What if I told you that you’re awesome, but there’s a high probability that you have forgotten about it, about your true self, your true potential.

This is the idea of the inner saboteurs, and it is based on the research of Shirzad Chamine. I introduced it in issue #22 of my newsletter.

The Saboteurs

Shirzad explains that we are all born awesome, but we forget how great we are while we grow up. And this happens because we have some voices in our head, the saboteurs, that usually take control of our mind.

These saboteurs are the invisible characters in our heads, the hidden lens that distorts our reality. And they secretly do sabotage in ourselves.

There are ten saboteurs: the Judge, and his nine accomplice saboteurs, classified based on their motivation and style. You could find their description on the website and also take a free assessment to discover yours.

Origin and Handling

There’s a war in your head between the saboteurs and the real and authentic self, which Shirzad Chamine names our Sage. These factions and behaviors are based in different regions of our brains; professor Chamine has Ph.D. studies in neuroscience and a BA in psychology.

The problem with these saboteurs is that they become the invisible masters (and monsters) in our heads. They pretend they are you, but they aren’t. That’s how you forget who you really are and how great we are.

Once we catch them, we could weaken our saboteurs by exposing, labeling, and letting them go.

You can’t defeat an enemy that you don’t see, or one that successfully masquerades as your friend. So the first step is to identify your Saboteurs and expose their lies to discredit them.

As we could see, there’s a relation between the inner saboteur and some of the stress, unhappiness, and negative feelings. So unleashing from it brings us to a happier and more capable version of ourselves, the true magnificent you.

Resources

If you’re interested in the topic, I recommend you to start visiting the website and taking the assessment. It is also a great idea to let Shirzad Chamine explain it in the following and short TED video.

As always happen, for every TED talk there’s a larger one-hour Google Talk.

Knowing my saboteurs

Knowing our saboteurs doesn’t make them disappear. But labeling our weaknesses is a way to clearly identify and face them on our path to change.

I did twice the free assessment, and the result didn’t surprise me at all. I knew that the pleaser would be my inner saboteur on the top. As the website describes: helping, pleasing, rescuing, loses sight of own needs.

How about yours? Did you take the assessment?

I hope you liked it. If so, please share it! Do not hesitate to add your comments. And, if you want to stay up to date, don’t miss my free newsletter, where this post began.

As always, thanks for reading.

The post Discover Your Inner Saboteur and How to Handle It appeared first on $_DV.

In the 24th issue of the newsletter, the one previous to this post, I also shared insights about writing and keeping the new year’s resolutions (among other topics). It will help me when thinking about mines.

So, let’s go: What happened with last year’s resolutions?

Healthy Goal: Morning workouts

Last year I decided to move my freeletics workouts to the morning to gain time in the afternoon or evening to spend with my family. I wrote about the pros of doing morning workouts. I partially did it; pandemic changed the plan.

I started doing it in January 2020, but I stopped the plan when the lockdown arrived by the mid of March. That doesn’t mean I stopped doing workouts; I just changed the hour. I returned the mornings in October, and I lost it in December with a foot injury, and after that, with tons of excuses and procrastination.

There were secondary objectives, like OCR or swimming. I was very motivated with the first one, and I really was going to participate in one challenge with some colleagues in May, but the pandemic canceled any chance. Regarding swimming, no way, and during the pandemic, I quitted from my gym subscription.

I already shared my experience with the Freeletics App, and during the lockdown and following months, it really helped me a lot. If you have the chance, try the App in free mode.

Learning Goal: Reading books and Data Science competition

As occurred with the morning workouts, I started reading again, keeping the pace I committed to. But surprisingly, during the lockdown, I lost it. And I never recovered it.

I have read a lot of articles for my writing purposes, and I used several books in my research process, but In this case, I failed in my commitment. I still have lots of books to read, as you could see in the blog post that I wrote about the reading habit.

Regarding the Kaggle competition, I didn’t achieve it. Managing people keeps me away from coding, but this year I was able to dedicate some time to programming in python, I did write an application and several scripts for automation, and recently I started playing and doing some analysis with the Twitter API. Still, I didn’t prepare for any competition. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a data scientist, it is just a challenge because I like it.

During the year, I decided to subscribe to educative.io and started training, but I discontinued it. And at work, I was offered a LinkedIn training subscription, and I selected a list of courses that I still have pending.

Mindly Goal: Daily Mindfulness

I included mindfulness in my daily morning routine. It was easier to include the habit, and while I kept it, I succeeded. I started using the Headspace app.

The morning exercise, reading, and mindfulness habits followed similar paths because I included them in the same morning routine, inspired by the 20/20/20 formula from the 5 am club book. You could learn more about it in the following post.

When the lockdown arrived, and I changed the routine, I lost the constancy. During these days, I moved from Headspace to Calm. And when I recovered the routine in October, I also did include mindfulness.

In case you’re curious, I only do the 10-minute Daily Calm to keep the habit.

Writing goal: Monthly article in the blog

While reading the past resolutions, I just realized that I only committed to a monthly article! I am highly astonished… I thought it was weekly!!

Well, considering this, I can celebrate that I highly succeeded. I wrote 36 posts, and I still have 7 drafts pending to publish, that I hope to finish the following week.

And I also started writing a newsletter. I just tried it, but in the end, I sent 24 issues since May.

I wrote all the blog posts and the newsletter issues in English, which, in my case, raises the difficulty. If you decide to write in English, please let me suggest you try Grammarly. It will save your life.

Family Goal: Spending more time with the family

One reason to move the exercise to the morning was to have free time in the evening. And for the first months of the year, I succeeded with it.

Then the pandemic arrived, we were lockdown, did WFH, and I have spent a lot of time with them. So, half because I did right, half by chance, I met the goal. I enjoyed the time with them.

The lockdown had many drawbacks, from the work and family perspective. While many colleagues were moved to temporary lay-offs, the people who remained had to face the brutal increase in the amount of work (at least, in my case) and the new urgent operative ideas. I wrote about some of these experiences, remembering the online selling from the physical stores.

