The Articulate CEO

The Futility of 'Engagement' Surveys

'Engagement' is the latest buzzword used to describe an abstract emotion that we would like our employees to feel about their work. In the past it has been called empowerment or ownership or commitment and now we have 'engagement'. It is simply another attempt to describe an instinctive understanding that we have that our organisation tends to be better off when our workforce care about what they do. The reason that the word we use to describe this keeps changing is because we have not been able to discover what it is that we have to do to get it - mainly because it id actually different for most people. So, instead of admitting failure, we change the word and make it look as if we are looking for something different.

Most of us have still not found out what to do to allow our workforces to engage so when our bosses ask what we are doing about engagement we look for a survey to prove that they we are (at least) doing something. The people whose business it is to produce surveys are very happy to oblige our desperate need for affirmation.

The survey does not even have to measure engagement at all, just provide data that makes it look as if it does. Consequently, there is pretty much no correlation between 'engagement survey' results and performance. About the best anyone has managed to do at Gallup for example is about 0.19 (100% correlation would be 1.0). The fact is most engagement surveys are complete nonsense and usually pedalled by executives trying to justify their existance.

Imagine trying to measure a similar abstract emotion like happiness. No one in the business world would even contemplate it would they? You can't measure 'happy' - you just know if you are.

King Jigme of Bhutan declared when he ascended the throne that his major concern was the happiness of his people. If that had happened in the business world it would have led to an explosion of 'Happiness Consultants' and then cost a fortune while they benchmarked the nation’s current state of happiness using 'Happiness Surveys', and ran focus groups to find out what happiness was and perhaps what colour it should be. Instead, when asked what he was going to do, King Jigme replied that he was going to create the conditions that would allow his people to be happy and then they would choose to be happy for themselves.

'Engagement', like happiness, is the way that people feel about what they do. Trying to measure it is an extremely difficult and ultimately futile exercise. We would be better off, like King Jigme, creating the environment that will allow our workforces to engage. Then when they do we will know it. No survey needed... but then the survey is so much easier isn't it?

Babies, Mozart, Neuroscience and the Media - The Perfect Storm

Imagine a world in which you simply played a tune for your baby and they automatically became more intelligent just by listening to it. Wouldn't it be awesome if you could just download a bit of Beethoven or Mozart from iTunes, plug in your ipod and get better test scores? It would be fantastic wouldn't it? That's why hundreds of thousands of parents around the world do exactly that with products like 'Baby Mozart'. They spend millions on these products and what is known as the Mozart Effect trying to give their kids every advantage in life. Unfortunately, genius though he may have been, Mozart can't make you smarter.

The Mozart Effect was introduced to the world in the form of an article from the journal 'Nature'. In this article, it was reported that "...college students who listened to about ten minutes of a Mozart piano sonata showed a significant improvement on spatial reasoning tasks compared with a group of students who listened to a relaxation tape." This 1993 study seemed to show that intelligence could be improved by simply listening to classical music. Though it was difficult to replicate by other researchers, and it never claimed to improve spatial reasoning over the long term, the Mozart Effect was utilized as justification for companies to sell Mozart CDs to families with infants.

Later research would suggest that short-term mental arousal could explain the Mozart Effect. This would explain why individuals listening to music that they themselves enjoy (whether it be Mozart or not) feel more alert versus those that are not listening to anything. Perhaps you feel more alert after reading a story that makes you feel excited or after watching a thrilling movie. Any such activities could potentially improve short-term spatial ability, though not your intelligence.

So, Mozart may well make you feel a bit smarter and can certainly make you a little more alert for a very short space of time (if you like that sort of thing) but, trust me, you are as dopey as you ever were. If you are a parent who has bought into the Mozart Effect you may even be slightly more dopey than you thought you were!

The Mozart effect is an example of how science and the media mix in our world. A suggestion in a few paragraphs in a scientific journal becomes a universal truth in a matter of months, eventually believed even by the scientists who initially recognized how their work had been distorted and exaggerated by the media. Others, smelling the money, jump on the bandwagon and play to the crowd, adding their own myths, questionable claims, and distortions to the mix. In this case, many uncritical supporters line up to defend the faith because at stake here is the future of our children. We then have books, tapes, CDs, institutes, government programs, etc. Soon the myth is believed by millions as a scientific fact. In this case, the process met with little critical resistance because we already know that music can affect feelings and moods, so why shouldn't it affect intelligence and health, even if only slightly and temporarily? It's just commonsense, right? Yes, and all the more reason to be skeptical.

