The Network Garden - Mark Sigal's Blog

Understanding the "Vampires" Among Us

Vampires are dark energy types; they are malevolent, grasping and greedy operators that prey upon and feed on the psychic and real lives of other people.

These blood suckers carry socio-economic contempt for “the other,” who is perceived as a loser, deserving of their destiny as sacrificial lambs.

To the vampire, the rule of law is that to the victor goes the spoils.

Everyone else gets crumbs, and are lucky to even get that.

There is no room coexistence with vampires, just as there is no co-existence with the mosquito, the sociopath and the criminal.

Yet, we are surrounded by parasites and predators who don’t embrace what it means to live in a society.

On Bias, False Dichotomies (and other Four Letter Words)

While the macro “industry trends” are all towards Big Data and Intelligent Systems as the force multipliers that will drive the greatest growth over the next decade, it's actually the Human side of the equation that many of us struggle most greatly to reconcile in business and in life. One of the most basic areas of struggle is in the realm of Biases.

While there are literally dozens of types of Biases, the one that I want to focus on in this post is a False Dichotomy. (In a later post, I will talk a bit about its sibling bias, the False Equivalency.)

False Dichotomies manifest when (biased) analysis and decision-making yields black and white conclusions on topics that have clear dynamism or nuance.

Consider a topic such as product segmentation; namely, how much functionality to add to service what specific outcomes, and what types of users relative to market needs, at what pricing and support level.

The above example might reasonably support dozens of different narratives around what the right solution buckets are for the various addressable segments of the market.

But, specifically because such analysis can yield different assessments, it’s ripe for biases – good and bad – to shape the discussion.

When the internal back and forth falls into an all-or-none dialog, such as “We can either be a client focused company, or a money focused company,” that is a false dichotomy at work.

So how do you counter a false dichotomy? Three principal ways are through effective countering, introspection and teaching.

Effective countering in the above example might lead to a discussion of the different types of users being served, and what their needs and constraints are.

Sometimes, more isn’t better. It might add complexity, it might impact speed, it might lose 90% of the target users, who don’t want a Swiss army knife solution, and just need one or two really specific, highly optimized capabilities.

Introspection might treat the topic as an opportunity to surface externalities that drive the biases. “Josh, do you think we have a culture of placing dollars above the need of clients? Is there a specific decision we’ve made in the past few months that you think is reflective of compromised values?”

The point here is two-fold. One, light is the best antiseptic when it comes to getting to the right outcome and surfacing the sub-narratives that trigger such biases.

Two, is that getting to specificity is the best way to get past black and white narratives.

Related to this is the notion of teaching. When I find myself getting sucked into a false dichotomy with a co-worker or a personal relationship, I specifically call it out as a false dichotomy, explain what a false dichotomy is, point out the gradations of analysis, and shine a light on this as a point of emphasis with the individual until the topic is internalized.

Always be teaching, as making people better is the ultimate force multiplier, but that’s a post for another day.

Two of the biggest truths about understanding the power of Incentives

Two of the biggest truths of my career (and life in general) pertain to the power -- for good and bad -- of incentives. One, is the basic truth that what you INCENT is what you REAP. Put another way, show me the incentive, and I can tell you the outcome.

We humans tend to confuse attributes and outcomes, so often come up with incentives for our co-workers, clients, partners, peers, children, etc. that are misaligned with our outcome goals.

Unsurprisingly, this leads to bad outcomes.

The remedy is to begin with the end in mind, actually taking inventory of what success looks like, what the integral steps are to getting there, ensuring that incentives reward those outcomes, and over-communicating both the incentive and the GOAL of the incentive.

Narrative matters, and so how we manage incentives and measure results is critical.

The second truth, which is an immovable object in my opinion, is to NEVER underestimate the power of people's ability to convince themselves of ANYTHING when they believe their livelihood depends upon it.

We often confuse company objectives with self-interest and the need for self-preservation, and so we get steamrolled when we expect people to act in ways that our counter to their self-interest, irregardless of company goals.

The solution is empathy, and investing in understanding the various stakeholders, their goals, constraints and biases, and being ready to play the long game when those elements don't line up, as they often don't.

In my experience, this is not specific to industry, seniority, or stage of life. It is elemental to people's reason for being, and we forget that fact at our own peril.