In one technology company where one of us [KW] worked, many of the work area and hallway walls were proudly adorned with examples of technology breakthroughs that they had historically achieved throughout the decades. While these items were truly amazing examples of legacy breakthroughs, I was convinced that these “old” artifacts primed many employees to be complacent and think “old” versus to be innovative about breakthroughs of the future. This organization fundamentally missed the huge technology advance from older devices to new, smaller mobile devices and have struggled to catch up.
The second author [WB] consulted to the leaders in the regional office of a major religious organization. Each conference room in this facility came with banners on the wall declaring the primary mission of this church Pads of note paper were also placed on the conference table in front of each chair on which was printed the mission statement. The chief executive officer of this region began each meeting with not only a prayer aligned with the church’s mission but also an example of the mission being successfully initiated in recent weeks. This is real priming! Once again, was this priming always good?
Did it leave the leaders of this region living in the past with little opportunity (or incentive) to upgrade the mission—with full recognition that the religious and spiritual perspectives and practices of many people living in the 21st Century are changing. When does a mission statement provide important continuity and guidance in a very stormy world—when is it a surface anchor that helps a ship at sea remain aligned with the wind and accommodating no more than a slow drift? Conversely, when does a mission statement become a heavy ground anchor that allows no movement of the boat—and keeps the institution too firmly tethered to the past?
Framing
People react very differently to the same information presented in different ways. Two other behavioral scientists, Thaler and Sunstein (2008) offer research findings indicating people will overwhelmingly respond differently when a problem or decision is presented in a positive manner with potential gains being identified then when the problem or decision is presented in a negative way that highlights potential loss. These diverse responses occur despite the fact that the basic information is exactly the same.
In one study, if doctors are told that “ninety of one hundred patients survived” as a result of a certain type of surgery, they are much more likely to recommend surgery than If told that “ten of one hundred died”. Our “System 1” brain responds immediately to this kind of loss or gain information without the more logical and thoughtful consideration of our System 2. Framing occurs because, as Kahneman notes, our brain tends to be lazy and doesn’t want to move to System 2. Most people tend not to think deeply about what they hear or read. We react to information in the moment (especially when under pressure or stressed).
Download Article 1K Club