It also affected the family. While we were all at home, my wife had to stop working for 2 months temporarily. During this period we had a salary less.

Work Goal: Overcome uncertainty

It was a demanding and challenging year, mentally. Lockdown pushed us close to burnout, and this year’s projects also did. But these are peanuts compared to my mental burden and my doubts during the last years about my career and future, especially since we are centralizing in Germany, which made me sometimes feel like an imposter.

Regarding the work, in general, I succeeded with the ongoing projects. And I feel valued by my team and bosses. But there is still lots of uncertainty in the workplace regarding the future.

This year showed up that I have a clear goal in learning how to work from home. I am still adapting, but I have much room for improvement. And I guess I will have time to gain experience with WFH in the following weeks.

Also, I have been doing coaching sessions focused on improving self-awareness and motivation, and I have an action plan as a result that I have to execute.

I know what I like and what I want, but I don’t know what to do regarding my career. Last year I committed to making a decision, but it is not easy. I still have work to do.

New Resolutions

This year’s resolutions won’t be surprising; I want to continue the plan from last year, adding some new goals.

These are the goals that I am committing to for the rest of the year.

1. Health: The main idea for this year is to keep the morning workout. The plan will start with a 15-minute daily plan for the next 6 weeks (there’s a training journey in Freeletics). Then I could increase it to 30 minutes, but I am thinking of looking for an additional cardio activity to do with my kids. I would love to include some sailing, but this will be a bonus. But if there’s a new goal on which I want to put special focus this year is sleep. I want to sleep for 7-8 hours regularly. This will be a huge challenge.
2. Learning: I have a massive “to do” list, but I would like to focus again on reading books, 1 book per month. I already selected the first two books. Also, I will try audiobooks, at least one. I am wondering If I could listen to 2x speed. Also, I will continue with the training pieces that I still have ongoing (Educative, LinkedIn Training, Data Science). At least for this first half of the year, then I will review the progress and make changes if needed. On the other hand, I want to play music again, not decided if piano or bass guitar, or both. But the challenge with music will be related to the 5th resolution.
3. Mindfulness: Keep the current daily Calm, and I will also try Calm’s resource to help with sleep.
4. Writing: Keep writing the newsletter and the blog, in the current timings until the 1st year of the newsletter, then I will decide if I should continue or not with it. The challenge here will be to avoid writing the newsletter during the weekend. I will send it on Saturday morning or Friday evening, starting next week.
5. Family: Now that I know how to gain time during the workdays, the challenge will be to move the newsletter to gain the weekends. The second goal will be to look for activities that I can share with my kids. I plan to include exercise activities related to the 1st point and music playing related to the second. I also have an idea about how I will do it and when.
6. Work: As a result of my coaching sessions, I have a plan to follow. This is the main goal. Also improving my WFH skills in terms of organization and communication. Regarding my career, be honest with the people around me and with myself and decide about my future.

Setting shorter term goals

Most of my resolutions, the main ones, are SMART and can be divided into feasible pieces enough to build or change the habit.

Instead of reviewing yearly next year, I committed to doing a monthly review with the updates on each six resolution topics. I will add a comment to this post each month.

If something doesn’t work and needs to be changed, it is better to realize the sooner. Also, setting short-term goals helps with motivation.

Who knows how the year will surprise us, but whatever will happen, these will be my six main goals for this year. I am sure that I won’t achieve them all, but I will succeed with most of them (think positive!).

I hope you will also succeed with yours, and I wish you the best year 2021 possible.

Thanks for reading.

The post New Year’s Resolutions for the long-awaited year 2021 appeared first on $_DV.

If you were asked which leadership style was the best, what would you answer?

I already looked for an answer to this question in a post about leadership styles months ago. And this was one of the multiple questions that my coach asked me in my previous session with him.

The answer wasn’t one of them, but all. The trick is that we may adapt our leadership based on the situation and the people we have.

This question was the preparation for a knowledge pill based on Situational Leadership, an adaptive leadership style that identifies a leadership style based on the person’s maturity or development.

But this is not only about having the flexibility to adapt our leadership style. Knowing our team, and showing the proper skills based on its maturity, imply that our success as managers is linked to our ability to coach our teams.

Leading as a Coach

And this is the main topic from The Leader as a Coach. In this article, Herminia Ibarra and Anne Scoular wrote about the twenty-first-century managers that simply don’t (and can’t!) have all the right answers. Being a manager is a role that is becoming like a coach.

But what means being a coach? Mainly, it is about engaging in with all their people all the time, in ways that help define the organization’s culture and advance its mission. As a coach, we need to help ensure that the people move forward aligned with the cultural values and the mission.

And how could we do it? In general, we could ask questions instead of providing answers, support employees instead of judging them, and facilitate their development instead of dictating what has to be done. It will always depend on what is needed in a given situation with any single person. There will be moments where dictating will be required, and so asking questions.

It doesn’t seem complicated, but it is, and it’s also a huge shift. Management is usually unenthusiastic about coaching, and studies have shown that people usually think they are good at it, but they don’t.

A classical case of study at executive training is to play the role of a manager who must decide whether to fire or coach a direct report that is not performing up to par. Nine of ten decide to coach. We all know the answer, even when we don’t lead by example.

But when it comes time to play, people demonstrate much room for improvement. People know what they’re supposed to do, but it doesn’t come naturally because they aren’t used to it.

Styles of Coaching

In the same article, Herminia and Anne presented the following 2×2 axis with one axis showing the information, advice, or expertise that a coach puts into the relationship with the person being coached, and the other showing the motivational energy that a coach pulls out by unlocking that person’s own insights and solutions.

1. Directive coaching: This is mentoring. It needs more telling than asking.
2. Laissez-faire coaching: Probably anti-coaching, when everybody knows what to do, and the best way is to leave them alone doing
3. Non-directive coaching: This means listening and questioning. The coach is a facilitator and helps with problem-solving.
4. Situational coaching: A combination of others. This is where all the coaches should aspire to arrive, striking a fine balance between directive and non-directive styles according to the moment’s specific needs.

