The Student Leader Blog

Who's to Blame? Fingerpointing and when to point the finger at yourself.

Recently I've been involved in an ongoing debate about the behavior of individuals within an organization. My feeling has always been that the way we act in a given situation often has more to do with the situation than the individual. The opposing view believes that people are what they are, and they will act as they will act, period. Though many psychologists scoff at this belief (often called the fundamental-attribution error), it is nevertheless firmly grounded in many people's perceptions. It is so firmly grounded, in fact, that I am not always sure whether it's true or not.

For example, one of the organizations that I am a part of has a member that many perceive to be too "passive." He does not take initiative or go the extra mile. My thinking is: "The leadership within the organization is doing something wrong. What can we change about our procedures, communication, or organizational culture so that he feels more willing to take charge?" My "opposition's" thinking is: "Well, that's the way he is. It sucks, but there's nothing we can do about it. He's to blame."

It's tempting to accept. After all, I personally feel that my actions are consistent regardless of the circumstances, but research shows that I'm probably wrong.  Regardless, as organizational leaders, I think we have to accept the possibility that we are causing a person to act in a way we don't like, and it is our responsibility to change ourselves (or the system) before we try to change the individual.

Of course, if we try and try and nothing helps, then maybe we have to accept that the person just isn't a good fit. Maybe it just isn't worth it for us to bend over backwards to change someone's behavior. But I stick by my initial argument that the finger of blame (or as I like to put it "opportunity for improvement") should point to the leaders first.

Word of Mouth Marketing: free advertising and a heck of a pillow fight.

Word of mouth marketing is the least understood and most coveted promotional technique perhaps since the dawn of mankind. It's free, it's fast, it's powerful, but--alas--it is as mysterious to us as the nature of human consciousness and the evolution of the platypus.

According to the recent Word of Mouth Marketing Conference in NYC, the average person has about 11 intimate contacts, 150 social contacts, and 500 to 1,500 "weak ties." That's a lot of potential people your message could reach in less time than it takes you to say, "viral, viral, viral."

As student leaders, we should be trying to leverage the power of word of mouth, though I can't tell you how. The huge pillow fight last weekend (see above) was entirely word of mouth and apparently awesome. So for this post, I'm just going to use the pillow fight as a case study and thought experiment to try to figure out what it takes for a message to travel and stick.

Pillow Talk (hehe):
My thinking is that news of the fight spread like goose feathers on a windy day because:
a. It's weird. People are likely to look up and pay attention because it's not an everyday phenomenon.
b. It's a little mysterious. What will happen? Who will come? What kind of pillow should I bring?
c. It gives people something fun to do together.
d. It's inclusive (pretty much anyone can enjoy it and be a useful contributor).
e. And lastly, people are scared to go alone because they don't want to look stupid. So they enlist as many acquaintances as possible in case no one else shows up.

Again, this is not my field of expertise (or even experience), but I'm pretty darn sure that creating a viral messages requires a certain degree of risk taking and outside the box thinking. First and foremost, that's what gets people's attention and fills the streets with feathers. If anyone has other ideas, I'm very much up for hearing them (and, hey, maybe even spreading them out).

Brainstorming strategies and what Tyler Cowen doesn't know because he's thinking all by himself.

In his book Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist (which I find infuriating and backward but a fun read nonetheless), Tyler Cowen mentions his economically based assessment that group brainstorming is self deception. In his view two brains are more diluted than one, and the only reason we like to brainstorm in groups is to let others do all the work for us while we sit back and pretend we're participating.

Sorry Tyler Cowen, but that's just not true. Over the past two days, I've been lucky enough to get soaked in two brainstorms (one with two people, and the other with four--both very successful and gratifying).

