Don McMinn

 

You’re interviewing candidates for a position on your team. The three finalists appear to be equally qualified, but you discover that one of them graduated from your alma mater. Suddenly you have a slight preference for that candidate.

Implicit egotism is exerting its influence. 

Implicit egotism refers to the idea that we naturally gravitate toward people, places, and things that resemble ourselves. We unconsciously choose ego-friendly things. This preference for self drives a lot of our thinking and decisions. 

For example, we strongly prefer the letters in our name, the numbers in our birthdate, and memorable moments in our life.

• • A person named Fred might be attracted to the notion of living in Fresno, working for Forever 21, or driving a Ford F-150.
  • We may use the year we were born as an anchor-point for remembering other dates. For example, I remember the date of the Yom Kippur War (1973) as being 21 years after I was born in 1952. 
  • A man proposed to his future wife at Logan Airport, and they named their first child Logan.
  • When I first met my wife, I was intrigued by the fact that we were both born at Baylor Hospital in Dallas.
  • My grandson, Ben, will probably develop a preference to the letters B, E, N, because they are the first letters he learned and every time he writes his name those letters are reinforced in his mind. 

 Implicit egotism is not inherently wrong, unless it adversely affects our decisions. In my opening example, the candidate that has the same alma mater as the interviewer should not be preferred—it’s a weak link. Likewise, I don’t think Fred should purchase a Ford F-150 just because it starts with the same letter of his name. 

In his book, The Art of Thinking Clearly, Rolf Dobelli gives this example of  implicit egotism: “A friend who deals in oil pumps told me how he once closed an eight-figure deal for a pipeline in Russia. ‘Bribery?’ I inquired? He shook his head. ‘We were chatting, and suddenly we got on to the topic of sailing. It turned out that both of us were die-hard 470 dinghy fans. From that moment on, he liked me; I was a friend. So the deal was sealed.'” (page 66)

When making decisions, make sure implicit egotism is not adversely influencing the process. And when you’re selling something, look for a personal connection with the buyer.

 

I’m always amazed at the oversized impact that small gifts can make. 

Small physical gifts can be impactful.

During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union were hostile enemies engaged in a high-stakes race to achieve supremacy in space. The Russians used dogs in their program, and two of them—Belka and Strelka—became the first animals to orbit the Earth and return alive. 

In 1961, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev came up with the perfect idea to improve relations between the two countries. He sent President Kennedy a puppy: Pushinka (a puppy born to Strelka).  

The gift helped thaw their frosty relationship. Kennedy warmly thanked his Soviet counterpart in a letter, noting that the ride Pushinka took from Russia to America might not have been as dramatic as the one Strelka took, but it was still “a long voyage and she stood it well.” Kennedy and Khrushchev remained on cordial terms, even though the Cold War lasted for three more decades. 

A simple, kind deed can have an enormous impact. 

The African bishop, Desmond Tutu, was once asked why he became an Anglican priest. He replied that in the days of apartheid, when a black person and a white person met while walking on a footpath, the black person was expected to step into the gutter to allow the white person to pass and then nod his head as a gesture of respect.

“One day,” Tutu said, “when I was just a little boy, my mother and I were walking down the street when a tall, white man, dressed in a black suit, came toward us. Before my mother and I could step off the sidewalk, as was expected of us, this man stepped off the sidewalk and, as my mother and I passed, tipped his hat in a gesture of respect to her! I was more than surprised at what had happened, and I asked my mother, ‘Why did that white man do that?’ My mother explained, ‘He’s an Anglican priest. He’s a man of God, that’s why he did it.’ When she told me that he was an Anglican priest, I decided there and then that I wanted to be an Anglican priest too. And what is more, I wanted to be a man of God.”

Desmond Tutu not only became a priest, he influenced his entire nation. He, along with Nelson Mandela, led the successful fight against apartheid, which changed South Africa.

The priest that deeply impacted young Tutu’s life probably never knew “the rest of the story”; but through one simple act of kindness (not one word was spoken), he deeply impacted one life that would deeply affect an entire nation. 

A few choice words, spoken at the right time, can have an oversized impact.  

In a previous post I wrote about the life-giving and life-changing sentence that Benjamin West’s mother spoke to him when he was a child. One choice phrase solidified his destiny in life. In like manner, we can use simple phrases— “I’m so proud of you.” “I’m so sorry that…” “You’re so good at that.”—to deeply impact other people.  

Don’t underestimate the power of small gestures and choice words.

Warren Buffet has been called the Oracle of Omaha. He’s the most successful investor in history. His estimated net worth of nearly $85 billion, makes him the fourth-richest person in the world. He has pledged to give 99% of his fortune to charity during his lifetime or at death. He has given $37 billion dollars to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 

A reporter once asked Buffett why he’s giving most of his money to the Gates Foundation when he could easily start and fund his own foundation. His answer: 

“I don’t think I’m as well cut out to be a philanthropist as Bill and Melinda are. The feedback on philanthropy is very slow, and that would bother me. I’d have to be too involved with a lot of people I wouldn’t want to be involved with and have to listen to more opinions than I would enjoy. In philanthropy also, you have to make some big mistakes. I know that. But it would bother me to make the mistakes myself, rather than having someone else make them whom I trust overall to do a good job. In general, Bill and Melinda will have a better batting average than I would.”

