The 80/20 Rule and Strengths-Based Development

This past week, as I was reading Howard Gardner’s book Changing Minds, I came upon a description of a commonly held attitude about the way in which people should expend their efforts:

"From early childhood on, most of us have operated under the following assumption: When confronted with a task, we should work as hard as we are able and devote approximately equal time to each part of that task. According to this '50/50 principle,' if we have to learn a piece of music, or master a new game, or fill out some role at home or work, we should spread our effort equally across the various components." [Italics added]

I think this description relates directly to the commonly held belief in business that a person should focus his development efforts on identifying and improving his weaknesses. That is, he should try to raise his skill levels in his weakness areas to reach parity with his areas of proficiency. In doing so (as the belief holds), he should aspire to become well-rounded in his particular job or position.

However, as Gardner notes, this development strategy may be wrongheaded:

"Now consider another perspective on this issue. Early in the last century, the Italian economist and sociologist Vilifredo Pareto proposed what has come to be known as the '80/20 principle' or rule. As explained by Richard Koch in a charming book, The 80/20 Principle, one can in general accomplish most of what one wants – perhaps up to 80 percent of the target – with only a modest amount of effort – perhaps only 20 percent of expected effort…. It is important to be judicious about where one places one’s efforts, and to be alert to ‘tipping points’ that abruptly bring a goal within (or beyond) reach. Conversely, one should avoid the natural temptation to inject equal amounts of energy into every part of a task, problem, project, or hobby." [Italics added]

In this view, the application of equal effort to all parts of your “toolkit” constitutes a misguided approach to a personal development strategy. (To paraphrase the Heath brothers in Made to Stick, if you’re focusing on ten skills, you’re not really focusing on any skills.)

As I read this, it suddenly struck me: The strengths-based development approach is a perfect example of the 80/20 Principle! Placing your development focus on optimizing your key strengths provides you the leverage you need to succeed, while at the same time ensuring that you don’t spread yourself too thin in your development efforts.

And, yes, you could choose to focus your “20%” on your major weaknesses – but the payoff for the effort would probably be only (as Peter Drucker said) the attainment of mediocrity in those areas.

Why not instead be more "judicious" - and strategic - in your 20% focus by placing it on your strengths?

Ducky's Dilemma Resolved! The Role of Passion, Toil, and Training

I left off last time by asking the question: How can Ducky reconcile the two seemingly contradictory pieces of advice given by Marcus Buckingham ("Focus on your strengths!") and Carol Dweck ("Adopt a growth mindset!")?

Well, Ducky can reflect a bit more on the Dweck quote I cited last time: "It’s impossible to foresee what can be accomplished with years of passion, toil, and training."

I think the key word here is “passion,” a word that Dweck repeatedly uses in citing examples of people who prevailed after years of hard work and practice. I think that Dweck recognizes that toil and training only make sense if you employ them to get better at something you really want to do. In this, Dweck echoes Buckingham in his description of one of the hallmarks of a strength: Something for which you have an Instinct. As Buckingham says:

"Your strengths have an I-can’t-help-but quality to them. You can’t articulate why, but you find yourself drawn to certain activities repeatedly. Even though you may be just a little scared to do them, just a little nervous – 'Maybe I’m not good enough, maybe I’ll fail' – you nonetheless feel a pull toward them."

A passion … a calling … something you must do … as Buckingham notes, these all precede the desire to start pursuing one’s chosen path. And I think that Dweck’s concept of the growth mindset can provide reassurance for the Daily Improviser as he starts on this “must do” path. Even with a burning passion behind him, the Daily Improviser’s path won’t always be easy. Especially in the early going, he’ll likely be confronted with doubts (of both his own and others’ making) and challenges that may well make him feel like giving up. 

By keeping the growth mindset in mind, the Daily Improviser can avoid feelings of futility and realize that "passion, toil, and training" are enough to get him to his goal.

No Contradictions - Just Paradoxes!

We left off last time with my former class participant Ducky standing at a fork in the road, with two pieces of seemingly contradictory expert advice staring him in the face – that of Marcus Buckingham (“Just focus on your strengths!”) and Carol Dweck (“Adopt a growth mindset!”).