In both instances, something particular to group brainstorming happened: one flimsy little idea grew exponentially and exploded into hundreds of new ideas. The little ideas whirled about, settling on different people's back burners, and the larger and more solid ideas bounced off one another like determined sumo wrestlers. The strongest of the bunch merged into one big idea again, but this time solid like a chunk of metal. And then the brainstorming members set to work chiseling away at it until it was a beautiful sculpture.

Thinking alone, my idea had only a few directions it could take. I was pretty stuck and uninspired. With the group, ideas were suddenly shooting out of my head uninterrupted. That's what brainstorming is supposed to be; something new and unexpected has to happen. It's almost like a chemical reaction--there's oxygen and then there's hydrogen, then all of a sudden there's water.

Of course, there are also good brainstorming sessions and bad brainstorming sessions. Cowen writes that the worst thing to do is make people share their ideas one at a time or to set a time limit. This part I'll agree with. In my experience, the best things happen when ideas can flow uninterrupted. Here are the guidelines I keep in mind:

IN THE IDEA GENERATING PHASE

• The number one rule is not to criticize anything in this phase.
• Have someone jot down all the ideas (choose a fast writer).
• Keep an eye out for people who have been cut off-- be sure you ask them what they were about to say.
• Don't call on anyone to speak unless they look particularly ready.
• Give a lot of positive feedback to stimulate more ideas.
• Try to lead the group into a rhythm or a steady pace.
• Ask follow up questions to get juicier ideas.

IN THE IDEA SELECTING PHASE

• Determine if someone will have final say and make sure the selection process is clear to every member.
• Discuss what the needs and resources are.
• Review all of the ideas that have been presented.
• Here you can discuss how effective and doable you think each idea will be (but, of course, never actually insult an idea)
• Once an idea has been selected, make sure everyone understands what it is and feels comfortable.

THE IDEA DEVELOPMENT PHASE

• Now that you are down to one idea, you can begin tearing it apart a bit more fiercely.
• Determine who will play what role in the idea and exactly what resources are needed.
• Put together a clean outline and work out all the kinks.
• Decide when the idea will be implemented, by whom, and who else should know about it.

THE IDEA ENJOYMENT PHASE

• Enjoy!

Getting Up When Feeling Down: Leadership during your "blue period."

Okay, I've had a really rough weekend:
relationship problems, a highly unpleasant antibiotic-requiring illness, financial concerns, and having my cat put to sleep.

But today is Monday, and I've got students to work with and paperwork to handle. A huge, tired part of me wants to crawl into bed and spend the day pretending that life has an undo button, but taking on a leadership role means that your responsibilities to your organization come first. Honestly, if it were between my student group and taking care of my other priorities (like family and friends), I'd put my organization aside, but now it's just a question of whether I want to wallow in self-pity or get out and be somewhat useful to the world and myself.

The truth of the matter is that being productive when you're feeling bad (for lack of a better word) is physically difficult. Your mind and body feel drained and even your fingers feel heavy. Fighting against that downward pressure and "thinking positively" doesn't always work. So what are the options?

Well, first I try to realize that feeling sad is my body's natural reaction to everything that's happened, and within reason, it's a useful response. Being sad slows you down and makes you think. Happiness is often associated with carelessness and a lack of attention to detail. We've evolved to use sadness to step back and contemplate the roses. Plus sadness has its own particular thoughtful brand of creativity. So I'm trying not to fight it but rather use it in some way. Today I've been taking on tasks that require more deliberation and care and then slowly mixing in some social interaction and the stuff that requires some smiling.

Maybe these next few days will be my blue period. After all, it worked well for Picasso, right?

Recruiting Mice and Elephants: what reproductive strategies can teach us about promoting and building an organization.

Out in the great, big animal kingdom, there are two distinct approaches to baby-making: quantity and quality. Quantity oriented animals such as rabbits and mice make tons of babies at steady intervals and basically hope that at least some of them will turn out well. Quality oriented animals such as humans and elephants (we're talking a 2 year pregnancy here) don't make many babies but spend a considerable amount of time and energy on the few babies they do have.

