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.

The Future Performance Enhanced Workplace

We all know, and if you are like me, have probably grown sick of, the Lance Armstrong saga.

The long story is really long, (and about as boring as a 200 mile bicycle race), but the tale more or less breaks down like this:

1. Armstrong begins his cycling career and has some initial success

2. Armstrong is diagnosed with and successfully battles testicular cancer 

3. Armstrong wins more cycling championships - including 7 consecutive Tour de France titles

4. Lots of folks think he must have been 'cheating', i.e. using performance enhancing drugs or other banned non-natural methods to have such sustained dominance and excellence

5. Armstrong denies all accusations and charges - primarily relying on the fact that he never failed any actual drug tests

6. Eventually, and in the face of what they claim to be overwhelming evidence of Armstrong's guilt, the cycling authorities strip Armstrong of his cycling victories due to this (still alleged) cheating

Your reaction to the Armstrong story, and similar stories about the use of (usually) banned Performance Enhancing Drugs by athletes in other sports like baseball, football, and track might be to simply shrug it off as a 'sports' story, and not particularly relevant to the real world, and certainly to the real workplace.

Or you might be some kind of 'purist' and feel a measure of outrage, indignation, or disappointment in how Armstong, (allegedly), and other 'cheating' competitors have sullied the games they play, and made it difficult if not impossible for honest, 'clean' athletes to have a chance to compete on a level ground.

Or perhaps you may be a realist or cynic and conclude that Armstrong was a cheater, but so were all the other top racers, and that in order to compete at the highest levels of the sport that is what was required. If you feel that way, then you probably still respect Armstong's accomplishments - cheater or not, he did win all those races.

But what if the ethical and medical issues surrounding the use of Performance Enhancing Drugs move from the world of sports, and into more mundane and routine forms of endeavor, and more workplaces, maybe even one that looks like yours?

Check out a recent piece from the BBC titled 'Concern over 'souped-up' human race', which describes how Performance Enhancing Drugs might potentially play a more significant role in the workplace of the future.  From the BBC article:

Four professional bodies - the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society - say that while human enhancement technologies might improve our performance and aid society, their use raise serious ethical, philosophical, regulatory and economic issues.

In a joint report, they warn that there is an "immediate need" for debate around the potential harms.

Chairwoman of the report's steering committee Prof Genevra Richardson said: "There are a range of technologies in development and in some cases already in use that have the potential to transform our workplaces - for better or for worse."

There may be an argument for lorry drivers, surgeons and airline pilots to use enhancing drugs to avoid tiredness, for example.

But, in the future, is there a danger that employers and insurers will make this use mandatory, the committee asks.

An interesting take and one that poses new and more important ethical and moral questions in the workplace than whether or not Roger Clemens should be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Could you see a future workplace where your front line staff is enticed or even required to take or leverage some kind of supplement to be more alert or mentally sharp?

As the workforce gets older, could you envision the use of workplace Performance Enhancing Drugs become more prevalent?

And in this potential future Performance Enhanced workplace what about individuals that want to work 'clean?'

Or is this all just crazy talk?

Stop Making Decisions

Stop making decisions. Or rather, stop making so many decisions.

Here's the thing - you're smart, you have an important job, maybe you have a family, kids, a bunch of people in your personal and professional life that rely on you to be the leader and to take charge. You have to make a ridiculous number of decisions each day - for yourself, for your teams, your kids, maybe even your friends.Kandinsky - Ville Arabe

And it's exhausting.

So I'd like to offer a couple of simple recommendations to reduce the amount and volume of decisions you have to deal with in any given day, taken not from me, but from a couple of folks you might be familiar with - President Obama, and the President of the Internet, Mark Zuckerberg.

Here they are, more or less:

1. From Barack - Eat and wear the same thing every day (or at least get someone to make all your meals and place them in front of you at meal time).

