You Make Your Own Luck
Friday afternoon I stopped by our local convenience store to gas up. When I went inside, I was surprised to find a sizeable line of people to buy megabucks lottery tickets. I knew about the lottery since it was plastered everywhere but had yet to encounter the fever pitch first hand. The drawing for 650M was in a few short hours. Showing the same wildly irrational hope, I bought a few tickets.
We don’t have much control over whether we win the lottery, but it turns out, we have control over what we perceive as “luck,” and we have a great deal of control over our own happiness by how we interpret events and situations. When events occur we choose whether we believe they happened to us, or we caused them to happen. Bronze medal winners consistently self-describe themselves as happier with the result than Silver medal winners. Because they are not celebrating the facts, but interpreting counter-facts. They are answering the what-if question, and Bronze medal winners are celebrating that they are on the podium, while Silver medal winners are disappointed they lost.
Here’s another example of how we look at the world. In Daniel Kahneman’s book, he describes a bank survey in which they asked two separate questions:
- How much would you pay for $100,000 life insurance that will pay in the event of death for any reason?
- How much would you pay for $100,000 life insurance that pays in the event of death by terrorist attack incident?
Survey respondents said they would pay much higher rates for the second type of life insurance. This is deeply irrational but speaks directly to how negative emotions and ideas have the ability to cause us to overvalue or over emphasize their likelihood because of our emotional response to the idea.
In Richard Wiseman’s book The Luck Factor, he describes luck in terms of choice. In his research working with over 400 individuals he found some key attributes of those who describe themselves as “lucky.” These are the four big points in the book:
They consistently have chance encounters that lead to interesting new possibilities and opportunities
Lucky people harness the power of curiosity well. They are creative and curious, and everyone can learn to be too. Wiseman has a fun game you can play in which you write down six activities or experiences you have not tried but would be willing. Write them down and then roll a die and go do it.
They make good decisions without consciously knowing why or how they did
Those who describe themselves as lucky make better gut decisions. Which seems impossible to control, yet Wiseman discovered this is a learned trait since he found that those lucky decision-makers actually spent more time reflecting and meditating on the decision once considered, and spent more time envisioning hypothetical circumstances they might have to decide on. So when the situation arose, those lucky were better prepared to make a decision in the moment.
Their dreams and ambitions have a knack of coming true
Lucky people expect the best outcomes, despite any negative past experiences, whereas unlucky people allowed past negative events to dictate future expectations. The lucky people also described their expectations of upcoming interactions with other people as generally positive.
They regularly turn their bad fortune into good luck or opportunity
Wiseman describes two primary ways people turn bad luck into good. Basically they interpret the bad as “could have been much worse.” And when they reflect, they spend a greater amount of time visualizing and selectively remembering the positive. Other words, the bad wasn’t all that bad, and the good was pretty great.
The Meeting After the Meeting
We can easily sabotage our efforts to build the valued trust, rapport and engagement we know are important to drive excellence. Here’s a little way in which we can sometimes show to the team that their opinions aren’t really part of the solution: Having the meeting after the meeting.
Don’t do this. Don’t hijack an hour of time from ten people, ask their thoughtful opinion, and then excuse everyone and hold back your cronies and have that “meeting after the meeting.” Sometimes you hear it on the conference call when a team leader says, “Hey Margaret can you call me right after this to follow up?” What is that all about?
The meeting after the meeting in which the “real” decision-makers call the shots, says to everyone that they don’t really have a voice. Or at best, they are fighting for their opinion to be heard. Or at worst, it’s a polite move so the shot-callers can attest publicly that opinions were heard, that they took in people’s concerns.
Do this instead. Listen more than talk. Ask credible, relevant and probing questions, and then collaboratively work toward decisions in front of everyone that recognizes and includes the voice of everyone. If you don’t intend to value an opinion, you’re not leading, you’re lobbying.
Read MoreDon’t save Par, make Birdie
“You don’t know how strong you are, until being strong is the only option you have.”
There’s an old adage that suffering yields ingenuity. The list is deep of artists, innovators, and inspiring leaders who found strength in the depths of adversity. It’s a beguiling truth since we tend toward safety and risk aversion in most aspects of our lives and business. So the question becomes, “If we aren’t currently in the depths of adversity, how do we find deep creativity and inspiration within contentment?” Or a better question might be, “How do we intentionally perturb ourselves in the search for creativity and inspiration?”