Something For Everyone - The Barnum Effect

Ever wondered why people seem so easily conned by slick talkers? The answer may lie in a phenomenon known as the Barnum Effect. The Barnum effect is the name given to a type of subjective validation in which a person finds personal meaning in statements that could apply to many people.

For example:

You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. At times you have serious doubts whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing.

If these statements sound like they came from a news stand astrology book, that may be because they did. Such statements are sometimes called Barnum statements and they are an effective element in the repertoire of anyone doing readings: astrologers, palm readers, psychics, H.R. Managers and so on.

When statements like this appear on things like personality inventories that people believe have been especially prepared for them alone, they often validate the accuracy of such statements and thereby give validity to the instrument used to arrive at them. If Barnum statements are validated when they have originated during a psychic reading for example, the validation is taken as also validating the psychic powers of the medium.You see the same kinds of statements and conclusions for that matter in things as diverse as economic analyses, school reports and performance evaluations.

Incidentally, "Barnum effect" is an expression that seems to have originated with psychologist Paul Meehl, in deference to circus man P. T. Barnum's reputation as a master psychological manipulator who is said to have claimed "we have something for everybody."

And that about sums it up - they are statements in which there is something for everyone.

Clever Hans Phenomenon & The Origins of Non Verbal Communication

Ever wonder how the subject of non verbal communication ever came to our attention? The answer is Clever Hans Phenomenon and it dates back to the early 1890's. It refers to a form of involuntary and unconscious cuing that sometimes happens in communication and the story itself is about a horse who responded to questions requiring mathematical calculations by tapping his hoof. Sound familiar?

If asked by his master, William Von Osten, what is the sum of 3 plus 2, Hans the horse would tap his hoof five times. It appeared the animal was responding to human language and was capable of grasping mathematical concepts. In 1891 Von Osten began showing Hans to the public and the horse amazed all who saw him.

It was eventually discovered by Oskar Pfungst, however, that the horse was responding to subtle physical cues (what is called ideomotor reaction). In other words Hans was responding to a simple, involuntary postural adjustment by the questioner, which was his cue to start tapping, and an unconscious, almost imperceptible head movement, which was his cue to stop. Yet, more than a dozen scientists observed Hans and were convinced there was no signaling or trickery. They were impressed that Hans performed almost as well without Von Osten as with him. But the scientists were wrong.

The horse was simply a channel through which the information the questioner unwittingly put into the situation was fed back to the questioner. The fallacy involved treating the horse as the source of the message rather than as a channel through which the questioner's own message is reflected back. The key here is that it happens unconsciously. Von Osten was not engaging in fraud  - he just didn't quite realise just how clever his horse really was.

Pfungst noted that when the correct answer was not known to anyone present, Clever Hans didn't know it either. And when the horse couldn't see the person who did know the answer, the horse didn't respond correctly. This led Pfungst to conclude that the horse was getting visual cues, albeit subtle ones. It turned out that Von Osten and others were cuing Hans unconsciously by "tensing their muscles until Hans produced" the correct answer. The horse truly was clever, not because he understood human language but because he could perceive very subtle muscle movements. More important, Pfungst discovered that people can unconsciously communicate information to others by subtle movements and that some animals can perceive these unconscious movements. It was only a matter of time before psychologists would be investigating nonverbal influence among humans.

So there you go - the story of a remarkable horse and the origins of the study of non-verbal communication. It is just a pity we don't recognise this remarkable facility for intuition that some animals and humans have and instead focus on the nonsensical pseudoscience offered up by psychics, personality profilers and quacks of all descriptions when, if genuine, they are just sensitive to the unconscious signaling of others.

The Tiger Woods Effect & How Competition Can Backfire

I often talk about the 'symbolic' channel of communication and how ofetn it can lead to results that we wouldn't necessarily expect. One place where you think symbolism would do its intended job, however, is reward and recognition systems. After all recognising a brilliant employee should – in theory – be an inspiration to colleagues.

Unfortunately, due to the Tiger Woods Effect, this is not always the case. What is the Tiger Woods Effect I hear you ask? Put simply, it means that someone at the top of their game can not only put off everyone else but can actually lead them to put in less effort.

Chicago's Northwestern University analysed the performances of golfers from 1999 to 2010 while Woods was far and away the world number one.

When he was at the peak of his powers, other top players shot worse scores in tournaments in which he participated than they did in similar events if he was absent, as if his presence inhibited them. 

