Actually useful articles I used to seem smarter at work
I am aware of how often I portray blogs under a negative light. Although they can really be annoying and misleading at times, they can also hide some true gems. What comes across as a ‘fun fact’ or a ‘hey that’s interesting and completely useless because it’s not a product review’ could, in fact, be the most useful thing I will say in a work meeting.
I am coming forward with three distinct examples of when a notion that I learned from a blog came in handy and actually improved our strategy.
Disclaimer: when I say ‘reading blogs’ I don’t mean I actively go onto the NY Magazine and look for business and finance publishing. I am your regular gal that’s probably painting her nails while scrolling through minimalist photos on her feed.
I’m one of you.
Throwback to that time I casually used the 'survival bias' to save my team months and months of struggle. The goal was to help a specific area increase their attendance rate, to do so it was suggested to go to said area in person and advertise our service directly. What was clearly forgotten is that there was no need for us to reach out to people who were in fact there. Our target was those who were not there, and I flagged this planning issue by using its name: 'survival bias'.
During WW2, the Navy noted that aircraft were returning with clear signs of damage in specific areas, so it was recommended to reinforce those areas. Luckily, ‘some guy’ realised that study only considered aircraft that were damaged yet returned home safe. He, then, proposed to reinforce areas where the returning planes were intact.
Another example. It was suggested to be really thorough and double-check all of our appointments to make sure everything will go as smoothly as possible. Doing this will add a very complex layer of extra planning and resources on a daily basis which, of course, we were willing to put in to achieve the best outcome. However, I once read about the 80-20 rule and it seemed to fit our situation.
In business, the 80-20 rule refers to the idea that 80% of outcomes result from 20% of inputs. On a practical level, one should focus and prioritise the most productive things rather than differentiate the offer, wasting time and energy.
In reality, considering the entirety of our appointments, only 20% would actually need the added precaution. So, in a reverse 80-20 way, we decided to focus our energy to get the result we wanted from that troubling 20%.
Lastly, an episode I am very fond of when I used the decoy effect. We offered three perfectly reasonable options to a client with the intention to update our processes and make them more suitable to their needs. And ours. I simply bypassed the current method as it might have worked for them but surely not for us, and proposed three models. In the first one, the key factor was overall dropped, in the second one the key factor was our client responsibility, in the third option the key factor was our client’s client responsibility but our team would help.
You see what I did there?
We not-so-secretly wanted the third option all along, and we presented like the juiciest option on the newly curated menu. The deal of the century. They would have never picked that option if the current process was on the menu.
I used the ‘decoy effect’ that I punctually fall for myself, despite knowing of it. In short, when deciding between two options, an unattractive third option can change the perceived preference between the other two. In decision theory, ‘menu dependence’ happens when the evaluation of alternatives varies according to what options are available.
The moral of the story is: I hope you do take some time in 2020 to branch out and read things or listen to podcasts even though halfway through you’ll be wondering ‘the heck is this?’. Simply accept the fact you don't know what you don't know and be curious. Learn from my experience, you will never know when a good idea is needed, and it’s even better if the idea was already there for you to pick.
Image: via
I am coming forward with three distinct examples of when a notion that I learned from a blog came in handy and actually improved our strategy.
Disclaimer: when I say ‘reading blogs’ I don’t mean I actively go onto the NY Magazine and look for business and finance publishing. I am your regular gal that’s probably painting her nails while scrolling through minimalist photos on her feed.
I’m one of you.
Throwback to that time I casually used the 'survival bias' to save my team months and months of struggle. The goal was to help a specific area increase their attendance rate, to do so it was suggested to go to said area in person and advertise our service directly. What was clearly forgotten is that there was no need for us to reach out to people who were in fact there. Our target was those who were not there, and I flagged this planning issue by using its name: 'survival bias'.
During WW2, the Navy noted that aircraft were returning with clear signs of damage in specific areas, so it was recommended to reinforce those areas. Luckily, ‘some guy’ realised that study only considered aircraft that were damaged yet returned home safe. He, then, proposed to reinforce areas where the returning planes were intact.
Another example. It was suggested to be really thorough and double-check all of our appointments to make sure everything will go as smoothly as possible. Doing this will add a very complex layer of extra planning and resources on a daily basis which, of course, we were willing to put in to achieve the best outcome. However, I once read about the 80-20 rule and it seemed to fit our situation.
In business, the 80-20 rule refers to the idea that 80% of outcomes result from 20% of inputs. On a practical level, one should focus and prioritise the most productive things rather than differentiate the offer, wasting time and energy.
In reality, considering the entirety of our appointments, only 20% would actually need the added precaution. So, in a reverse 80-20 way, we decided to focus our energy to get the result we wanted from that troubling 20%.
Lastly, an episode I am very fond of when I used the decoy effect. We offered three perfectly reasonable options to a client with the intention to update our processes and make them more suitable to their needs. And ours. I simply bypassed the current method as it might have worked for them but surely not for us, and proposed three models. In the first one, the key factor was overall dropped, in the second one the key factor was our client responsibility, in the third option the key factor was our client’s client responsibility but our team would help.
You see what I did there?
We not-so-secretly wanted the third option all along, and we presented like the juiciest option on the newly curated menu. The deal of the century. They would have never picked that option if the current process was on the menu.
I used the ‘decoy effect’ that I punctually fall for myself, despite knowing of it. In short, when deciding between two options, an unattractive third option can change the perceived preference between the other two. In decision theory, ‘menu dependence’ happens when the evaluation of alternatives varies according to what options are available.
The moral of the story is: I hope you do take some time in 2020 to branch out and read things or listen to podcasts even though halfway through you’ll be wondering ‘the heck is this?’. Simply accept the fact you don't know what you don't know and be curious. Learn from my experience, you will never know when a good idea is needed, and it’s even better if the idea was already there for you to pick.
Image: via
Comments
Post a Comment