From the Vanity Fair piece linked to above:

(Obama) I don’t want to make decisions about what I’m eating or wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make.” He mentioned research that shows the simple act of making decisions degrades one’s ability to make further decisions

2. From Zuck - Wear the same thing every day (or at least get someone to lay out your clothes for you each day).

From the Business Insider piece:

I mean, I wear the same thing every day, right? I mean, it's literally, if you could see my closet," Zuckerberg starts to explain, as Lauer asks if he owns 12 of the same gray t-shirt. "Maybe about 20,"

Remove from your daily decision making the mundane, wearying, and non-productive process of deciding what to eat and what to wear and you will free up time, energy, and mental capacity to focus on things that really matter.

Now, you might not be in a position to order around your minions to organize for you your food and clothing choices each day, but chances are you are spending time contemplating, deliberating, and ruminating on things that at the end of the day that at best don't really matter that much, and at worst, are materially detracting from your ability to do amazing things.

You don't need to be consulted about everything.

You don't need to weigh 38 options before you decide where to have dinner tonight.

You can let go of at least one thing that doesn't really matter to spend 10 more minutes on something that does.

It is ok not to be in charge all the time.

Have a Great Weekend!

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.

People, Process, and Productivity Killers

Last week an interesting piece called '5 Ways Process is Killing Your Productivity', ran on Fast Company, a look and take on how overly rigid productivity systems, (like Six Sigma or TQM), can potentially have a detrimental effect on organization productivity and potential for innovation. As someone that has always balked or at least held a cynical point of view when productivity systems based in traditional manufacturing models were attempted in non-manufacturing environments, I thought the piece raised some excellent arguments, particularly when we think about the application of soft or people processes inside organizations, whether for performance management, development, or even for methods of collaboration.

I won't re-cast the author's entire point of view here, I'd recommend reading the full piece on Fast Company, but I do want to pull out the five productivity reducing ways that over-reliance on process methodology can have on performance and productivity, and ask you to think about them in the context of your organization and your initiatives, challenges, and opportunities as a talent or human resources professional.

1. Empowering with permission, but not action

HR example: Tell employees 'they own their career development', but offer no support at all, (time off, funding, guidance, suggestions), as to how they might pursue development opportunities

2. Focus on process instead of people

HR example: Did all the mid-year performance reviews get done? 100% in? Success!

3. Overdependence on meetings

HR example: Actually this is not limited to HR, most organizations still rely on the formal meeting, with way more than necessary attendees, to move along projects and initiatives. Just look at it this way, how do you typical react when a meeting suddenly gets cancelled? If you are like most, you revel in the 'found' hour or two back in your day. Meeting cancellation is like a mini-Christmas.

4. Lack of (clear) vision

HR example: Sort of a larger point to try and cover here, but certainly you can relate to being buried in the process or function of people management, legally required and self-imposed, that we simply miss or fail to articulate, (and then act upon), a bigger vision for how we can enable people to succeed and execute business strategy. This is the 'in the weeds' feeling you might be experiencing since it is Monday. But does it really ever go away?

5. Management acts as judge, not jury

HR example: Obviously, earned or just unfairly ascribed, the position of HR as police or judge has a long and not easily remedied place in many organizations. HR can't and shouldn't always be an advocate for the individual employee at the expense of the needs of the organization, but when the function is viewed as simply punitive, or even just indifferent, the chances for HR to effect meaningful and positive impact on people is certainly diminished.

I think one of the essential conflicts that arise in interpersonal relationships is the conflict between people that prefer or need strict rules and order, and the more free-spirited folk that see rules and strictures at best as more like broad guidelines, and at worst as mandates set by people that lack their own creativity and vision and can be safely ignored.  Or said differently, between people that have to clean all the dinner dishes before bed and those that are happy to let them sit in the sink overnight. Both are 'right' of course, which leads to many of these kinds of 'process vs. freedom' kinds of arguments. 

What do you think?

Have processes or set-in-stone rules you may have imposed in your organization helped?

Have they allowed people the room they need for creativity and innovation?

Do they keep you in the role of HR police far too much?

Happy Monday!