Tuesday, October 31, 2017

On Walls, Ignorance, and Hate

A few days ago I was lecturing a group of executives on the topic of innovation. The talk went well for the audience, but it was a tough one for me.

The problem started when I glanced out the window. The venue was the top floor of the Axel Springer building in Berlin. From my place at the front of the room you could see where Chris Gueffroy was gunned down trying to cross the "death strip" of the Berlin Wall just months before it would come down in 1989. And now here I was speaking at Axel Springer, the publishing house that stood as a beacon of free speech overlooking that wall.

I could just see the tracings of where the wall had been, but I forced my attention back to the audience. The diversity of the group suddenly became salient: Women and men; different religions; different regions; different political views. In that moment, I was aware of the most remarkable thing about my lecture: I was speaking freely in that place to a diverse group without fear.

Walls divide - especially walls erected by governments. When effective, these divisions reinforce ignorance by preventing people from seeing each other, from listening to each other, and from experiencing life together. Walls may be built for many reasons, but once built, walls are monuments to ignorance.

Ignorance, meanwhile, makes it easy for people to hate. It is hard to hate someone when you know them as fully human, when you can relate with them and when you have shared life with them.

One is reminded of the Stanford Prison Experiment, a controversial experiment conducted by psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971. Participants were all male students at Stanford, similar in so many ways, but in the experiment they enacted the roles of "guards" and "prisoners." Even though they knew these were just roles, the resulting behavior of the guards towards the prisoners was shocking - as was the prisoners' resignation to their fate. Much has been written about this experiment, and its precise psychological lessons remain the subject of debate to this day. But one thing is clear: It demonstrated that people treat others less humanely when they are separated by a gulf of ignorance - in this case replacing names with numbers and covering individuality with the uniforms of guard and prisoner. In short: ignorance breeds hate.

So to those in my government wanting to erect a wall, consider this: Walls increase ignorance, and ignorance breeds hate. My vote: I prefer to be immersed in the rich diversity that we humans have to offer.


A large academic literature investigates this phenomenon using the term "intergroup bias."

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Metacompetition

I fell for the shoe-shine huckster on Bourbon Street. I was young, and my wife and I were all dressed up. I could not resist the challenge, called out loudly to me amidst a large audience: “I bet I can tell you where you got your shoes!” I hesitated and replied, “Okay, where?”  Game over. He shouted “On your feet!”, fell to his knees, spat on my shoes (with disrespect), and began to shine them furiously. How did I end up standing with my pretty young wife in the middle of a laughing, half-drunk mob – as a wiry man gave me an unwanted, overpriced shoe shine? He seemed to know I was asking myself that question. Now with some pity in his eyes, he looked up at me and said “Never play another man’s game.”


Since then I remind myself of his message often: make sure you play the right game. Common sense, I know. Big men throw shotput; tall women shoot hoops; smart folks solve equations; tight bodies go to the beach. Of course we each try to play the right game – and the same goes for companies. That is what “business strategy” is all about. But sometimes the game being played is unclear, and then we risk losing by playing the wrong game.

People and companies often lose by playing the wrong game. This happens, for instance, when people fail to get a job. Several rounds of interviews end up in disappointment, and then you find out they were looking for someone with a sales background, or experience in C++, or geographic flexibility, or fluent Mandarin, or whatever. At that point, you probably wondered why they did not make their criteria clear in the first place. The problem is that in real life competitions, unlike board games or sports, the criteria for winning are often decided while the game is being played. Inside the company, different people may favor hiring different kinds of people for a given job, and that debate is often taking place even as you are interviewing. Once the dust settles, you find out you lost based on a criterion on which you never would have even tried to compete. You lost the “metacompetition” – the competition over the game being played. When you lose a metacompetition, you lose without ever really competing – like the fool on Bourbon Street playing another man’s game.

Metacompetitions decide the fates of people and companies all the time:

If Facebook succeeds in a country, companies that produce Facebook apps suddenly “win” access to that market; metacompetitions between platforms determine the fates of applications.

If teaching comes to be valued more than research in a university, then professors skilled at teaching rise in prominence; metacompetitions between performance criteria determine professional status.

When CDMA-based technologies took off in the US, companies like QualComm that work on that standard prospered; metacompetitions between standards decide the fates of the firms that adopt (or reject) those standards.

When an oil spill raises concerns about the environment, consumers favor businesses with good environmental records; metacompetitions between beliefs determine the criteria we use to evaluate whether a firm is “good.”

If a particular organic foods certification becomes important to consumers, companies with that certification are favored; metacompetitions between certifications determines how the quality of firms is measured.

In all these examples, you could be the very best at what you do, but lose in the metacompetition over what criteria will matter. On the other hand, you may win due to a metacompetition that protects you from fierce rivals who play a different game.

Great leaders pay attention to metacompetition. They advocate the game they play well, promoting criteria on which they measure up. By contrast, many failed leaders work hard at being the best at what they do, only to throw up their hands in dismay when they are not even allowed to compete. These losers cannot understand why they lost, but they have neglected a fundamental responsibility of leadership. It is not enough to play your game well. In every market in every country, alternative “logics” vie for prominence. Before you can win in competition, you must first win the metacompetition over the game being played.


Research on metacompetition appears in my book on the Red Queen.