On January 13, 2012, the Costa Concordia luxury cruise liner passed approximately 150 meters off the island of Giglio, striking rocks that would tear a 50 meter gash in its hull. According to the ship’s operator, Costa Cruises, the captain of the ship, Francesco Schettino, made an unauthorized and unapproved maneuver, veering off his pre-approved route and bringing the ship dangerously close to shore. In his defense, Schettino says Costa Cruises ordered him to conduct such a maneuver and it was a common practice used to attract publicity and make passengers happy.

Whether the maneuver that caused the accident was approved or not, the actions of Captain Schettino have received plenty of criticism. It’s reported that Schettino has a history of taking risks and disobeying orders. He reportedly left Marseilles, France in bad weather, against company policy and coast guard orders. A former Costa Concordia captain who Schettino served under as first mate described him as “too high-spirited and a dare devil,” while officers who served under him at the time of the accident labeled him as risky, authoritarian, and inflexible. Transcripts of conversations between Captain Schettino and Coast Guard Captain Gregorio de Falco show a defiant Schettino as he failed to comply with orders to re-board and direct passenger and crew evacuation from aboard the Costa Concordia (a criminal act under Italian law). Instead, he claimed he would do so from a life raft with his 2nd in command (who happened to be in the same life raft Captain Schettino claimed he fell into after slipping from the ship).

There is also issue with the delay between the time the Costa Concordia made contact with the rocks and when a distress call and the order to abandon ship were declared. From most reports, a majority of the crew and passengers had no idea of the potential danger they were in. One can see videos of crew members telling passengers in life vests to return to their cabins – informing them the ship was only experiencing an electrical problem. Unfortunately, it appears even those who knew better declined to tell the whole truth; transcripts show that approximately 20-30 minutes after contact with the rocks, phone calls from the Costa Concordia to the local Coast Guard admitted the ship was experiencing electrical problems but failed to initially report the collision. Despite knowledge of contact with the rocks, and the fact the ship was taking on water and listing, it still was over an hour before the captain ordered everyone to abandon ship.

Whether he was confident he could handle the situation on his own, or frozen by fear at the outcome of his actions, Captain Schettino messed up. Accounts from those who have worked with him describe a man who enjoyed doing things his way, was willing to take risks, and had a “pronounced ego.” Audio of the conversations between Schettino and de Faclo show a man who seems to have panicked when his crew and passengers needed him most.  
Despite Schettino’s actions (and inactions), concerns have been raised about the practices of Costa Concordia’s operators, Costa Cruises. Since the accident, the terms “sail-by” and “salute” have become more common, and decidedly negative. During an interview with a Senate committee in Italy, Costa Cruises’s CEO, Pier Foschi, stated the company encourages its captains to bring ships close to shore, saying such actions were “in demand” and helped “enrich the product”; however, he noted the captain’s actions on January 13 were not authorized. Also, Mr. Foschi admitted the Costa Concordia conducted an authorized sail-by a few months earlier, but stressed the ship never came closer than 500 meters to the shore – GPS evidence shows the authorized trip actually brought the Costa Concordia even nearer to shore than the unauthorized January 13 route.

Many of the details surrounding this accident will emerge as the investigation continues. At this point, there are more questions than definitive answers. Was the sail-by actually approved/ordered as Captain Schettino claims? Why did Costa Cruises approve a similar route months earlier, but deny that their ship came as close as GPS evidence shows? Was it really happenstance that Captain Schettino fell and landed in a life boat with his 2nd in command during the evacuation? Answers to these questions will shed light on the actions and mistakes that resulted in the loss of at least 17 lives (15 people are still missing), damage to and the possible destruction of a $500 million ship, and additional costs from lawsuits, fines, penalties, and environmental damage that could approach $1 billion.