I suggested that Ducky instead adopt a third piece of advice, from that Daily Improvising expert Yogi Berra: “When you come to a fork in the road, take it!”

In saying that, Yogi was touching on what I believe to be an essential point about the improvisational attitudes: Rather than look upon apparent disagreements as contradictions that require an either-or choice, instead regard them as paradoxes that can be integrated with further reflection and creative thinking.

This attitude lies at the heart of all improv, I believe. It’s what allows a performance improviser to take an audience suggestion such as “You’re a Sumo wrestler performing Swan Lake” and create a scene that seamlessly weaves the incongruities together. It’s what allows him to take an off-the-wall offer from his partner, say a vigorous “Yes,” and deftly integrate it into his next action, as if it were the most natural thing in the world.

And, as I’ve mentioned before, it’s also the attitude that underlies the application of the And Stance by the Daily Improviser.  Rather than approach all issues with an either-or, I'm-right-and-you're wrong attitude, the Daily Improviser can adopt the "mindset" (all too rare these days, unfortunately) of "I'm right and you're right," that is, "We both have a piece of the truth in our possession."  The real question then becomes, not "Who's right?", but "How do we move forward productively?"

No contradictions, just paradoxes! With this in mind, next time we'll look at how Ducky might derive guidance from both Marcus Buckingham and Carol Dweck.

Ducky's Dilemma: Strengths vs. Mindsets

Today I’d like to revisit the story of Ducky, the class participant I described about a year ago. Ducky was a project manager who wanted to become more spontaneous in his interactions with others, which prompted my suggestion that he enroll in an adult improv class.

Lately I’ve been wondering: What if Ducky had begun an improv class and initially found enjoyment in it – but then ran headlong into an improv exercise that left him lost for words, tongue-tied, uncomfortable?

What advice should he be given?

A Strengths-based-development guru such as Marcus Buckingham might ask him whether the experience was making him feel strong or weak. For, as Buckingham says in his book Go Put Your Strengths to Work:

“Your strengths are those activities that make you feel strong…. ‘An activity that makes you feel weak’ is the best definition of a weakness.’”

So if Ducky were made to feel weak by the activity, Buckingham would probably say: “Drop the improv! Instead, focus on developing and leveraging those activities that make you feel strong.”

But if you were Carol Dweck, you’d probably give Ducky some very different advice.

In her book Mindset, Dweck draws a distinction between the growth mindset and the fixed mindset. The growth mindset, says Dweck, is based on the belief that one’s basic qualities can be cultivated through effort, and that anyone can change and grow through application and experience. As Dweck notes:

“[People with a growth mindset] believe that a person’s true potential is unknown (and unknowable); that it’s impossible to foresee what can be accomplished with years of passion, toil, and training.”

People with a growth mindset welcome challenges as learning experiences, as a way to find out their true capabilities. “The passion for stretching yourself and sticking to it, even (or especially) when it’s not going well,” says Dweck, “is the hallmark of the growth mindset.”

By contrast, says Dweck, people with a fixed mindset believe that one’s intelligence, skills, and other traits are predetermined and cannot change greatly over time. To people with a fixed mindset, says Dweck:

“Either you have ability or you expend effort…. [Fixed mindset people believe that] effort is for those who don’t have the ability. People with the fixed mindset tell us, ‘If you have to work at something, you must not be very good at it.’”

Fixed mindset people thus become easily discouraged and frustrated when a task starts to require significant effort. The need to expend the extra energy immediately confirms (to their minds) their innate inability and the likelihood of being proven a failure if they continue striving.

Given all this, Dweck would probably advise Ducky: "Don’t stop doing improv just because it’s becoming more difficult! Instead, adopt a growth mindset and keep plugging away. It’s the only way to discover your true improv ability."

So we find Ducky the Daily Improviser at a fork in the road, with one way marked Buckingham Boulevard (“Don’t try to develop your weaknesses!”) and the other marked Dweck Drive (“Keep going! Don’t stop just because it’s getting difficult.”) What should he do?

