5 ms·

The Inner Workings of the Executive Brain

26 points by lazydon 12y ago

kolektiv 12y ago
Sometimes I feel like I'm on a different planet to readers of publications like the WSJ: "we all "know" that tight deadlines lead to inspiration" Do we? I've never thought that. It's always seemed straight forward that stress and reduction in avenues of potential exploration lead to less creativity, and the few moments of stress driven "eureka" lead to strong confirmation bias in the wrong direction. If this is apparently not the view of most management/executive types, no wonder business/corporate culture looks the way it currently does!
- wslh 12y ago
  You stopped earlier and skipped the whole statement: It starts with: For instance, we all "know" that tight deadlines lead to inspiration. Except they often don't. Instead, they typically are counterproductive—making people less creative precisely when they need to be. Please give a little freedom to the author to express himself!
  - nhaehnle 12y ago
    I believe kolektiv's point was about how the author wrote her/his piece kind of assuming that their readers think tight deadlines lead to inspiration. That is, the point was reflecting on how warped the subculture of WSJ readers must be, or perhaps how warped the perceived culture among WSJ readers is. Had the author assumed that all readers already shared the idea that free breathing room is needed for inspiration, that particular sentence fragment certainly would not have appeared in the article -- therefore, kolektiv made a deduction about the author's audience. It's certainly an interesting point to observe; I was also very surprised by that sentence in the article, because to me, the fact that freedom of pressure (and even boredom!) is helpful for inspiration seemed like one of these things that "everybody knows". [0] And apparently I was wrong ;-) [0] Deadlines are definitely good for the perspiration part, though ;)
- amirmc 12y ago
  It seems to me that they somewhat conflated 'deadlines' with 'goals' early on and then just ran with it. Edit: Any idea why this was downvoted? I've re-read it and I still think the author has slightly conflated these two things. That doesn't make the article value-less but it does help with my interpretation of it.
- graeme 12y ago
  That's actually a very common view. It's been around at least since Aesop. See the Fable of the crow and the pitcher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crow_and_the_Pitcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crow_and_the_Pitcher "Necessity is the mother of invention" is the version most used in English.
amirmc 12y ago
While interesting I urge everyone to treat reports of neuroimaging studies here as anecdotes rather than data. This article seems to meander between generally accepted statements about brain networks, standard management 'self-help' stuff and inferences that the research couldn't possibly have supported [1]. [1] An example is "... different areas of the brain were dominant — those involved in social and emotional thinking. And the more adept strategic thinkers in the group displayed much higher levels of activity in these areas" -- What does dominant mean? How did they identify the adept strategic thinkers? It's then followed by "The potential conclusion is that people who are good at strategy are better at sensing or feeling their way through strategies, rather than relying only on logic and being rational …" -- Which is laughable and insupportable by the earlier statement. NB: I did neuroimaging studies for my PhD and it's a tool like any other. It can be wielded skilfully and with care (leading to amazing advances) or be completely abused (leading to quackery). Without going through the experimental design it's difficult to ascertain whether the researchers were actually measuring what they thought they were measuring. In addition to this, I've noticed that academics sometimes make claims in press-releases/news that are not supported by the actual research and not even mentioned in the peer-reviewed work.
mironathetin 12y ago
" Everybody is aware of the classic—and revered—image of the hardheaded decision maker, who cuts through nonessentials and goes after cold facts. But researchers are finding the truth is much more complex: The best leaders seem to lean on their emotions much more than logic. " Did anybody read Kahnemann: Thinking fast and Slow? Kahnemann shows how easy it is to trick our emotions and opts for cool reasoning and statical thinking. He proves that this leads to better decisions compared to allowing emotions to help in decision making. This is especially true in pressure situations. He won the Nobel Prize for this research. That said, the key topic of the article (stress and deadlines lead to bad decisions) chimes in fine with Kahnemanns results. Emotions may help talking with the team, but certainly not with making the best decisions.
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  Good leaders mix objective and subjective impulses. For example, the reason the pilot wants not to crash the plane are subjective (concern for property and life, including his own) but a deep or visceral subjective desire is not enough to prevent him from crashing it, as physics will determine that. He needs objective data regarding its position, speed, and the environment around it.
Spooky23 12y ago
End of the day, leaders make many decisions based on intuition. Facts guide that intuition, but running a company, team or other organization is more of an art than a science. This is obvious to anyone who has ever worked anywhere. Can you train people to be more intuitive and clueful? The answer is of course yes.
michaelochurch 12y ago
This is far too charitable. I was expecting an exposition on the numerous findings that power makes otherwise intelligent people quick to make rash judgments, unempathetic, and generally stupid. (This is not to cheer for the powerless. Power relationships are negative-sum and have bad effects on both sides.) That's far more truthful than the executive cheerleading (and, more relevantly, executive wannabe cheerleading) in the WSJ. I tend to agree that there's value in having subjective motivations, that can come from "instinct" (an overused and misused term in business) or emotion. Wanting to help other people is a noble and subjective goal. On the other hand, not paying attention to your data is like driving a car while blinded, on "instinct". It's a bad idea, because not seeing an obstacle doesn't mean it's not there.