When facts have been separated from speculation we will know what truly happened on the Costa Concordia that night. However, in reference to Dan Paulk’s recent blog, we can be sure that many of the scales he outlined are applicable to this situation. By most accounts, Captain Schettino was confident to the point of arrogant, willing to take unnecessary risks, and defiant in the face of authority. Once the accident occurred, he clearly panicked. Expanding on Dan’s analysis, questions have also been raised about the leadership at Costa Cruises. Do they foster an environment which rewards risk taking? Are they trying to use Captain Schettino as a scapegoat for poor industry-wide practices?

This could be a prime example of what can happen when safety takes a back seat to profit and publicity. Unfortunately, as is often the case with safety-related accidents, the costs associated with the Costa Concordia will not only be measured in dollars but in lives.   

On January 13, 2012, the Costa Concordia luxury cruise liner passed approximately 150 meters off the island of Giglio, striking rocks that would tear a 50 meter gash in its hull. According to the ship’s operator, Costa Cruises, the captain of the ship, Francesco Schettino, made an unauthorized and unapproved maneuver, veering off his pre-approved route and bringing the ship dangerously close to shore. In his defense, Schettino says Costa Cruises ordered him to conduct such a maneuver and it was a common practice used to attract publicity and make passengers happy.

Whether the maneuver that caused the accident was approved or not, the actions of Captain Schettino have received plenty of criticism. It’s reported that Schettino has a history of taking risks and disobeying orders. He reportedly left Marseilles, France in bad weather, against company policy and coast guard orders. A former Costa Concordia captain who Schettino served under as first mate described him as “too high-spirited and a dare devil,” while officers who served under him at the time of the accident labeled him as risky, authoritarian, and inflexible. Transcripts of conversations between Captain Schettino and Coast Guard Captain Gregorio de Falco show a defiant Schettino as he failed to comply with orders to re-board and direct passenger and crew evacuation from aboard the Costa Concordia (a criminal act under Italian law). Instead, he claimed he would do so from a life raft with his 2nd in command (who happened to be in the same life raft Captain Schettino claimed he fell into after slipping from the ship).

There is also issue with the delay between the time the Costa Concordia made contact with the rocks and when a distress call and the order to abandon ship were declared. From most reports, a majority of the crew and passengers had no idea of the potential danger they were in. One can see videos of crew members telling passengers in life vests to return to their cabins – informing them the ship was only experiencing an electrical problem. Unfortunately, it appears even those who knew better declined to tell the whole truth; transcripts show that approximately 20-30 minutes after contact with the rocks, phone calls from the Costa Concordia to the local Coast Guard admitted the ship was experiencing electrical problems but failed to initially report the collision. Despite knowledge of contact with the rocks, and the fact the ship was taking on water and listing, it still was over an hour before the captain ordered everyone to abandon ship.

Whether he was confident he could handle the situation on his own, or frozen by fear at the outcome of his actions, Captain Schettino messed up. Accounts from those who have worked with him describe a man who enjoyed doing things his way, was willing to take risks, and had a “pronounced ego.” Audio of the conversations between Schettino and de Faclo show a man who seems to have panicked when his crew and passengers needed him most.
Despite Schettino’s actions (and inactions), concerns have been raised about the practices of Costa Concordia’s operators, Costa Cruises. Since the accident, the terms “sail-by” and “salute” have become more common, and decidedly negative. During an interview with a Senate committee in Italy, Costa Cruises’s CEO, Pier Foschi, stated the company encourages its captains to bring ships close to shore, saying such actions were “in demand” and helped “enrich the product”; however, he noted the captain’s actions on January 13 were not authorized. Also, Mr. Foschi admitted the Costa Concordia conducted an authorized sail-by a few months earlier, but stressed the ship never came closer than 500 meters to the shore – GPS evidence shows the authorized trip actually brought the Costa Concordia even nearer to shore than the unauthorized January 13 route.