And because of this, Woods earned around $6 million more from these contests than he would have done if his rivals had played their normal game, economists found.

This remarkable effect on golfers could apply just as much in a workplace. In particular, the Tiger factor could affect offices where one worker keeps winning ‘employee of the month’ or regular bonuses for making the most sales.

Instead of trying to compete, other staff – like Tiger’s opponents – simply stop trying as hard because they don’t think they are going to win.

You are probably thinking 'Nah, that would only affect the losers' but, in actual fact, when Woods played in a tournament, other players shot nearly a full stroke higher and the effect was strongest among the top-ranked players, who would be in direct competition with Woods for the highest payouts.

The results suggest business should be more careful when trying to get their employees to be more competitive with each other and is yet another example of just how complicated the symbolic channel in communication is.

The Truth About Graphology - Another Communication Con

Graphology is the study of handwriting, especially when employed as a means of analyzing character and personality traits. The people who practise it will often claim to be handwriting experts. They are not. Real handwriting experts are actually known as forensic document examiners, not as graphologists. Forensic document examiners consider loops, dotted "i's" and crossed "t's," letter spacing, slants, heights, ending strokes and so on. They examine handwriting to detect authenticity or forgery i.e. is that a real signature on a document?

Graphologists examine the same things but for a different reason. They believe the loops, dotted "i's" and crossed "t's," letter spacing, slants, heights, ending strokes and so on are physical manifestations of unconscious mental functions. In other words, they believe handwriting can tell us about personality, aptitude and attitude. It doesn't. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the unconscious mind is a reservoir of truth about a person, much less that graphology provides a gateway to that reservoir.

Graphology is claimed to be useful for everything from understanding health issues, morality and past experiences to hidden talents and mental problems. However, in properly controlled, blind studies, where the handwriting samples contain no content that could provide non-graphological information upon which to base a prediction, graphologists do no better than chance at predicting personality traits.

The techniques of these "experts" are really nothing more than guesses or deductions based not so much on such things as the pressure exerted on the page, spacing of words and letters, etc but rather the content of the writing itself and background information about the writer. Though graphologists deny it, the content of the writing is one of the more important factors in graphological character assessment. Likewise, it is easy to offer up an analysis of the handwriting of a famous person about whom much information is already in the public domain. If handwriting can really tell us so much then the blind studies mentioned earlier should have no trouble backing it up. The fact that they don't and worse, that any one of us can have the same kind of hit rate in these studies that the so-called handwriting experts have tells us all we need to know.

Graphology is another pipe dream for those who want a quick and dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis testing. If you want results and you want them now and you want them stated in strong, certain terms, graphology is for you. If, however, you can live with reasonable probabilities and uncertainty, you might try another method to pick a spouse or hire an employee... like flipping a coin.

Subliminal Messaging - You Can't Hear What Ain't There!

Let's tackle an oldie but a goodie - subliminal messaging. Now to quickly put everyone in the picture the subliminal is below the liminal (the smallest detectable sensation). Obviously anything truly below the level of detectable sensation could not, by definition, be perceived. However, when people talk about subliminal messaging they generally mean messages that are below the threshold of conscious perception. There is a widespread belief, not strongly supported by empirical research, that without being aware of its presence or content, a person's behavior can be significantly affected by subliminal messages. Thus, it is believed that one can influence behavior by surreptitiously appealing to the subconscious mind with words and images. If this were true, then advertisers could manipulate consumer behavior by hiding subliminal messages in their ads. The implications are enormous. The government, me or even a small weasel by the name of Jimmy, could control our minds and bodies by secretly communicating to us subliminally. Learners could learn while listening to music embedded with subliminal messages.

Unfortunately, the research done in this area has shown us that the effects are somewhere between slim and zero.

The fact that there is almost no empirical support for the usefulness of subliminal messaging has not, of course, prevented numerous industries from producing and marketing tapes which allegedly communicate directly with the unconscious mind. There are tapes out there that do everything from stopping smoking to coaching the "listener" to have courage or believe in his or her power to accomplish great things. Consumers in the USA actually spend more than $50 million each year on subliminal self-help products!

It is true that we can perceive things even though we are not conscious of perceiving them. However, for those who put messages in tapes and then record music over the messages so that the messages are drowned out by the music or other sounds, it might be useful to remember that if the messages are drowned out by other sounds, the only perceptions one can have are of the sounds drowning out the messages. Get the message? There is no evidence of anyone hearing a message which is buried beneath layers of other sounds to the point where the message does not distinctly stand out. Of course, if the message distinctly stood out, it would not be subliminal.That's why advertisers rely on 'liminal' advertising - it has a much better hit rate.