The article also introduces other interesting points, like the GROW coaching model, especially for non-directive coaching. I encourage you to read it.

Situational Leadership

Returning to the original topic, situational leadership strategy encourages leaders to take stock of their team members, weigh the many variables in their workplace, and choose the leadership style that best fits their goals and circumstances. 

There isn’t a uniform leadership style that works for everyone all the time. You may need to adjust your style based on the people you’re managing, the context in which you’re leading, or the external pressures you’re under.

According to STU university, there are two models for Situational or Adaptative Leadership, the one described by Daniel Goleman and another by Ken Blanchard and Paul Hershey.

In this newsletter, I am going to focus on the second. I also mentioned Goleman’s in my blog post. You could find below a summary of the Six leadership Styles he proposed.

The Situational Leadership Model has two fundamental concepts: leadership style and the individual or group’s performance readiness level, also referred to as maturity level or development level.

The Maturity

There are two variables to consider when measuring Maturity: ability and willingness. Ability is related to our capacity to do a task, and willingness has to do with attitude.

There are two characteristics to consider also when measuring Maturity:

• It is relative: one person can be mature regarding a concrete task, but not to others.
• It is dynamic: It is measured on a concrete moment, that can’t be different on the following.

Based on the ability/willingness, they identified four levels of Maturity (M1 to M4).

Leadership Styles

Do you remember the 2×2 matrix that presented Herminia and Anne regarding coaching styles? Well, regarding leadership, it is a similar case. We found two different approaches, task or relationship-oriented, directive or nondirective, more controller or developer.

• Telling: Leader makes decisions, one-way communication, with specific guidance, and close supervision. Related to M1.
• Selling: The leader is open to cooperation and suggestion but more focused on explaining and persuading. Related to M2.
• Participating: Participating but leaving decisions to the people. Sharing and facilitating, fostering creativity. Related to M3.
• Delegating: Letting others do, providing minimum guidance to workers, or help to solve problems. They may be asked from time to time to help with decision-making. Related to M4.

Evolution of the Model

Blanchard and Hershey evolved the model differently, bringing new models. Blanchard’s situational leadership II model uses the terms “competence” (ability, knowledge, and skill) and “commitment” (confidence and motivation) to describe different levels of development.

According to Ken Blanchard, four combinations of competence and commitment make up what we call development level.

Find below Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model II based on competence and commitment.

You’ll find slight differences in the leadership naming, and maturity is related to the development.

1. Telling evolves to Directing, and M1 is becoming D1. The leader makes decisions and has close supervision. The goal is to help to learn.
2. Selling evolves to Coaching, and M2 becomes D2. The leader continues making decisions but is open to suggestions and explains the reasons. The goal is to help grow and gain confidence.
3. Participating evolves to Coaching, and M3 becomes D3. The leader gives support, and less direction, helping the report to reach its own solutions. The goal is to help growing confidence and motivation.
4. Delegating remains the same, and M4 becomes D4. The leader gives resources, shares authority but remains responsible. The goal is to help reach other levels to continue growing.

You will find a more detailed explanation of each group’s behavior and development in the post How Practicing Situational Leadership Can Change Your Team’s Dynamic.

Final Considerations

I am pretty sure that while reading this, you were able to identify if a person could fit into any M or D categorization. Probably you find that this theory makes sense, or it is common sense.

If not, try to think about it. Analyze which maturity or development level applies to each person of your team or group, and which leadership style fits his current level and situation. And be aware of the differences between each.

Before ending, two final considerations:

• Remember that no leadership style fits all situations, people, or environments.
• The leader must be able to adapt leadership to each situation and person.

I hope you liked it. If so, please share it! Do not hesitate to add your comments. And, if you want to stay up to date, don’t miss my free newsletter, where this post began.

As always, thanks for reading.

The post Coaching and Situational Leadership: Adapting Your Style appeared first on $_DV.

As a very summarized version, the story starts when Dr. Timnit Gebru and other colleagues sent a paper for feedback and review, and her manager’s manager, legendary Jeff Dean, and Megan Kacholia (VP of Engineering) orders her to retract it.

After, she sent an unfortunate email asking for help and support to an internal listserv and also asked her higher management to meet some requirements to continue working at the company. Then, she “gets resigned” from Google Brain.

It is a terrible but interesting case, combining ethical issues from diversity and management to company interest.

The best people to answer all these questions are the people involved. In this post, I will only include a wrap up of articles and opinions.

The Way for Getting Her Resigned

There have been lots of discussions about if she resigned or was fired. Or if she was “legally resigned,” which IMHO sounds worse than being fired. The fact is that she was cut off quickly when there wasn’t any real will of leaving the company.

The first step to dive deeper into what happened is to read the email she sent to the Google Brain Women and Allies group, and then Jeff Dean’s communication about the resignation of Timnit. Both emails are available at Platformer.

I think sending that email to the Google Brain Women and Allies group was a bad idea, especially when knowing that management was also reading. The content, and asking people to stop working, is quite irresponsible for a manager or co-lead.

Also, “threatening” the senior management asking them to meet her requirements to continue working at Google wasn’t the best move. But do you find it enough to fire anybody?

In case you want to fire anybody, you do it, and if this person wants to resign, you allow it to resign. But you don’t go saying that this person resigned when not.

Possible Reasons for Firing Her

Dr. Timinit Gebru is a well-known researcher with a wide impact in the field of AI, Ethics, and the community. So, what makes a company decide to fire a highly reputed researcher, a “rockstar” like she was referred to in social media?

I mean, if you have a rockstar in your team, would you kick it after the first problem? And why this hurry? Why this need to do it quickly that led to doing things that bad?

The actions that Google executed are probably the best demonstration of how they could be looking desperately for a reason to fire her. You could read the following Twitter thread from a former Googler and tech exec.

