 "Mind the data")
Try this experiment. As quickly as you can, name every place in the world where armed conflict is currently taking place. If you're like most people, you can name an average of two to four places. Now ask yourself why you named these particular locales. Is it because these are the only places? Perhaps they're locations where there is the most bloodshed? Or is it because these are the places of most political significance?
It's probably because these are the sites that have received sustained media coverage. At any one time there are as many as two dozen armed conflicts taking place throughout the world, and it's not uncommon that some of the most horrific battles go largely unnoticed by the international audience. What's shocking about this is not that our mental agenda is so heavily influenced by a handful of news producers but that we are typically unaware that this is happening to us.
We frequently make this mental error because of a convenient heuristic we carry around in our head. It's known by cognitive psychologists as the "representative heuristic".
Influencers understand the importance of an accurate data strewn and do their best to ensure that their strategies focus on vital behaviors by serving up visible, timely, and accurate information that supports their goals. Instead of falling victim to data, they manage data religiously.
At the corporate level, it's easy to see how the flow of information affects behavior. The fact that different groups of employees are exposed to wildly different data streams helps explain why people often have such different priorities and passions. Different groups, departments, and levels of employees worry about very different aspects of the company's success - not because they hold different values but because they're exposed to different data. For example, the frontline employees who interface with complaining customers usually become the customer advocates. The top-level executives who are constantly poring over financial statements become the shareholder advocates. And sure enough, the folks who routinely take quality measures become the quality advocates. No surprise there.
The problem with passion for a single stakeholder group isn't that employees care greatly about someone or something; it's just that it's hard to expect people to act in balanced ways when they have access to only one data stream.
For instance, members of a group of senior executives we (the authors) worked with were positively driven by their production numbers, which they reviewed weekly. When issues of morale came up (usually with the issuance of a grievance), they'd become rightfully concerned about "people problems" but generally only after it was too late. The same was true for customer satisfaction. This was also listed as a high priority, but nobody ever actually talked about customers or did anything to improve customer relationships until the company lost a major client to a competitor.
To change the executives' narrow focus, we changed the data stream. Alongside weekly production numbers, executives now enthusiastically pore over customer and employee data. If you watch their current behavior, you'll note that they spread their attention across more stakeholders than ever before. We also provided employees who had long shown passion for customer satisfaction with weekly cost and profit data, and they too broadened their interests. For instance, when faced with a dissatisfied customer, instead of simply throwing money at the problem (often the easiest solution), employees began to seek other, more cost-effective fixes. Before the intervention started, leaders and employees alike had talked about the importance of all their stakeholders, but nothing changed their parochial behavior until their data stream expanded.
One warning about data. When it comes to data, there is such a thing as "too much of a good thing."
Corporate leaders often undermine the influence of the data they so carefully gather by overdoing it. The incessant flow of reports, printouts, and e-mails - one heaped upon the other - transforms into numbing and incoherent background noise. Influences never make this mistake. They're focused and deliberate about the data they share. They understand that the only reason for gathering or publishing any data is to reinforce vital behaviors.
INFLUENCER: THE NEW SCIENCE OF LEADING CHANGE
AUTHOR: Joseph Grenny, Kerry Patterson, David Maxfield, Ron McMillan, Al Switzler
PUBLISHER: McGraw Hill Education India
PRICE: Rs 715
ISBN: 9781259098536.
It's probably because these are the sites that have received sustained media coverage. At any one time there are as many as two dozen armed conflicts taking place throughout the world, and it's not uncommon that some of the most horrific battles go largely unnoticed by the international audience. What's shocking about this is not that our mental agenda is so heavily influenced by a handful of news producers but that we are typically unaware that this is happening to us.
We frequently make this mental error because of a convenient heuristic we carry around in our head. It's known by cognitive psychologists as the "representative heuristic".
Influencers understand the importance of an accurate data strewn and do their best to ensure that their strategies focus on vital behaviors by serving up visible, timely, and accurate information that supports their goals. Instead of falling victim to data, they manage data religiously.
At the corporate level, it's easy to see how the flow of information affects behavior. The fact that different groups of employees are exposed to wildly different data streams helps explain why people often have such different priorities and passions. Different groups, departments, and levels of employees worry about very different aspects of the company's success - not because they hold different values but because they're exposed to different data. For example, the frontline employees who interface with complaining customers usually become the customer advocates. The top-level executives who are constantly poring over financial statements become the shareholder advocates. And sure enough, the folks who routinely take quality measures become the quality advocates. No surprise there.
The problem with passion for a single stakeholder group isn't that employees care greatly about someone or something; it's just that it's hard to expect people to act in balanced ways when they have access to only one data stream.
For instance, members of a group of senior executives we (the authors) worked with were positively driven by their production numbers, which they reviewed weekly. When issues of morale came up (usually with the issuance of a grievance), they'd become rightfully concerned about "people problems" but generally only after it was too late. The same was true for customer satisfaction. This was also listed as a high priority, but nobody ever actually talked about customers or did anything to improve customer relationships until the company lost a major client to a competitor.
To change the executives' narrow focus, we changed the data stream. Alongside weekly production numbers, executives now enthusiastically pore over customer and employee data. If you watch their current behavior, you'll note that they spread their attention across more stakeholders than ever before. We also provided employees who had long shown passion for customer satisfaction with weekly cost and profit data, and they too broadened their interests. For instance, when faced with a dissatisfied customer, instead of simply throwing money at the problem (often the easiest solution), employees began to seek other, more cost-effective fixes. Before the intervention started, leaders and employees alike had talked about the importance of all their stakeholders, but nothing changed their parochial behavior until their data stream expanded.
One warning about data. When it comes to data, there is such a thing as "too much of a good thing."
Corporate leaders often undermine the influence of the data they so carefully gather by overdoing it. The incessant flow of reports, printouts, and e-mails - one heaped upon the other - transforms into numbing and incoherent background noise. Influences never make this mistake. They're focused and deliberate about the data they share. They understand that the only reason for gathering or publishing any data is to reinforce vital behaviors.
INFLUENCER: THE NEW SCIENCE OF LEADING CHANGE
AUTHOR: Joseph Grenny, Kerry Patterson, David Maxfield, Ron McMillan, Al Switzler
PUBLISHER: McGraw Hill Education India
PRICE: Rs 715
ISBN: 9781259098536.
Reprinted by permission of McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited. Excerpted from 9781259098536: Grenny, Patterson, Maxfield, McMillan, Switzler: Influencer; Rs. 715.00. Copyright © 2013 by Vitalsmarts, LLC. All rights reserved