Sometimes, pure logic simply cannot explain for our work behaviours.
In dealing with people, we are better off thinking out of the rational box. Essentially this includes thinking out of the right-vs.-wrong paradigm that is all too often valued without questioning, used without sensitivity, and relied upon without imagination.
The truth is straightforward. Some of us are rational some of the time, but none of us is rational all of the time. The opposite is similarly true. Some of us may be irrational some of the time, but none of us is likely to be irrational all the time. Simply, we are not altogether rational-or irrational-beings, although in many instances human behavior seems to violate rationality.
For instance, suppose there are 1 red and 10 black marbles in a box. On a 1-10 scale, what do you think is the chance of picking up the red marble from the box (1=very low chance; 10=very good chance)? What if you were now told that there are 10 red and 100 black marbles in the box? What is the chance of picking up a red marble now? What if, again, you are now told that there are 100 red and 1000 black marbles? The rational answer, of course, should be the same for all the three scenarios. In each case, the chance of picking out the red marble is 1/10, or 10 per cent.
In a series of experiments that I've conducted several times, these three scenarios were presented to different groups of corporate executives that included finance analysts, bankers, and accountants who are unquestionably good with numbers. Not surprisingly, the answers varied from one scenario to another. On average, the 1-vs.-10 group ranked the chance of picking the red marble as very low (about "1," to be exact), while the 10-vs.100 group ranked it higher, and the 100-vs.1000 group gave an even higher rating!
Furthermore, executives who are told that the box contained 10 red marbles, and 20 each of black, pink, yellow, blue, and green marbles (overall, it's still 10 red vs. 100 other-colored marbles), their response again mysteriously differed from the group who received the 10 red vs. 100 black scenario. How queer!
The explanation for these "irrational" results is too complex to be discussed here. But the implication is easy to draw-and is one that we should regularly remind ourselves if we want to be influential and effective- that is we are not as rational as we'd like to think we are.
This inevitably leads to another important implication: As much as we are not totally rational beings, we are in essence, "psychological" beings that are vulnerable to a long list of social-psychological factors. For example, studies in behavioral science show that joggers run faster when there are observers around; shoppers are more likely to buy certain meats that are "80% lean" rather than "20% fats," although they are both the same; and executives change their opinions in order to be more aligned with their group's opinions.
Motivation also plays a part. For example, people are less likely to donate blood when they are paid for their donation. Being paid for one's charity ultimately dampens one's altruistic tendency! In one interesting study, college girls' performance on a series of math problems dropped when they were asked to solve them while wearing their bathing suits! Emotions, too, play a part. Studies show that people in happy moods tend to be more creative and helpful then they would be in other moods.
These and thousands of other examples point to one important understanding of human nature: Our behaviors (i.e., attitudes, decisions, performance, and etc) are not only guided by rational considerations, but also a long list of non-rational factors such as peer pressure, trends and fads, motivations, moods and feelings, and the list goes on.
Unfortunately, many of us have yet to come to understand this. The outcome is often poor planning, unrealistic expectations, bad decisions, poor management, and more.
Decades earlier, the great communicator and bestselling author Dale Carnegie cautioned: When dealing with people, always remember that they are emotional creatures. We could well add: when managing people, motivating teams, resolving conflicts, making decisions, or solving problems, always remember that you are dealing with people who may not (and probably would not) conform to rational predictions.
In the end, whatever you do and in whatever capacity, do not merely ask if are you being rational. Instead, ask whether you have considered other social-psychological factors that exert powerful influences on human behavior. In the end, as managers and leaders, ask whether are you effective in achieving the outcomes (hopefully, they are well-intentioned ones!) that you have set out to achieve.
Do not merely think rationally. It's time to think beyond rationality.
Lim How
Trainer
NUS Extension
http://www.nus.edu.sg/enterprise/nex/