That brought me to think about the reasons that could drive them to do it:

• The paper’s content threatens in any way the company, so there are a real need and hurry in its retraction.
• The work of the AI Ethical team threatens other Googlers, so Google management was thinking of protecting them over ethically doing things.
• They were looking for an excuse to get her out, so her reaction gave them the perfect reason.
• Timnit is a recognized voice in AI, Ethics, and Google, so keeping her after rejecting the paper would be considered toxic for Google Brain management purposes.

In any case, they would be assuming tons of passionate reactions in social media, they would have imposed silence, and they will be waiting until they weather the storm.

Management Issues at Google Brain

Something that came to my mind is that she had a manager, Samy Bengio, who wasn’t noticed and involved. Even for retracting the paper or telling her that she did wrong with the email, it should have been his direct manager who should have done it.

From a managerial point of view, it only makes sense if they already had the idea of cutting her and wanted to avoid involving Samy Bengio. In any other usual situation, his manager would have been his manager, the only one who would have told the problems with the paper and to talk to her about his email manner.

Jeff Dean sending the email accepting the resignation, and sharing excuses about the deadline denied by other Googlers, discredits him as a manager and colleague. Wasn’t he thinking of the damage he is doing to himself, to his department, and the people working in it?

Only Jeff Dean knows the answer to most of the open questions, but he won’t publish anything else related to this topic, probably because he can’t, and probably he is not the one writing the answers.

It also turns out that the best engineers could not bet the best managers. Jeff Dean is a legend at Google and AI, but maybe he is not the best manager for their people.

I read on Twitter a person defending Jeff, saying that he wasn’t a politician, just an engineer. Sorry, but if you arrive at a VP position, you are.

AI Ethics

I didn’t’ want to lose the opportunity to share with you a brief view of the Ethical challenges in AI, the importance of Ethics in AI, and the relevance that it has: AI has a potential influence to change the world, but the open questions are how and towards where.

The ethics of AI lies in the ethical quality of its prediction, the ethical quality of the end outcomes drawn out of that and the ethical quality of the impact it has on humans.

So the challenge of AI ethics is to avoid any harm caused by their outcome. Probably unintended damages, but when there’s a lack of awareness regarding these issues, there’s the real potential harm that can be caused.

A “harm” is caused when a prediction or end outcome negatively impacts an individual’s ability to establish their rightful personhood (harms of representation), leading to or independently impacting their ability to access resources (harms of allocation).

Even Unesco is asking for policies and regulatory frameworks to ensure that these emerging technologies benefit humanity as a whole. Biased algorithmic systems can lead to unfair outcomes, discrimination, and injustice. There’s a high risk of encapsulating human biases and blind spots.

There’s a fierce debate regarding the interference of ethics in AI research. Some researchers defend their contribution to science as an argument to avoid the censorship of the ethical points of view.

If you’re interested in knowing more about AI ethics, you could visit The Hitchhiker’s Guide to AI Ethics.

The Content of the Paper

Maybe the content of the paper gives some context and helps to understand what happened. MIT Technology Review published an analysis about the content: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here’s what it says.

But Azeem Azhar did great in summarizing MIT’s review in his LinkedIn article The Essential Ethical Quandary of Industry, where he raised the issue of Google’s biased ethical work.

Google says that the work that its Ethical AI team does is important, but it can’t be completed by an in-house team. Self-regulation in this area will not work. It didn’t work with oil companies and climate change. It won’t work with tech firms.

So, on top of that, there’s a conflict of interests. Google is not interested in researching something that could lead them to problems., cannot allow them to work freely, independently, and probably wants an Ethical team without ethics.

Companies and Research Relation

Andrew Ng also raised this open question regarding research and companies’ relation to establish balanced rules to set similar expectations.

So, what goes first? The research or the company? Probably the company who pays, you don’t bite the hand that feeds.

But in case you are not developing any commercial product, and you are working in ethics thinking on a higher purpose, on minorities of end customers, in this case, which one goes first?

Toxicity and Diversity in the Workplace

Considering all that we have already exposed here, there is enough information to understand what happened in this case. But the story is even worse. It really shows big issues about toxicity in the workplace and also raises some problems with diversity.

But as this article shares, Google employees have grumbled in recent years about ethics in artificial intelligence, treatment of women, treatment of Black employees, and transparency. When Google fired her, it touched all four of these issues.

You could also read the following MIT Technology Review article, which shows a terrible story, explaining how it is also well-known in the industry and how far management is going to cover these behaviors.

What about Google’s Answer?

Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that “We need to accept responsibility for the fact that a prominent Black, female leader with immense talent left Google unhappily” and “We need to assess the circumstances that led up to Dr. Gebru’s departure, examining where we could have improved and led a more respectful process”.

Also, trying to discredit her work seems not to be a good idea. Dr. Timinit Gebru is a well-known researcher with a wide impact in the field of AI, Ethics, and the community.

The Best Place to Work

This sounds very weird when you always thought about Google as the place to be, as the best workplace, and it still is in the top ten. Maybe is this toxic behavior located in the Brain department? As Bob Sutton also remembered, “Don’t Be Evil? I fear they stopped using that slogan for a reason.”

And also, you have more details on this platform Standing with Dr. Timnit Gebru, where you could also find a list of supporters. By the time I am writing this post, there are 2695 Googlers and other 4302 signatures.

This firing exposed a problem publicly, not only related to Timnit but for the whole company. There’s a lot of work to do related to AI Ethics, diversity, and people management.

I wish that something good could come to an end in this case, but I don’t think there’s any way back. Right now, it seems to be a lose-lose situation for both Google and Timnit.

I hope you liked it. If so, please share it! Do not hesitate to add your comments. And, if you want to stay up to date, don’t miss my free newsletter, where this post began.

Thanks for reading.

The post Ethical Issues at the Brain of Google: The case of Timnit Gebru appeared first on $_DV.

