Wie kontinuierliches Lernen uns hilft, Veränderungen zu meistern

Author
Foto von Selda Schretzmann
Selda Schretzmann

Lesezeit
18 Minuten

Hast du dich schon einmal gefragt, wie das Erlernen neuer Dinge, sei es ein Instrument zu spielen oder eine neue Sprache zu lernen, deine Denkfähigkeit verbessern kann? Diesem spannenden Thema sind wir mit Linda Rising, einer Expertin für agile Methoden, in einem Agile Insights Interview mit Sohrab Salimi nachgegangen.

Wir tauchen ein in Lindas reichhaltiges Wissen darüber, wie das Erlernen neuer Fertigkeiten unsere Gehirnleistung beim Denken, Problemlösen und Anpassen an neue Situationen erheblich verbessern kann. Es geht nicht nur darum, etwas Neues zu lernen; es geht darum, unsere Fähigkeit zu erweitern, in komplexen Situationen zu denken. Das ist in unserer schnelllebigen Zeit absolut notwendig.

Wir werfen auch einen Blick auf Insights von bekannten Unternehmen wie Amazon, Bosch, Adyen, Novo Nordisk, IKEA und Zalando. Ihre Geschichten zeigen, wie sie Lernen und kluge Entscheidungen begrüßen, um an der Spitze der Innovation und Flexibilität zu bleiben. 

Mit den Beispielen dieser Vorreiter unterstreichen wir Lindas wertvolle Tipps und geben Denkanstöße, wie man in agilen Umgebungen erfolgreich sein kann. Dieses Interview ist ein klarer Leitfaden für alle, die ihre Fähigkeiten und ihre Anpassungsfähigkeit in einer sich ständig verändernden Welt verbessern wollen.

Musik und Sprachen lernen, um kognitive Fähigkeiten zu steigern

"Ein Instrument zu lernen und eine neue Sprache zu lernen, sind die beiden besten Methoden, um Demenz vorzubeugen, deine kognitiven Fähigkeiten zu verbessern, dein Denken, deine Entscheidungsfindung und deine Problemlösungskompetenz zu schärfen. Musik und Sprache spielen beide eine entscheidende Rolle in unserer Art, die Welt zu betrachten. Sie verbessern unsere Perspektive."

Linda nutzt das Beispiel des Erlernens eines Musikinstruments aus der Renaissance und dem Frühbarock, um zu zeigen, wie neue Fähigkeiten unsere kognitiven Fähigkeiten spürbar fördern können. Diese Steigerung geht weit über verbessertes Denken, fundiertere Entscheidungsfindung und effizienteres Problemlösen hinaus.

Solche Lernerfahrungen verbessern nicht nur die kognitive Gesundheit und können Demenz vorbeugen, sondern kurbeln auch die Kreativität an, schärfen das Gedächtnis und erhöhen die Fähigkeit zum Multitasking. Sie bereichern unser Verständnis und unsere Wertschätzung von Kultur und haben einen positiven Einfluss auf unser privates sowie berufliches Leben.

In einem breiteren Kontext stellen diese vielfältigen Lernerfahrungen eine Investition in unser kognitives und berufliches Wachstum dar und fördern Agilität und Entwicklung. Angesichts dessen ist es von großem Nutzen, sich kontinuierlich um das Lernen und den Erwerb von Kompetenzen zu bemühen.

Boschs Wegweiser für Innovation: Mitarbeiter durch kontinuierliches Lernen stärken

Hintergrund: Bosch agiert in einer hoch kompetitiven und sich rasch entwickelnden Branche, in der die Fähigkeit zu innovieren und Probleme kreativ zu lösen, von größter Bedeutung ist. Dieser multinationale Ingenieur- und Technologieriese, dessen Wurzeln fest in Deutschland verankert sind, hat den Wert der Förderung einer vielfältigen Fähigkeitenpalette unter seinen Mitarbeitern schon lange erkannt. Um an der Spitze zu bleiben, hat Bosch verschiedene Programme eingeführt, die darauf abzielen, die Fähigkeiten seiner Mitarbeiter zu erweitern. Von Sprachkursen, die Kommunikationsbarrieren abbauen, bis zu kreativen Workshops, die Innovationen fördern, versteht Bosch, dass ein vielseitig gebildeter Mitarbeiter ein effektiverer Problemlöser ist.

Anpassung an den Wandel: Das Engagement des Unternehmens für die Mitarbeiterentwicklung basiert auf der Überzeugung, dass vielfältige Fähigkeiten zu innovativem Denken führen. Indem Bosch seine Belegschaft ermutigt, sich über ihre technische Expertise hinaus in Lernaktivitäten wie Musik- und Sprachkurse zu engagieren, investiert das Unternehmen in die kognitive Flexibilität seiner Mitarbeiter. Dieser Ansatz basiert auf dem Verständnis, dass das Erlernen neuer Fähigkeiten die kognitiven Fähigkeiten erheblich verbessern kann, was zu verbessertem Problemlösungen und Entscheidungsfindung führt.

Rollenwandel: Boschs Fokus auf kontinuierliches Lernen hat die Art und Weise, wie seine Mitarbeiter Herausforderungen angehen und Lösungen entwickeln, transformiert. Indem eine Umgebung gefördert wird, in der Mitarbeiter ermutigt werden, zu wachsen und neue Wissensbereiche zu erkunden, hat Bosch einen direkten Einfluss auf sein Innovationsvermögen beobachtet. Mitarbeiter, die an diesen Entwicklungsprogrammen teilnehmen, bringen oft frische Perspektiven in ihre Projekte ein, treiben die Kreativität voran und führen zu Durchbrüchen in Technologie und Prozessverbesserung.

Ergebnis: Boschs Fokus auf kontinuierliche Weiterbildung und Entwicklung wirkt sich in zweierlei Hinsicht positiv aus. Zum einen erleben die Mitarbeiter dadurch persönliches Wachstum und eine gesteigerte Arbeitszufriedenheit, was nicht nur die Bindung an das Unternehmen stärkt, sondern auch die Fluktuation verringert. Zum anderen profitiert Bosch von einem Team, das durch seine hohe Qualifikation und Innovationskraft besticht. Diese Kultur des stetigen Lernens und der Offenheit für Neues hat Bosch an die Spitze seiner Branche katapultiert, mit der Fähigkeit, bahnbrechende Lösungen für komplexe Herausforderungen zu entwickeln.

Entdecke hier weitere Einblicke in die Strategien von Bosch:

Growth and development | Bosch Global

Intuition und Analyse in der Entscheidungsfindung ausbalancieren

"Wir neigen dazu, System zwei, den langsamen, methodischen, bewussten und logischen Teil unseres Gehirns, zu sehr zu nutzen und System eins, den intuitiven, kreativen und scharfsinnigen Teil unseres Gehirns, der sich an alles erinnert und weiß, was wir je getan haben, zu wenig zu nutzen".

Linda Rising beleuchtet die Kunst der Entscheidungsfindung durch die Linse von Daniel Kahnemans bahnbrechendem Buch „Schnelles Denken, langsames Denken". Kahneman beschreibt, wie unser Gehirn auf zwei Arten operiert: intuitiv, schnell und analytisch langsam.

Sie merkt an, dass Fachleute in technologieorientierten und agilen Bereichen oft dazu neigen, sich übermäßig auf bedachtes, langsames Denken zu verlassen. Dies könnte sie daran hindern, spontane, kreative Einfälle zu erkennen, die aus dem Instinkt heraus entstehen. Linda empfiehlt, unsere Fähigkeit zu schärfen, Instinkte sinnvoll einzusetzen -- ähnlich wie Jazzmusiker, die intuitiv spielen, ohne jeden Ton im Voraus festzulegen.

In der heutigen Arbeitswelt, besonders in technikintensiven und planungsorientierten Feldern, wird häufig ein großer Schwerpunkt auf bedachtes Denken gelegt. Dies kann jedoch die Rolle des schnellen, intuitiven Denkens unterbewerten, das der Schlüssel zu originellen Ideen sein kann. Linda betont die Notwendigkeit, eine Balance zwischen diesen Denkstilen zu finden, um sowohl Innovation als auch Effizienz zu fördern.

