If you need something ask for it. For that very thing.

The author and academic Dan Ariely (of 'Predictably Irrational' fame) posts an occasional Q&A or 'advice' type column on his blog. Last week's column titled 'Ask Ariely: On Begging, Bad Waiters, and the Facebook Blues' included a reader question about a situation most of us have probably encountered, but with a slightly different twist that made it interesting.

Here is the original reader question:

I was recently approached by a panhandler who asked me for 75 cents, and I gave him the money. I was late for my train, so I didn’t have time to stop and try to understand why he chose 75 cents. But I wonder: Do you think the 75-cent request could be a “market tested” amount, one that yields a higher overall level of “donations” than asking outright for a buck or more?

Ariely's reply was more or less in agreement with the reader - that perhaps the panhandler had 'found' a donation amount that would yield the most success, but then Ariely also added this observation that I found really apt and probably instructive:

"asking for general help is unlikely to be as effective as asking for exactly what we need"

The notion being that the ask for 75 cents rather than the more general 'Hey pal, can you help me out with a little donation?', connects more directly, can be evaluated more rapidly, and when you think about it, is probably more effective over the long term.

Why the direct ask for 75 cents would be more effective seems to me to narrow down quickly to the fact that it asks less of the giver, not in terms of actual money, but in terms of time spent in the process and the mental and emotional cycles required to reach a conclusion. It is a really simple request - 'Can you give me 75 cents?' vs. a much more complex and nuanced question of 'Can you help me out?'

This difference in directness and its impact on effectiveness those of us with children probably understand - it generally seems much easier to narrow a kid's options, spell them out as plainly as possible, and be very, very, clear about expectations and consequences. But as we head to work and deal with 'adults' - they could be peers, partners, staff members, bosses, etc. - we sometimes have to lose clarity and expand focus out of respect, deference, or just wanting to treat people like grown-ups.

I had a friend who managed about 20 or so hourly production workers in a sort of light industrial setting. The work was connected through a kind of loose workflow, meaning if one worker was late arriving by a few minutes it would not stop production, but could become a minor irritant or impediment to productivity if the lateness persisted.

Naturally, there were always issues with staff arriving late - weather, personal things, car trouble - you name it.  But whenever the lateness issue needed to be addressed, my friend the manager often started with a kind of friendly 'Hey, we really need you to make the effort to get in a little earlier' and explained the impact on the rest of the team (workflow, morale, etc.). It was only when an individual's lateness persisted that he had to call in HR, have a sit down meeting with the employee and spell out the expectations and consequences in detail - 'We need you here and ready to work at 8:00AM or you will be fired'.

Usually, not always, the person kind of straightened up after that, and the lateness issues went away. You could argue it was the threat of getting canned that did the trick and not the explict 'ask' that drove the behavior change, I suppose.

But after hearing my friend relate the more or less same story a few times over the years I wonder if he had cut right to 'You need to be here at 8:00AM' rather than making a more vague - 'We need you here earlier' would have been more effective.

Note: If you liked the post, please send me 75 cents.

You can still see, right?

In a few short weeks my New York State issued driver's license will expire, and to continue to remain in the good graces of our fine state's laws and regulations I will need to renew said license, a fairly simple exercise in filling out some forms, paying some kind of fee, (it's a FEE not a tax), and interestingly to me, submit to an pass the State's vision test, (picture of the state's 'Eye Test Report' accompanies this post).Read the fourth line starting on the left, please?

It makes sense I think, that for the renewal of my driving privileges that the State desires not only to receive my additional $64.50 and a new and current picture of my handsome mug, they also want me to prove, (or have a registered Health Care Provider attest), that I can actually handle the first and most basic element required to safely operate a motor vehicle - I can actually see. 

And I applaud the State of New York for making sure to verify my ability to see before sanctioning me for another four years out on the roadways as an authorized operator of (most) any car, truck, van, I can get my hands on. 

But putting aside the practical and budgetary realities aside for a moment, (believe me in New York we do not need to pay any more taxes), the license renewal process and the associated Eye Test reveals the obvious flaw in the process - in order to be a safe and responsible driver, it doesn't really matter if I can see, what matters is whether or not I know how and can demonstrate that I can drive.  And while I know in New York, or in any other place for that matter, road re-testing of long time drivers is not feasible (and probably doesn't make sense), this necessarily flawed process reminds us that most of the time when making decisions surrounding the capability and suitability of someone to successfully perform any task, we almost always make our judgement with imperfect and incomplete information.