In politics, as in companies, or any group of people, polarization and extremism can appear when like-minded people join, and it is not adequately identified and addressed on time.

As I said, I don’t want to focus on politics. Still, it was impossible to hide from it, and the recent US elections and political situation is an excellent example of polarization.

Affective polarization

The following HBR article explains that after the 2016 election, research showed that 45% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats think the other party is so dangerous that it threatens the nation’s health.

Fifty years ago, few people expressed any anger when asked how they would feel if their child married someone from the other party. Today, one-third of Democrats and nearly half of Republicans would be deeply upset. They also increasingly personally dislike those from the other party.

It doesn’t only affect internally in politics, but also outside politics. If you read the article, you could understand how it affects our lives and economies. Scholars call it affective polarization.

Partisanship has become a social identity. This kind of behavior creates homogeneous groups of people intolerant of opposing viewpoints. Like-minded groups can encourage extremism and provide a false sense of reality.

Group and authority manipulation

Groups can encourage, influence, and manipulate attitudes, and so media can. And it turns out that when people are unsure about their beliefs, they tend to adopt a more moderate view, at least against the group, not against individuals.

• Social influence: Give money to a group and ask them to share with a stranger. Some people will give higher amounts to just not be seen as greedy by others.
• Media influence: 93% of Americans believe that Arab terrorists conducted the 9/11 attack, but only 11% of Kuwaitis agree.

Psychologist Stanley Milgram demonstrated that authority figures could direct people to act in ways that hurt others. People follow orders issued by trusted authorities.

One experimenter concluded that individual personalities do not inhibit aggressive behaviors but that situations dictate aggressive antisocial behavior by invoking deindividualization, a process that makes aggressors and victims seem less than human.

Sociologist Irving Janis identified like-minded people interaction behavior as groupthink, and noted that certain groups discourage alternative viewpoints, avoid discussions, and emphasize consensus, even when based on factual errors.

People participate in a group consensus to avoid hostility or maintain their self-esteem. Social pressure can suppress independent assessments and contribute to an opinion cascade.

Diversity positively influences

In general, polarization is typically regarded as negative, but in the following article, they reveal that if the power of diverse, polarized perspectives can be unleashed, it can positively influence quality productivity.

The problem is not people being uneducated. The problem is that people are educated just enough to believe what they have been taught and not educated to question anything from what they have been taught – Professor Richard Feynman

This HBR article explains that decades of social science research had found that the presence of diverse perspectives is beneficial for creative companies and teams. Diverse perspectives enable groups to search for a wider space of solutions to their problems.

Deliberation in a diverse group whose members have differing information, styles of thinking, and positions, can prevent extremism and improve the quality of ideas.

Collectively, teams with mixtures of bias that are willing to engage and collaborate can yield superior performance. This reveals a “silver lining” of diversity and disagreement in these polarized times.

Preventing toxic polarization

Preventing toxic group polarization requires effort, and I haven’t seen any white-book or manual. You cannot believe that things will work for granted. You have to care about it. But how can it be prevented?

• Include guidelines and policies in polarized teams, the violation of which could lead to an end of participation. In these cases, little increased oversight and bureaucracy might be beneficial.
• Commitment to discourse and consensus. Strongly signaling such a mission upfront may induce self-selection from those individuals willing to cooperate for the common good. Common goals unite.
• To counter groupthink, group members should question their assumptions and discover why other people object. One way to test assumptions is to post the same problem to different groups without a vested interest in the outcome.
• Like the previous one, this time, ask for opinions outside of your circle, or outside experts, to avoid polarization and enrich yours. It was a practice that also did, for example, presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt.
• Brainwriting, or sharing ideas and thoughts in advance, avoids these mind-like near-consensus feelings and gives each member a voice, avoiding the domination by a few of them.

Better together

We are constantly manipulated and misinformed by media, by authorities, and by our like-minded groups. We are highly biased, and in many cases, we know it, and we feel safer avoiding it.

This situation raises extremism and group polarization. Don’t look any further. Nowadays, it is widespread to see, especially in politics.

But keeping that in mind, we should encourage ourselves to escape from groupthink and allow diverse groups where different ideas and thinkings are represented.

Ideas are not strengthened with authoritarianism, but with critical thinking, under an environment of a diversity of ideas and their confrontation and subsequent refutation.

If we realize the other side has something worth saying, the arguments become smarter than the participants. We are better together.

I hope you liked it. If so, please share it! Do not hesitate to add your comments. And, if you want to stay up to date, don’t miss my free newsletter, where this post began.

As always, thanks for reading.

The post The Risk of Group Polarization. We Are Better Together appeared first on $_DV.

In the issue, I started introducing a video from Business Insider, where Adam Grant shared why introverted people would be better leaders. Adam Grant is a well-known psychologist, bestselling author, and professor at Wharton School.

At first, I didn’t understand the video at all. IMHO introverted wouldn’t be the right adjective. I was thinking of “humble”, because somebody who doesn’t want to share the spotlight and feels threatened would be a self-centered person, but not just extroverted.

Then I remembered Susan Cain‘s book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking and decided to dive a little deeper into what Adam was explaining.

The power of introverts

I already had some notes in a draft post about a series of articles based on her book. I start with the following interview from HBR, also available the MP3 from the podcast.

In the article, Susan makes a call to all the managers, noticing them that a third to half of their employees are introverted and that realizing this will help them figure out how to get the best from them.

But why knowing this will help get better results? Because research demonstrated that they react and operate in different levels of stimulation. As she explains, the “one size fits all environments” doesn’t work. So, again, the challenge is to get the best from everyone.

At that point, you would have noticed that when we say introvert, we don’t mean shy or antisocial. Shyness is more about the fear of social judgment, and some introverted are shy, but some are not, or not in all circumstances.

Stimulation response

Being introverted is about how you respond to stimulation, including social stimulation. Extroverted people need more massive stimulus to feel at their best, and introverted feel better in quieter, lower-key environments.

