Book Short – Blink part III – Undo?

I just finished reading Michael Lewis’s The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds, and honestly, I wish I could hit Life’s Undo button and reclaim those hours.  I love Michael Lewis, and he’s one of those authors where if he writes it, I will read it.  But this one wasn’t really worth it for me.

Having said that, I think if you haven’t already read both Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink (review, buy) and Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow (review, buy), then it might be worth it.  But having read those two books, The Undoing Project had too much overlap and not enough “underlap” (to quote my friend Tom Bartel) – that is, not enough new stuff of substance for me.  The book mostly went into the personal relationship between two academic thinkers, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.  It also touched on some of the highlights of their work, which, while coming out of the field of psychology, won them a Nobel prize in Economics for illuminating some of the underlying mechanics of how we make decisions.

The two most interesting pieces of their work to me, which are related in the book, are:

First, that human decision-making is incredibly nuanced and complex, and that at least 25% of the time, the transitive property doesn’t apply.  For example, I may prefer coffee to tea, and I may prefer tea to hot chocolate, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I prefer coffee to hot chocolate.

From the book, “When faced with complex multidimensional alternatives, such as job offers, gambles or [political] candidates, it is extremely difficult to utilize properly all the available information.” It wasn’t that people actually preferred A to B and B to C and then turned around and preferred C to A. It was that it was sometimes very hard to understand the differences. Amos didn’t think that the real world was as likely to fool people into contradicting themselves as were the experiments he had designed.  And the choice created its own context: Different features might assume greater prominence in the mind when the coffee was being compared to tea (caffeine) than when it was being compared to hot chocolate (sugar). And what was true of drinks might also be true of people, and ideas, and emotions. The idea was interesting: When people make decisions, they are also making judgments about similarity, between some object in the real world and what they ideally want. They make these judgments by, in effect, counting up the features they notice. And as the noticeability of features can be manipulated by the way they are highlighted, the sense of how similar two things are might also be manipulated.”

Second, what Kahneman and Tversky called Prospect Theory, which is basically that humans are more motivated by the fear of loss as opposed to the greed of gain.  I’ve written about the “Fear/Greed Continuum” of my former boss from many years ago before.  I’m not sure he knew about Kahneman and Tversky’s work when he came up with that construct, and I certainly didn’t know about it when I first blogged about it years ago.  Do this experiment – ask someone both of these questions:  Would you rather be handed $500 or have a 50% chance of winning $1,000 and a 50% of getting nothing?  Then, Would you rather hand me $500 or have a 50% chance of owing me $1,000 and a 50% chance of owing me nothing?  Most of the time, the answers are not the same.

For fun, I tried this out on my kids and re-proved Prospect Theory, just in case anyone was worried about it.

Anyway, bottom line on this book – read it if you haven’t ready those other two books, skip it if you have, maybe skim it if you’ve read one of them!

Does size matter?

It is the age-old question — are you a more important person at your company if you have more people reporting into you?  Most people, unfortunately, say yes.

I’m going to assume the origins of this are political and military. The kingdom with more subjects takes over the smaller kingdom. The general has more stars on his lapel than the colonel. And it may be true for some of those same reasons in more traditional companies. If you have a large team or department, you have control over more of the business and potentially more of the opportunities. The CEO will want to hear from you, maybe even the Board.

In smaller organizations, and in more contemporary organization structures that are flatter (either structurally or culturally) or more dynamic/fluid, I’m not sure this rule holds any more. Yes, sure, a 50-person team is going to get some attention, and the ability to lead that team effectively is incredibly important and not easy to come by. But that doesn’t mean that in order to be important, or get recognized, or be well-compensated, you must lead that large team.

Consider the superstar enterprise sales rep or BD person. This person is likely an individual contributor. But this person might well be the most highly paid person in the company. And becoming a sales manager might be a mistake — the qualities that make for a great rep are quite different from those that make a great sales manager. We have lost a few great sales reps over the years for this very reason. They begged for the promotion to manager, we couldn’t say no (or we would lose them), then they bombed as sales managers and refused as a matter of pride to go back to being a sales rep.

Or consider a superstar engineer, also often an individual contributor. This person may be able to write code at 10x the rate and quality of the rest of the engineering organization and can create a massive amount of value that way. But everything I wrote above about sales reps moving into management holds for engineers as well.  The main difference we’ve seen over the years is that on average, successful engineers don’t want to move into management roles at the same rate as successful sales reps.

It’s certainly true that you can’t build a company consisting of only individual contributors. But that isn’t my point. My point is that you can add as much value to your organization, and have as much financial or psychic reward, by being a rock star individual contributor as you can by being the leader of a large team.

And here I am. In the middle of that “once.” Fred Wilson wrote a great posting by that title on his blog, and it has stuck with me. When I decided to start a blog, it was the first thing that came to mind as a main theme for the blog, so there you go. Only Once it is.

I’m not entirely sure why I’m doing a blog. Part of it is fascination with the newest corner of the Internet and its related areas like RSS (clicking on that link will get you the RSS feed of this blog). Part of it is to try out the medium and see how it might work for the hundreds of marketers and publishers who are my company’s clients. I suppose part of it is to generate some interest in my company, Return Path, which in my extremely biased opinion is one of the most interesting companies in the email services business.

My one hesitation about starting a blog is that the other part of me feels like blogs are a bit narcissistic, and I can’t imagine who on earth would want to read whatever it is that pops into my head. But I’ll give it a try and promise not to go overboard on the extraneous postings.

So, I will probably post periodically about experiences of an entrepreneur, of the one time I’ll ever be a first-time CEO. But I may also post on other things periodically that match my interests: book reviews, travelogs, Princeton, great wines, maybe even the occasional political commentary to prove to my predominantly New York friends that (a) not all Republicans are bad, and (b) not all Jewish New Yorkers are Democrats.

So, here we go…enjoy!

Symbolism in Action

A couple months ago, I wrote about how the idiots who run the Big 3 US automakers in Detroit don’t have a clue about symbolism — the art or the science of it.  Yesterday, I wrote about how I think the non-headcount cuts to G&A that we’re making at Return Path during these challenging economic times will be positive for the company in the long run.  The two topics are closely related.

Obama announces on Day 1 that White House staffers who make more than $100k won’t be getting a pay raise this year.  Presumably all of those people just started their jobs on January 20 and wouldn’t be eligible for a raise until 2010.  Return Path cuts pilates classes in its Colorado office — an expense that must cost around $3,000/year.  Practically speaking, it won’t make a difference to our budget one way or another.  Microsoft lays off 1,400 people — a real number, certainly for those families — but that’s the equivalent of Return Path laying off 2 people. 

Sometimes the symbolic is just that.  It is something designed to send a signal to others, and not much more.  You could argue that all three examples above mean nothing in reality, so they were just symbolic.  A waste of time.

You can also make the argument that sometimes, when done right, symbolism turns into action as it motivates or serves as a catalyst for other changes.  Obama’s cuts may be fictitious, but they set the tone for broader action across a 2mm person bureaucracy.  Pilates in the office?  Feels too excessive these days, even for a company obsessed with its employees and their well being, in an era where we’re cutting back other things that are more serious.  Microsoft has gobs of cash and doesn’t need to worry about its future, but it wants to tell the other 99% of its employee population that it’s time to buckle down and fly straight.  And they will.

Anyone who thinks the synbolic doesn’t influence the practical should think again.  Or just talk to Caroline Kennedy about the impact of her admission that she hadn’t voted in years on her political ambitions.