A typical day in the courtroom for a judge responsible for arraignments involves looking at a complete stranger, reading their rap sheet, listening to the district attorney, listening to their lawyer, making a judgement, and then setting bail. It would be fair to say that this entire process is filled with difficult decisions. They are tasked with looking at someone they don’t know, and then asked to review a vast amount of information quickly and ultimately make a decision which could be life-changing. They must look at their previous offenses, employment history, where they live, the testimony of witnesses, and so on to make their decision. In short, they must absorb as much information as possible and hope that the decision works out for the best. But, how successful are judges at making the right decision?

In a study conducted by Harvard economists, with the help of three elite computer scientists, and a bail expert from the University of Chicago, the records of 554,689 defendants brought before arraignment hearings in New York from 2008 to 2013 were analyzed. In reviewing these records, the team came to find that judges had released just over 400,000 of them on bail. They wanted to know whether or not these 400,000 were “the right decision.” How many of them committed crimes awaiting trial? Did all of the information the judges have help?

They built a computer system based upon sophisticated AI technology to evaluate their findings. The researchers gave the computer only two pieces of information regarding the same 554,689 people; their age and previous offenses. Then, they tasked the computer with choosing which 400,000 should be released on bail. The results were astonishing.

The 400,000 people the computer chose to release on bail were 25% less likely to commit a crime while awaiting trial. The judges had a plethora of information before him, far more than the computer did. It shouldn’t have even been close. How can this be? The computer only had two pieces of information and made much better decisions. The judges simply fell victim to the innate human flaw of believing that more information leads to better decisions. People we’ve just met or situations we’ve just encountered aren’t always what they seem on the surface. We can have all the data in the world about someone or something, but never truly understand. Too much information can lead us to make mistakes.

In Malcolm Gladwell’s best-selling book Blink he expands upon this idea and discusses the phenomenon of the “illusion of certainty.” When we believe we have everything we need right in front of us, we become error-prone. In a study of violinists auditioning for some of the world’s top music schools, researchers came to find that those responsible for choosing who would be admitted were more successful in selecting students when they auditioned behind a screen. It didn’t help to know whether or not the person auditioning was tall, short, fat, or skinny… it only mattered that they could play their instrument well. All of the extra visual cues and subjectiveness to conscious and unconscious bias simply doesn’t help them make better admissions decisions.

There are countless examples of these types of scenarios playing throughout different parts of society. However, the implications for businesses and their leadership teams might be the most important in 2021. Because we have a sometimes dangerous tendency to convince ourselves that we know others better than they know us or more information results in greater success, there are a few key strategies to keep in mind:

We should spend less time talking and more time listening. In the middle of our conversations, we shouldn’t be thinking about what we are going to say next or fail to reflect on the speaker’s thoughts and feelings. The moments we spend ignoring outside information and focusing on the communication and relationship at-hand are fleeting and therefore valuable. We should also be patient when others feel that they are being misunderstood. Is it possible that what you may have heard isn’t completely accurate? Is it possible that you don’t have a complete understanding? Are you the right person to make the decision at-hand? It’s important to take a step back and think about whether or not we are truly evaluating information with the company’s best interests in mind. But, remember this takes time. The next time you are tasked with looking at a situation objectively, remember that you can rely on more than just data.

Having a difficult time stepping back and getting the 40,000 foot view?  This is an area where having the right coach in your corner can propel you forward.  The objective view can help you sift and sort to move powerfully forward.  Feel free to reach out to us at jengaudetcoaching.com

It is important to remember that we don’t know everything and every situation requires a different strategy. Leaders in today’s business world should make a concerted effort to accept this reality and develop an agile mindset… 

When Hernan Cortes first arrived on the shores of Mexico in 1519, he had a very different view of the world than the Aztec civilization he encountered. Despite the overwhelming sense of awe his crew felt when first approaching the capital city of Tenochtitlan, Cortes was unfazed. After dismounting his horse in a moment of “shock and awe,” he was absolutely sure that Montezuma, the god-like Aztec leader, was ready to surrender to the will of the Spanish.

In order to speak to Montezuma, Cortes had to bring two translators. Cortes would speak to one of them in Spanish, who would then translate that into Mayan. Then, the next translator would translate that (Mayan) into Nahuatl, the native language of Montezuma. It was a complex chain of communication which made a seemingly simple face-to-face interaction incredibly difficult. Despite these challenges, Cortes believed the Aztec kingdom was his. But, he couldn’t have been more wrong… 

The Nahuatl language was reverential in nature. Essentially, when Montezuma responded to Cortes’ demands by referring to himself as a “child,” he meant the opposite. He wasn’t conceding anything. But, Cortes was from a different world and simply didn’t understand. His entire interaction with Montezuma was based upon a predetermined set of beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes.

When thinking back on our days in school, we know how the story goes. Cortes ultimately took Montezuma hostage and the two sides went to war resulting in the death of millions of people. The consequences of their miscommunication has historical implications that still impact us today.

In Malcolm Gladwell’s best-selling book Talking to Strangers, he goes into quite a bit of detail…

While the situations you may face everyday as a leader may not be as extreme as Hernan Cortes’ conquest of the Aztec empire, there are a few very important lessons to keep in mind…

• Every interaction with a client is going to be different – you can’t assume you know what they want – you also can’t assume they understand your intentions (what you want)

• A one-size-fits-all approach to business limits your ability to discover new opportunities and leverage the unique talents and skills of your team

• As a leader, humility is key – there are going to be times where you simply don’t know everything
• When communicating your goals and objectives, the message should be clear

As an international best-selling author, life strategist, and speaker, Jen Gaudet is here to help you elevate your health, life, and business. She offers a series of programs for both individuals and groups designed to help develop greater personal accountability and support, improve overall health, and enhance organizational effectiveness.

If you are interested in learning more about Jen’s services and how she can help you transform your entire life, visit the following link today.

https://jengaudetcoaching.com