Pilar Jerico

When we have come to a decision, any second thoughts, however well-founded, are not welcome. As a result, we amass all the reasons we can think of in order to plough ahead regardless. Festinger coined the phrase “cognitive dissonance” to describe this phenomenon. Cognitive dissonance is the avoidance of keeping in our heads two concepts which are contradictory, such as “smoking is bad for me” and “I like smoking”, or “I never vote for left-leaning political parties” and “I think the centre-left party has a more coherent programme”. This mental duality creates an inner conflict and, as we tend to avoid uncertainty or pain, we strive to eliminate contradictory thoughts with arguments of all stripes. Moreover, we are very good at finding a whole kaleidoscope of pseudo-arguments to choose from. To take the examples above, we might say to ourselves: “it’s not scientifically proven that smoking causes lung cancer” or “political parties never carry out their programmes”.

Our capacity for self-deception in order to justify ourselves can be observed in all areas of life. To take a work-related example, we might say, “When I presented the plan, people were too tired to pay attention”, when the fact of the matter is that the presentation was crushingly boring. Or again, this time in the realm of personal relationships, we could say, “I don’t care about what he said to me” when in reality you were very affected by his words. Unfortunately, cognitive dissonance can also undermine the very fabric of our lives: just think of the multitude of people who do not dare to question their own lives because doing so might imply taking potentially traumatic decisions, such as splitting up with their partner or radically changing their career path. The first step to avoiding cognitive dissonance is to be aware of its existence; we then need to take decisions based on a realistic appraisal of the situation and of our abilities.

We all have a tendency to deny reality because we want to avoid taking decisions which in the short term will prove to be painful. In addition, our brain is delighted to provide us with all sorts of reasons to avoid suffering, and to furnish us with a blinkered view of reality and a selective memory in order to avoid any kind of self-doubt. However, our need for a false sense of security makes us slaves to ourselves.

Control for control’s sake could well be the motto of many companies. A friend of mine, who has just been appointed as the managing director of an American multinational corporation, told me about his own frustrating attempts to improve the people management in his own company. He had aimed to present his strategic plan in person at the main offices of the company around the world. However, owing to the demands of innumerable meetings and videoconferences at the company’s headquarters, he was barely able to move from his seat! I fear that his experience is very much the rule, rather than the exception.

We’ve been speaking for years about managing people from a humanistic, rather than mechanistic, perspective. However, the fact of the matter is that very few companies have been impregnated with this person-centred approach. Instead, many companies are overwhelming their staff with demands for more and more information. No one would deny that information is crucial for effective decision-making. However, how much information do we really need? What is the opportunity cost of swamping different departments with demands for all kinds of reports? Time is a very precious commodity. If people are spending their time cranking out reports, as is the case in many organizations, then they can’t be devoting it to the customer. Quantum mechanics tells us that the observer affects what he observes. So, if as managers we are geared towards analyzing endless streams of data, we will most definitely influence the day-to-day work of our teams.

Years ago, I worked with a manager who insisted that all the purchase orders were input manually into the computer, simply because he couldn’t wait till the next working day to get the automatically generated report! His impatience meant that some poor soul had to spend three hours a day inputting duplicated information. Completely absurd, but all-too-common in many companies even today.

If we want to eliminate this control mania, we need to overcome two main obstacles. First of all, the fear experienced by many managers in these difficult economic times: the greater the crisis, the greater the need for control, which in turn leads to increased stress levels. Secondly, the large number of departments whose raison d’etre is purely to produce and analyze information.

Does control produce genuine added value for companies? We can only hope that the current crisis leads many organizations to re-think the systems which they use, and that they decide to prioritize those areas which create real added value, and not those which merely serve to sooth the anxiety of managers or to justify certain jobs.

How do we choose our leaders? The Spanish broadcaster Eduardo Punset tackled this question with the evolutionary social psychologist Mark van Vugt of the University of Kent in his programme Redes (“Networks”). (For those of you who understand Spanish, I’ve inserted the video of the interview. If you want to read the interview in Spanish, the transcript is here). Among the many ideas discussed, I found the following especially interesting:

• Who comes first, the leader or the followers? In the animal kingdom, it’s the followers who come first. To increase their chances of survival, animals stick together in a group. When the strongest animal goes in search of water or food, the rest follow it. According to van Vugt, leadership among humans developed in a similar way: first came the followers, then the leader.