So how is this related to organizations? Well, there's the mouse approach, and there's the elephant approach. The mouse approach consists of sending a promotional message to as many people as possible and then hoping that it reaches and sticks with at least a bunch. It's lots of smiles and high-fives and Facebook pokes at high velocity.The elephant approach, on the other hand, is targeted and small scale. It focuses on reaching just a few individuals and really developing a relationship with them. In the dating world, it's the difference between walking into a bar and yelling: "Hey everyone, I'm single. Any takers?" and zeroing in on the one person with an aura of potential and spending the entire evening in deep conversation.

It seems to me that pretty much all promoting tends to be mouse oriented. It's simpler and appears more likely to work, so more often than not we think flyers, stickers, and announcements first. Most businesses take this approach too, though from what I've seen, businesses that cater to "high net worth" individuals  do tend to treat their clientèle like elephants (and not the circus kind). These "boutique businesses" work on developing loyalty, trust, and long-term customers.

Personally, I'm always pretty torn about which approach works best. From the relatively little experience I've had so far though, it seems that it's most effective to have a few elephants in your herd first. This way you have a better understanding of how to turn those mice into elephants and how to get your elephants reproducing like mice. Ah... the perfect world.

Motivation and the Point of it All

"Achievement goal orientation" has been a hot topic in the field of educational psychology since the 80s when researchers like Elliot and Dweck realized that that people have many different reasons for doing something and that the nature of those reasons plays a huge role in just about everything we do. The literature on this subject is long and winding, but--at the risk of cutting out some juicy details--I'll break it down to its very basic components:

People tend to have either a "performance orientation" or a "mastery orientation" (or sometimes both). Having a performance orientation basically means that you're thinking about your performance. So either you want to show off or you're terrified of making a mistake and being judged poorly. Having a mastery orientation means that you don't really give a damn what others think of you--you just want to get better at the task at hand for its own sake and for your own gratification. Numerous studies have shown that having a mastery orientation (ironically) leads to higher long term performance (although having a performance AND mastery orientation together, in which you want to learn and show off, BUT you're not too worried about making mistakes, may be your best bet). The moral: look at mistakes as learning opportunities, enjoy a challenge, and show off your stuff.

To me this is extremely important to keep in mind in terms of leading an organization because (a) it helps to know how your team members are oriented (what motivates and scares them) and (b) it's important to try to induce a mastery orientation whenever possible. This means praising mistakes by referring to them as demonstrations of effort and initiative and figuring out how to make a task/project intrinsically appealing to participants so that they want to master it and not just get it over with. It may be fine to mention that being involved in your organization will look great on a CV, but it is probably better to focus on the fact that it is a skill-building, life-changing, mind-blowing opportunity (right?). This is probably the kind of mindset that you have, and that's what makes you so dedicated to what you do. After all, sweat and blood aren't spent on a resume.

Food for thought: Does the individual above look performance oriented, mastery oriented, or both?

Student Leaders Around the World - Venezuela's Yon Goicoechea

Modern human history is filled with examples of student protests that led to larger cultural shifts. Venezuela may be the next country to undergo a student led revolution.

Wall Street Journal reporter, Mary Anastasia O'Grady, covered the story of 23 year old Yon Goicoechea's student movement in Venezuela to confront the unchecked power of President Hugo Chavez.

Yon believes that Mr. Chavez runs a dictatorial government that is against the will of the people. Some of his protests drew up to 200,000 people. The government is well aware of the power of Yon's group, but Yon, in a very V for Vendetta way, is quick to pass the credibility on to the idea, not the person.

"We have generated a consciousness in the youth that doesn't depend on me. I could be dead or living in another county and it would go on. We have already won the future."

Many adults talk about the apathy of students now and how there is a lack of protesting like they had in the 1960s.