Many of the details surrounding this accident will emerge as the investigation continues. At this point, there are more questions than definitive answers. Was the sail-by actually approved/ordered as Captain Schettino claims? Why did Costa Cruises approve a similar route months earlier, but deny that their ship came as close as GPS evidence shows? Was it really happenstance that Captain Schettino fell and landed in a life boat with his 2nd in command during the evacuation? Answers to these questions will shed light on the actions and mistakes that resulted in the loss of at least 17 lives (15 people are still missing), damage to and the possible destruction of a $500 million ship, and additional costs from lawsuits, fines, penalties, and environmental damage that could approach $1 billion.

When facts have been separated from speculation we will know what truly happened on the Costa Concordia that night. However, in reference to Dan Paulk’s recent blog, we can be sure that many of the scales he outlined are applicable to this situation. By most accounts, Captain Schettino was confident to the point of arrogant, willing to take unnecessary risks, and defiant in the face of authority. Once the accident occurred, he clearly panicked. Expanding on Dan’s analysis, questions have also been raised about the leadership at Costa Cruises. Do they foster an environment which rewards risk taking? Are they trying to use Captain Schettino as a scapegoat for poor industry-wide practices?

This could be a prime example of what can happen when safety takes a back seat to profit and publicity. Unfortunately, as is often the case with safety-related accidents, the costs associated with the Costa Concordia will not only be measured in dollars but in lives.

In a recent blog for the Harvard Business Review, Ambiga Dhiraj, Head of Talent Management for Chicago-based Mu Sigma, a decision science and analytics services firm, made an interesting observation about her company’s talent management process:

When it comes to employee development, most companies traditionally follow the 10/80/10 rule: The top 10 percent are promoted, the middle 80 percent are nurtured, and the bottom 10 percent are let go. At my company, we followed this advice at first too. But we found that we were losing too many from the middle 80 percent: people who had great potential were leaving because they weren't getting promoted quickly enough.

As any HR professional can tell you, Mu Sigma isn’t the only company that faces this struggle – in fact, a survey released last year showed that nearly 40% of employed adults were looking for a new job. That’s bad news for companies. According to Dr. Robert Hogan, when [engagement] is low, absenteeism, turnover, and theft go up, and productivity and customer satisfaction go down.

So how can companies address low engagement? Hogan said engagement is commonly defined in terms of four components: cognitive – the role is consistent with a person’s identity; emotional – the person likes the role; physical – the person will work at the role; and existential – the role provides personal meaning.

Dhiraj said her company changed the basic way it motivated its employees:

[Previously], our managers used promotions as carrots. Now they are challenged to motivate employees in other ways – by giving them interesting projects to work on, public praise for their work, and the right guidance and encouragement.

Fellow HBR blogger Tony Schwartz, president and CEO of The Energy Project, approaches engagement on an even more basic level:

The single highest driver of engagement, according to a worldwide study conducted by Towers Watson, is whether or not workers feel their managers are genuinely interested in their wellbeing. Less than 40 percent of workers felt so engaged.

Feeling genuinely appreciated lifts people up. At the most basic level, it makes us feel safe, which is what frees us to do our best work. It's also energizing. When our value feels at risk, as it so often does, that worry becomes preoccupying, which drains and diverts our energy from creating value.

In a recent blog for the Harvard Business Review, Ambiga Dhiraj, Head of Talent Management for Chicago-based Mu Sigma, a decision science and analytics services firm, made an interesting observation about her company’s talent management process:

When it comes to employee development, most companies traditionally follow the 10/80/10 rule: The top 10 percent are promoted, the middle 80 percent are nurtured, and the bottom 10 percent are let go. At my company, we followed this advice at first too. But we found that we were losing too many from the middle 80 percent: people who had great potential were leaving because they weren’t getting promoted quickly enough.

As any HR professional can tell you, Mu Sigma isn’t the only company that faces this struggle – in fact, a survey released last year showed that nearly 40% of employed adults were looking for a new job. That’s bad news for companies. According to Dr. Robert Hogan, when [engagement] is low, absenteeism, turnover, and theft go up, and productivity and customer satisfaction go down.