Statistically it’s true that golfers become better putters when faced with making par versus making birdie, from the same distance, with the same lie. We have surety and conviction when attacking the status quo, and make poorer choices when reaching beyond ourselves to excel, even when the goal remains the same. When we are on the edge of social risk, we retract, concede, and assimilate back to the norm – we make par.
Try this:
Choose between getting $900 for sure or a 90 percent chance of getting $1,000.
A. Getting $900
B. 90 percent chance of getting $1,000
Choose between losing $900 for sure or a 90 percent chance of losing $1,000.
A. Losing $900
B. 90 percent chance of losing $1,000
See below for the analysis, but the answer is clear. If you, like most people, chose A and then B, you could well be $100 down at the end of this exercise. What’s your social risk tolerance? What’s your measure of personal need for gain?
Read More(Jamie Lalinde, Vanity Fair) The results of this simple problem set, for which most participants answer A and then B, were used to develop the thesis that would make Kahneman and Tversky famous: prospect theory.
In a 1979 paper, they documented a peculiar behavioral tendency: when people faced a gain, they became risk averse; when they faced a loss, they became risk seeking. As a result of their discovery, Kahneman and Tversky debunked Bernoulli’s utility theory, a cornerstone of economic thought since the 18th century. (Bernoulli first proponed that a person’s willingness to gamble a certain amount of money was a product of how that amount related to his overall wealth—that is, $1 million means more to a millionaire than it does to a billionaire.)
Along with playing a large role in Kahneman’s being awarded the Nobel Prize in 2002, the theory also spawned a new academic pursuit, the field of behavioral economics. Prospect theory, Michael Lewis writes, explains “why people are less likely to sell their houses and their stock portfolios in falling markets; why, most sensationally, professional golfers become better putters when they’re trying to save par (avoid losing a stroke) than when they’re trying to make a birdie (and gain a stroke).”
Drop Anchors Carefully
A few years ago at a Sioux Falls, ID supermarket, the owners experimented with marketing labels next to cans of soup. Some days the label said “10% off regular price, limit 10 per customer,” and on other days it said “10% off regular price, no limit per customer.” Shoppers purchased twice as many on the days with limitations. The sense of scarcity set an anchoring effect, and the number 10 set a mental anchor of the amount of cans they should buy. So, those presented with the limited availability felt a mental urge to buy more.
Similarly, if I ask you, “Is the oldest dog in the world older or younger than 60 years?” and then I ask you, “How old is the oldest dog?”, your answer will be higher than if I just ask you “How old is the oldest dog in the world?” You know instinctively that a 60 year old dog is completely nuts, but it will still have a psychological priming effect and sway your guess upwards. Significantly upwards it turns out. Your dog-age guess will be over a decade above your guess without the suggestion of a 60-year old dog.
Mental anchors are everywhere, and quite effectively used in negotiations. The above example is from Daniel Kahnemann’s new book Thinking Fast and Slow. In his chapter on the anchoring effect, he also points out that we are much more susceptible to psychological anchors during times of stress and anxiety. If we are in a stressful state and someone suggests a point of direction, or an idea to consider, we are much more likely to accept and build on that idea, instead of patiently and thoughtfully questioning it. In another Kahnemann-type example, if you are nervous and I ask even a ridiculous question like, “Is your arm getting numb?” You are far more likely to believe your arm might actually be getting numb instead of reject such a nutty suggestion.
Consider this next time you speak your mind: In times of stress with mounting deadlines, you can more easily make your case but you do so at the expense of allowing the thoughtful contribution of the team. And then sacrifice the voice of the community who might have a more powerful collective idea than you. Create a space to allow considered contribution. You will almost always create a stronger result.
[Cool cartoon from Andertoons - check them out]
Read MoreBecome an Alchemist – Expect the Unexpected
Share
It’s an astonishing thing to observe people who encounter obstacle after hurtle after challenge, and yet seem to only gain strength and confidence and power after each, seemingly insurmountable, roadblock is set before them. There’s a great scene in KungFu Panda II in which the bad guy – an evil peacock – laments, “How many times do I have to kill the same panda?!” because the Panda, of course keeps getting stronger throughout the movie, until the end (spoiler!) in which he’s catching blazing cannonballs and throwing them back. All because he’s found inner peace.