Zalando: Die Verbindung von Daten und Kreativität im Modehandel neu definieren

Hintergrund: Das in Berlin ansässige Unternehmen Zalando hat das Online-Shopping für Millionen von Kunden in ganz Europa revolutioniert. Mit einem breit gefächerten Angebot verschiedener Marken legt Zalando großen Wert auf ein außergewöhnliches Verständnis von Kundenbedürfnissen und Markttrends. Dieses Verständnis beruht nicht nur auf traditioneller Datenanalyse, sondern auch auf der intuitiven Erfassung von Modetrends durch das Kuratoren- und Marketingteam.

Umgang mit Veränderungen: Die Führungskräfte von Zalando erkannten früh, dass es ihr Potenzial in der schnelllebigen Modebranche einschränken könnte, sich ausschließlich auf Daten oder Intuition zu verlassen. Sie begannen, diese beiden Elemente in Einklang zu bringen, und förderten eine Kultur, in der Datenanalyse und kreative Einsichten nebeneinander bestehen und einander ergänzen. Diese Strategie hat es Zalando ermöglicht, nicht nur Verbrauchertrends vorherzusagen, sondern auch die Art und Weise zu innovieren, wie diese Trends präsentiert und an die Kunden geliefert werden.

Rollenwandel: Im Mittelpunkt des Ansatzes von Zalando steht eine kollaborative Umgebung, in der Datenwissenschaftler und Modeexperten Seite an Seite arbeiten. Diese Zusammenarbeit stellt sicher, dass jede Entscheidung, von der Auswahl des Inventars bis zu Marketingkampagnen, sowohl datenbasiert als auch kreativ inspiriert ist. Durch die Wertschätzung der einzigartigen Beiträge jedes einzelnen Teammitglieds hat Zalando einen Entscheidungsprozess geschaffen, der sowohl agil als auch tief mit den Feinheiten des Modeeinzelhandels verbunden ist.

Ergebnis: Zalandos ausgewogener Ansatz zur Entscheidungsfindung spiegelt sich in seiner Marktposition und Kundenbindung wider. Das Unternehmen hat erfolgreich innovative Produktlinien und Marketingstrategien eingeführt, die bei seiner Zielgruppe gut ankommen. Weiterhin hat Zalandos Fähigkeit, agil auf wechselnde Modetrends zu reagieren, seine Position als Marktführer in der Online-Modewelt gefestigt. Diese Erfolgsgeschichte unterstreicht die Stärke der Kombination aus analytischer Strenge und kreativer Intuition – eine Strategie, die das Wachstum vorangetrieben und eine Kultur der Innovation und Inklusivität bei Zalando gefördert hat.

Entdecke Zalando's Erfolgsfaktoren:

Data For All: An Introduction to Product Analytics at Zalando (Artikel in englischer Sprache)

Intuition bei Expertenentscheidungen

"Ja, dein System zwei, ja, dein bewusster Verstand, ja, deine logische Herangehensweise an die Dinge ist gut. Aber du musst auch erkennen, dass du eine enorme ungenutzte kognitive Kapazität hast, die dir helfen würde, ein besserer Denker, ein besserer Problemlöser, ein besserer Innovator zu sein, wenn du nur ein wenig lernen würdest, wie man sie nutzt. Sei ein wenig mehr Musiker als Techniker.”

Experten stützen sich häufig auf ihre durch umfangreiche Erfahrung geschärfte Intuition, um rasch und kompetent Entscheidungen zu treffen -- eine Fähigkeit, die besonders in agilen Kontexten, wo zügiges Denken unerlässlich ist, von Bedeutung ist. Diese instinktive Einsicht, ergänzt durch analytisches Denken, verbessert signifikant die Entscheidungsfindung in puncto Effizienz und Kreativität.

In agilen Arbeitsumfeldern, gekennzeichnet durch komplexe und dringliche Herausforderungen, erleichtert das ausgewogene Zusammenspiel von Intuition und Analyse eine zügigere und wirksamere Problemlösung. Diese Synergie fördert den Entscheidungsprozess und mündet in innovative Lösungen, die auf den einzigartigen Erkenntnissen aus der Erfahrung basieren.

Das Erkennen der Bedeutung von sowohl intuitivem als auch analytischem Denken bei Entscheidungsprozessen verfeinert das Problemlösungsvermögen und kultiviert die Kreativität. Für Agile Praktizierende ist die Balance zwischen diesen Denkweisen essenziell, um komplexe Herausforderungen effizient zu meistern, wodurch ihre Fachkompetenz sowie der Projekterfolg insgesamt gefördert werden.

Innovation durch Intuition vorantreiben: Führungskräfteentwicklung bei Novo Nordisk

Hintergrund: Der dänische Gesundheitsriese Novo Nordisk hat immer wieder gezeigt, wie Intuition gepaart mit wissenschaftlicher Expertise zu bahnbrechenden Fortschritten in der medizinischen Behandlung führen kann. Die Mission von Novo Nordisk ist tief verwurzelt in einem umfassenden Verständnis von Diabetes, einer Krankheit, die weltweit Millionen von Menschen betrifft. Mit einer Produktpalette, die einige der fortschrittlichsten Insulinabgabesysteme auf dem Markt umfasst, hat das Unternehmen Innovation stets in den Mittelpunkt seines Ansatzes im Gesundheitswesen gestellt. Die Forscher und Gesundheitsexperten von Novo Nordisk stehen bei dieser Mission an vorderster Front, um komplexe medizinische Bedürfnisse in praktische, lebensverbessernde Lösungen umzusetzen.

Umgang mit Veränderungen: Die Führung bei Novo Nordisk hat die entscheidende Bedeutung der Intuition für wissenschaftliche Durchbrüche erkannt und setzt nun verstärkt darauf, die intuitiven Fähigkeiten ihrer Teams zu fördern. Dieser Ansatz würdigt, dass neben Daten und Forschung gerade das intuitive Verstehen von Patientenbedürfnissen und den möglichen Auswirkungen von Behandlungen oft den Antrieb für wahre Innovationen bildet. Die Neuorientierung weg von einer ausschließlich datenbasierten Forschung hin zu einer ausgewogeneren Methodik, die auch Raum für Intuition lässt, markiert einen signifikanten Wandel in der Unternehmensphilosophie.

Rollenwandel: In diesem neuen Paradigma haben die Führungskräfte von Novo Nordisk ihre Rollen verändert, um als Innovationsförderer zu agieren. Sie haben sich von reinen Forschern oder Gesundheitsexperten zu Innovatoren gewandelt, die die breiteren Auswirkungen ihrer Arbeit verstehen. Zu diesem Wandel gehört auch, dass sie das intuitive Verständnis ihrer Teams fördern und sie ermutigen, über die Daten hinauszuschauen und die tatsächlichen Auswirkungen ihrer Forschung auf das Leben der Patienten zu berücksichtigen. Die Führungskräfte bei Novo Nordisk verbringen nun mehr Zeit damit, ihre Teams zu betreuen, ihre Perspektiven zu verstehen und ein Umfeld zu fördern, in dem intuitive Sprünge nicht nur akzeptiert, sondern ermutigt werden.

Ergebnis: Das Ergebnis dieser Führungsentwicklung bei Novo Nordisk war eine signifikante Veränderung in der Art und Weise, wie Innovation verfolgt wird. Das Unternehmen erlebte eine Zunahme bahnbrechender medizinischer Behandlungen, insbesondere im Bereich der Insulinabgabesysteme, die das Diabetesmanagement für Patienten weltweit dramatisch verbessert haben. Diese Verlagerung hin zur Wertschätzung von Intuition und patientenzentrierter Innovation hat nicht nur zu einer verbesserten Produktentwicklung geführt, sondern auch eine Kultur des Empowerments unter den Forschern und Gesundheitsexperten bei Novo Nordisk gefördert. Sie übernehmen jetzt mehr Verantwortung für ihre Arbeit, was zu mehr Motivation, Kreativität und einem tieferen Sinn in ihrer Rolle führt.

