A curious thing happened recently while I was driving on
an unfamiliar urban tollway.
As I approached a toll plaza, I noticed that three of the
six lanes displayed an electronic sign with green lights and the word CASH above
the booths. For some reason, though, the
cars ahead of me began heading for the two open lanes at the far right, leaving
the third open lane at the far left free and clear for me. As I sailed through,
I couldn’t help wondering: Why are those drivers deliberately queuing up in the
right-hand lanes when the left lane is wide open?
But after I drove through a few more toll plazas, a
pattern started to emerge. At each of the other plazas, the far left lane had a
green-light indicator but also a sign reading “PREPAID PASSES ONLY,” which
apparently meant that the booth attendant didn’t handle cash or make change.
Finally, I figured out that the first plaza’s acceptance
of cash in the left lane must have been an anomaly. Most of the time that lane
probably also fit the “PREPAID PASSES ONLY” pattern of the left lanes in the
other plazas, but for some reason it was operating as a CASH lane when I drove
through. Apparently, though, the other
drivers were so accustomed to using the right lanes for cash transactions that they
failed to notice the break in the pattern on this particular occasion. But
since driving on this freeway was a novel situation for me, I had to pay
attention to the signs to guide my behavior rather than lapsing into habitual
behavior – a situation that worked to my benefit.
I think the other drivers’ behavior was a good example of
something that the Harvard psychology professor Ellen Langer calls mindlessness – the human
tendency to operate on autopilot, whether by stereotyping, performing
mechanically, or simply not paying attention.
Certainly we can’t treat every waking moment as a new experience requiring a
new cognitive formulation, or else we would be in a constant state of
reinventing the wheel (see my article on why trying to achieve “direct experience” of our world may not be the ideal). Yet, as Langer’s research
shows, humans tend to go too far in the other direction, making superficial
(and usually unconscious) assessments of situations based on surface data that
recalls a prior similar experience (see my article on the “looked but did not see” syndrome). Rather than being alert to the differences (or what Langer
calls the “novelty”) in the current situation, we often quickly latch onto similarities
with past experiences and reuse our responses over and over again – even though
a new or different response might be more appropriate.
One area in which mindlessness seems to abound, says
Langer, is education. She notes that people new to a topic often aspire to
learn “the basics” in such a way that they become internalized and engrained –
and thus not subject to further reflection. “Once we learn the basics mindlessly
so that we no longer have to think about them,” she writes, “we are not in a
position to vary them readily as we get more information about the task.” I
would add that, if we don’t understand the underpinnings and rationale of the
basics, we will not be able to consciously apply (and adapt) them to new
situations, explain them to others, support arguments based on them – or be
open to changing our minds when presented with controverting evidence.
The resistance to examining their basic knowledge is
another example of the challenge many leaders have with comfortably dealing
with contradictions – that is, evidence or experience that runs against what
they “know” to be true. Rather than look for the novelty in a situation – “What
is it about this situation that makes it different from earlier, similar
situations?” – they may apply a one-size-fits-all approach that might be wholly
inapt. “Fred didn’t run a good meeting today, thus Fred can’t run good meetings”
may become gospel received knowledge to Fred’s manager who sees Fred struggle
with a large formal meeting involving several senior leaders. Fred’s manager
may then dismiss further thoughts of Fred’s leading any future meeting
regardless of its size and scope. Even if Fred later shows a knack for pulling
together impromptu meetings of his peers that result in quick, effective
action, Fred’s manager may still act on her “knowledge” that Fred can’t lead
meetings, thus limiting Fred’s development and depriving her department of a
valuable skillset.
As I’ve observed many times, one of the hallmarks of
the YES! Leader is the ability to resolve (seeming) contradictions – that is,
to look past surface incongruities and see the opportunities for harmonizing
and integrating apparently irreconcilable differences. Being mindful – seeing the
novelty in the current situation – can help the YES! Leader reduce the sense of
incongruity between what she “knows” and what the situation actually calls for.
No comments:
Post a Comment