The author, Adam Grant, is a professor of Organizational Psychology at Wharton, with a special interest in evidence-based management. When we think of smart people, we usually understand them to be able to deal with complex problems quickly. It is common to presume that if a person has to rethink and unlearn what they know, it is because they aren’t that smart, and didn’t think well enough in the first place. The thrust of this book is the demonstration that there are two cognitive skills that matter more than any others: the ability to rethink and unlearn. Consider this: You have just completed a multiple-choice test, and you have enough time left to review your work. When you come across an answer that you are not sure is correct, would you change it or leave it? (Pause for your instinctive answer.) Research indicates that ¾ of all people feel it will hurt their score to change. Research also shows that they would have been right to change their answer, but chose to stick to their first opinion, their existing answer. Only ¼ would have been wrong to change the answer they selected. This is called the ‘first instinct fallacy.’ People seem quite willing to change many parts of their lives, such as their wardrobe or kitchen. However, we are unwilling to change deeply held knowledge or opinions. The reason for this is that changing deeply held knowledge or opinions threatens our identity, our understanding of who we are. I am a capitalist, I am a member of this faith, I only use alternative medicine, and so on. We are inclined to hold on to beliefs for the comfort of conviction, rather than the discomfort of doubt. Grant was part of Harvard’s first online social network. It connected freshmen before university started, and one in eight of the large intake, participated. When they started university, they abandoned the network and shut it down. The well-learnt view was that online tools connect people far away, not when you live in walking distance from each other. Five years later Mark Zuckerberg started Facebook on the same campus. This experience caused “rethinking to become central to my sense of self,” Grant explains. How does rethinking happen? People with ‘super smart’ or ‘regular’ intelligence have all the tools they need for rethinking. The challenge is remembering to use them. If one needs any incentive to take this valuable skill to heart today, here are some medical statistics. In 1950 it took 10 years for medical knowledge to double. By 1980 it was doubling every 7 years, and by 2010, every 3.5 years. Clearly medicine is not the only field growing at this rate. Philip Tetlock (author of ‘Super-Forecasting’, reviewed in this column) has a useful description of the mindsets we tend to slip into, to avoid rethinking ideas. The first is the “Preacher”. When our ‘sacred’ beliefs are in jeopardy, we ‘deliver sermons’ to protect and promote our ideals. Changing our minds would be a mark of moral weakness. The second is the “Prosecutor” which entails recognizing the flaws in the other person’s position, and marshalling arguments to prove them wrong and win our case. By ‘prosecuting’ others who are wrong, we ensure we are not persuaded, and so don’t have to admit defeat. The third is the “Politician” where the outcome we desire is winning over an audience, and we will change position in response to what is more popular. The correct and most valuable mindset is that of the “Scientist” because it is a sign of intellectual integrity. The scientist mindset shifts when shown sharper logic and stronger data. It doesn’t see learning as a way to affirm our beliefs, but rather, (and this is so important,) to evolve our beliefs. I cannot think of any professional activity that would not be enhanced by this stance. This is not capitulation: it is the evolution of your opinion and belief. It is easy to see the value of the scientific approach from research on startups. Unschooled in the scientific mindset, the control group averaged less than $300 in annual revenues. The group taught scientific thinking, averaged more than $12,000 in revenues. Grant raises the question as to whether mental horsepower guarantees mental dexterity. The unequivocal answer is no. In fact, it has been shown to be liability. A study of American presidents was undertaken to identify one trait that could consistently predict presidential greatness - controlling for years in office, wars, and scandals. What emerged was “their intellectual curiosity and openness.” All the presidents who contributed significantly to the country, were interested in hearing new views and revising their old ones. They may have been ‘politicians’ by profession, but they solved ‘problems’ like scientists. This is as true in business. In 2004, a group of Apple engineers, designers, and marketers tried to persuade Steve Jobs to adapt the best-selling product at the time, the iPod, into a phone. Jobs was strongly against dealing with mobile data and voice suppliers because they imposed constraints on the manufacturers of cellphones. After six months of discussion with Jobs, he agreed to the development of the iPod so it could have calling capacity. Four years after it launched, the iPhone accounted for half of Apple’s revenue. In a US - China study of the leadership characteristics of the most productive and innovative teams, it was found that they were not run either by confident leaders or humble leaders. Rather, they were run by leaders with high levels of confidence and with humility. This combination results in the leader having faith in their strengths, but being keenly aware of their weaknesses. Great discoveries don’t start with a high five and a shout of Eureka! Rather they start with "that's funny..." Ray Dalio, founder of the extraordinarily successful hedge fund, Bridgewater, remarked: “If you don’t look back at yourself and think, ‘Wow, how stupid I was a year ago,’ then you haven't learned much in the last year.” Reading Grant’s book will assist. Readability Light --+-- Serious Insights High -+--- Low Practical High ---+- Low *Ian Mann of Gateways consults internationally on strategy and implementation, is the author of ‘Strategy that Works’ and a public speaker. Views expressed are his own.

At this time, I think our leaders lack one essential trait: humility. We spend all our time trying to prove our worth. We are either to selfish to realize what we don’t know or we are paralyzed by our feelings of unworthiness. I loved this book by Adam Grant. The simple idea that we need humility so we can rethink. We run into this all the time. Let’s follow the leaders that say, “Let’s work together” instead of simply, “Follow me!” I cannot recommend this book enough.

I've always been fascinated with understanding how people make decisions individually and collectively (including me! I'm my own little lab petri dish of thoughts!). So I was intrigued with Adam Grant's latest book: Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know as less-than-stellar decisions occur because of this "blind spot" - especially in this volatile and uncertain world. Although Grant is an academic (teaches at Wharton), the book is easy to read - but a little harder to digest. Written in a conversational tone, the ideas are presented in a clear manner with examples, research, experiments, and stories. The harder part is to do the work and look in the mirror to see if and when we are on "Mount Stupid". (Although he doesn't really challenge you until hardback page 250 with a summary of "Actions for Impact". ) So what are some of the ideas that resonated with me? - The Dunning-Kruger Effect. It's when we lack competence that we're most likely to be brimming with overconfidence. Unless you're a complete novice, you'll overrate your abilities. - Mount Stupid is the point where you have just enough information to feel self-assured about making pronouncements and passing judgment (I have been there many times...). - Do What Forecasters Do. When forecasters form an opinion, they ask what would have to happen to prove it false? They then keep track of their views so they can see when they were right, wrong, and how their thinking has evolved. - The Value of a Challenge Network. "Across a range of networks, when employees received tough feedback from colleagues, their default response was to avoid those coworkers or drop them from their networks altogether - and their performance suffered over the following year." Counter this tendency by creating a safe space to get feedback. - Debate vs Dispute. "Simply framing a dispute as a debate rather than as a disagreement signals that you're receptive to considering dissenting opinions and changing your mind, which in turn motivates the other person to share more information with you. - Be a Fact-Checker - "(1) Interrogate information instead of simply consuming it. (2) Reject rank and popularity as a proxy for reliability and (3) Understand that the sender of information is often not its source. - How to Question the Expert - To question them in a way that is not embarrassing to them or makes them look like a fool, ask these questions with a sense of curiosity: "What leads you to that assumption? Why do you think t is correct? What might happen if it's wrong? What are the uncertainties in your analysis? I understand the advantages of your recommendation. What are the disadvantages? And that's just the tip of the iceberg! So much great information, I am going to go back through the book with Actions for Impact in hand!