Terry Fox was like that. He developed cancer in 1980, and while still in the hospital, decided to run across Canada to raise money and awareness for cancer research. We lost Terry to cancer but only after he had run several thousand miles across Canada. His mother Betty Fox kept Terry’s legacy and spirit alive for the last thirty years. Betty died last week and the world is a better place for their energy and passion.
In the book Born to Run, we learn Scott Jurek had such an alchemy moment at the 2005 Badwater Ultramarathon. It’s a 135 mile ultramarathon. Run in Death Valley at temperatures typically approaching the mid-120s. After Scott collapsed after (only!) 55 miles in a ditch in 125 degree heat in a catatonic stupor, he searched his mind for ten minutes, and then stood to run the next 80 miles in record time to win the race.
I’ve watched my mom, Bev Hunter, conjure resilience and calm in the storm of cancer these last six months. Harnessing the cumulative strengths of her community, her faith, her research-driven analytical mind, family, and joie de vivre, she has transmuted obstacle into power, challenge into growth, fatigue into enlightenment. And Erik Weihenmayer has been a great source of support and inspiration to her.
Erik Weihenmayer uses that term Alchemist to describe just such people who turn adversity into strength, a challenge into innovation, a smack-down into power.
I certainly agree we have the ability to surprise ourselves. If you watch kids, they do it all the time while testing the boundaries of their own possibilities. But the key is to take the leap, sign up for that daunting project, or impossible race, or mythic challenge you might think is beyond you. Build those capacities, strengths and creative resources now, because you never know when the world is going to sign you up for something beyond your control.
We’re wishing Erik a successful journey coming up as he and his teammates embark on Expedition Impossible. May he and his team find the alchemy needed to win.
Read MoreHit a Wall? Your Mindset Matters
“Borders? I have never seen one. But I have heard they exist in the minds of some people.”
- Thor Heyerdahl, innovator, adventurer, and border-smasher
I have a friend who installed the same invisible dog fence I did, but he admitted he didn’t bother with the training and simply installed the underground wire and shackled his dog with the electrical buzz collar which would shock the dog whenever he got near the line. His thinking was the dog would just learn the boundaries himself and viola! – a dog self-trained to stay in the yard. I asked him what happened, and he described that as his young boisterous dog started to run and play as usual he would get shocked and, since he didn’t associate the pain with any clear boundary, he eventually sat in the middle of the yard shaking in fear, paralyzed to move. From that point on all the dog wanted to do was stay in the house.
There are many dimensions to this story – not least the owner’s choice and behavior – but what I want to address is the dog’s perspective. The dog, not understanding why the random shocks, arrived at a state psychologists call “learned helplessness.” It’s the point at which they (we) are capable of believing that nothing we do matters, and regardless of our action, we’re going to be punished or bad things will befall us. A sense of control, and a sense that our behavior matters, is one of the most important predictors of happiness, and in turn workplace productivity, collaboration and creativity.
In a 2002 study from the Families and Work Institute, researchers concluded the following six criteria for creating an effective workplace:
• Providing job autonomy;
• Creating learning opportunities and challenges on the job—where employees can grow,
learn, and advance;
• Developing environments where supervisors support employees in being successful on
the job;
• Developing environments where coworkers support each other for job success;
• Involving employees in management decision-making; and
• Creating flexible workplaces
All of the above offer workers more, not less control and autonomy over their team, their task, their technique.
Carol Dweck, author of Mindset, in a series of studies, has found that people fall into two gross categories – those who believe their intelligence and aptitude is fixed, and those who believe their intelligence and capabilities are malleable and can change over time with effort. When people are in a learning, instead of a fixed mindset, they continually keep getting better because they try harder and constantly put themselves in positions where they might fail. And keep getting better because, or despite of, the challenges they self-impose.
In the invisible fence example, think of the ways in which you bump up against boundaries and how you react to them. Do you run back to the middle quaking, or spend time probing to understand that invisible boundary and then concoct ways to circumvent, or leap beyond it? Or maybe tunnel under? And if you are the boundary-creator, ask yourself why? It could be a legitimate boundary – we do it to our kids all the time for health, or safety, or learning, etc… But in my experience, when you give trust, you get trust, and sometimes exceptional performance.
Read More