast enough to be able to help, even if they have the needed customers.
4. Higher productivity kills jobs.  That’s a myth also.  Productivity stimulates demand for consumer products and goods, for new plants and equipment, which fosters industry expansion and job creation.
5. Increasing exports will revise manufacturing employment.  The painful truth is job creation is not about regaining the jobs that have been lost.  Backshoring of jobs from Asia and Latin America will cause some factories to scale up, but most new growth will come from other sectors.  The net growth will probably not come from manufacturing.

So where does that leave workers?  The article doesn’t address that issue, but here are my suggestions.

If you’ve got a job, build in as much personal growth and development as possible, and make yourself a necessity for the organization.  At the same time that your nose is to the grindstone, pay close attention to the industry and your firm.  If the future doesn’t look good, take advantage of opportunities for which you’ve got transferable skills.  But get that new job solidly nailed down before you announce your move.  Still, it's easier to move from one job to another, than to move from no job.

If you don’t currently have a job, a lot of options are being bandied about.  Volunteer to keep your gray matter working and meet more people.  Go for a temp position, get smart and build it into a permanent position.  Figure out the solo or free lance possibilities for yourself.  Recent stats show that approximately 30% of all workers are in solo or free-lance positions.  So, what do you know that companies might be willing to pay for on a contractual or consulting basis.  Often, the firm that laid you off will use you as a temp, part-timer or consultant, so keep your network going (that’s tougher when you don’t have a job), and never, never burn a bridge.  For most people, consulting is a short-term band-aid until they can find an opportunity with another firm.  Essentially free-lance consultants like me, who’ve been in the business more than 25 years are rare animals.  Oh yeah, there are still $100K plus jobs out there, but they’re few in number and they go to people with great connections and top expertise.

And last, if you can get the money, go back to school to further your education.  There are plenty of people with college degrees going back to tech school because some of that job training is short-term and can offer a livelihood.