So how can companies address low engagement? Hogan said engagement is commonly defined in terms of four components: cognitive – the role is consistent with a person’s identity; emotional – the person likes the role; physical – the person will work at the role; and existential – the role provides personal meaning.

Dhiraj said her company changed the basic way it motivated its employees:

[Previously], our managers used promotions as carrots. Now they are challenged to motivate employees in other ways – by giving them interesting projects to work on, public praise for their work, and the right guidance and encouragement.

Fellow HBR blogger Tony Schwartz, president and CEO of The Energy Project, approaches engagement on an even more basic level:

The single highest driver of engagement, according to a worldwide study conducted by Towers Watson, is whether or not workers feel their managers are genuinely interested in their wellbeing. Less than 40 percent of workers felt so engaged.

Feeling genuinely appreciated lifts people up. At the most basic level, it makes us feel safe, which is what frees us to do our best work. It’s also energizing. When our value feels at risk, as it so often does, that worry becomes preoccupying, which drains and diverts our energy from creating value.

A group of young hikers, anxious to explore the treacherous mountain ranges of Alaska, interviewed a number of guides at a remote outpost. "Yep, I'm the best there is," bragged an older, very weathered looking man; "I know every mountain and valley in Alaska – been hiking them for over 50 years.“

Impressed with his obvious experience, the hikers chose the elderly gentleman to lead their expedition. Days into their journey, the group seemed to be wandering aimlessly, passing by landmarks they'd seen before. Cold, hungry, and very skeptical, the group questioned, "We've been hiking 6 days and we're lost – you said you were the best guide in Alaska."

"I am," snapped the old-timer, "but we're in Canada now!”

Moral of the story: be careful who you follow.

Following last week’s deadly capsize and chaotic evacuation of the ultramodern cruise ship Costa Concordia, maritime experts have been raising questions about the captain's behavior, crew preparedness and bungled evacuation procedures.

The preliminary indications are that there may have been significant human error on the part of the ship's master, Francesco Schettino, which resulted in grave consequences, including 15 deaths and as many as 17 missing persons to date.

In an article entitled “The Link between Personality and Human Error: Using Assessments To Hire Safety-Minded Employees,” Greg Ford (HRVoice.Org) observes the strong role of personality and safety:

What’s interesting is that up to 90% of incidents are due to human error, not faulty equipment or other factors. For the past fifty years, social scientists have been researching personality . . . there has been more and more research into how certain personality types are naturally more “safety-oriented” than others.

Hogan Research Division (HRD) has been researching predictors of safety-related behaviors for nearly 30 years across a variety of industries. In a seminal whitepaper, they conclude:

Our research shows that individual differences in personality predict both safety related behaviors (as indicated by supervisory ratings) and on-the-job accidents and injuries. This research stands in contrast to previous findings showing little to no relationships between individual personality measures and safety incidents.

Employees with an “at risk” personality can be identified by assessing them on the following six dimensions:

“Everybody has a default personality. Some call it hard-wiring,” says Stephen Race, an assessment specialist with Performance Vector (HRVoice.Org). Race says, “We can teach people to behave in a certain way for short periods of time, but they will always revert back to who they are, especially when faced with unexpected circumstances.”

Captain “Sully” Sullenberger, who famously and safely ditched U.S. Airlines flight 1549 onto the Hudson River after crippling bird strikes, epitomized the expression of a safety conscious personality. Consistently described by all who know him as “cool, calm, and collected,” Sully credits his upbringing, family bonds, and a strong sense of personal integrity. He felt this led to him being hard-wired for safety.

Despite the remarkable fact that there is no training for such emergency landings, Sully described having a strong physiological reaction toward handling this unknown situation. His default personality was calm and focused, rather than panicky and overly reactive to this crucial situation, and as a result, all 155 passengers were able to rejoin their families and feel the embrace of their loved ones yet again.