Well, he should follow the advice of the great Daily Improviser sage Yogi Berra, who said:

“When you come to a fork in the road, take it!”

(I'll elaborate next time, when "Ducky's Dilemma" continues.)

Cultivating Those "Micro-Moments" of Joy

In my previous two articles, I described the Negativity Bias - the disproportionate power of negativity in the world as compared with comparable positive occurrences. I left off last time by pointing to the use of Yes And as a way to counter the impact of the Negativity Bias.

So … how should you do this?

Perhaps the best place to start is to examine how the Negativity Bias operates in your own life. As another leading light of the Positivity movement, Barbara Fredrickson, says, you need three positive emotions for every negative emotion in order to flourish rather than languish in life. (Note again the unfair power advantage of Bad over Good here.)

The encouraging news is that you have the power to create and nurture these positive emotions – you don’t have to just wait for them to occur. Fredrickson refers to this as “cultivating” positive emotions and recommends that people focus on “micro-moments” of joy, happiness, and gratitude as a way to build their net surplus of Good over Bad. "A lot of times,” says Fredrickson, “ we get so wrapped up in thinking about the future and the past that we are blind to the goodness we are steeped in already, whether it's the beauty outside the window or the kind things that people are doing for you.”

Being aware of the Negativity Bias can remind you to take an active, vigilant role in the sustaining of your positive outlook. As Fredrickson says:

"You have to participate relentlessly in the manifestations of your own blessings. And once you have achieved a state of happiness, you must never become lax about maintaining it, you must make a mighty effort to keep swimming upward into that happiness forever, to stay afloat on top of it."

"Jerks Are Not Born - They're Made!" The Daily Improviser and the Fundamental Attribution Error

"When some guy cuts you off in traffic, you probably think instinctively: What a jerk.  (Or perhaps your inner voice is more vulgar.)  What you almost certainly don't think to yourself is, Gosh, I wonder what's wrong that he is in such a hurry."

In their book Switch, Chip Heath & Dan Heath use this example to make a point about the way in which our behavior (in this case, the "jerk" driver's) is often driven, not by any hard-wired personality characteristic, but by the situation we find ourselves in.  And unfortunately, as the Heaths note:

"We are frequently blind to the power of situations. In a famous article, Stanford psychologist Lee Ross ... noted that people have a systematic tendency to ignore the situational forces that shape other people's behavior.  He called this deep-rooted tendency the 'Fundamental Attribution Error.'  The error lies in our inclination to attribute people's behavior to the way they are rather than to the situation they are in."

I think that the Fundamental Attribution Error also represents another instance of the Negativity Bias ("Bad is stronger than good"), which I referred to in my previous article.

Think of the last time a driver cut you off (and I'm assuming everyone's had that experience).  Recall that sudden, reflexive, overwhelmingly negative feeling you had toward the "jerk" in the other car.  That's the Negativity Bias at work - the unfair power advantage of Bad over Good.

Now think of the last time someone "cut you off" at a business meeting, by interrupting you or ignoring your comment.  Did you immediately think, Poor guy, he must be having a bad day to be acting so cross.  Or did you think ... something else?
 
For the Daily Improviser in these instances, the Yes And approach would involve exploring the situational aspects of events rather than giving in to the knee-jerk "jerk" reaction.  The goal is not really to put a positive spin on the event but to at least find a more neutral explanation that puts you in a better frame of mind to Advance with Positive Purpose. 

Yes And vs. the Negativity Bias

Rule Number One for the performance improviser and the Daily Improviser is Yes And – that is, accept the offers of your fellow players and contribute something that advances the action. For the Daily Improviser, this doesn’t necessarily mean Agreeing with the Position put forth by your “partner,” but it does mean:

• Accepting the Person,
• Acknowledging the Possibilities in what he says, and
• Advancing with Positive Purpose.

For the Daily Improviser, though, it can often seem as if every positive impulse you put forth into the world is met by a battery of “No’s” pushing back. And this experience may not be just a product of your imagination, as Jonathan Haidt points out in his book The Happiness Hypothesis.