The belief in the power of subliminal messaging to manipulate behavior seems to have originated in 1957 with James Vicary, an advertising promoter who claimed to increase popcorn sales by some 58% and Coke sales by some 18% in a New Jersey movie theater simply by flashing very briefly the messages "Drink Coca-Cola" and "Hungry - Eat Popcorn." Even though the claim has been shown to be a hoax, and even though no one has been able to duplicate the event, belief in the legend lingers.

So, for everyone who was worried that subliminal messaging might be impacting their behavior somehow you can relax - it's all the obvious messaging that is doing that. And for those of you who are hoping to change your behavior or become Superman by listening to something in your sleep you might as well save your money because you are probably already braindead.

Part II: The Myers Briggs Type Indicator - Does It Work?

In a word... no. Firstly, a common misconception about the MBTI is that helps determine the kinds of things that people will be good at by showing their aptitude. That way you can use it to figure out career and industry suitability in the workforce for example. Unfortunately it doesn't do that. What it actually does is try to show your preferences. So Myers-Briggs isn't about figuring out your ability but rather determining your comfort zone. It identifies the types of activities you'll like and be most content with; not necessarily those at which you'll be particularly good at.

In fact, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator's practical use is overwhelmingly unscientific, and it's often criticized for this. Criticism starts with the fact that neither Jung nor Myers and Briggs ever employed scientific studies to develop or test their concepts. Instead they rely on their own observations, anecdotes, and intuitions. Horoscopes have a greater claim to scientific method than that!

Actually one obvious thing that Myers-Briggs has in common with horoscopes is its tendency to describe each personality type using only positive words. It is part of why horoscopes are so popular - they pretty much always tell people what they want to hear. They also use phrases that most people generally like to believe are true such as "You have enormous potential." They're also popular because they are presented as being personalized based on the person's sign. This has been called the Forer Effect, after psychologist Bertram Forer who, in 1948, gave a personality test to his students and then gave each one a supposedly personalized analysis. The impressed students gave the analyses an average accuracy rating of 85%, and only then did Forer reveal that each had received an identical, generic report. Belief that a report is customized for us tends to improve our perception of the report's accuracy

Due to these legitimate criticisms of Myers-Briggs and its unscientific underpinnings, the test is rarely used in clinical psychology. This is a clue people. When you see a topic that purports to be psychological being used in practically every professional discipline except psychology, you have very good reason to be skeptical of its actual value.

The test does have some severe inherent problems. It's been found that 50% of test takers who retake it score differently the second time. This is because nobody is strictly an 'E' or an 'I', for example, but somewhere in between. Many people are right on the border for some of the four dichotomies, and depending on their mood that day or other factors, may answer enough questions differently to push them over. Yet the results inaccurately pigeonhole them all the way over to one side or the other. This makes it possible for two people who are very similar to actually end up with completely opposite scores.

From the perspective of statistical analysis, Myers-Briggs' fundamental premise is flawed. According to Myers & Briggs, each person is either an introvert or an extravert. Within each group we would expect to see a bell curve showing the distribution of extraversion within the extraverts group, and introversion within the introverts. If the Myers-Briggs approach is valid, we should expect to see two separate bell curves along the introversion/extraversion spectrum, making it valid for Myers & Briggs to decide there are two groups into which people fit. But data have shown that people do not clump into two separately identifiable curves; they clump into a single bell curve, with extreme introverts and extreme extraverts forming the long tails of the curve, and most people gathered somewhere in the middle. Jung himself said "There is no such thing as a pure extravert or a pure introvert. Such a man would be in the lunatic asylum." This does not support the Myers-Briggs assumption that people naturally separate into two groups. Myers-Briggs takes a knife and cuts the bell curve right down the center, through the meatiest part, and right through most people's horizontal error bars. Moreover, this forced error is compounded four times, with each of the four dichotomies. This statistical fumble helps to explain why so many people score differently when retaking the test: There is no truly correct score for most people, and no perfect fit for anyone.

And this has been borne out in observation. A number of studies have found that personality types said to be most appropriate for certain professions, notably nursing or teaching, turn out to be no more prevalent among that profession than among the general population.

About all that Myers-Briggs is good for is to give people a quick snapshot of what their strengths and weaknesses might be, and of those with whom they interact. On the other hand you could get the same information just by asking them. As a tool for making career decisions, relationship decisions, or psychiatric assessment, it is pretty much useless.