The analysis of the cruise ship tragedy has just begun, and the role of Captain Schettino’s actions does not look good. He’s admitted that he messed up. Captain Sullenberger, in his book, Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters, offers a deeply inspiring message for all of us. Sully says, “We need to try to do the right thing every time, to perform at our best, because we never know what moment in our lives we’ll be judged on.”
 

A group of young hikers, anxious to explore the treacherous mountain ranges of Alaska, interviewed a number of guides at a remote outpost. “Yep, I’m the best there is,” bragged an older, very weathered looking man; “I know every mountain and valley in Alaska – been hiking them for over 50 years.“

Impressed with his obvious experience, the hikers chose the elderly gentleman to lead their expedition. Days into their journey, the group seemed to be wandering aimlessly, passing by landmarks they’d seen before. Cold, hungry, and very skeptical, the group questioned, “We’ve been hiking 6 days and we’re lost – you said you were the best guide in Alaska.”

“I am,” snapped the old-timer, “but we’re in Canada now!”

Moral of the story: be careful who you follow.

Following last week’s deadly capsize and chaotic evacuation of the ultramodern cruise ship Costa Concordia, maritime experts have been raising questions about the captain’s behavior, crew preparedness and bungled evacuation procedures.

The preliminary indications are that there may have been significant human error on the part of the ship’s master, Francesco Schettino, which resulted in grave consequences, including 15 deaths and as many as 17 missing persons to date.

In an article entitled “The Link between Personality and Human Error: Using Assessments To Hire Safety-Minded Employees,” Greg Ford (HRVoice.Org) observes the strong role of personality and safety:

What’s interesting is that up to 90% of incidents are due to human error, not faulty equipment or other factors. For the past fifty years, social scientists have been researching personality . . . there has been more and more research into how certain personality types are naturally more “safety-oriented” than others.

Hogan Research Division (HRD) has been researching predictors of safety-related behaviors for nearly 30 years across a variety of industries. In a seminal whitepaper, they conclude:

Our research shows that individual differences in personality predict both safety related behaviors (as indicated by supervisory ratings) and on-the-job accidents and injuries. This research stands in contrast to previous findings showing little to no relationships between individual personality measures and safety incidents.

Employees with an “at risk” personality can be identified by assessing them on the following six dimensions:

“Everybody has a default personality. Some call it hard-wiring,” says Stephen Race, an assessment specialist with Performance Vector (HRVoice.Org). Race says, “We can teach people to behave in a certain way for short periods of time, but they will always revert back to who they are, especially when faced with unexpected circumstances.”

Captain “Sully” Sullenberger, who famously and safely ditched U.S. Airlines flight 1549 onto the Hudson River after crippling bird strikes, epitomized the expression of a safety conscious personality. Consistently described by all who know him as “cool, calm, and collected,” Sully credits his upbringing, family bonds, and a strong sense of personal integrity. He felt this led to him being hard-wired for safety.

Despite the remarkable fact that there is no training for such emergency landings, Sully described having a strong physiological reaction toward handling this unknown situation. His default personality was calm and focused, rather than panicky and overly reactive to this crucial situation, and as a result, all 155 passengers were able to rejoin their families and feel the embrace of their loved ones yet again.

The analysis of the cruise ship tragedy has just begun, and the role of Captain Schettino’s actions does not look good. He’s admitted that he messed up. Captain Sullenberger, in his book, Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters, offers a deeply inspiring message for all of us. Sully says, “We need to try to do the right thing every time, to perform at our best, because we never know what moment in our lives we’ll be judged on.”
 

Remember your last bad shopping experience? If you’re anything like me, even the thought of it makes your blood boil.

For instance: Last weekend, I made a trip to a major music retailer’s local storefront to buy a few odds and ends – some new guitar strings, picks, cords – mundane purchases, really. Yet, somehow, it turned into one of the worst shopping experiences of my life.

