Heart to Heart Decision Making

Achieving synergy amongst team members can be a challenge in the best of times. Leadership and managers would love nothing more than cohesion with very little effort, but unfortunately that’s not often the case. Conflicts in the workplace are natural, so what can leadership do to make team building and decision making run more smoothly? In a fascinating twist, it turns out the key may be harmonizing our minds and bodies.

In a relatively new area of study, known as physiological synchronization, scientists are seeking answers in how the human body and brain respond to social interactions. After studying “firewalkers” in Spain, researchers began to see commonalities in heart rate variation among close familial relations. In a tradition where men walk across a bed of hot coals, it’s not surprising that the walkers’ heart rates rose and fell at different points. The curious evidence came when they examined the heart rates of spouses and family members who had gathered to watch; which had risen and fallen at the same intervals as their loved one’s (the heart rates of unrelated observers did not synch with the walker’s).

Researchers have since extrapolated this phenomena and applied it to larger groups, such as colleagues in an office environment. A study was conducted, and researchers found that heart rate synchronization helped lead to correct decision making 70% of the time, which accounted for information sharing and free communication amongst team members. Check out the full article here for some amazing insight into the body-mind connection, as well as broader applications of the science behind it.

The Two Types of Decisions

Decision making is a fundamental part of leadership and management. While business savvy and intuition can carry one a long way, it helps to be familiar with the potential consequences of said decision before jumping to any conclusions. In an insightful new article from the Farnum Street blog, the two types of decisions are broken down, using some advice from Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. These are put into perspective, along with some advice on how to make the best of each situation.

Much like diabetes, the type of decision to be made can be broken down into two types: Irreversible (type 1), and Reversible (type 2). Type 1 decisions tend are the higher-stakes decisions that would be too costly to come back from, where as type 2 decisions are easily corrected with little cost and/or time involved. Once issues are viewed on this spectrum of reversibility, it’s possible to know how to approach their solution. For type 1 decisions, the consequences can be much higher, so it’s best to make these decisions slowly. Gather information, weigh risks vs. rewards, and literally calculate potential costs if the results go sideways.

Some folks have a hard time knowing when to stop this process, however, and may miss the opportunity altogether. To know when the data gathering has gone far enough, the author recommends what he calls “Stop, LOP, or Know.” First of all: Stop. if helpful information has stopped coming in, it’s likely there’s no more to gather. Due diligence is great, but once you have a well-rounded view of things, there’s little chance of some earth-shattering piece of information coming in at the last moment. Take what information has come to light, and make the best of it. Secondly, LOP, stands for Loss of Opportunity. If the decision to be made faces a deadline, the opportunity could slip away unless a timely choice is made. And lastly, Know: leadership knows what to do, but may not want to face up to it. Some decisions are awkward and difficult, despite the fact that the answer is clear.

Reversible, or type 2 decisions, on the the other hand, should be made as quickly as possible. This is not a green-light to act recklessly or choose options out of a hat. This is just an acknowledgement that imperfection is acceptable where the stakes are lower. Bezos himself has said having to quickly correct a 70% sure option is better than waiting around for a 90% sure option. For these low-cost gambles, he may just be right. Give the full article a read here for more insights on when and how to incorporate these methods.

The Power of Quitting

“I quit”. These words are generally not a welcome conversation starter. Unless, of course, one is talking about a vice such as cigarettes or alcohol, no one wants to hear it. This applies not just to jobs, but to all components of our lives. Everything from our exercise routines or diets, to our choice of where we live, to risky moves that could help careers grow. All of these are things that need to be re-evaluated from time to time to make sure they are still serving our needs and furthering our goals.

Lucky for us, Wharton’s newest Nano-Tool for Leaders teaches us how and when to re-evaluate to see what may no longer serve us. This fascinating new article was written by Annie Duke, former professional poker player, corporate consultant, co-founder of The Alliance for Decision Education, and best-selling author. Talk about someone who’s been on the front lines of quick decision making! As a former professional poker player, Ms. Duke knows that professionals abandon about 80% their initial hands during the ever-popular games of Texas Hold-em. Amateurs, however, stick with their initial hands over half the time. This kind of experience helps drive what she terms: “optimal quitting”.