I'm not so sure current students are more apathic, but instead are active in different ways, e.g. on the internet rather than out on the street. Voter turnout among 18-25 year olds in national elections suggests that current students are actually more engaged now than in the past. I think the real question is what form of activism is more effective, or is it a mix of both?

Encouraging Individuality: Letting your members paint the walls.

In his now super popular last lecture (embedded in this post), Dr. Randy Pausch spoke about nurturing children's creativity and individuality. He put it best when he looked at the audience and said, "If your kids want to paint their bedrooms, as a favor to me, let 'em do it."

I believe that the same approach should go for any organization. Rules and structure can be great, but if someone's passion and creativity take them outside your comfort box, maybe it's not so bad to let it happen. So during a club meeting, if everyone suddenly breaks out into song, let them. Even if it makes the secretary angry. Or if someone is psyched by the idea of promoting your organization by wearing a giant chicken costume let them (it worked for Burger King). Bottom line, if someone is enthusiastic about an idea they are proposing, encourage it, even if you secretly think it won't work out.

Sometimes not going according to plan and taking risks that appear absolutely bananas could take you to new and unchartered places, and, most importantly, it shows your members that you trust them and value them to their core. Hey, and come to think of it, maybe you should give yourself more time to paint on the walls too. I know I should.

Scheduling Meetings and the Battle of the Infamous Ish

According to Verne Harnish and my epidemiology professor, setting a meeting or class time to a random-sounding number makes it 13.62% more likely that people will show up on time (I just made up the percent part though).

Why? Because some part of our brains interprets 5:00 as "around 5 o'clock," and 5:30 as "5:30ish." But there can be no such thing as 5:32ish, so our tricky, procrastination-prone brains have nothing left to do but concede defeat and march us to the meeting on time.

Warning: when you first announce a totally inane sounding meeting time to your group some people may not react positively. I have seen a lot of really interesting resistance to it, maybe because that tricky part of the brain senses a trap. They may feel that it's condescending or perhaps controlling. What seems to work is passing it off as a fun little experiment and maybe discussing the logic behind it so that everyone realizes that having a meeting begin on time is in everyone's best interest. Yes, even the chronic latecomers.

I haven't started using this approach with my own groups yet, but I have begun experimenting with my own tricky brain. Usually I set my alarm to times in increments of 5, but lately I've been trying things like 8:37, and believe it or not it's been working, which is pretty amazing because waking up is by far the biggest obstacle I face all day.

Networking: the art of knowing a guy who knows a guy.

I attended a pretty blah networking workshop the other day, but managed to walk away from it with some student-leader-relevant food for thought:

Networking--you can and should always be doing it. Although instructors make it out to be a science, it's really more of a life philosophy. It's the the acknowledgment that anyone we meet at any point can take us to new and exciting places regardless of whether they help us out or we help them out.

Networking is about coming to terms with the fact that by yourself you are a pretty small entity, but with links to others, your reach is infinitely larger and your possibilities increase exponentially. Sound cool? Okay, so where do you start? With the very next person you can start with.

For student leaders, any fellow student is a potentially fruitful connection. Any person you meet on campus could become a member of your organization or know someone who wants to be. And that, in and of itself, is pretty awesome.

This doesn't mean prefacing all your conversations with: "Hi, my name is ___. Want to join my club?" It means genuinely taking an interest in the people around you without a specific end goal in mind. After all, you can't pin point a goal until you have some information, so just go information digging. Make it your mission to keep searching until you discover something about the person that

surprises, intrigues, or excites you. Keep exploring till you hear yourself saying: "Oh! Really?" And focus on listening, asking open ended questions, and thinking of how you or someone in your network could help this person out. Introduce people to one another whenever the opportunity arises. Remember also to network with people you already now. The person who is now your physics homework buddy can also turn out to be an event planning guru or know someone who is.

So connect yourself, connect others, then reconnect--as long as it's genuine and you are interested in the give as much as the take. Let's make this world a more collaborative sandbox.