The Myers Briggs Type Indicator - What Is It?

Based on Jungian psychology, the Myers-Briggs test is used all over the world, and is the single most popular psychometric system in the world. But is it a valid psychological tool or is it just another example of communication pseudoscience? This two-part blog will firstly examine exactly what this popular test is and, secondly, whether or not it actually works.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, called MBTI for short, is a direct result of the work of the Swiss analytical psychologist Carl Jung. In 1921, Jung published his book Psychological Types, in which he laid out all of the concepts found in the MBTI, but he had them organized quite differently. Jung had everyone categorized as either a "perceiver" or a" judger". Perceivers fell into one of two groups: sensation and intuition; while judgers also fell into two groups: thinking and feeling. So everyone fits into one of those four groups. Finally, each group is divided into two attitude types: introversion and extraversion. Thus, the scale proposed by Jung divided us all into one of eight basic psychological types.

An American woman, Katherine Briggs, bought Jung's book and was fascinated by it. She recommended it to her married daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, who had a degree in political science. The two of them got hooked on the idea of psychological metrics. Together they sat down and codified their own interpretation of Carl Jung, making a few important changes of their own. Jung had everyone fitting into one of four basic groups. Myers and Briggs decided that each person probably combined elements, so they modified Jung's system and made it a little more complex, ending up with four dichotomies. Any combination of these four is allowed, and Myers and Briggs reasoned that just about every personality type could be well described by one of the sixteen possible ways for those dichotomies to be set. Basically, according to Myers and Briggs, we're all represented by a four-digit binary number.

• The first dichotomy is called your Attitude, and according to the MBTI, you're either an E for Extravert or an I for Introvert. Extraverts prefer action, frequent interaction, focus outward, and are most relaxed when interacting with others. Introverts prefer thought, less frequent but more substantial interaction, and are most relaxed spending time alone.
  
  
• The second dichotomy is your Perceiving function, and you're either S for Sensing or N for Intuition. Sensing is the scientific, tangible data-driven approach to gathering information, preferring to deal in concrete, measurable information. The Intuition approach prefers theoretical, abstract, hunch-driven information, finding more meaning in apparent patterns and context.
  
  
• The third dichotomy is your Judging function, and you're either a T for Thinking or an F for Feeling. This is basically how you make decisions. Thinking makes the logical decision, what's best for the situation, based on rules and pragmatism. Feeling decides based on empathy for the people whom the decision affects, seeking balance and harmony.
  
  
• The fourth and final dichotomy is your Lifestyle, and you're either a J for Judgment or a P for Perception. This one gets a little confusing. Judgment types prefer to use the third dichotomy, Judging, when relating to the outside world, while Perception types prefer the second Perceiving dichotomy; but how that preference is determined is based on whether you're an Introvert or an Extravert. Suffice it to say, for the purpose of this light overview, that this last of the four dichotomies, Lifestyle, is the most complicated; and it's where Myers and Briggs most creatively expanded upon Jung on their own.

The basic test is called the MBTI Step I and it's a series of almost 100 questions, each with two possible answers. Each question consists of two short statements or word choices, and you simply choose which of the two you prefer. When the results are tabulated, you should ideally have your preference established for each of the four dichotomies; and congratulations, you are now identified by one of sixteen possible personality types. Myers and Briggs gave names and descriptions to all sixteen, names such as the Executive, the Caregiver, the Scientist, and the Idealist.

But does it work? And if it does work what exactly does it tell us? Tune in for Part II where I will explain what it does and doesn't do including explaining why ultimately it is about as valuable as astrology!

 

Fast Thinking: Why Learning Styles Don't Help Learning

Read my latest post from the Fast Thinking Think Tank:

If you are in education or corporate training circles then almost certainly someone will have mentioned to you the idea of learning styles and the need to build teaching systems around the preferred learning style of the student. It sounds so logical doesn’t it? Each of us learns in different ways and therefore it is only sensible that we should be taught in a way that matches our preferred learning style.

It sounds logical but it isn’t...

...The fact is learning styles are subject dependent, they are teacher dependent, they are temperature dependent, emotion dependent… in fact they are dependent on so many things that they just cannot be measured. It’s a good idea to recognize that we all learn in different ways for different subjects and try to vary our teaching to reflect that but the idea that we have one preferred learning style which must be matched to maximize our learning is a very bad one indeed.

Read the full post here