Queue the rant:
1. The store was a mess; nothing was organized, shelves were out of stock, there was literally garbage strewn about the floor, etc.
2. When I had a question, no fewer than three separate sales people told me that they were, and I quote, “Uh, not working today, bro.” Bull. First, my question was not a hard one. It would have taken him an equal amount of effort to give me the answer as it did to give me a dead stare through his lady-like bangs. Second, if you aren’t working, what the hell are you doing in the store? Go home. Or at least direct me toward someone who can help. Finally, please don’t call me bro. I’m not a friend or a peer. You, rude employee, should call me sir.
3. When I finally found what I was looking for, paid, and left, it had been an hour since I got there. An hour!

Marshall Fisher, a professor at the Wharton School, wrote about the consequences of such service in a recent blog post, “Retail Rage,” for the Harvard Business Review:

Losing immediate sales when customers can't accomplish their shopping missions because of the problems listed above is a huge issue for retailers. It makes customers unhappy, so they're more likely to go to a competitor the next time they need to buy something. And it's bad for employee morale, leading to a downward spiral of unhappy customers creating demoralized employees, making customers more unhappy still, and the beat goes on.

Fisher postulates that the root of the problem is a fundamental flaw in business logic:

I think the root cause is business-school thinking gone wrong. We teach our students to be rigorous and manage by the numbers. Not a bad idea, except that it leads to over-weighting the measurable and under-weighting what's hard to measure. In a store, what's measurable is the payroll checks a retailer writes every week to its stores' staffs. What's hard to measure is the impact that stores' staffs have on revenue.

This opens the door to self-delusion. Retailers can convince themselves that they can cut payroll by 5% in the last three weeks of a quarter to meet their profit promise to Wall Street and it really won't impact customer service, because there's probably people in the stores not doing anything anyway.

I agree that maniacal focus on metrics can be disastrous in terms of customer experience. Home Depot’s fall from grace in the mid 2000s is an excellent example of that phenomenon. But Fisher, like many companies, neglects the basic cause of poor customer service: crappy sales reps.

This particular retailer, for instance, is running an ad series touting its staff of musical equipment “experts.” But, as my colleague and fellow blogger Kristen Switzer points out in her post, “Happy Customers, Happy Employees, Happy Brand,” not all experts have personalities cut out for customer-facing positions, so a staff of experts translates, more often than not, into a nightmare of an in-store experience.

Instead of looking for employees that are an expert in any particular subject matter, perhaps more retailers would find success following the Nordstrom method of hiring Switzer describes in her blog. Nordstrom hires personable people that value working with others and fulfilling clients’ needs. Once hired, Nordstrom ensures employees feel valued, trusted, and respected.

Remember your last bad shopping experience? If you’re anything like me, even the thought of it makes your blood boil.

For instance: Last weekend, I made a trip to a major music retailer’s local storefront to buy a few odds and ends – some new guitar strings, picks, cords – mundane purchases, really. Yet, somehow, it turned into one of the worst shopping experiences of my life.

Queue the rant:
1. The store was a mess; nothing was organized, shelves were out of stock, there was literally garbage strewn about the floor, etc.
2. When I had a question, no fewer than three separate sales people told me that they were, and I quote, “Uh, not working today, bro.” Bull. First, my question was not a hard one. It would have taken him an equal amount of effort to give me the answer as it did to give me a dead stare through his lady-like bangs. Second, if you aren’t working, what the hell are you doing in the store? Go home. Or at least direct me toward someone who can help. Finally, please don’t call me bro. I’m not a friend or a peer. You, rude employee, should call me sir.
3. When I finally found what I was looking for, paid, and left, it had been an hour since I got there. An hour!