Wenn du mehr über Novo Nordisk erfahren möchtest, empfehlen wir das folgende PDF. Dieses PDF präsentiert eine Fallstudie über Novo Nordisk, ein globales Gesundheitsunternehmen, das integriertes Denken und Berichten nutzt, um seine Strategie, Wertschöpfung und Nachhaltigkeit zu verbessern.

VRF_Case_Novo-Nordisk.pdf (ifrs.org) (in Englisch)

Dezentrale Entscheidungsfindung: Von Amazon lernen

"Bei Amazon werden Entscheidungen in Typ-1-Entscheidungen und Typ-2-Entscheidungen unterschieden. Typ-1-Entscheidungen sind in der Regel Einweg-Entscheidungen. Typ-2-Entscheidungen sind Zwei-Wege-Entscheidungen... Diese Entscheidungen können viel schneller getroffen werden und es ist ratsam, dass Führungskräfte diese Entscheidungen dezentralisieren und an die Personen delegieren, die näher an den Informationen sind".

Linda erläutert, wie Amazon Entscheidungen in zwei Kategorien einteilt: solche, die reversibel sind (Typ 2), und solche, die es nicht sind (Typ 1). Sie plädiert für einen Entscheidungsprozess, der es den bestinformierten Personen ermöglicht, rasch zu entscheiden. Dieser Ansatz ist ein Kernelement agiler Führung, die sich durch Flexibilität und schnelles Reagieren auf Wandel auszeichnet.

Durch die Unterscheidung zwischen reversiblen und irreversiblen Entscheidungen können Teams bei weniger gewichtigen Entscheidungen zügiger vorgehen und sich bei gravierenden Entscheidungen mehr Zeit nehmen. Dieser Prozess befähigt diejenigen, die unmittelbar in die Arbeit eingebunden sind, ihr Fachwissen direkt in die Entscheidungsfindung einfließen zu lassen, was den Gesamtprozess beschleunigt.

Linda betont, dass diese Herangehensweise an die Entscheidungsfindung Teams ermöglicht, sich rasch anzupassen und mit dem Wandel Schritt zu halten. Diese intelligente Arbeitsweise führt nicht nur zu besseren Ergebnissen, sondern gewährleistet auch, dass Entscheidungen von jenen getroffen werden, die die gegebene Situation am besten durchschauen.

Innovation durch Befähigung fördern: Die Führungsrevolution bei Amazon

Hintergrund: Amazon, ein Titan in den Bereichen E-Commerce, Cloud Computing, digitales Streaming und künstliche Intelligenz, hat stets eine Kultur der Selbstständigkeit und Beweglichkeit hochgehalten. Die einzigartige Managementphilosophie des Unternehmens zielt darauf ab, an der Spitze der Innovation zu bleiben. Amazons Führungskräfte erkennen, dass die Fähigkeit, schnell Entscheidungen zu treffen, in der raschlebigen Welt der Technologie einen entscheidenden Wettbewerbsvorteil darstellt. Dieses Bewusstsein prägt ihren Ansatz zur Teamgestaltung und Entscheidungsfindung.

Anpassung an den Wandel: Die Einführung des „Two-Pizza-Team“-Konzepts bei Amazon war ein bahnbrechender Moment für die Betriebsdynamik des Unternehmens. Dieser von CEO Jeff Bezos vorangetriebene Ansatz basiert auf der Überzeugung, dass kleinere Teams effektiver arbeiten. Die zugrundeliegende Idee ist einfach und doch weitreichend: Ein Team sollte klein genug sein, dass zwei Pizzen für alle ausreichen. Dabei geht es nicht nur um die Begrenzung der Teamgröße, sondern auch darum, eine Umgebung zu schaffen, in der schnelle, eigenständige Entscheidungsfindung ohne die Verzögerungen durch hierarchische Freigabeprozesse florieren kann.

Veränderung der Rolle: Durch die Einführung der Two-Pizza-Teams hat Amazon seinen Entscheidungsprozess wirkungsvoll dezentralisiert. Diese Umgestaltung erlaubte es den Teams, mit einer Start-up-Denkweise zu agieren und schnell sowie eigenständig Entscheidungen zu treffen. Statt auf Direktiven von der Unternehmensspitze zu warten, konnten die Teams experimentieren, lernen und sich weiterentwickeln, wodurch Innovationen in einem noch nie dagewesenen Tempo vorangetrieben wurden. Diese Abkehr von zentralisierten Entscheidungsprozessen hin zu einem dezentralisierten Ansatz symbolisiert einen umfassenderen Übergang von einer traditionellen Unternehmenshierarchie zu einem flexibleren und reaktionsfähigeren Organisationsmodell.

Ergebnis: Das Ergebnis dieser Führungsrevolution bei Amazon war geradezu transformativ. Teams, die dazu ermächtigt wurden, eigenständig Entscheidungen zu treffen, haben zur schnellen Entwicklung und Einführung von Produkten und Dienstleistungen beigetragen, von AWS (Amazon Web Services) bis Amazon Prime. Diese Befähigung hat die Innovation beschleunigt und das persönliche Wachstum der Teammitglieder gefördert. Mit der Freiheit, Entscheidungen zu treffen, wächst auch die Verantwortung für die Ergebnisse, was eine Kultur der Rechenschaftspflicht und kontinuierlichen Verbesserung unterstützt.

Erfahre mehr über Amazons Führungskultur und Entscheidungsfindung in unserem Blogbeitrag: https://www.agile-academy.com/de/agile-leader/die-10-wichtigsten-insights-aus-working-backwards-von-colin-bryar/

Der Wert der Außenperspektive

"Kahneman schreibt über zwei Dinge... Er betont das Rauschen in unseren Entscheidungen. Und er spricht über den Unterschied zwischen einer Innen- und einer Außenperspektive... Hör auf, nur auf deine eigene Umgebung zu schauen, schau dich um. Was haben andere in der gleichen Situation gemacht, in der du dich gerade befindest?”

Linda und Sohrab sprechen darüber, wie wichtig es ist, sich anzuschauen, wie andere ähnliche Probleme gelöst haben, wenn wir Entscheidungen treffen oder versuchen, die Zukunft vorherzusagen. Indem wir Beispiele außerhalb unserer eigenen Erfahrung betrachten, können wir bessere Entscheidungen treffen und vermeiden, ohne Grund zu optimistisch zu sein. Diese Denkweise hilft uns, aus dem, was andere getan haben, zu lernen und unsere Annahmen über die Zukunft genauer zu machen.

Indem wir uns ansehen, wie andere ähnliche Situationen bewältigt haben, können wir Fehler vermeiden und klügere Entscheidungen treffen. Dieser Ansatz hilft uns auch, realistischer zu sein und zu vermeiden, dass wir zu viel erwarten, weil unsere Hoffnungen nicht auf Fakten beruhen.

Die von Linda und Sohrab empfohlene Einbeziehung der Außenperspektive ist der Schlüssel zu gut informierten Entscheidungen und zur Verbesserung unserer Fähigkeit, Ergebnisse vorherzusagen. Sie ermutigt uns, die Lektionen, die wir von anderen gelernt haben, zu nutzen, um unser Handeln zu steuern, was zu besseren Ergebnissen und genaueren Vorhersagen führt.

Innovation durch externe Perspektiven fördern: Adyens strategischer Ansatz

Hintergrund: Adyen hebt sich in der dicht besetzten Zahlungsbranche ab, indem es eine Plattform bietet, die vielfältige Zahlungsmethoden nahtlos integriert und global agierenden Unternehmen dient. Diese Kompetenz setzt nicht nur technisches Verständnis der Zahlungsabwicklung voraus, sondern erfordert auch tiefe Einblicke in die sich wandelnden Bedürfnisse von Händlern und Konsumenten. Adyens Produktmanager und Strategen sind gefordert, diese komplexen Anforderungen zu steuern und zu gewährleisten, dass das Unternehmensangebot Branchenstandards setzt.