• We can identify three types of leadership on the evolutionary ladder. First we have “democratic leadership” which existed in hunter-gatherer societies around 2.5 million years ago. In this type of society there was no overall leader. Instead, there were different leaders according to the “area of expertise”: war, hunting, etc. Next appeared the phenomenon of hereditary leadership, around 10,000 years ago. Hereditary leadership was typical in societies based on farming, and led to the creation of a monarchy and aristocracy which passed from one generation to the next. Finally we come to the concept of leadership prevalent in more “developed” countries today, where followers have much more freedom than before and demand leaders who are closer to them. This type of leadership shares certain characteristics with leadership in hunter-gatherer societies.

• In the opinion of van Vugt, we choose female leaders when we want someone to smooth over conflicts, and male leaders when we are more interested in protection and defence from outside threats. This paradigm makes it difficult for women to become leaders of countries (as was the case with Hilary Clinton, according to van Vugt). This male/female dichotomy is based on attitudes we had in the past but, unfortunately, it still influences our way of thinking today. (As an aside, we usually choose older politicians in times of stability and younger politicians in times of change, so Obama got the slogan of his campaign right!)

• Finally, studies in companies have shown that leaders who are chosen by their colleagues demonstrate the same qualities as the leaders of our distant ancestors: they are reliable, trustworthy, not overly ambitious, and, interestingly, taller. I will elaborate on these ideas in another post.

We all know that love and sex sell. You’ve only got to take a look at the rankings of the most visited web sites in the world: sexual contacts, products with the most outlandish claims and pornography. In Spain, for example, it’s estimated that a million people buy sex-related products every day. If sex is one of the oldest businesses in the world, it’s probably because it’s coded into some part of our genes. According to biologists, even the smallest amoeba in the world has two basic needs: survival and reproduction. It’s not surprising then that we, as far more complex beings, seek to satisfy such a basic need in more sophisticated ways. Money is without doubt one of the strategies we resort to in order to fulfil this need. It’s popularly assumed that the richer the person, the more success he (or she) has with the opposite sex. However, researchers have debunked this theory. After studying more than 16,000 people, the British economist Andrew Oswald and his colleague David Blanchflower reached the conclusion that there is no correlation between money and the frequency of sexual encounters. In addition, this result is equally valid for men as well as for women. What’s more, it appears that the factors which correlate most positively with having sex more often are marital separation, in the case of men, and being on the dole, as people have more free time. So it seems that money is no guarantee of frequent sexual contacts, despite the claims to the contrary of ads for cars and jewels.

So what does happiness depend on? The Erasmus University in Rotterdam in Holland has compiled an international database about happiness called the “World Database of Happiness” which includes data on 112 countries. Curiously, the happiest people in the world are the Swiss and the Columbians, according to the findings of this database. In another ranking by the London School of Economics, the happiest people in the world are the Bangladeshis, despite the fact that over half the people in Bangladesh live beneath the poverty line. So the perception of happiness does not seem to depend on the money we have, for all the claims of marketing to make us think otherwise. Deep down, the question of happiness is encapsulated in the dilemma posed years ago by the philosopher Erich Fromm: to be or to have?  If each of us looks back over our life to the times when we have been happiest, most probably we will remember meeting up with friends, strolls, contemplating a landscape or a work of art, etc. We will think of those times when we have enjoyed being, not having. Wanting to have more and more, whether it be sexual encounters, professional success, a better car, etc., brings with it a terrible trap: the more we have, the more we are afraid to lose what we have.

The current crisis has opened a veritable Pandora’s box of fears. Fear is an emotion we are born with and which helps us to take necessary precautions. The problems begin when it paralyzes us, and that’s exactly what is happening at the moment. What many people are suffering from now is toxic fear, a variety of fear which undermines our capacity to act and take decisions.