Based on what I have shared, you could imagine that the office environment affects introverts and extroverts differently. Working with others is normal for introverts, but when you put them in a more stimulating situation like a meeting or brainstorming, it doesn’t get the expected results.

So group work doesn’t work equally for all the people, and this is important in the current moment where the more-agile environments push us to communicate, interact, and in the end, work together.

The problem with introversion is that in some places and environments is viewed somewhere between disappointment and pathology.

Introverted people capabilities

Susan defends that a crucial role of creativity is also solitude, as many great creative artists and other people understood it and cultivated solitude. Groups can influence and manipulate people’s viewpoints.

In general, institutions are designed for extroverts. Knowing what we know now means a huge waste of talent only because people don’t have in mind the different personalities and behaviors.

Introverts have many capabilities, as the creative one as solitude and emotional introspection, but also have more persistence and concentration.

Albert Einstein, who Susan defends that he was an introvert, said: It’s not that I am so smart. It’s that I stay with problems longer.

In fact, as seen in this Forbes article, several icons are introverts: Warren Buffett, Rosa Parks, Charles Darwin, Al Gore, J.K. Rowling, Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, Google’s Larry Page.

More about Susan’s work

If you’re interested in Susan Cain’s work about introverts, you could see the following 19-minute TED talk.

Also, you could find the following link to her Google Talk interesting. It turns out that at this talk, most of the Googlers felt that they were introverted, with only five extroverts in the room.

Leadership

But what about leadership? That is the point where we come back to Adam Grant.

In research with Francesca Gino and David Hoffman, they found that introverted leaders deliver better outcomes than extroverts when managing proactive employees.

It shows that introverted and extraverted leadership styles can be equally effective, but with different groups of employees. Our research provides insight into when each style is effective, as opposed to trying to test which one is better — which I think is the wrong question.

Introverted leaders are more likely to listen carefully to suggestions and support employees’ efforts to be proactive.

So the point that Adam was referring to with “sharing spotlight and feeling threatened “was that introverts let extroverts get the best of themselves, listen to them, and adopt suggestions, allowing them to be autonomous and be proactive, doing things their way, increasing their motivation.

Introverted leaders create a virtuous circle of proactivity.

Takeaways

Well, regarding Adam’s video, I would have to start with a reflection about humility. Sometimes we didn’t understand things because we lack the necessary knowledge, and we have to admit it. We have to admit our limitations.

I found this topic very interesting, not only regarding leadership, which was the main excuse for the post. Also, thinking about knowing better the introverted people, how they respond to stimulation, their limitations, their capabilities, and then, from a management perspective, how to get the best from them.

I wrote a post time ago about people’s personalities that you could enjoy. If I remember correctly, Myers-Briggs has 8 types of introverted personalities.

I always considered myself introverted and shy. Now I know that I should consider both differently. Maybe you are introverted or manage introverted people, which could help you better understand future situations.

I hope you liked it. If so, please share it! Do not hesitate to add your comments. And, if you want to stay up to date, don’t miss my free newsletter, where this post began.

As always, thanks for reading.

The post The power of introverted leaders appeared first on $_DV.

If we are going to adopt full-time remote work or any other temporary solution, it will be helpful to keep in mind some tips for improving communication and support teams.

Being there for people will be more important than ever in the next months.

Remember that given the situation, the uncertainty, and in some cases, solitude, people will probably suffer from stress and anxiety. Isolation is not only exclusive for people that live alone. Depending on the personality, you’ll also find very sociable people that will suffer from it.

Communicate frequently, be accessible, and give support

Some teams practice daily meetings and weekly meetups, but consider seriously scheduling them and keeping everybody connected. And take extra time to chat a little about off-topics. Give some time for improvising casual and informal talks and have some fun!

Also, provide a channel for exchanging feedback and help. I recommend you to schedule time for listening. Some people will need special attention and support, don’t wait to hear it from them, ask.

Be interested in your team’s habits and home environment

People should attach to a routine, working time should have a clear start and end time. WFH allows us to conciliate, but that doesn’t mean that we will do it right.

Remember the people that pauses are necessary for efficient work, that our brain only can focus 45 minutes.

It is important to watch out for the signs of stress and burnout. Depending on the situation, remember to lead with vulnerability, show empathy, and offer flexibility.

Leading in uncertain times

This week, Amy Edmonson shared a video from TED about How to lead in a crisis. In uncertain times, when people look for security, leaders must:

• Communicate with transparency, humility, and often. Share what you know and admit what you don’t.
• Act with urgency. Inaction leaves people feeling lost and unstable.
• Hold purpose and values. Values can be your guiding light when everything else is up in the air.
• Share power and control. Ask for help, give people a purpose, and work as a team.

Amy explains much better, so please check it out.

Don’t forget to be selfless and compassionate

Before ending, I am going to share the last article from HBR from the Dalai Lama on Why Leaders Should Be Mindful, Selfless, and Compassionate.

We are naturally driven by self-interest; it’s necessary to survive. But we need wise self-interest that is generous and cooperative, taking others’ interests into account.

I hope you liked it. If so, please share it! Do not hesitate to add your comments. And, if you want to stay up to date, don’t miss my free newsletter.

As always, thanks for reading.

The post Communication and Leadership in Times of Crisis appeared first on $_DV.

Maybe you remember a post about Leadership Styles from some months ago. Maybe this kind of leadership would be a new one, suitable for the current situation, especially thinking about the world pandemic.

Vulnerable leaders against bullies or bravados

Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic shared the following article, co-written with the fabulous Amy Edmondson, about the need for more vulnerable leaders against the bullies or bravados.

When there aren’t clear answers in these uncertain times, and people are probably experiencing fears, it is imperative to adopt the proper leadership that the situation requires.

It is more important than ever to show honesty, kindness, closeness, humility, adaptability, and humanity as a leader. A good leader uses emotions to achieve their goals. In the end, emotions and feelings impact the performance of individuals and groups.