Anpassung an den Wandel: Die Führungskräfte von Adyen haben die Begrenzungen eines ausschließlich internen Blickwinkels erkannt und streben danach, den Unternehmenshorizont über die direkte Konkurrenz hinaus zu erweitern. Diese Strategie umfasst das Vergleichen von Adyens Abläufen und Neuerungen nicht nur mit direkten Konkurrenten der Zahlungsbranche, sondern auch mit Spitzenunternehmen aus weiteren Technologie- und Dienstleistungssektoren. So sichert Adyen, dass seine Lösungen nicht nur zeitgemäß sind, sondern auch kommende Trends und Bedürfnisse antizipieren.

Veränderung der Rolle: Die Bereitschaft, externe Perspektiven zu berücksichtigen, hat Adyens Herangehensweise an Produktentwicklung und strategische Planung grundlegend verändert. Anstatt sich rein auf interne Daten und Errungenschaften zu stützen, erforschen und analysieren Adyens Teams aktiv globale Trends, Kundenrückmeldungen aus verschiedenen Branchen und technologische Entwicklungen jenseits ihres Kernbereichs. Diese Methodik ermöglicht es Adyen, Marktentwicklungen vorauszusehen und sein Angebot den zukünftigen Anforderungen anzupassen, was seinen Status als Innovationsführer festigt.

Ergebnis: Die strategische Neuausrichtung hat zu einer Palette von Zahlungslösungen geführt, die technologisch fortschrittlich und äußerst marktreaktiv sind. Adyens Kompetenz, externe Einblicke in den Entwicklungsprozess zu integrieren, hat eine Plattform entstehen lassen, die nicht nur den aktuellen Bedarf von Händlern und Verbrauchern erfüllt, sondern auch zukünftige Entwicklungen vorwegnimmt. Diese vorausschauende Haltung ist entscheidend, um Adyens Stellung als bevorzugter Partner für Unternehmen zu stärken, die nach umfassenden, zukunftsfähigen Zahlungslösungen suchen.

Für weitere Einblicke in Adyens dynamischen Workflow, klicke hier:

https://careers.adyen.com/formula

Die Bedeutung von Offenheit und Lernen

"Hervorragende Prognostiker zeichnen sich durch ihre Offenheit aus – sie sind stets im Lernmodus. Sie hinterfragen kontinuierlich ihre eigenen Annahmen mit Gedanken wie: "Könnte es sein, dass ich mit meiner ersten Einschätzung danebenlag?" Sie sind neuen Informationen gegenüber aufgeschlossen, bereit, ihre Meinungen zu revidieren und auch dazu, einzugestehen: "Ah, anscheinend habe ich mich geirrt." Ihr ständiges Lernen und Anpassen bedeutet eine permanente Offenheit für frische Erkenntnisse."

Das Gespräch mündet in die Betonung, wie unerlässlich es ist, neuen Ideen und unterschiedlichen Standpunkten gegenüber offen zu sein. Besonders in agilen Kontexten, die sich durch ständigen Wandel auszeichnen, ist die Bereitschaft, Neues zu lernen und anderen zuzuhören, fundamental, um sich weiterzuentwickeln und innovative Lösungen zu generieren. Linda empfiehlt, durch respektvollen Austausch und das Infragestellen eigener Überzeugungen zu effektiveren, teamorientierten agilen Methoden zu gelangen.

Sie unterstreicht die Notwendigkeit, offen für die Perspektiven anderer zu sein und diese ernsthaft zu erwägen, als Schlüssel für kontinuierliches Wachstum und Innovation. Diese Herangehensweise ebnet den Weg für verbesserte Kooperations- und Problemlösungsstrategien.

Indem man Lindas Empfehlung folgt, offen und neugierig zu bleiben, können agile Teams nicht nur enger zusammenrücken, sondern auch erfolgreicher werden. Dies fördert eine Kultur des gegenseitigen Lernens und der effektiven Zusammenarbeit.

IKEAs Weg: Förderung von Offenheit und Innovation durch Führungsstärke

Hintergrund: Von seinen Anfängen in Schweden hat sich IKEA zu einem globalen Phänomen entwickelt, das Einfluss auf Millionen Haushalte weltweit nimmt. Getrieben von dem Bestreben, die unterschiedlichsten Kundenbedürfnisse zu erkennen und zu befriedigen, hat sich das Prinzip des Demokratischen Designs als Leitmotiv etabliert. Es steuert sämtliche Bereiche von der Produktentwicklung bis zum Kundenservice und fußt auf der Überzeugung, dass großartige Ideen überall entstehen können. Dieses Prinzip motiviert alle Mitarbeiter, unabhängig ihrer Position, ihre Ideen und Rückmeldungen einzubringen.

Umgang mit Veränderungen: Die Erkenntnis, dass die wahre Stärke eines Unternehmens in der kollektiven Kreativität und Innovationskraft seiner Mitarbeiter liegt, veranlasste IKEA, eine Kultur der Offenheit und des fortwährenden Lernens zu kultivieren. Die Abkehr von einer rein produktorientierten hin zu einer menschenzentrierten Perspektive hat die Arbeitsweise bei IKEA grundlegend verändert. Führungskräfte sehen sich nun weniger als Vorgesetzte, sondern vielmehr als Förderer von Innovation, verpflichtet zur Unterstützung der Entfaltung und Entwicklung ihres Teams. Dies schließt ein tiefes Verständnis für die individuellen Karriereziele, Stärken und Entwicklungspotenziale jedes Einzelnen ein – ganz im Sinne der Sorgfalt, die auch jedem Produktentwurf zuteilwird.

Rollenveränderung: Mit diesem Paradigmenwechsel haben sich IKEAs Führungskräfte von traditionellen Managementaufgaben gelöst und sich als Verfechter von Kreativität und Kollaboration positioniert. Als Wegbereiter fördern sie die Teamarbeit und den freien Gedankenaustausch. Diese bedeutsame Wandlung zielt nicht darauf ab, die Rolle von Produktqualität oder -design zu mindern, sondern vielmehr die Bedeutung der Menschen, die hinter den Produkten stehen, in den Vordergrund zu rücken. Die Führungskräfte konzentrieren sich nun verstärkt darauf, ein Umfeld zu schaffen, in dem Innovation florieren kann und sich jedes Teammitglied geschätzt und ermächtigt fühlt, sein Bestes zu geben.

Ergebnis: Die Neuausrichtung der Führung bei IKEA hatte weitreichende Auswirkungen. Indem der Schwerpunkt auf die Menschen hinter der Innovation gelegt wurde, entstand eine engagierte und motivierte Belegschaft. Mitarbeiter aller Ebenen übernehmen mehr Verantwortung, was sich in gesteigerter Produktivität und kreativeren Produktdesigns niederschlägt. Dieser menschenorientierte Ansatz hat nicht nur den Mitarbeitern hinsichtlich persönlicher Entfaltung und Arbeitszufriedenheit genutzt, sondern auch IKEAs Erfolg auf neue Höhen getrieben. Das Unternehmen bleibt an der Spitze von Design und Einzelhandel, indem es kontinuierlich die Erwartungen seiner weltweiten Kundschaft übertrifft.

Tauche tiefer in die Kultur und Werte von IKEA ein: 

https://www.ikea.com/de/de/this-is-ikea/about-us/vision-werte-geschaeftsidee-pub9aa779d0

Fazit:

Unser Gespräch mit Linda Rising hebt hervor, dass das Erkunden neuer Lernbereiche, wie Musik oder Sprachen, nicht nur das Sammeln neuer Fähigkeiten bedeutet. Es formt eine Geisteshaltung, die auf die heutigen Herausforderungen und Gelegenheiten vorbereitet ist. Linda, mit ihrem umfassenden Wissen und Erfahrungsschatz, hat uns feinfühlig gezeigt, wie lebenslanges Lernen unsere geistigen Fähigkeiten und beruflichen Wege beeinflusst.

Die Beispiele von führenden Unternehmen wie Amazon, Bosch, Adyen, Novo Nordisk, IKEA und Zalando haben nicht nur Erfolgsstrategien aufgezeigt; sie regen uns an, zu überlegen, wie wir ähnliche Ansätze in unser Leben und unsere Arbeit einfließen lassen können. Sie erinnern uns daran, dass Innovation und Flexibilität erreichbare Ziele sind, die durch den Erwerb von Wissen und Fertigkeiten verwirklicht werden können.