What are we really afraid of? Fear and motivation are closely related, yet they do not receive the same attention in the media or in company policy. While motivation is accorded a star role in books about management and often proves a read headache to heads of human resources who pursue it as the Holy Grail, fear on the other hand is barely acknowledged in company policy, even though it plays a key role in the day-to-day workings of many companies.

Motivation and fear are two sides of the same coin. Someone who is very success-oriented, for example, will probably try to avoid failure like the plague. Someone who needs to feel part of a group will be terrified if they feel rejected or alone. For someone who likes to influence other people, loss of power will be the worst possible nightmare.

We need to add two equally important fears to those already mentioned: fear of not surviving (not having enough money to pay the bills, in today’s society) and fear of change.

All these fears give rise to lots of others, as the following table shows.

What is our overriding fear? This depends on many factors: age, our position in the hierarchy, our degree of personal growth, our economic circumstances, etc. In the current environment, the fear of not being able to pay the bills or of being laid off have sadly become all too common.

For managers, the main fear is fear of failure. At any rate, this was the finding of a survey carried out three years ago among over 185 executives in positions of middle and senior management. (Most probably this same survey might well throw up different findings if repeated today.) The results of the survey also threw light on other areas which are worthy of mention. This survey was carried out in Spain which has a culture which values the collective highly. It’s not surprising, then, that fear of rejection also scored very well. And it’s not unexpected either to find that fear of losing power was the least voted. In a country like Spain, it doesn’t look good to say that you like to give people orders.

If we’re not very sincere when we speak about motivation, are we going to be sincere when we speak about our fears?

In times of uncertainty, it is vital for companies to develop closer relationships with customers, to get everyone in the organization pulling together, and to make sure that all available talent is put to the best possible use. Underpinning this, the idea of commitment is of central importance.

1.Commitment means giving the best of oneself. Commitment is at root a personal decision, whether at work or at home. It rests on three main ideas: giving the best of oneself, going the extra mile, and not abandoning the situation you find yourself in.

2. Commitment produces results. This was clearly demonstrated in a study carried out by the Corporate Executive Board. People who are highly committed make 57% more effort, outperform by 20% and are 87% less likely to leave a company compared to employees with a lower level of commitment.

3. Commitment is a free decision, not an imposition from above. people are changing jobs less, but does this mean that they are more committed to their companies? Hardly. The fact of the matter is that there are fewer vacancies going and people are more and more afraid of not being able to make ends meet. Although people are sitting at their workstations, this doesn’t mean that their mind is not somewhere else. Commitment is not a duty, it springs from a freely taken decision. This is something which managers should never forget.

4. Emotion, the most powerful ingredient of commitment. A few decades ago, psychologists identified two different types of commitment, rational and emotional. Recent research has shown that changing jobs is related to rational commitment. However, the desire to contribute or to look for another job is also linked to the emotions. When someone isn’t happy they abandon ship, either mentally or physically.

5. Commitment is nurtured. Commitment is not won or created overnight. It takes time to nurture it, yet it is very easy to lose. Why? Commitment is based on trust, and trust is like a glass. Once it’s broken, it’s very difficult to put it back together again without the cracks showing.

6. Commitment is influenced by day-to-day contact. Team leaders are the key to generating commitment. Quite often people do not leave a company, they leave their bosses, especially in Latin countries where the atmosphere at work is an especially important factor. In large companies, commitment is not generated by the pronouncements from head office. It is. however, reinforced in the day-to-day atmosphere at work, in relationships with colleagues and one’s boss, and in the interest produced by the job which one does.

7. Commitment is not eternal. Values change and the job market is much more dynamic than in the past. The consultants McKinsey report that in 1990 the average number of times people changed jobs in their life was two. In 2010 they predict that it will be ten. The challenge for companies is to make sure that while employees stay with them, they are as committed as possible.

8. Commitment starts with the company. If we want employees to be committed, senior management needs to lead by example. It is impossible to expect workers lower down the scale to be committed if management does not set the standard.

9. Last but not least, coherence. The hoary expression “our people are our number one asset” is often flatly contradicted by reality. Without coherence, there is no trust or commitment. In the words of Molière, “All men seem alike when judged by their words; it’s their deeds that set them apart”. In the specific case which concerns us, it is deeds and not good intentions which help to generate commitment.