Marshall Fisher, a professor at the Wharton School, wrote about the consequences of such service in a recent blog post, “Retail Rage,” for the Harvard Business Review:

Losing immediate sales when customers can’t accomplish their shopping missions because of the problems listed above is a huge issue for retailers. It makes customers unhappy, so they’re more likely to go to a competitor the next time they need to buy something. And it’s bad for employee morale, leading to a downward spiral of unhappy customers creating demoralized employees, making customers more unhappy still, and the beat goes on.

Fisher postulates that the root of the problem is a fundamental flaw in business logic:

I think the root cause is business-school thinking gone wrong. We teach our students to be rigorous and manage by the numbers. Not a bad idea, except that it leads to over-weighting the measurable and under-weighting what’s hard to measure. In a store, what’s measurable is the payroll checks a retailer writes every week to its stores’ staffs. What’s hard to measure is the impact that stores’ staffs have on revenue.

This opens the door to self-delusion. Retailers can convince themselves that they can cut payroll by 5% in the last three weeks of a quarter to meet their profit promise to Wall Street and it really won’t impact customer service, because there’s probably people in the stores not doing anything anyway.

I agree that maniacal focus on metrics can be disastrous in terms of customer experience. Home Depot’s fall from grace in the mid 2000s is an excellent example of that phenomenon. But Fisher, like many companies, neglects the basic cause of poor customer service: crappy sales reps.

This particular retailer, for instance, is running an ad series touting its staff of musical equipment “experts.” But, as my colleague and fellow blogger Kristen Switzer points out in her post, “Happy Customers, Happy Employees, Happy Brand,” not all experts have personalities cut out for customer-facing positions, so a staff of experts translates, more often than not, into a nightmare of an in-store experience.

Instead of looking for employees that are an expert in any particular subject matter, perhaps more retailers would find success following the Nordstrom method of hiring Switzer describes in her blog. Nordstrom hires personable people that value working with others and fulfilling clients’ needs. Once hired, Nordstrom ensures employees feel valued, trusted, and respected.

When people ask me what I do for a living, and I tell them that I am a business psychologist, it is not unusual for me to hear “Gosh, we could really do with a psychologist at work.” Colourful stories concerning people, events and relationships usually follow, almost always describing how someone (a colleague, a boss, a team even) is responsible for making working life impossible.

Since I love talking about work and relationships, I usually start asking questions regarding the issue at hand in order to understand what was communicated before, during and after difficult interactions and ineffective exchanges with others.

What often surprises me is not what is generally exchanged between the parties involved, but rather how much of this exchange is assumed and not communicated. The guy from finance assumes that we have read an important email because it was sent as urgent, a client assumes that we will meet that deadline because we have not said “no,” a colleague assumes that a remark made by a team member at the meeting was intended as hurtful, and a boss assumes that you must be happy with your current salary because you have not asked for a pay rise in years. Considering these examples, the consequences of assumptions at work are often disastrous. People don’t show up at meetings when expected, feelings are bruised, relationships damaged and projects not completed on time; when this happens, disappointment rules everywhere.

The dictionary defines assumption as “a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.” I consider them as safety nets designed to shut down alarm bells that are triggered by uncertain and ambiguous circumstances. Very often, an assumption is just a guess in disguise.

Since assumptions are so risky, why do we rely on them so much?

First, not many people like to have their beliefs and views challenged. When we attempt to validate our assumptions, we are also exposing ourselves to some degree of vulnerability and the fact that our truth could be in fact a gross misinterpretation. It is easier to stick with what makes sense in our mind, rather than having our truth destroyed and feeling that invisible dent in our self-esteem.

Second, we all have deeply ingrained mental modes built inside ourselves, unique and systematic ways of interpreting the world around us that condense our thinking, feeling and perceiving into an overall subjective experience. We tend to believe that the world we experience is as it is, simply because we see it that way. Since our mental models are shaped by filters such as biology, language, culture, experiences, and of course personality, it is easy to see that there may be as many mental models as there are faces. To refer to a famous quote, it really does seem that “we don't see things as they are; we see them as we are.”