Lindas Austausch ist eine persönliche Aufforderung zum Handeln für jeden von uns. Es geht dabei nicht nur um berufliches Fortkommen, sondern um eine Reise hin zu einem reflektierteren Denken und Handeln in einer sich ständig entwickelnden Welt. Ihre Einsichten bieten uns eine Anleitung, wie wir in einem agilen Umfeld nicht nur überleben, sondern erfolgreich sein können, indem wir analytisches und intuitives Denken für gehaltvollere, kreativere Ergebnisse verschmelzen.

Dies ist nicht nur eine Zusammenfassung unserer Unterhaltung, sondern eine Einladung, die unendlichen Möglichkeiten zu ergreifen, die mit der Verpflichtung zu lernen und Wachstum einhergehen.

Author
Über Linda Rising

Linda Rising ist eine Expertin auf den Gebieten der Softwareentwicklung, Muster (Patterns) und des Change-Managements. Mit ihrer Erfahrung in Lehre, Vorträgen und Beratung hat sie einen bedeutenden Beitrag dazu geleistet, wie Organisationen Veränderungen umsetzen, insbesondere in der agilen Entwicklung und im Projektmanagement.

Linda ist Mitautorin von „Fearless Change: Patterns for Introducing New Ideas“ und dessen Fortsetzung mit Mary Lynn Manns, in denen sie effektive Strategien für das Management von Veränderungen vorstellt. Ihre Arbeit umfasst agile Methodologien, die Psychologie des Wandels und die Anwendung von Mustern in organisatorischen Kontexten. www.lindarising.org

Das komplette englischsprachige Transkript zu diesem Interview findet ihr hier:

[00:00:00] Sohrab: All right. Welcome, everyone, to our next episode of the "Agile Insights" conversation. Today I'm hosting Linda Rising and I'm super excited to host her with us tod...

[00:00:00]

Sohrab: All right. Welcome, everyone, to our next episode of the "Agile Insights" conversation. Today I'm hosting Linda Rising and I'm super excited to host her with us today because three years ago, more or less exactly to that date, Linda gave a very memorable speech in our back then online conference Agile 100. And many people were super impressed by that speech. I think it was considered as one of the best sessions of that conference and ever since then I've been waiting to get Linda onto this show. It's not that she has been declining my invitations. I hadn't just reached out to her. She was kind and generous enough to immediately respond and say yes to have this conversation. Linda, welcome to the show.

[00:00:43]

Linda: Thank you so much for inviting me. I'm very happy to be here. I love Zoom. I can go all over the world without ever getting on an airplane or waiting at an airport. Thank you so much.

[00:00:58]

Sohrab: Yeah, sure. Now Linda, what I usually do is I give my guests a few moments to introduce themselves. Now be aware, a week ago I had Mary Lynn Manns on the show who is your coauthor, I think, on multiple books. And it was a really, really nice session. We talked about the books that you coauthored, about "Fearless Change" and some of the patterns. Today I want to focus our conversation on a few other things. But before we get there, your stage. Please introduce yourself.

[00:01:28]

Linda: Okay. Thank you. My name is Linda Rising and I live very close to Nashville, Tennessee. And for those of you who've never been here, you might not know that is music city. I am not only interested in Agile and software development but I'm also a musician. And I think that informs a lot of my views on how we should do things better. I'm also interested in thinking. Yes, Mary Lynn Manns and I wrote what I think are two wonderful books about organizational change and I am interested in organizational change but I'm also interested in how we make decisions, how we solve problems and I know that science right now can help us do a better job of thinking, coming up with innovative ideas, solving problems and just in general doing a better job of getting along with each other and improving our lives.

[00:02:36]

Sohrab: Yeah. Thank you. I think that last part is really important. In addition to everything else as well but that last part is really, really important. Now Linda, you mentioned music. Now before we get into the more technical stuff, what kind of instruments do you play and how has music shaped your thinking?

[00:02:58]

Linda: I'm interested in a very unusual period in the history of music and that is the renaissance and the early baroque. About 1400 to 1650, along in there. I was just at a workshop last week up in the mountains in Carolinas and I was with a lot of other people who also like that music. And to really appreciate that music, you want to play it on period instruments, so the instruments that would've been played at the time. I play recorder which a lot of people associate with grade school children. And yes, that is a recorder. It's a real instrument. It's a copy of the instrument that was played in the renaissance in early baroque. But it is a member of a family of real instruments. Yes, there's a soprano. There's also an alto, a tenor, a bass, a C-bass, a contrabass, a subcontrabass. And in that family, you can get a lot of wonderful sounds.

I direct several groups in our community and what I've discovered is a lot of people have been told all their lives that they're not good at music, that they don't have any talent. And since I'm a believer in the Agile mindset, I believe that you can do anything you want to. You may not ever be a Beethoven. You may not ever write great compositions but if you work hard...and it's called deliberate practice. There's those 10,000 hours. You can be better tomorrow than you are today. And what we know now about your brain is learning an instrument and learning a language are the two best ways to stave off dementia, to improve your cognitive ability, improve your thinking, your decision-making, your ability to solve problems. Music and language are both critical to our way of looking at the world. It improves your point of view.

[00:05:29]

Sohrab: Yeah. And improves your agility based on everything you've been saying, right?

[00:05:33]

Linda: Yes.

[00:05:33]

Sohrab: Now the topic of today's session, Linda, is how our thinking and acting shape each other. And when I reached out to you via email and you thankfully said, "Yes, we can do this," I also asked you what would you like to talk about. And you brought up Daniel Kahneman's work. Specifically, his book, "Thinking Fast and Slow" which some of the people in the audience might be familiar with. But we ultimately agreed on this topic. Thinking and acting, they are constantly shaping each other. And today I'd like to explore with you how that happens. And you started now sharing with us a lot of detail. The beauty of music, what makes you so passionate about this. And can you maybe go even further and share with me how music has shaped your thinking, how you have seen it has shaped other people's thinking which then again has shaped your acting and other people's acting?

[00:06:36]

Linda: Now, so if we have a look at Kahneman's work, I know that now finally a lot of people are reading, "Thinking Fast and Slow". This is not a new book. It was published in 2011. Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in 2002 so we've had plenty of time to be aware of all the research around how our brains work and better ways of thinking. This is not startling information. The problem is it is science. The problem is "Thinking Fast and Slow" is not an easy book to read. The problem is most people don't have the time to read complicated, difficult books. And when I ask for a show of hands how many have read "Thinking Fast and Slow", I get a fair response but then when I say, "Did you really read it," what I hear is, "Well, I read some of it," or, "Well, I listened to it as an audiobook." And that's not enough for a book that requires real concentration. I put together a little presentation and I'm going to recommend that to your listeners. Just go to YouTube. Search on Linda Rising, "Thinking Fast and Slow". I don't want to get in the way of Daniel Kahneman. Oh, my gosh. But my presentation is a little more down to earth, a little more tailored to the Agile community, a little more, I think, accessible.

What does it say? It says basically our thinking is made up of two systems, a system one and a system two. And the message that I got from thinking fast and slow which is different, I think, from what a lot of people understand if they do read the book is that we tend to overuse system two which is the slow, methodical, conscious, logical part of our brain and we underuse system one which is the intuitive, the creative, the insightful, the part of our brain that remembers and knows everything we've ever done. And as a musician, I have learned to tune in to that system one and technical people...and I consider myself to also be a technical person. Technical people are reluctant to do that.

And so, I feel like my message is to say, "Yes, your system two, yes, your conscious mind, yes, your logical approach to things is good. But you also have to realize you have an enormous untapped cognitive ability that would help you be a better thinker, problem solver, innovator if you just learn a little bit about how to use that. Be a little more of a musician than a technical person.

[00:10:10]

Sohrab: Yeah. I love that message. I wrote on a few things that I want to get back to during our conversation, Linda. Now why do you believe that system two, especially with technical people and maybe with business people and maybe with a few other professions as well is overused and why do you...and how, let's put it this way, would you suggest people or what are the prerequisites so that people can tap into system one more often because if I remember the book correctly, and I read it many years ago, was Kahneman describes or provides the example of firefighters or of physicians, that based on a few input data can immediately decide, "Okay. It's this diagnosis or this house that is on fire might be breaking down in a few moments." And based on that they can make decisions. Now my takeaway was in order to jump into system one, it requires many years of experience, it requires a lot of expertise, it requires the 10,000 hours that you mentioned earlier.