Haidt, one of the foremost scholars in the area of Positive Psychology, refers to a psychological tendency called the Negativity Bias, which can be simply stated as: For most people, bad is stronger than good. This is not a value judgment but a reflection of psychologists’ repeated finding that the human mind tends to react to bad things more quickly, forcefully, and persistently than to equivalent good things.

To illustrate the Negativity Bias in action, Haidt points to the following research examples:

• In marital interactions, it takes at least five good or constructive actions to make up for the damage done by one critical or destructive act
• In financial transactions and gambles, the pleasure of gaining a certain amount of money is smaller than the pain of losing the same amount
• In evaluating a person’s character, people estimate that it would take 25 acts of life-saving heroism to make up for one act of murder

(To demonstrate the Negativity Bias yourself, you can conduct your own unscientific study – just turn on the next installment of the evening news.)

The existence of the Negativity Bias sounds pretty depressing and negativity-inducing in itself, right? Well, I think this is another situation that calls for the application of the Stockdale Paradox: Confront the brutal facts, yet never lose faith!  You need to recognize the disproportionate strength of "No" in order to avoid being blindsided by the power it wields in the world.  Yet you also want to maintain your faith in the power of Yes And and be sure to cultivate, nurture, and repeatedly put its positivity principles into effect as a remedy for the “No” disease.

Next time I'll talk a bit more about becoming aware of the impact of the Negativity Bias on your own thinking and attitudes.

A Day in the Life of an Agent of Change

"The long and winding road / that leads to your door."

Paul McCartney

I love it when things Come Together!

I've been in a major Beatles groove this week, inspired by a friend who's been eagerly preparing to attend a Paul McCartney concert with her daughter in Phoenix this Sunday. As I was listening to one of the Fab Four’s signature tracks, Sergeant Pepper’s “A Day in the Life,” I was suddenly reminded of a story about the recording session for the track – one that provides a connection to the “change journey” topic I’ve been writing about in recent articles.

“A Day in the Life” is really made up of two separate songs, one written by McCartney, the other by John Lennon. Lennon, McCartney, and their producer, George Martin, wanted the two songs to comprise separate “movements” for the work but were stumped for a way to connect the pieces.

Finally, Martin hit upon a way to fill the gap. McCartney and Martin brought in a 40-piece orchestra to play a 24-bar improvised fill – a tough challenge for classically trained musicians accustomed to an orchestrated score. In order to facilitate the process for the musicians, Martin structured the fill by using a novel approach which he described as follows:

What I did there was to write ... the lowest possible note for each of the instruments in the orchestra. At the end of the twenty-four bars, I wrote the highest note...near a chord of E major. Then I put a squiggly line right through the twenty-four bars, with reference points to tell them roughly what note they should have reached during each bar.

As I read that, I thought: Get Back! (OK, so that’s another album.) Martin’s description struck me as a perfect integration of the two approaches to change that I described in my article about the Heath Brothers’ book Switch.

I had written that, when influencing other people to change, a change agent has a choice of two useful boundaries: Either focus on the first step just to get people started on the Change Road, or focus on the ultimate goal and leave it up to people’s improvisational abilities to blaze their own road to the destination.

Martin did both. He first made sure that the musicians had the same point of orientation before they began their 24-bar journey. But then he relied on each musician to choose his own improvised path to reach the predefined goal – the E major chord. (And not only that: He added rough “signposts” along the road to help them calibrate their progress throughout.)

Along with four lads from Liverpool, Martin – who in my estimation was the true “Fifth Beatle” – helped engineer one of the most momentous cultural changes of the 20th Century. And I think Martin’s creative solution to “A Day in the Life” provides a model for change agents in any field – especially when they're trying to influence seasoned people who might be anxious about the road ahead:

1) Paint a distinct, vivid picture of the ultimate goal;


2) Provide a clear starting point and first steps;


3) Set up rough milestones along the way in order to measure progress;


4) Then step back and let people improvise their way to success!

----------------------------------------------
 
Here is a video excerpt from the actual recording session for “A Day in the Life.” The 24-bar fill starts around 1:45.
 