And in the 'checking of the boxes' process of traits and experiences we often fail to remember the essential function or task that we really need to have accomplished.

New York State will re-authorize me for $64.50 and proof I can see. Whether or not I know how to drive, well that is another story.

And by the way, I am an excellent driver - it's all of you people that are a menace out on the roads.

Have a great week!

Self-assessments: You can't be honest even if you want to be

Exhibit A for your consideration from Business Insider:

"The Romney Campaign Is Hammering Obama For Giving Himself An 'Incomplete' Grade On The Economy"

The Romney campaign is slamming President Obama for saying in a local television interview in Colorado that he would give himself an "incomplete" grade on fixing the economy, blasting the president for not even awarding himself a passing grade.Obama characterized his record on handling the economy as "incomplete" when KKTV News reporter Dianne Derby asked him what grade he would give himself. Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan was quick to respond to Obama's remarks this morning on CBS. “Four years into a presidency and it’s incomplete?" he said on CBS' "This Morning" with Charlie Rose. "The President is asking people just to be patient with him? 

Forget the politics on this example, that really isn't the point. The point is no matter what answer/grade the President gave himself, his opponents and detractors would have ammunition and opportunity to go on the attack.

Answer the question too positively or optimistically - 'The economy is doing great, we are on track to have everyone in America back to work, a chicken in every pot, a shiny new car in every garage, etc.', and he gets destroyed as being colossally out of touch and remote from the reality many are facing across the country.

Go too negative and self-critical - 'Well, unemployment is still over 8% and has been that way for years, the price of gas is climbing, the national debt is out of control, etc.' - and the other side will jump all over that, painting him as not just a failure, (they are doing that already), but as one who admits his failings and is likely in over his head.

Now you can agree or disagree with his policies, but either way Obama is a sharp guy, (again keeping politics out of this), so he tries to answer the question, do the self-assessment, with a bit of a hedge - he rates his performance as 'Incomplete' and tries to do the sensible thing, highlight some of his accomplishments, (he wants to get re-elected after all), but also pointing out there are some areas that still need improvement and focus, (thus trying not to come off sounding like naive and disconnected with reality). But in trying to play both sides against the center, in a way, the 'Incomplete' sort of comes off as kind of hollow, flat, and unsatisfying. And of course his opponents jump on that as well.

The truth is, the question is mostly unfair, since every possible answer is 'wrong', (sort of like the 'When did you stop kicking your dog?' question). And this recent, and widely reported example of a self-assessment points out the problems inherent in any kind of self evaluation, which are used in the workplace by lots and lots of organizations as the jumping off point for an annual performance management process.

In fact, I'll bet the hatred that many folks profess for the typical performance management process stems from the fact that it usually starts with the self-evaluation, a process step and exercise that is almost impossible to get 'right' and difficult even for the most self-aware to complete in a manner that actually adds real value to actual performance.

As Obama's recent 'Incomplete' reminds us, and in the word of the ever-prescient Admiral Ackbar, (yes, I am making an Admiral Ackbar reference), 'It's a trap!

Can you ever win the self-assessment? 

Can you really be honest evaluating your own performance and effectiveness and not come off sounding like a pompous jerk?

If you've figured out the secret, maybe the re-election campaign could use your help.

What should we pay your co-worker? No more questions for you 'Bro

It can be really difficult to rate your own performance at work as anyone that has stared frustratingly at their annual 'self-assessment' might agree. Trying to navigate that tricky tightrope between honestly, desire to reasonably match your self-ratings with the likely views of the boss, while making sure that a nice blend of ambition, honestly, and subtlety ends up painting a portrait of you in your best possible, (and defensible), light can be one of the most difficult exercises an employee has to deal with all year.

It's hard enough to be fair, objective, and completely honest about one's own perfrormance, and I think it at times is doubly hard to ask and to expect that same kind of fairness and objectivity when we are asked to participate in the evaluation of peers and colleagues at work as well. Whether it is in the context of a formal 360 degree evaluation, a less formal after-action or project review, or even in casual conversations with the boss about other team members, (the likely most awkward scenario of all), it is not all easy to be fair, accurate, and really honest sometimes. Judging, rating, evaluating other people's performance is an inexact science at best, and when self-interest factors in, ('If I say Steve did a great job, then does that make me look worse?', or, 'If I say Steve is a slacker, does that make me look like a petty schemer?', often resulting in 'I'll just say Steve did a good job in the most vague terms possible so that I can't be responsible for anything that happens.').