In the article, they shared the following suggestions to cultivate a more vulnerable style of leadership:

• Start by telling the truth. 
• Ask for help.
• Go outside your comfort zone.
• When you make a mistake, admit it and apologize. 
• Engage others in your journey of self-improvement.

Vulnerable vs Macho

Following the same topic, the demise of the macho leader, Tomas, and Amy published another article at FastCompany.

In this article, they use the example of the humane and empathetic type of leadership from Jacinda Ardern, using the example of her leading in the pandemic. People are clearly better off when their leaders are rational, honest, and empathetic.

One of the criticisms I’ve faced over the years is that I’m not aggressive enough or assertive enough, or maybe somehow, because I am empathetic, it means I’m weak. I totally rebel against that. I refuse to believe that you cannot be both compassionate and strong.

They also identified the following traits or capabilities from both types of leaders:

Macho

• seeks praise
• craves fans and followers
• overconfident
• defensive
• blames others when things go wrong
• creates a culture of fear
• self-deceived

Vulnerable

• embraces criticism
• builds others’ capabilities
• humble
• curious
• takes responsibility when things go wrong
• creates psychological safety
• self-aware

They recommend starting with a rational sense of humility about what lies ahead to adopt a more vulnerable style. This triggers a productive sense of curiosity that drives others’ interest and in learning more about what they know and need.

No leader can succeed over the long-term without that interest precisely because they will fail to leverage the capabilities of followers.

Shifting from invincibility to vulnerability

Herminia Ibarra, a top leadership expert, shared days ago this talk from the World Economic Forum. From a leadership point of view, there’s a need to shift from this feeling of invincibility to vulnerability.

This is a point also shared by Tomas and Amy. This year has proven that we are not invincible in many ways, from business, labor, to personal.

But what means to be a vulnerable leader? What are we looking for when we ask for vulnerability?

It is not about showing any weak leadership but showing weakness in building human connection and trustworthiness., and showing yourself and not the fake image of yourself, embracing uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure.

Also, it is usual to see people creating a social distance at work to show confidence, competence, and authority. When this happens, it is said that this is a demonstration of a lack of authenticity.

What means authenticity?

Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is ultimately very active and is sharing fascinating publications and debates. Regarding authenticity, he shared an article from Forbes, The Dark Side Of Authentic Leadership, about the ability to fake authenticity.

Just think about it for a minute. Have you recently met a leader who shows fake authenticity? Who is showing a different version of itself?

Following the article ideas, he also shared a poll asking which leader would you prefer?. A Confident & Authentic leader, or a Competent & Considerate one. As expected, the last one was the winner, with almost 84% of the votes.

This topic is also related to the vulnerable leadership that I shared in the last newsletter, shifting from an invincible and confident leader (Tomas call them Macho leaders) to a more vulnerable and honest one.

When asked about the traits, he offered the following description, which was not without criticism. Especially the authentic definition. He didn’t say that he thought about the fake sense of authenticity, this unfiltered and uninhibited version that some leaders want their people to perceive looking for admiration.

Being authentic is naturally showing oneself with confidence, sharing our virtues, defects, and rarities openly, establishing a relationship and connection based on mutual trust.

Someone authentic shows itself as it is, without falsehoods, without trying to be another person that it really is not. We tend to adapt our behavior based on situations, but the authenticity is constant.

As Tomas ends his article: It seems clear to me that between a leader who is authentic but incompetent, and one who has worked hard to against her nature to act in a competent way and have a beneficial impact on others, the choice should not be too hard.

Vulnerability as a sign of courage

Returning to the main attribute or trait, vulnerability, there’s a quote from Brené Brown that always come to my mind, and I use quite often:

Vulnerability is not winning or losing; it’s having the courage to show up and be seen when we have no control over the outcome. Vulnerability is not weakness; it’s our greatest measure of courage.

I rescued this video from my Twitter timeline, from an interview with an Air Force Colonel, who shared that “Vulnerability is the birthplace of courage. And courage is not doing something because you’re fearless. Courage is doing something because you’re maybe afraid, and you do it anyway.“.

So, it is the time for vulnerable leaders

Or at least, this is the opinion of business thinkers and leadership experts. As Laszlo Bock shared recently, in a year with lockdowns, a year with several life restrictions, high unemployment, exposed racial injustices, the year of a deadly world pandemic, everyone is processing social and economic turmoil. Ignoring emotions is impossible.

As I said before, a good leader uses emotions to achieve their goals because it understands that emotions and feelings impact individuals’ and groups’ performance.

I agree that it is more important than ever to show honesty, kindness, closeness, humility, adaptability, and humanity.

But what about your opinion? How is your company facing these uncertain times? What kind of leadership style are you employing?

I hope you liked it. If so, please share it! Do not hesitate to add your comments. And, if you want to stay up to date, don’t miss my free newsletter.

As always, thanks for reading it.

The post The need for vulnerable leaders appeared first on $_DV.

It all started some weeks ago, ending September, when Brian Armstrong, Coinbase co-founder and CEO, published an article at the Coinbase blog about its mission.

As I mentioned in the newsletter, I saw are some similarities with Frank Slootman’s LinkedIn post that I shared in another newsletter.

A mission-focused company statement from Coinbase

The post aims to share the company mission: create an open financial system for the world and achieve success, focusing on that mission, on what unites and not divides, on building a high-performance team.

Brian defends that while most social-related activism or activities are well-intentioned, they distract from the company focus and divide people. And that, in the end, they could destroy the value of the company.

The company is first, and individuals are second. Even if they agree that something is a problem, they don’t agree on how to solve it.

Different opinions and reactions

This “leave politics at the door” or “no-politics rule” has been received with diverse opinions and reactions. While many people agree, several voices appoint that this raises diversity and equality issues.

Coinbase’s investor Paul Graham also applauded it and predicted that most successful companies would follow Coinbase’s lead. You could find some Twitter threads about it, like the one I share below.

It was also a topic for the All-In podcast with Jason Calacanis, Chamath Palihapitiya, David Friedberg, and David Sacks.