And whenever I observe...I'm not a musician myself but whenever I observe jazz musicians, those people that can tap into system one and quickly adjust and decide on what kind of freestyle, they have a lot of practice and they're real masters of the instrument that they play. Is my interpretation correct? Where do I lack certain insight? I'd be interested in your perspective, Linda.

[00:11:53]

Linda: The 10,000 hours is good for attaining expertise but we all have stored expertise in system one just because we were alive and we lived through a certain amount of experience. Even without deliberate practice, there's a lot of benefit to using system one even if you are a novice or someone who's still on the path to learning about whatever it is. And yes, you're right. Experts do seem to make those decisions intuitively and quickly. It also sounds to me like you're bringing in the work of Gary Klein who wrote a lot about the power of intuition or Gerd Gigerenzer who's also written a lot about the power of system one. But we all have a certain amount of ability. But what we do now and how you can see it is we have the feeling that I can solve anything, I can create anything, I can do anything if I just work at it. And so, we focus and we drill down and we won't let go and we won't stand up and we won't go outside and we won't even go to the bathroom or eat. I have taken informal polls at various conferences saying, "What's the longest amount of time you have ever sat in front of your computer without moving, staring, focused, determined to solve this problem or come up with this idea or finish this project? What's the longest amount of time?"

And the answers are astounding. People have sat for 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 hours without moving. And they believe that that's how you do it. We believe that by focusing, pushing, not moving, staring, that that's the way to do it. That's thinking. That's being creative. That's finishing that project. That's coming up with that idea. And that is just so characteristic of system two. Whereas if you worked for a while, no more than 45 minutes, that's all you've got. And then get up, go outside, play with your children, walk your dog, look at the sunset, make a cup of coffee. Just do nothing. We never do nothing. Nobody ever does nothing anymore. We stand up and immediately check our phones. Stand up. Walk around. Do nothing. And now for those of you who have done that, you know what I'm talking about. It's all of a sudden, bingo. There it is. The thing you were looking for. The idea that you didn't have. The solution to the problem. The understanding of the issue. All of a sudden it appears out of nowhere. It's as though angels descended saying, "The answer is 42."

Now if you've ever had that experience, why don't you realize how important that is?

[00:15:57]

Sohrab: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. This is probably also related to why do people get good ideas in the shower, right?

[00:16:07]

Linda: Yes. Yes.

[00:16:08]

Sohrab: Because that's...there they can't be staring at the screen, at least in most cases they can't. And if I look at myself, some of the most important decisions and ideas that I've had come through when I'm walking, when I'm walking in the forest, when I'm walking in the park, when I'm outside, when I'm vertical and when I'm breathing fresh air and when I'm moving. And there has been a lot of research out there that this really results in a higher percentage of oxygen making it to your brain and all of these things which ultimately result in us being more creative. And yes, many people don't systematically try to create that environment in which those great ideas, those great solutions can emerge and believe by being behind the desk, they can push themselves to have that answer.

Now in my previous career...I don't know if you remember. I was a medical doctor. I'm still a medical doctor but I don't practice as a medical doctor. Now there were cases where we had a very long surgery, where it went for 8, 9, 10 hours. And because you didn't want to constantly sterilize and then come back and put any risk to the patient, you would really just push through. But in those surgeries, it's not about having that breakthrough idea. It's pretty straightforward what needs to be done once you've made the diagnosis, once you've got an overview of how the anatomy of that patient looks like, how the tumor looks like and all of it. It's pretty...it's just physically exhausting. And yes, you need to be focused, you need to be sharp but there are multiple people. You work as a team, you get it done.

Now when we think about creative problem-solving, be it in software development, in any other type of product development or delivering value to our customers, that's rarely the case. It's not about physical exhaustion. It's really about coming up with the best idea. And I really like the fact that you brought this up.

Now I want to move this a bit because you briefly walked us through system one and system two. System one being more of the intuition. Based on our experience, we get to decisions. We probably get to those decisions faster. Doesn't mean that all of those decisions are right decisions but as long as we have feedback loops in place, we can probably evaluate those decisions. And system two is more about analyzing stuff. And we've probably all seen individuals and teams who are in analysis paralysis which is overusing system two.

Now there is a concept and I'm not sure if you're familiar with it. I just try it. At Amazon, when they think about decision-making...and when we think about stuff, it's mostly about certain decisions that we have to make. They distinguish decisions in type one decisions and type two decisions. Type one decisions are mostly one way door. If you go through the door, you can't go back easily. It's costly. Type two decisions are two-way door decisions. There is some cost to change but it's not as high. You can take those decisions, A, much faster and for leaders, it is encouraged to decentralized those decisions to the people that are closer to the information. Now it seems based on your reaction that you're familiar with that concept. Can you or would you connect that concept at Amazon with Daniel Kahneman's work of system one and system two?

[00:19:56]

Linda: I like to talk about gelato because I'm a fan of ice-cream.

[00:20:02]

Sohrab: Oh, same here.

[00:20:04]

Linda: I miss...I have not been to Italy since the pandemic but if you are in Italy and you go to a gelato store, there are miles and miles of flavors and it's all wonderful. And you see people walking up and down, looking at all the flavors of gelato. And I want to tell them, "You cannot make a mistake here. It's all good. Just go with..."

[00:20:34]

Sohrab: Just pick one.

[00:20:35]

Linda: Just pick one. This is a system one decision. Your system one will guide you to pick. And it's a no-lose situation. Lemon, chocolate, strawberry, superb vanilla, it doesn't matter. It's all good. That's a system one decision. That's a decision where it doesn't really matter. When you walk out, you say, "Well, this may not be my favorite flavor but I love it. I love it." There are a lot of decisions in organizations that are like that, that are like gelato. Just pick one and go with your gut. That's what we often say and what we mean by that is system one knows. System one knows everything you've ever done, everything...every flavor of gelato you've ever eaten and it will not steer you wrong. Just go with it.

Now if you're trying to decide to move to another city, choose a career, marry someone or divorce someone or retire or...those are not fast decisions with no penalty. And for those, you do need system two but you also need system one. You need them both. And the way you do that is by making a list or prioritizing your considerations. What do you think is important? What are your values? And to say, "All right. Moving to another city, taking another job, getting married, getting a divorce. Here's what I care about in my life. Here's what I think are important." That's system two. Analysis, linear thinking, rationality. And then leave it for at least 24 hours. Hand it over to system one. Go to sleep and when you wake up the next day since you've done your analysis and now you handed it over to system one, it will be a revelation to say, "Ah. I know I should not move or I should marry or I won't get a divorce or I'll take that new job." You need both of them for the big decisions where there is a penalty, where there are a lot of complicated situations.

Gelato, system one, don't spend any time on it. Just go with your gut. Complicated ones, you need both. Analysis and intuition. Analysis first and then system one.

[00:23:45]

Sohrab: Yeah. Basically, the type two decisions at Amazon, the two-way doors where the cost of change or the penalty is low, system one. The type one decisions where the penalty is high, cost of change is high, maybe...I always make the joke of in medicine, if you do the wrong thing, patient is dead. There is no way to come back. Those would be system two supported by system one. Or initially, it's actually system one supported by system two. You do the pre-analysis with system two, if I understood you correct. And then the final decision doesn't need to happen fast but overnight and it's done still by your gut.

Now Linda...go ahead, please.

