The Leader's Voice

Is Leadership A Profession?

Rather than write about it, I was part of a live blog radio program that discussed the topic. Loads of other good topics at this site as well. Check it out at Robert Thompson's Thought Grenades.

How WEIRD Are You?

Many of you have probably read about how different cultural norms produce different theories concerning behavior, psychology, and the underpinnings of human relationships. Or your travels may have exposed you to different norms concerning perception, ways of problem-solving, or modes of thought. For instance, take this familiar test - which of the two horizontal lines is longer?

You know the answer, but can you really see the answer, even when you know it? A very interesting new paper suggests Westerners have difficulty with this and may be weirder, compared with the many other large populations, than we thought. Heinrich, Heine, and Norenzayan in the June, 2010 issue of Brain and Behavioral Sciences suggest the following (emphasis mine):

"Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world's top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies...The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the leas representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans."

I recommend a reading of the entire article which you can find here.

The authors claims are very interesting and their examples compelling. But as the world grows ever more industrialized and Western methods become far more pervasive, could it be that human mental processes are adapting worldwide to a more "modern" (forgive the gross generalization) modality? Love to hear your thoughts.

And to add one more tidbit from the WEIRD article, the authors conclude that since so much of psychology depends upon Western undergraduate student populations that:

"Our database is not just an extraordinarily restricted sample of humanity; it is frequently a distinct outlier vis-à-vis other global samples. It may represent the worst population on which to base our understanding of Homo sapiens."

Effective Criticism

Clifford Nass is a Professor of Communication at Stanford University. He was recently interviewed by Ira Flatow on NPR's Science Friday broadcast. 

Nass has been exploring communication in a unique and very interesting manner. He creates experiments to understand communication fundamentals by watching how people talk to their computers. From mobile phones, to GPS systems, to laptops, he is fascinated by what we can learn about how we interact with each other by watching how we interact with technology, especially certain kinds of devices.

His most recent book, The Man Who Lied To His Computer, relates a number of his findings, but if you listen to podcasts, download the Science Friday's September 3, 2010 episode featuring Flatow's interview with Nass. Or if you want to listen to it right now, click this link.

The part of his findings that most intrigued me was his comments on how to give effective criticism. You have probably heard or thought that when giving tough feedback to someone you should start with a positive. Nass would agree. He also recommends that you limit your negative comments to a very select, relevant few, and that you end with positive comments. To understand why, listen to the podcast or read his book.

One of the most powerful thoughts concerned criticism that morphs into blanket blaming. (You've been there. Your boss is a jerk which leads to rants about how all bosses are jerks.) In politics, an individual who uses negative ads to win can boost his or her chances, but negative ads poison the general population's opinion of all politicians and even the politic system. You help yourself in the short run but damage everyone in the long run (including yourself) with negative ads.