News

The premise of workplace transformation: give up “I’m right or wrong with you”

  I would never devote myself to my beliefs because I could be wrong. ——[English] Russell It is natural to
  prove , and it is rational to falsify
  . The Copa Copper Mine in Michigan was once one of the largest copper mines in the United States, but later faced a sharp loss, so the board of directors and management of the company jointly held a meeting, The aim is to have a vote on the future fate of the copper mine. Two types of opinions emerged at the meeting: executives favored shutting down copper mines, while direct operators of the mines disagreed.
  Everyone emphasized their own arguments from their own perspectives, and at the same time put forward a lot of arguments around their own arguments to refute the other’s point of view. As a result, discussions have stalled and have never come to a mutually agreeable conclusion. This stalemate is precisely because everyone falls into a trap caused by a psychological mechanism, which is “self-validation” in social psychology. Self-validation theory refers to the idea that once people have an idea, they will try to prove the correctness of the idea.
  Self-validation theory leads to a “confirmation bias” that makes people focus their inferences and judgments on confirming what they already have, rather than on falsifying it. Under the influence of this psychological mechanism, people tend to pay too much attention to one side of things and ignore the other side.
  Also involved in the discussions was a consultant from the copper mine’s management consultancy, who, after seeing the discussions stalled, came up with a solution.
  He said: “Since there are two mainstream opinions now, then we will be divided into two groups, the group that supports the closure of copper mines and the group that does not support the closure of copper mines. Everyone can discuss in their own groups, but the topics discussed are It needs to be exchanged. After discussion, exchange views before moving on to the next step.”
  This suggestion is actually forcing each person to confirm the other’s point of view, or to falsify his own point of view. This method is very effective. By the end of the meeting, everyone not only understands each other’s positions and viewpoints better, but also comes up with some new solutions. One option is to shut down the now defunct smelters and ship the ore to Canada, where it will be refined using newer smelters.
  By exchanging views, everyone gets rid of the narrow thinking of “strengthening one’s own views and weakening others’ views” caused by self-validation. When you think a certain idea of ​​solving a problem is wrong, if you don’t simply say “no” to the idea, but you change your mind and think on the opposite side of the existing point of view, the way you think will change. A fundamental change occurs that frees you from the tendency to validate and escape the trap of self-validating theories.
  With just such a small shift in thinking, you can give yourself a chance to learn something new through exploration, and you can greatly improve your chances of finding a more appropriate and accurate solution.
  Just like the mantra that American investor Charlie Munger often said: “Think the other way, always think the other way.” The
  more flawless, the more
  vigilant it is The kind that seems to be the obvious, unassailable option.
  Alfred Sloan Jr., the eighth president of General Motors, had a habit at work. Every time he discussed a solution to a problem with the board of directors, if everyone finally made a decision, then Sloan would be before the end of the discussion. Ask a question: “Gentlemen, I think we’ve agreed on this decision, don’t we?” If everyone nods yes, Sloan goes on to say, “Well, since everyone’s on the same page, If there is no objection, then I propose that we discuss this issue at the next meeting, maybe after a week of precipitation, we can have more understanding and thinking about the current decision.”
  After a period of teamwork, it is easy for everyone to become too converging in their way of thinking, which can lead to some different voices being blocked and ignored. It’s as if some “cognitive bubbles” have been created in our minds, and some inherent ideas are “locked” in these “cognitive bubbles”.
  If we can settle for a period of time, or deliberately keep a distance from this problem, we can use the needle of time to burst these “cognitive bubbles”, have the opportunity to break those inherent concepts and views, and open up more possibilities.
  Of course, we can also add members with more different ability modules to the team, so that the team can generate cognitive diversity dividends. For example, in my work, I found that the best ratio of “old people” and “new people” in the team is 3:1 to 5:1, so that they can not only cooperate effectively and efficiently, but also gain a variety of perspectives, so that the team can The overall performance is better.
  Define the problem correctly and let the truth emerge.
  Not only should you be wary of your own tendency to confirm, but also when communicating with others, be aware that the other party may also have a tendency to confirm. Don’t be limited by the questions raised by the other party, but think about it. Ways to get out of the vicious circle of confirmation tendencies.
  Suppose you are a doctor, and one of your patients is almost seventy years old, and he has been describing to you that he has a feeling of dizziness, and you also know that there are many kinds of diseases that cause this symptom, so you list A project checklist was issued, and the patient was asked to conduct a comprehensive examination, but the results of the examinations were normal.
  So, you gave him some vertigo drugs and vasodilators, but nothing worked. This disease seems like a mystery. At this time, you ask for help from a specialist who, through a conversation with the patient, raised some questions and successfully found the cause of the patient.
  In fact, this is a real case. The expert who successfully solved the problem is Gbagbo of the Clinical Diagnostics Department of Stanford University School of Medicine. The patient in the case was named Joseph, and Gbagbo asked him a question during their first meeting with Joseph: “Can you tell me what exactly you mean by vertigo? How long does this condition last? appear once?”
  Joseph replied: “I’ve been in a dizzy state since my wife died, I don’t know what to do, I’m confused. I turn on the TV, but I can’t find any interest; I walk out of the house and find I don’t A place to go.”
  Through this conversation, Gbagbo found that Cerf was only using the word “vertigo” to express his loneliness, loneliness and sadness, and he had not been able to start a new life after losing his wife. . The doctors whom Joseph had turned to before had never thought that the so-called disease might just be an emotional discomfort rather than a physical one.
  The right thing to do for a doctor is to ask the patient open-ended questions: “Where are you hurting? How are you feeling?” and then ask the more targeted question: “Is it sore, tingling, or tingling?” In this way, doctors can improve the efficiency of communication with patients and make more accurate diagnoses.
  In the workplace, we can also use this method of inquiry-based questioning to correctly define the problem.
  For example, when you want to let team members be creative and come up with as many ideas as possible, you can’t block everyone’s thinking with restrictive closed questions at the beginning, such as “How can we get users to use our new service more?” Instead, ask probing questions, such as “Why are users using our new service?” You can then ask targeted questions in each potential direction, such as “How can we help users reduce steps This will not only stimulate everyone’s thinking and find more effective solutions, but also allow us to communicate better with an open attitude and find a path for common growth.
  Everyone should be aware of the existence of self-validation tendencies, which can make us more humble and cautious.
  When faced with every decision-making problem, we should realize that we may be wrong. Only by looking at the problem from a global perspective and from various perspectives, under the premise of fully considering various possibilities, in the “possible” Make a decision with the consciousness of making mistakes”, and courage at this time is meaningful.

error: Content is protected !!