[00:24:33]

Linda: And in fact, just to add one more thing is that sometimes a decision, an important decision, you can't wait until the next day. You do your analysis, you've looked at all the priorities. You've spent a lot of system two time on it. The research is pretty clear. All you need at a minimum...it would be better to wait till the next day. That would be ideal. But if you can't, then 10 minutes...what I tell teams or organizations is just take 10. Take 10. And that means before you vote, before you make that decision, leave the room, go outside if you can. Don't immediately jump on your phone. Just let your mind wander. Just walk around 10 minutes. Ten minutes will improve the quality of that decision-making after you've done the analysis. Now just take 10. And research shows that 10 minutes makes a huge, huge difference. Say that 10 minutes at the end of the meeting, say, "We're almost ready to decide but we're going to take a break now. Everybody go outside. Don't jump on your phone or check your email. Just wander around for 10 minutes and then we'll come back and we'll vote yes or no. Take 10."

[00:26:13]

Sohrab: Yeah. No, I think this is really good. And I like the fact that you mentioned it's...what I could see happening in organizations is when they say take 10 that they just continue the debate for another 10 minutes. Exactly. But that's not the case. That's not what you want. You want them to basically simulate going to sleep and coming back the next day.

[00:26:37]

Linda: Yes.

[00:26:37]

Sohrab: Now you don't have those 12, 14, 16 hours, whatever. But take 10. Take 10, don't talk. Get out. Free your mind and then come back and that had helped you now to tap into system one. Now this is what I want to explore with you because you've already mentioned a few things. You mentioned, A, number one, we tend to overuse system two and underuse system one. And you gave us some concrete ideas on how to become a stronger system one thinker. One is, distinguish decisions by is it gelato or does it have a penalty. If it is a gelato decision, probably force, for the lack of better words, yourself to make a gut decision. Now my question to you. Would timeboxing as a technique, for example, be helpful here? Because you then force yourself to make the decision within a certain period of time.

[00:27:40]

Linda: Yep, and I know that when I started doing this now, many years ago, I wasn't sure what the time box should be. That is, I know for the gelato decision, that's just do it. But how long do you work on something? How long do you stay in the analysis phase before you just leave it and then hand it over to system one either by sleeping on it or 10 minutes or so. And for me, that time box is 20 minutes. I never work on anything for more than 20 minutes. Now we're not talking about implementation. This goes back to your example of surgery. If I know what to do and I just have to do it, that's different. But if I'm trying to solve a problem and come up with an idea, make an important decision, I only give it 20 minutes. And then I leave it. And I leave it for at least 10 or maybe more. Because the way I work now is if it's a tough problem, I work on it for 20 minutes and then I leave it. And sometimes that means I want to work on a different problem for 20 minutes if I can't get...then I leave it.

And so, at the end of the day sometimes I have a stack of problems and then when I wake up the next morning, I go, "Ah, okay. I know what to do with that. I know what to do." And I can tackle the...they're not necessarily in the same order but now I have a way forward and then I can do maybe another 20 minutes or sometimes I can just solve it. It just depends. But for me, that timeboxing is do not spend an enormous amount of time staring at the screen wondering how to get past this, wondering how I'm going to put this together, worrying about how to solve this...no. All it gets is 20 minutes and now I sort of have a feeling for how that is and so I'm not pulled in. It's very addictive to just sit there and stare and say, "Oh, I'm almost there. Another 20 minutes or...I can understand that. But now I've done this for so long that I don't even have that pull anymore so 20 minutes and I do something else."

That's my timebox. I have not seen any research on how long that should be. The research is pretty clear that at least 10. There have been experiments that show 10 minutes really makes a big difference. But what's the maximum before you hand it over? And there are people who don't necessarily agree with Kahneman and I've tried to balance the research by looking at what those intuitive thinkers think and I haven't seen anything about that. When I recommend 20 minutes, I say, "That's what works for me." What we do know is it should not be longer than 45 because you have a cognitive limit. It's almost like a muscle. System two really cannot focus for more than about 40, 45 minutes. Meetings should never be longer than 45 minutes. And then it sort of fits that, "Okay, if you're going to make a decision now...okay, you can take 10 minutes and then you can come back and you can still be finished in less than an hour."

The maximum is 45, 20 works for me, what might work for you? You could experiment.

[00:31:38]

Sohrab: Now about that experimentation. When we make decisions, especially...at Amazon, they specifically say, "These type two decisions, they are reversible. That's why we want to take them fast." What kind of feedback loop do you recommend? Because you say work 20 minutes on the problem, maybe take 10 to evaluate...or not. Free up your mind. Then you take the decision. Now you start acting on it, on the solution that you came up with. At what point do you inspect and adapt?

[00:32:14]

Linda: We are confused about decisions because the things we confuse are what was the result of that versus the process. Not all good processes lead to good outcomes. There's a correlation there that good process may lead to a good result or it may lead to a bad result. A bad process also can sometimes lead to good results as well as bad results. You have to separate those two things when you're trying to learn. You can't get caught up in saying, "Oh, but it didn't work out. That was a bad decision." And what we mean by that is it's a bad outcome. You're never going to have a guaranteed 100% this is always going to leave to happily ever after and you will marry the princess and you will never have any problems again. That's not going to happen. What you have to do is examine the process. How did you get there? And was it the process that led to the result that you were happy about or unhappy about or was it just random luck?

There's an enormous amount of work by a wonderful writer called Annie Duke. She's a professional poker player and she has written books about decisions and she spends an enormous amount of time on that because when you're playing poker, you can have a good process. But that doesn't mean you're always going to win. What you want is the best possible outcome most of the time. But you're never ever going to have 100% this will always work out. That just can't happen. The world doesn't work like that. And we have incomplete information about the future. You can't look at the result without looking at the process. They are two different things. Inspect and adapt your house to consider yes, the outcome is important. That's how we determine, well, was this good or bad but was it because of the process or was it because of some random event that, well, we had no control over that. But we did the best we could. This is from Norm Kerth's work. We did the best we could, given the information we had at the time. And that's all we can ever do.

[00:35:31]

Sohrab: Amen to that, yeah. Yeah. Now I love the example that you brought up with poker because poker is a series of decisions. They can't take 10. They're probably constantly in system one while at the same time supporting or feeding system one with analysis done by system two. Is that correct?

[00:35:58]

Linda: Yeah. Because I think good poker players have a refined intuition. They do a better job of analysis. The ones who are professionals. And yes, they analyze. Yes, they use system two because they know, well, who's at the table. They know what bets they placed. They know their history. They know what the odds are. They're very good at probability whereas most of us are not. I was a mathematician, a computer scientist for a while so I feel like I am but I think most people are uncomfortable with 50% probability. What does that really mean? And working with that. Because most of the people in organizations are too optimistic. They go for whatever it is that they want to do because it looks exciting and this will be fun. Oh, there are risks, of course. But we're smart people. We're well intentioned. We believe in what we do. And so, we tend to think that the world will go our way. Not always.

[00:37:18]

Sohrab: Not always.

[00:37:19]

Linda: Not always.

[00:37:21]

Sohrab: In the case of poker, you can really calculate probabilities. When we think about the...poker's also the real world but when we think about the world of product development, we can't. We can't. How do we know before we build something whether customers are going to love it? You can't put the [crosstalk 00:37:43] Go ahead.

[00:37:45]

Linda: In Kahneman's work, he writes about two things. And we talked about "Thinking Fast and Slow" but we haven't talked about his new book, "Noise" which is what I'm going to talk about at the Agile conference...when is that? Couple of weeks from now? Yeah. In his new book, he emphasizes the noise in our decisions. And he talks about the difference between an inside view and an outside view. And in the inside view, we are so buried in our team, our organization, our people, our hopes and dreams, our values and we do all kinds of strange things to estimate, to determine whether or not our customers will be happy, how difficult this project will be. All we do is focus on our own environment. Kahneman said we would do a better job and now there is research and it comes from the field of forecasting. If you look at the work of Philip Tetlock, they now know there are some people who do a really good job of forecasting the future. What is it that those people do and is it something that we could all learn? And the answer is yes, we can make a list of things they do and we can all learn to do those. And one of them is to take the outside view. Stop looking at your own environment and instead look around. What others have done the same thing that you are trying?