PS - Enjoy your Magical Mystery Tour, Kathy and Kim!

ExploreFlexSupport ... and Keith Johnstone

As I sit at my keyboard today, I think I've been falling prey to something I cautioned against in an earlier article - namely the striving for originality.  So, as a remedy, I thought I would turn to that great crusader against the mania for originality, Keith Johnstone, and see what ideas I could draw upon from his book Impro: Improvisation and the Theatre.

Lo and behold, I ran across a passage that echoes my observations in my earlier article about people who try to impress others with the originality of their arguments and observations during problem-solving discussions.  Says Johnstone:

"My feeling is that the best argument may be a testimony to the skill of the presenter, rather than to the excellence of the solution advocated.  Also, the bulk of discussion time is [often] taken up with transactions of status which have nothing to do with the problem to be solved."

In other words, positioning, posturing, and one-upmanship, rather than using the ExploreFlexSupport Model:

Exploring the possibilities presented by others' perspectives;

Flexing one's viewpoints, assumptions, and (yes) biases; and

Supporting others in developing their ideas - and supporting the group in moving the group forward productively!

Are We There Yet? Embarking on the Change Journey

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step." - Lao Tzu

In my previous article, I drew a parallel between the improv structure Finding the Game and the Heath brothers’ observation (in their book Switch) that effective change efforts require focusing people on specific, concrete actions. “Reach for 1% milk” is thus a much clearer call to action than “Eat healthier” (and more grammatical, too).

To bring all of this full circle, I’d like to refer to one of my earliest articles in The Daily Improviser blog, in which I discussed the Heath brothers’ previous book, Made to Stick.

In Made to Stick, the Heaths tell how to create “sticky” messages – that is, messages that are memorable, understood, and likely to inspire people to take action. The first step in creating a sticky message, say the Heaths, is to define the essence (or “Core”) of your message and then package it into a succinct (or “Compact”) form that can be readily communicated.

Probably the most powerful example of Core and Compact messages cited by the Heaths – and the one I covered in my earlier article – involves the concept of Commander’s Intent. Commander’s Intent is a brief statement of a military mission’s overall objective, framed so as to provide direction to soliders in the field while leaving them room to improvise as necessary to deal with unanticipated situations along the way. A sample statement of Commander’s Intent might be “Break the will of the enemy in Sector C.”

The beauty of Commander’s Intent, say the Heaths, is that it “aligns the behavior of soldiers at all levels without requiring play-by-play instructions from their leaders.”

Commander’s Intent is also a perfect everyday example of Finding the Game. Both Commander’s Intent and Finding the Game involve compact statements that can guide people’s collaborative actions without having to script every move. In this way, both structures place useful boundaries on people’s thinking, giving them a loose framework (to provide focus and direction) within which they can improvise at will (to let them shift with the vagaries of circumstance).

The Heaths’ “Reach for 1% milk” example also illustrates Finding the Game, but in a way that differs from Commander’s Intent. The "1% milk" message is similar to a Commander’s Intent message in that it uses clear, simple language to put a useful boundary on people’s thinking and prompt them to act in a desired direction. However, whereas the Commander’s Intent message focuses on the ultimate goal, the 1% milk message focuses instead on the first step.

The difference, I think, lies in the context in which the two messages are being conveyed. The battlefield represents a fluid, ever-changing environment that is almost a pure example of improv being played in daily life. Soliders don’t need to be convinced of the importance of accomplishing their mission: They just need to know what that mission is and then be given the leeway to make choices that will achieve it.

In the 1% milk message, though, people do need to be convinced of the value and attainability of the goal – especially since it represents a change in their long-ingrained behavior. Since they’re likely to be either indifferent or resistant to the goal, they need to be shown a small, easily implemented action that will start them on the road to change. Trying to show them the ultimate goal (“Be healthier”) right off the bat may make the journey appear too daunting and thus entrench them in their old familiar habits.

In mobilizing people to take action, then, you have a choice of two useful boundaries you can apply: Either focus people on the goal as a way to guide their actions, or focus them on the first action as a way to start them toward the goal. Your choice will depend on their existing level of commitment to the goal.