You could find a recap of reactions in this Bloomberg article. You could also easily find Twitter’s Jack Dorsey and Dick Costolo public reactions, like the one below.

Coinbase policy follow-up and exits

If you have read the post, they prepared a generous exit package for the people willing to go. The following week, there was an update from Coinbase’s CEO.

In this new post, Brian shares that the number of people who left the company was 60, 5% of the total employees. There have been voices defending that 5% is a low rate.

Armstrong also noted how some people worried his stance would push out people of color and other underrepresented minorities. But in his blog post, he said those folks “have not taken the exit package in numbers disproportionate to the overall population.”

As Case Newton tweeted, it is good to see numbers in perspective.

Another different example of political interference

If you thought this post would be monographic about Coinbase’s CEO delirium, you were completely wrong!

The following case is the opposite example, a company explaining its employees who they should vote for.

We went from the “leave out politics at the door” to “vote for Biden”. Independently of your political preferences, this isn’t good. The arguments remain the same as for Coinbase.

You could also find below an answer via email from Daniel Rothschild, directly addressed to the Expensify CEO, warning him and asking him to avoid politicization. Your email contributes to this breakdown in social trust.

Leaving social activism and politics out

I like the opinion of leaving most of the activism and politics at the door and agree that companies should stay away from politics and focus on their mission and purpose.

But when we talk about individuals, I also understand people who can’t stay away and empathize with them. We aren’t ruled by machines yet, so we are humans, and I am closer to an “Individuals first” position. So returning to the previous paragraph, companies should focus on achieving their mission through their people.

The interesting point is that statistically, the primary demographic for who “doesn’t care about politics or socials”, which means a conformist or favorable position regarding a situation or topic, are straight white males.

This brings us to the next topic: again, we have to remember and understand privileges. If you usually read my newsletter, don’t you remember from past issues? Privilege is the absence of inconvenience, impediment, or challenge. People directly affected by an unfair situation can’t avoid it.

Don’t be cruel and don’t stigmatize people

Before leaving the topic, I wanted to share an article published in medium by Laszlo Bock, named The Fallacy of the Politics-Free Office.

As the article explains, in a year with lockdowns, a year with several life restrictions, high unemployment, exposed racial injustices, the year of a deadly world pandemic, everyone is processing social and economic turmoil. Ignoring emotions is impossible. Considering all, asking employees to suppress them at work is somehow cruel.

An also, telling them who to vote, even if you see it as an argued suggestion, stigmatizes those who don’t. We could agree or disagree about the candidate, but everybody should be free to vote who they want without any external pressure.

The positive part, if any, is that these posts or statements generated an exciting debate. I don’t think this discussion will end up with a consensus or will change anything.

People who agree and people who don’t will probably remain the same. But these questions usually help us to remember which are our priorities and goals.

How about you? Did you read about it? What are your thoughts about it? Don’t feel pressured to share my thoughts and opinions :-)

I hope you liked it. If so, please share it! Do not hesitate to add your comments. And, if you want to stay up to date, don’t miss my free newsletter.

As always, thanks for reading.

The post Keep business and politics, and social activities separate appeared first on $_DV.

Recently, researchers found that creativity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (also called STEM) is very similar to creativity in the arts.

You could see the details in the article Which is more creative, the arts or the sciences?, where you could also find a link to the study.

As it turns out, creativity is general in nature—it is essentially a multifaceted competency that involves similar attitudes, disposition, skills, and knowledge, all transferable from one situation to another.

Developing and fostering students creativity

If this is true, there’s a need to teach STEM students differently to develop their creativity. Education systems should assess and foster students’ creative capabilities.

The big change for education systems would be moving away from a rather fragmented and haphazard approach to teaching creativity, to a much more holistic and integrated approach. To prepare the next generation for the future, we need to understand the gaps in the market – the human skills that computers, artificial intelligence and automation cannot achieve – and this is where creativity fits.

As read in a Fast Company article, a musician and an engineer will use creativity to solve a problem. Both rely on being open to new ideas, employing divergent thinking, and maintaining a sense of flexibility.

Remembering Sir Ken Robinson

In this situation is when we remember Sir Ken Robinson’s words. For those who don’t know him, he was a British author, speaker, thinkers50, advisor on education and arts, spoke to audiences worldwide on the creative challenges facing business and education. He was really worried about obsolete education and was a defender of broader knowledge.

Robinson gave three TED talks on the importance of fostering creativity in education. His first talk Do Schools Kill Creativity? on schools and creativity published in 2006 remains the most viewed TED talk of all time.

Our education system has mined our minds in the way that we strip-mine the earth: for a particular commodity. And for the future, it won’t serve us. We have to rethink the fundamental principles on which we’re educating our children.

Before jumping to another topic, I wanted to share a little story from his TED Talk about creativity. I hope you’ll like it.

“I heard a great story recently, I love telling it, of a little girl who was in a drawing lesson, she was 6 and she was at the back, drawing, and the teacher said this little girl hardly paid attention, and in this drawing lesson she did. The teacher was fascinated and she went over to her and she said, “What are you drawing?” and the girl said, “I’m drawing a picture of God.” And the teacher said, “But nobody knows what God looks like.” And the girl said, “They will in a minute.” 

Here you could find the complete speech transcript from James Clear’s website. James is the author of the bestseller Atomic Habits.

If you are interested in Ken Robinson, you’ll find here his 10 most motivational quotes from the different talks and speeches.

His legacy is a clear and powerful takedown of the world’s current educational paradigm. He helped us all think more critically about thinking. As Forbes wrote, With Passing Of Education Luminary Sir Ken Robinson, His Call For Creativity Lives On.

I hope you liked it. If so, please share it! Do not hesitate to add your comments. And, if you want to stay up to date, don’t miss my free newsletter.

Thanks for reading the post.

The post Fostering Creativity in STEM To Prepare Our Next Generation appeared first on $_DV.