So how do we utilize optimal quitting when it comes to furthering our goals? As it turns out, the simple act of setting a goal can be detrimental as it will inspire us to stick with our plans and not give up. Here is where Duke’s expertise comes in. She lays out some action items we can all use immediately to help us ditch what no longer serves us.

First, set intervals to check-in with goals and see what is working. Second, add “kill-criteria” to your goals. And last, acknowledge incremental progress. Check out the full article here for a deeper dive into each of these steps, and to read some real-world examples of how leaders (or anyone) can use these tools right away. For as Cheryl Richardson once said; “If you eliminate what no longer works, you illuminate what does.”

Collaboration Tips for Control Freaks

Many in leadership are, by nature, “Type A” personalities. We all know them: passionate, driven, competitive, outgoing, and generally like to be in control. They likely got to where they are because of some of these traits, and their ability to continue to lead has a lot to do with them as well. This personality type is by no means exclusive to leaders, but let’s just say it’s not uncommon.

So what happens when these particular leaders start working with colleagues, stakeholders, or other leaders who share these personality traits? Strong personalities can clash if each one wants to be at the helm. If success is dependent upon successful collaborations, then these leaders will need to go through a major mindset adjustment. Leaders who refuse or resist these mindset adjustments can end up making detrimental decisions that can cost companies a lot of time and money. Gallup Research from 2020 shows that these kinds of unilateral decisions can cost companies up to $1.2 trillion per year due to disengaged employees.

Luckily, a new article from HBR.com has some tips for these folks who are obliged to work with others even if they are not temperamentally inclined to do so. If you consider yourself to be this sort of “Type A” leader, or if you know someone who is, give it a read and see if there are lessons that can be learned. It is imperative that leaders continue to cultivate their decision-making abilities, and there’s no question that stronger collaboration leads to better results for everyone.

How Experts Make Big Decisions

The strategy of decision making has long been studied among social scientists. Why do some people feel certain they’ve made the right choice, while others waffle back and forth, easily overwhelmed by their circumstances? Since answers to this question were bound to be complex, researchers at Northwestern’s Kellogg have turned to a complex source: the game of chess.

Yuval Salant and Jorg Spenkuch set out to do a deep dive on the complex decisions that we all make. They wanted to go beyond the everyday choices like which book to read next or what to have for dinner on any given night. Exactly what does it take to make a good choice in the face of growing complexity? In order to gain some insight they examined a database of more than 200 million moves performed in an online chess platform. Unsurprisingly, they found that those with more experience in the game (the chess masters) benefitted more from extra time to evaluate all options. Shockingly, however, they found that everyone - expert or not - suffered when the amount of mediocre choices outweighed the amount of poor (losing) choices.

Anyone who plays chess will understand why this is a perfect medium to study decision-making. Unlike daily life, each choice can be objectively ranked. Chess moves either lead to a win, or lead to a loss. It is complex enough of a game, however, that it is difficult to understand the nature of each option in the middle of a game (especially when time is of the essence). Players typically consider only a small subset of all possible options, and pick the first one that they consider good enough, a strategy that economists call “satisficing.” As mentioned above, when more mediocre options were considered, the players were more likely to choose a losing strategy regardless of level. So “satisficing” can often lead to undesirable results.

We all face these complex decisions every day, especially those in leadership. Hopefully this research will help us come out on the better side of the next big choice we have to make. Check out the new article here that summarizes this research and see if it can shed some light on your own process. If so, perhaps it can help you to avoid the pitfalls of the mediocre choices.

Leadership and Neuroscience

Have you ever wondered what makes a leader’s brain different? What makes it tic? What makes team-building, decision-making, and inspiration easier for some than others? How does one maximize this potential? Well, thanks to today’s advances in neuroscience, we are beginning to see answers to those questions. Recently, Professor Michael Platt, Director of the Wharton Neuroscience Initiative, sat down for the new Meet-the-Author interview series, highlighting exciting research coming out of the Wharton School.

Platt’s new book, The Leader’s Brain, begins to explain how certain genetic traits in our neuro-physiology may predispose some to be more talented leaders. It can also explain why two different leaders will make drastically different decisions when presented with the same problem, and why even the most charismatic and talented leaders can sometimes make disastrous mistakes.

Check out Wharton marketing Professor Peter Fader’s interview with Platt (originally live streamed on Wharton’s LinkedIn page) to get a great introduction to the new book, and even pick up a few tips on how to maximize the parts of your own brain that make a great leader.