A bird in the hand… why do so many people get worse as they advance in reality TV talent shows?

This week’s America’s Got Talent featured the second group of twelve from the Top 48 contestants. Most of the acts were pretty underwhelming. A common refrain from the judges was “You were so good, fresh, unique and exciting at your audition. What happened?”

I think that what happened might have been something that happens in organizations all of the time. It is illustrated in Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman’s famous study called “The General’s Dilemma”. Here’s the scenario:

Imagine that you are a General and you are surrounded and being overpowered by a superior enemy. If you don’t act, all 600 of your troops will die. You send out two scouts to find a way out.

The first scout tells you that if you take his route, you will most likely save 200 soldiers. The second scout tells you that if you take his route, there is a 1/3 chance that 600 soldiers will be saved and a 2/3 chance that none will be saved. Which route do you choose?

If you are like most people (about 80%), you would probably choose the first route. However, what if the choices looked like this:

The first scout tells you that if you take his route, you will most likely lose 400 soldiers. The second scout tells you that if you take his route, there is a 1/3 chance that no soldiers will die and a 2/3 chance that 600 soldiers will perish.

If you are like most people (about 80%), you would have selected the second route (note: this would work only if you hadn’t already seen the first set of choices and made a decision).

If you look closely, you’ll notice that in terms of the number of people surviving and dying, the two scenarios are the same. Yet, depending on how they are presented, people will make opposite choices.

The conclusion of this research is simple and somewhat intuitive; people tend to avoid risk when they have something to lose but are willing to take risks when they have nothing to lose. The way that the scenarios are phrased primes your brain into a nothing or something to lose situation.

So what does this have to do with America’s Got Talent or your organization? The contestants on America’s Got Talent have little to lose during the auditions. They know that their chances of going on to the next round (or winning) are pretty slim (scenario two in the General’s Dilemma). As a result, they tend to take more risks, put on edgier performances, and often wow the judges (at least those with talent). As they move closer to the million dollar prize they begin to have something to lose (scenario one in the General’s Dilemma). As a result, they often start to play it safe and work within their comfort zone. Not surprisingly, the winner of AGT and other talent-related reality shows are often those who overcome this bias and continue to push and take risks even as the stakes get higher.

The same thing happens in organizations. Many large, successful companies often find themselves adopting a more risk-averse stance as they try to protect their position and status. Companies that continue to drive forward and stay on top are the ones who continue to innovate and take chances (e.g., Apple). Those who play it safe in order to protect their lead often find that their competitors, who have much less to lose, catch up to them very quickly with new innovations and ideas.

Finally, this happens with individuals as well. How many “one-hit wonders” has your organization had? These people do some incredible work and have a meteoric rise to the top but then stagnate. Often this is because they are trying to repeat and re-use the ideas that fueled their success. They often miss the point that while the ideas were good, it was their attitude, aggressiveness, and willingness to take a chance that got the result. The idea was just a by-product.

Take a look around your organization and your people. Which scenario best describes your situation? Are you in a good position with a lot to lose if things don’t go well? Or, are you in a position where the sky is the limit? If it’s the former, be careful that you aren’t creating more risk for yourself by avoiding risk in the first place.

Tips for avoiding the risk-averse culture trap:

1) Celebrate success and positive press but don’t make it your goal to obtain them. Instead focus on outcomes that will continue to drive your business forward.

2) Be cautious of arguments against new ideas that focus more on the chance that you’ll lose your position and less on specific things that might go wrong.

3) When you reach the top, redefine your world so that you are back on the bottom and have something to grow into (e.g., If you are the best cookie company in the world, redefine your company’s success relative to the dessert industry).

-------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.

Heartbreak Ridge

The Reelz Channel just replayed on of my favorite leadership movies, Heartbreak Ridge. The movie stars Clint Eastwood as Gunnery Sergeant Tom Highway. Highway is a weathered, war torn Congressional Medal of Honor recipient who is approaching retirement. He is a stereotypical old school Marine. He’s a tough, no-nonsense guy singularly focused on getting his mission done without much regard for political correctness or internal politics. The movie begins with him putting in a request to return to the unit where his career began.

He is assigned a young, cocky reconnaissance platoon whose members are not quite cut from the same cloth as him. They are undisciplined, unmotivated, under-achievers. There is a hint that their only success to date has been running through gunnery sergeants who couldn’t handle them.

The plot isn’t too surprising. Eastwood whips them into shape and they eventually have great success in a rescue mission of college students in Grenada.

Though predictable, the movie does a better job than most at showing the change that the marines go through under this type of leadership.

One of the first encounters between Highway and his platoon is when he wakes them at 4:00am, an hour earlier than he told them the prior day. They quickly realize that their lives have changed and they are in “hell”. They start offering varying levels of resistance to him.

Shortly after, the team confronts Highway when he orders them to fall out for morning drills. Highway looks confused until “Swede”, a gigantic, muscle-bound Marine, who just got out of the brig (apparently for fighting, possibly even with the prior Gunnery Sargent) steps out from behind the group. The team informs Highway that he’s no longer calling the shots. Swede takes a swing at Highway and the rest is history. Highway blocks the shot, drops Swede to his knees and knocks him out with one punch. The rest of the team immediately falls out. The movie continues with Highway’s tough training and over the top tactics and the team’s hope that this is all just a bad dream from which they will soon wake up.

A key turning point occurs when the team is on a drill against another platoon. They are supposed to serve as a target for another platoon to hone that team’s “superior” skills. Highway will have nothing to do with it. His job is, in his words, “To keep you men alive.” Highway changes the plan and his team successfully ambushes the other platoon. Shortly after, the recon team beats the same platoon in another war game exercise.

While the team is celebrating in their barracks, one of Highway’s peers arrives. The company commander (a young, cocky major who is trying to run Highway out of the Marines) has sent him. The Major wants statements from the recon team regarding Highway’s questionable training practices. The team refuses despite promises of extra liberty and threats of punishment. The gunnery sergeant says, “Don’t you guys want it to be like the old days with nobody messing with you?” The team leader responds, “It seems like nobody is going to be messing with us now.”

That exchange captures the leadership lesson of the movie. This team thought that they had it good. However, while “good” was perhaps easier, it was unfulfilling. The problem is that they didn’t know any better. As a result, when things got tough, the team was ready to walk. Once they saw that they could reach new heights and accomplish things they never thought possible, their attitudes changed. The old “good” life was no longer acceptable. Now that they had a taste of what “good” really looked like and they wanted more. The hard work was worth it and they were ready for more. They didn’t want to go back.

In many organizations, people are encountering a new reality in the workplace. The old “good” life is gone. They can no longer get by just by doing the minimum and staying out of trouble. There are greater expectations and accountability. They have to work harder than ever just to keep up.

In some organizations, the loss of that “good” life is driving down engagement, satisfaction, and morale. In other organizations, it’s having the opposite effect. The difference often relates to how well leaders show people the results of their hard work. When people start to feel meaning and see success in what they do, they will start to embrace the new “good”. The more they achieve, the more they will want to distance themselves from the old life. If they are just experiencing the pain without seeing the results, they are likely becoming demoralized.

Is your organization going through major change? Have things gotten harder for your people? If so, what are you doing to show them a new and better alternative to the “good life” for which so many of them are longing.

------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.