Assumption is also relevant to motivational drivers, i.e. the factors that drive and sustain the behaviour of people at work. We often assume that what motivates us will inevitably motivate others, and perhaps the most common assumption is that everyone is motivated by money. However, employees’ values and motivational drivers are often invisible and hard to detect – people just don’t go to work telling you what motivates them or disclosing what they value the most. It is therefore often assumed that simply because we work for the same organization, then we must clearly share the same values.

So, in a world filled with a great deal of ambiguity and characterised by individual experiences and interpretations, how can we try to gain a more comprehensive understanding of others and ourselves?

My advice is simple – instead of assuming, just ask; don't be afraid to communicate, enquire and validate further. Be also prepared to (actively) listen to what others have to say.

True, this will expose you, challenge your “truths” and won’t be a solution to all problems, but you may be surprised as to what you can learn from others.

Andrea Facchini, MSc.
Business Psychologist and Guest Blogger

When people ask me what I do for a living, and I tell them that I am a business psychologist, it is not unusual for me to hear “Gosh, we could really do with a psychologist at work.” Colourful stories concerning people, events and relationships usually follow, almost always describing how someone (a colleague, a boss, a team even) is responsible for making working life impossible.

Since I love talking about work and relationships, I usually start asking questions regarding the issue at hand in order to understand what was communicated before, during and after difficult interactions and ineffective exchanges with others.

What often surprises me is not what is generally exchanged between the parties involved, but rather how much of this exchange is assumed and not communicated. The guy from finance assumes that we have read an important email because it was sent as urgent, a client assumes that we will meet that deadline because we have not said “no,” a colleague assumes that a remark made by a team member at the meeting was intended as hurtful, and a boss assumes that you must be happy with your current salary because you have not asked for a pay rise in years. Considering these examples, the consequences of assumptions at work are often disastrous. People don’t show up at meetings when expected, feelings are bruised, relationships damaged and projects not completed on time; when this happens, disappointment rules everywhere.

The dictionary defines assumption as “a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.” I consider them as safety nets designed to shut down alarm bells that are triggered by uncertain and ambiguous circumstances. Very often, an assumption is just a guess in disguise.

Since assumptions are so risky, why do we rely on them so much?

First, not many people like to have their beliefs and views challenged. When we attempt to validate our assumptions, we are also exposing ourselves to some degree of vulnerability and the fact that our truth could be in fact a gross misinterpretation. It is easier to stick with what makes sense in our mind, rather than having our truth destroyed and feeling that invisible dent in our self-esteem.

Second, we all have deeply ingrained mental modes built inside ourselves, unique and systematic ways of interpreting the world around us that condense our thinking, feeling and perceiving into an overall subjective experience. We tend to believe that the world we experience is as it is, simply because we see it that way. Since our mental models are shaped by filters such as biology, language, culture, experiences, and of course personality, it is easy to see that there may be as many mental models as there are faces. To refer to a famous quote, it really does seem that “we don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are.”

Assumption is also relevant to motivational drivers, i.e. the factors that drive and sustain the behaviour of people at work. We often assume that what motivates us will inevitably motivate others, and perhaps the most common assumption is that everyone is motivated by money. However, employees’ values and motivational drivers are often invisible and hard to detect – people just don’t go to work telling you what motivates them or disclosing what they value the most. It is therefore often assumed that simply because we work for the same organization, then we must clearly share the same values.

So, in a world filled with a great deal of ambiguity and characterised by individual experiences and interpretations, how can we try to gain a more comprehensive understanding of others and ourselves?

My advice is simple – instead of assuming, just ask; don’t be afraid to communicate, enquire and validate further. Be also prepared to (actively) listen to what others have to say.

True, this will expose you, challenge your “truths” and won’t be a solution to all problems, but you may be surprised as to what you can learn from others.

Andrea Facchini, MSc.
Business Psychologist and Guest Blogger