Beyond the difficulty of rating peer performance, when the questions directly or indirectly go to 'How much should your colleague, Joe or Mary be paid', well then the fun really begins. Check out this video clip below, (email and RSS subscribers will need to click through), where Oklahoma City Thunder star Russell Westbrook is asked by a reporter if Westbrooks' teammate James Harden should receive what is known as a 'max contract', i.e., a contract for the maximum salary that league rules allow.

The question, and Westbrook's answer is essentially a little 360 degree assessment played out on camera. Westbrook is asked to 'rate' Harden as a player in the context that matter most in the NBA, the value of the contract that Harden should have. After a long pause, Westbrook answers in the only way he can, (and likely feels comfortable with), by giving a positive but vague review and endorsement of Harden as a player and team mate, (which is obvious to anyone that knows Harden and is familiar with the team), and completely avoids responding to the contract or compensation area. Finally, Westbrook issues a classic 'No more questions for you 'Bro', an indication that he in no way wants any part of participating in a discussion about another teammates contract status.

Westbrook shows on camera what many of us and our co-workers are thinking when faced with the same types of questions in the workplace, when 360 time comes around I think. Uncomfortable, generic answers, wanting nothing to do with the hard questions, (like compensation). Don't get me wrong, I think peer reviews and 360s can be really important and valuable, but I also think that you have to remember the at times tough spot you put the team in when asking them to do something, (rate each other), that often, they want no part of doing.

No more questions for you 'Bro.

Putting Performance in Context - Not Every Three-Yard Pass Means the Same

For fans of American football, with the start of the new season just two weeks away, a rush of frenzied activity is underway by millions to rate, select, and position their 'fantasy' teams for the upcoming year.

American football, and the evaluation of its players, has traditionally been much less focused on statistical measurements and quantitative analysis of performance than say other sports like baseball and basketball. There are many reasons for this historical de-emphasis on statistics. For one, there are many, many roles on a football team that don't register simple, easy to grasp numbers like touchdowns scored or yards gained. Second, the nature of the game itself, eleven players to a side, highly structured and orchestrated roles and actions on most every play, make considering 'team' success more straightforward and easily understood than individual performance. And lastly, for many of the most important positions like Quarterback, past attempts to develop statistical-based measures or performance have been considered lacking, as many experienced football analysts claim that simply doing calculations on yards gained, passing completions, and even passing touchdowns registered can only offer partial insight into what defines and demonstrates superior performance for that critical position.

The primary metric that has been commonly used to assess and compare quarterbacks has been the Quarterback rating, a measure that takes into account the raw data surrounding the player's actions (passing yards, touchdowns, pass completion rates, etc.), applies some weighting factors to to the data, and produces a combined score or rating for the player, usually falling between about 85 and 100. But the main problem with the Quarterback rating (apart from no one really understanding how it is calculated), is that it is a statistical measurement only, i.e. it applies no situational context to performance. A three-yard pass completion in the early stages of the game gets weighted exactly the same as a three-yard pass completion at the end of the game, perhaps by converting the play, the quarterback's team was able to secure possession of the ball at a critical stage, and cement an important victory.

Some clever statisticians at ESPN are attempting to improves on the statistical evaluation of quarterbacks by introducing a new metric they all 'Total Quarterback Rating', or QBR. QBR will factor in many of the contextual indicators that play an important role in assessing player performance. Game situation, personnel on the field, formations used and more will all play a role in the metric. This will, hopefully, shine a more complete light on the evaluation of NFL quarterbacks. But it is much, much harder to create and calculate than simple math applied to the game box score.The Sanchize.

In football, and I suppose even in most organizations, the context in which performance is captured is often far more important, and more difficult to account for, than simply tracking the 'raw scores' or activities themselves. Was the quarterback under extreme duress when he passed for the touchdown? Was your sales manager under extreme duress when she successfully navigated through a complex contract negotiation to win that important account? Are you adequately considering the relative experience levels of your key player's support teams in your evaluations? How about the differences in competitive context across markets, lines of business, or geographies?

The first, and necessary step is chronicling performance - i.e. What happened?

The harder part, and even more important part, is understanding the conditions present when it happened, and what that means for the future.

Aside - J-E-T-S - JETS, JETS, JETS!!!!!