Randomness

Why embracing randomness is sometimes better than having a strategy.

There is a really cool article about the science of randomness over at: http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/is-the-most-rational-choice-the-random-one/  The tag is – if you can’t choose wisely, choose randomly.

Here’s a synopsis of the article and the research cited by the article.

Rationality is great – but there is often a randomness to what is going on and can’t be avoided. If we strive for perfect (which is not attainable), we often miss the good.

To make this make more sense.  If you can’t find a good reason for doing something, finding a reason, any reason, even a bad reason is our default as humans. That’s why rationalizing has a negative connotation. It means that in the absence of good reasons, we are making up reasons in an attempt to bring order to our decision making.

And while that’s normally a good thing, it turns out that  if we use bad reasons we often end up with bad outcomes.  Which means, we would have had better results if we had chosen what to do at random.  And yes, there is evidence this is true in some situations.

So, for a situation in which choosing randomly is better, it’s best to accept that and embrace randomness through a process called, sortation.

Let’s take hiring for an example. Often our reasons for hiring people is arbitrary. We rationalize why we pick one candidate over another.  But actually, we would probably have better results if … once the criteria for basic qualifications are met – the person who gets the job out of several candidates is chosen by random lottery.  This would replace arbitrary bad reasons with randomness, which is actually likely to give us a better outcome, despite the counter-intuitive nature of this approach.

The benefit of adding randomness into the hiring process would be evident. Imagine what our work forces would look like if we did hire people randomly – assuming our basic hiring criteria were met.  We would probably have a more diverse workforce.

I think the key, like anything, is to know when to employ reason and when to give yourself over to random selection. And the solution, as always is to challenge our own assumptions. If we find ourselves searching for reasons we need to question whether we are rationalizing or not. And if we are, perhaps consider experimenting with random selection instead. What’s the worst that could happen? You already don’t have good reasons for making a choice. So flip a coin and see what happens.

Constructive Criticism

Learning how to take criticism constructively is important. How can managers adjust their approach to help their employees take criticism constructively even if the employee is “sensitive?”

Job success and satisfaction are tied together. By and large people want to do good and they feel good when they do. The problem is that all work requires learning and adjustments. The ability and willingness to correct mistakes is key. This is why constructive criticism is so important.

The problem is that the very real humans you are trying to give advice to have their own issues and their own insecurities. And these insecurities get in the way of people actually learning how to improve what they are doing.

So, in the spirit of Humanistic Leadership and business management, let’s talk about what the research shows us about best practices when it comes to constructive criticism.

The good news is that there are really just two main variables that impact how a person responds to criticism.

Self Esteem

The first is self-esteem. People with low self-esteem respond very poorly to criticism. In fact the more they fight it, the lower their self-esteem probably is. Managers can use this information by recognizing that in order to deliver constructive advice; they first have to provide some support to help shore up the self-esteem of the individual they are critiquing. You can do this by complimenting them on what they are doing right and then framing the advice as a way that they can improve even more and do even better and that you are confident in their ability to rise to the challenge.

Gender Differences

The second thing is that it turns out that men and women respond to criticism differently.  This basically means that how they defend themselves from the criticism differs. Men tend to express their feelings outward, in other words, the person critiquing them is the person with the problem. Women tend to internalize it by beating themselves up or taking the criticism as a personal attack. As a result, it is fairly easy to recognize men who have low self-esteem, they are the ones bashing and blaming everyone else for their mistakes.  Women, on the other hand are harder to recognize because the anger and frustration are directed inwards. This is a challenge for managers who will need to make an extra effort with female employees to ensure that bad feelings don’t start to fester and to find ways to assess HOW the advice was taken.

Ego

As for the rest of us – what is the advice to take criticism better? Let go of your ego. Your goal should be to do the best job you can and any criticism you receive regardless of why it is being given, should be viewed as an opportunity to learn and improve. If you are focused on your ultimate goal of being successful, you are more likely to use criticism to help you achieve your goals. 

What was the worst advice you ever received. What did you learn from it?

PS – this post was inspired by a press release sent out by Psychtests.com in case you were interested and is based on their research.  - http://testyourself.psychtests.com/testid/2129