Warren Buffet knows what he’s good at (allocation of capital) and focuses on that and looks to other people to do things he’s not good at. We should follow his example. 

Know your strengths

Every person has a few core strengths—perhaps one or two. They are normally innate; you may have studied and worked hard to develop your signature strength, but it was probably in you at birth.

What do you do well? What comes naturally for you? Some extreme examples would include: Picasso—artist, Michael Jordon—athlete, C.S. Lewis—philosopher, Einstein—scientist, Edison—inventor, Dickens—writer. For most of us, our core strength is not this obvious; we have to search for it, but it is there.

Here are some suggestions on how to discover your strengths.

Focus on your strengths

If we’re only good at a few things, that means we’re not very competent in many areas. Should we try to shore up our weaknesses or focus on our strengths? 

Professor Martin Seligman wrote, “I do not believe that you should devote overly much effort to correcting your weaknesses. Rather, I believe that the highest success in living and the deepest emotional satisfaction comes from building and using your signature strengths.”

Granted, sometimes we have to do things we’re not good at because we’re not able to delegate them to others, in which case we just need to be conscientious and diligent. For instance, if you’re not good at math and financial accounting, try to find someone who is and ask her to help keep your finances in order. But if no one is available, you’ll have to do it yourself. This also applies at work: if your job requires you to do something you’re not good at but you can’t delegate this to someone else, you’ll need to do the best you can. 

Often, lack of funds forces us to do things ourselves. I know there are skilled workers who are better than I am at certain tasks, but I don’t have the money to pay them, so I do the work myself. Buffett has no such restraints, but I do.

In general, discover your strengths and then arrange your life such that you spend most of your time and energy doing what you’re good at. 

I agree with business consultant Marcus Buckingham when he says, “Look inside yourself, try to identify your strongest trends, reinforce them with practice and learning and then either find, or carve out a job that draws on those strengths every day. Don’t waste time trying to put in what was left out. Try to draw out what was put in.” 

I recently hired an exercise trainer for a 60-minute session. When we met, I specifically asked him to observe the routine I was currently doing—about 25 different exercises—give me immediate feedback on style and form, and then tweak the routine by subtracting and adding exercises to insure that I have a balanced regimen. He said he liked the plan, but also wanted to introduce me to some very unique shoulder exercises.

About ten minutes into the session he jettisoned my original plan and spent the next 30 minutes working with me on the intricacies of the shoulders, particularly one muscle that wraps under the armpit. It was more information than I wanted or needed.

I suspect that he had just discovered new information about these obscure muscles (perhaps he learned it at a professional development workshop) and, having been a trainer for 20+ years, he was excited to share what he had learned that was new. But that wasn’t what I wanted or needed.

I’ve been guilty of the same thing. When I’m invited to speak to a group, I have a tendency to share what I’ve recently learned or thoughts I’m still developing. But sometimes that’s not what my audience wants or needs. They may want me to speak on a book I wrote 10 years ago, but I’m weary of those lessons and would rather explore new thoughts.

We might have been victimized by this dilemma in college. We signed up for Psychology 101, hoping to get the basics, but instead the professor focused on his latest research project, even using class resources to that end. (This is why it’s often best for an introductory course be taught by a teaching assistant or at least someone who is happy and excited to teach the basics.)

We should also avoid this tendency (sharing good but unfitting thoughts) in our daily conversations, particularly at work when we’re planning and making decisions. For instance, recently I was part of a discussion at work when I awkwardly interjected what I had recently learned about the spotlight effect. The information didn’t really contribute to the dialogue—it interrupted the dialogue.

This discussion begs the question: What is the proper environment in which to share things we’re discovering and learning? Not everyone needs a setting like this because some people have punched pause on their learning and have nothing new to share. But for those who do, where can we share? I often try to sneak a topic into our family dinner conversations but am accused of being too serious or trying to hijack the conversation. Hmm… 

Wouldn’t it be grand to have a designated time and place in which a small group of curious, intellectually invigorated individuals can talk about “What has become more clear to you?” or, “What thoughts are you intrigued with or struggling with?” 

Perhaps this is the type of gathering that Gertrude Stein facilitated at her Paris salon at 27, rue de Fleurus. Stein, an American novelist, poet, playwright, and art collector, lived in Paris from 1903 until her death in 1946. On Saturday evenings she hosted in her home the most influential and illustrious talents of the era: writers, poets, and artists, including Picasso, Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ezra Pound, and Matisse. I can only imagine the stimulating conversations they enjoyed.  

Back to the theme of this post…let’s be thoughtful about when and where we share our most recent thoughts. If we misspeak, our knowledge can impede instead of enhance conversation.

Previous posts on the Curse of Knowledge:

The curse of knowledge syndrome

The curse of knowledge, part 2 – control how much knowledge you share