26 points by lazydon 12y ago

Sometimes I feel like I'm on a different planet to readers of publications like the WSJ: "we all "know" that tight deadlines lead to inspiration" Do we? I've never thought that. It's always seemed straight forward that stress and reduction in avenues of potential exploration lead to less creativity, and the few moments of stress driven "eureka" lead to strong confirmation bias in the wrong direction. If this is apparently not the view of most management/executive types, no wonder business/corporate culture looks the way it currently does!

wslh 12y ago
You stopped earlier and skipped the whole statement: It starts with: For instance, we all "know" that tight deadlines lead to inspiration. Except they often don't. Instead, they typically are counterproductive—making people less creative precisely when they need to be. Please give a little freedom to the author to express himself!
- nhaehnle 12y ago
  I believe kolektiv's point was about how the author wrote her/his piece kind of assuming that their readers think tight deadlines lead to inspiration. That is, the point was reflecting on how warped the subculture of WSJ readers must be, or perhaps how warped the perceived culture among WSJ readers is. Had the author assumed that all readers already shared the idea that free breathing room is needed for inspiration, that particular sentence fragment certainly would not have appeared in the article -- therefore, kolektiv made a deduction about the author's audience. It's certainly an interesting point to observe; I was also very surprised by that sentence in the article, because to me, the fact that freedom of pressure (and even boredom!) is helpful for inspiration seemed like one of these things that "everybody knows". [0] And apparently I was wrong ;-) [0] Deadlines are definitely good for the perspiration part, though ;)
amirmc 12y ago
It seems to me that they somewhat conflated 'deadlines' with 'goals' early on and then just ran with it. Edit: Any idea why this was downvoted? I've re-read it and I still think the author has slightly conflated these two things. That doesn't make the article value-less but it does help with my interpretation of it.
graeme 12y ago
That's actually a very common view. It's been around at least since Aesop. See the Fable of the crow and the pitcher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crow_and_the_Pitcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crow_and_the_Pitcher "Necessity is the mother of invention" is the version most used in English.

amirmc 12y ago

While interesting I urge everyone to treat reports of neuroimaging studies here as anecdotes rather than data. This article seems to meander between generally accepted statements about brain networks, standard management 'self-help' stuff and inferences that the research couldn't possibly have supported [1]. [1] An example is "... different areas of the brain were dominant — those involved in social and emotional thinking. And the more adept strategic thinkers in the group displayed much higher levels of activity in these areas" -- What does dominant mean? How did they identify the adept strategic thinkers? It's then followed by "The potential conclusion is that people who are good at strategy are better at sensing or feeling their way through strategies, rather than relying only on logic and being rational …" -- Which is laughable and insupportable by the earlier statement. NB: I did neuroimaging studies for my PhD and it's a tool like any other. It can be wielded skilfully and with care (leading to amazing advances) or be completely abused (leading to quackery). Without going through the experimental design it's difficult to ascertain whether the researchers were actually measuring what they thought they were measuring. In addition to this, I've noticed that academics sometimes make claims in press-releases/news that are not supported by the actual research and not even mentioned in the peer-reviewed work.

mironathetin 12y ago

" Everybody is aware of the classic—and revered—image of the hardheaded decision maker, who cuts through nonessentials and goes after cold facts. But researchers are finding the truth is much more complex: The best leaders seem to lean on their emotions much more than logic. " Did anybody read Kahnemann: Thinking fast and Slow? Kahnemann shows how easy it is to trick our emotions and opts for cool reasoning and statical thinking. He proves that this leads to better decisions compared to allowing emotions to help in decision making. This is especially true in pressure situations. He won the Nobel Prize for this research. That said, the key topic of the article (stress and deadlines lead to bad decisions) chimes in fine with Kahnemanns results. Emotions may help talking with the team, but certainly not with making the best decisions.

michaelochurch 12y ago
Good leaders mix objective and subjective impulses. For example, the reason the pilot wants not to crash the plane are subjective (concern for property and life, including his own) but a deep or visceral subjective desire is not enough to prevent him from crashing it, as physics will determine that. He needs objective data regarding its position, speed, and the environment around it.

Spooky23 12y ago

End of the day, leaders make many decisions based on intuition. Facts guide that intuition, but running a company, team or other organization is more of an art than a science. This is obvious to anyone who has ever worked anywhere. Can you train people to be more intuitive and clueful? The answer is of course yes.

michaelochurch 12y ago

This is far too charitable. I was expecting an exposition on the numerous findings that power makes otherwise intelligent people quick to make rash judgments, unempathetic, and generally stupid. (This is not to cheer for the powerless. Power relationships are negative-sum and have bad effects on both sides.) That's far more truthful than the executive cheerleading (and, more relevantly, executive wannabe cheerleading) in the WSJ. I tend to agree that there's value in having subjective motivations, that can come from "instinct" (an overused and misused term in business) or emotion. Wanting to help other people is a noble and subjective goal. On the other hand, not paying attention to your data is like driving a car while blinded, on "instinct". It's a bad idea, because not seeing an obstacle doesn't mean it's not there.