-
An algorithm called "simulated annealing" starts with an almost random search, willing to try any change, good or bad. Then it slowly becomes fussier and fussier about what changes it will accept, until eventually it has turned into a rigid search for small step-by-step improvements. There's no guarantee of finding the very best circuit layout, but this kind of approach will usually find a good one. The combination of gradual improvements and random shocks turns out to be a very effective way to approach a host of difficult problems.
The logic behind these results is that when dealing with a complicated problem, even the smartest person can get stuck. Adding a new perspective or a new set of skills can unstick us, even if the perspective is off-the-wall or the skills are mediocre. The fresh input works much like the Oblique Strategies employed by Brian Eno or the random leaps used by silicon chip algorithm. It's the difference itself that helps.
-
The sky calling team won the 2012 and 2013 Tour de France, but then underperformed in 2014. The team's manager, Dave Brailsford, was wise enough to identify the problem: "We'd been becoming pretty aligned over the last six years working together," he said of the core team around him. "If you gave us a problem we'd come back with the same answer, [we had lost] the cognitive diversity we had as a group. [Before] when I would say something, they would say 'bollocks,' we'd argue a lot, there would be tension but we'd come up with some good ideas, constantly pushing forward.
Brailsford also knew what he had to do: rock the boat. "It's a pain in the arse to do it. It's going to be stressful, it's not going to be pleasant, but ultimately you have to rock it from side to side, bring new people in who will question everything, ask why we are doing this, take us forward." Sky bounced back and won the Tour de France again in 2015.
-
The message of Muzafer Sherif's work is that when you give people an important enough problem to solve together, they can put aside their differences. A good problem contains the seeds of its own solution. Rather than lubricating people with drinks at a networking reception, or getting them to play silly games at a team-building event, the way to get conflicting teams to gel is to give them something worth doing together - something where failing to cooperate simply isn't an option.
Jobs had become fascinated by the idea of serendipitous interactions. How to make sure that everyone mingled together? He hit upon a plan: Pixar's headquarters should have just a single pair of large restrooms off the main lobby. People would make new connections or revive old ones, because everybody would have to head to the lobby, brought together by a shared human need to urinate.
-
The "5S" system of management - Sort, Straighten, Shine, Standardize, and Sustain - has long stood for efficiency through tidiness and uniformity. The 5S system began in precision manufacturing spaces; clutter was discouraged because it may cause errors or delays, as were distracting personal effects.
In each case, we assume that by measuring one thing, we're really measuring everything. That is delusional. We hit the target, but miss the point.
-
If you need to file physical documents, what about the following beautiful alternative, invented by Japanese economist Yukio Noguchi? Forget about categories. Instead, place each income document in a large envelope. Write the envelope's contents visible like the spines of books. Now the moment of genius: every time you use an envelop, place it back on the left of the shelf. Over time, recently used documents will shuffle themselves toward the left, and never-used documents will accumulate on the right. Archiving is easy: every now and again, you remove the documents on the right. To find any document, simply ask yourself how recently you've seen it. It's a filing system that all but organizes itself, and it has won many fans.
The researchers were in for a surprise. The daily plans were catastrophic. Students using them started by working 20 hours a week but by the end of the course they were down to about 8 hours a week. Having no plan at all was just bad, although arguably it encouraged more consistent work effort: students began by working 15 hours a week and sagged to 10 hours a week later in the course. But the monthly plans were a tremendous success in motivating students to study - they put in 25 hours a week, even studied slightly harder at the end of the 10-week course than at the beginning. These are huge effects - the monthly plan motivated about twice as much work as the daily plan. When the researchers followed up a year later, these trends had continued and were reflected in the students' grades: the students with monthly plans were doing better than ever, the students with no plans were treading water, and the students with daily plans were sliding ever further down the scale of academic achievement.
-
Why was this happening? The researchers had two theories. First, that the daily plan took too much time and effort (many students soon gave up on them, although perhaps not soon enough). Second, that the daily plans sapped the motivation of students once they realized that they kept falling short of their own plans. Both of those speculations sound plausible, but they raise the question of why students weren't able to follow their own daily plans.
The answer is that daily plans can't adjust to unexpected events. Things come up: you catch a cold; you need to stay home for a plumber; a friend calls to say he's visiting town unexpectedly. With a broad plan, or no plan, it's easy to accommodate these obstacles and opportunities.
|
|