Okay, there are differences. Okay, we understand that they don't have the same people you do. Okay, we understand this has a different platform. Okay, they're not really agile and you are really agile. We know that. But I'll bet somebody else has either written the software for a new airplane or created a new switch to make telephone calls or put on a new function for an operating system. I'll bet somebody's done something like this. And now go see how long it took them. What was their original estimate? What was the actual? How long did it take them? How many people did they have? Who were their customers? Were they happy? Look at all the characteristics of somebody else who did it and once you have that, that's called the outside view. Once you have that, now work from the outside in and to say, "Ha, okay, but they only had 20 people. We're going to do this with 30. They didn't have experience in avionics. We do. Oh, but they were working with this ancient operating system. We have a new operating system and it will provide us a lot of functionality that we need. They were doing it under pressure from...they had a horrible customer who was really demanding. Our customer's willing to work with us. They're a little more Agile flavored. Yeah, we can adjust." But do it that way.

And what you'll find is it's not quite so optimistic, not quite so believing that, "Oh, well, we won't have as much trouble." Start with their numbers and adjust down." We do it the opposite way. It's not as effective.

[00:41:33]

Sohrab: I think it's interesting. While you were speaking, I had to think about the work that I did when I was a management consultant. And as a management consultant, you get thrown into an industry which you have literally in most cases zero ideas about. Now how do we learn? And I still remember there was this one case. I was working for a Korean customer who wanted to export polyethylene and polypropylene from Korea all the way to Europe. I had no idea what was the cost of transport and all of that. We had access to a database where people were listed, industry experts. And I found this one guy who had worked for 30 years in the oil and gas industry, especially for organizations that create this polyethylene, polypropylene. He knew exactly what the cost of production of one ton of those things was. He knew exactly what the cost of shipping was. He could tell me exactly what the cost benefits of companies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar were compared to a company in Korea. And he could exactly tell me how much it would cost to get a shipping container from Saudi Arabia to Germany or to Europe compared to getting one...

I had no idea. I just had to ask the right questions and he could share with me everything. Now based on that outside view, I could then come up with a proper analysis and a proper suggestion towards the customer in Korea. Of course, factoring in if you have 10% lower cost of production due to higher productivity of your employees. But then ultimately the decision was it's not going to work because even if we assume 150% productivity increase on your side, the cost of shipping which has nothing to do with what you can control is not going to work in our advantage.

While you were talking about this outside view, I'm like, "Oh, yeah. Absolutely. This makes so much sense." And too less...not often enough do companies make use of that. Now you mention the...

[00:43:53]

Linda: It's also called...that figure or that collection of figures, the numbers, the data that you come up with, that's called a base rate. And so, the idea is that's where you start.

[00:44:05]

Sohrab: Exactly.

[00:44:06]

Linda: You start with that and then you look at what you're doing.

[00:44:10]

Sohrab: Yeah. You were mentioning that people that do great forecasting...we can understand the process they go through and take some of those things and learn them. And one of those things was the outside view. What other things do great forecasters do, Linda?

[00:44:29]

Linda: Well, another one...and it seems sort of intuitive but now they have enough data because these experiments...they're running forecast experiments now for decades, is they're open which seems so obvious. But most of us, when we're in the position to have estimating or forecasting, we're not. Once we've made a decision of some sort, we don't like to back down. Our reputation is on the line. Great forecasters are open in the sense that they're always learning which sounds very agile to me. They're always learning. They're always looking around. They're always asking, "I wonder if my original estimate could be wrong. I wonder if I thought, well, two weeks and then this is going to happen or I was looking at certain factors that I thought would appear and now they haven't." And they're always, constantly learning, adjusting so they're open to new information. They're open to changing their minds. They're open to saying, "Ah, I guess I was wrong. I thought this would happen and it has not. And so therefore, I need to make some adjustments in my forecast."

And they will do that right up to the deadline for the final estimate. They're constantly...it's a mindset to be open to new information. And it can come from anywhere. They know great sources. This is kind of a subtext, I guess. They know where to go. They know how to research. They know the sources. They are careful about the kind of information they process. They don't just live in a bubble which is what a lot of us do. They don't just...even those of us who look at data, who look at new information and we do it unconsciously. We filter it. We don't really pay as much attention to contradictory information as we do to information that agrees with us. It's so hard to have that openness. Yes, we think we're doing research. We think we're looking at what's out there. But really? Most of us only go certain places. We only hear from certain people. We only give credibility to people who agree with us. Openness is really such a broad term that includes a mindset that most of us don't really have anymore.

[00:47:33]

Sohrab: Yeah. We're tolerant as long as the other opinion is similar to ours. That's what we hear or rather see a lot in democracies all over the world which is really sad. Now you mentioned something. And this weekend, Linda, I was looking...and I'm sure you're...being a change expert, you're familiar with the model from Elisabeth Kubler Ross, the stages of grief. Now I was doing some research around that and I found a paper that was very critical of that research and it stated...I'm not sure if it's 100% correct but I found it astounding, was that 40% of patients that did not fit in that pattern of those five stages were removed from the trial. This is where you are looking for something to prove your argument and every piece of data that is contradicting to that or could provide a different insight, you just remove it. Now I'm not sure if that was the case. That's what I read doing an hour or an hour and a half of research. And I think when we talk about applying scientific rigor and all of that, it really becomes important that the person who believes they are moving in an empirical fashion, that they really display that openness that you just talked about because disproving or falsifying our own beliefs, our own models is probably one of the better ways to really get to new insights.

[00:49:09]

Linda: Yeah. Exactly. And I think maybe your research is correct. That's my understanding, anyway, that we have become so wedded to that model that we fail to see that it doesn't serve us well. At the time, I think it was well intentioned. At the time it was done, it provided a way to try to understand the stages of grief. Now I think it has some serious flaws and that it shows even scientists...there's some new research. Since I like ice-cream and you do too, there's some ice-cream research that just shows ice-cream is healthy. And yet...

[00:49:58]

Sohrab: Yes. I read that research too. I was so happy.

[00:50:03]

Linda: Yet, the nutritionists, the nutrition scientists do not like that. They're not happy about that. Yes, there's a little cadre of people who have done this research who say, "Look, the numbers are clear. People who eat...we don't know why but people who eat ice-cream, they are healthier. They do better. They live longer and whatever." But no. The mass of nutritionists are saying, "No. No, this cannot be right. We don't like this result." Even scientists, even educated professionals will ignore any result that they don't like. We all do this. We all do this.

Let me just put a plug in for a political organization that I joined after the election in 2016 because in the United States, there is such divisiveness now. And the organization is called Braver Angels. And in it you learn to talk to people who don't agree with you. Now I'm a facilitator. I communicate. I thought I know how to do this. But I was wrong. I've never really had a conversation with someone who believes that we should all carry AK-47 rifles, that it's okay for children to carry guns, that it's okay to have guns in your home. I've never really had a serious, thoughtful, respectful conversation with anyone like that. We don't do that. If we care about something whether it's agile development or guns, we tend to avoid the people who don't agree with us. We tend to denigrate them. We say, "Oh, those people. Those people must be unprincipled, bad. Those are bad people." And we don't, we don't even know how to do those conversations. And so that means we're all focusing, we're all filtering, we're not open. We're not learning. And this is not a good way forward for the country, for teams, for Agile, for anything. And it is so hard. This is challenging work.

And if you believe in anything whether it's Agile or life after death or religion or God or guns or abortion, any of the big, important topics, you must learn how to talk to somebody who doesn't agree with you.

[00:53:26]

Sohrab: And I assume, Linda, this doesn't necessarily mean that you have to find common ground.

[00:53:33]

Linda: Nope. Nope.

[00:53:34]

Sohrab: It's just about the ability to having that conversation in a respectful manner and trying to understand, being open to understand where that person comes from, how their thinking and their actions were shaped. Is that correct?

[00:53:53]

Linda: That is right. You are not going to change their minds. They're not going to change your mind. But what happens, and it's very hard to explain if you've never done that, is that you come away with a feeling like, "It's okay. I feel better. It's okay. I don't agree with him. I think we have too many guns. I don't agree with his position. But it's okay. I'm not as, I don't know, upset, anxious, worried, depressed about it. I feel more hopeful." And if you really think about it, hardly any of us agree with any of us. We think we do but if we really had a deep conversation, we might find that, "Gee, oh, you think abortion is that? Oh, no. I think abortion is this. I thought we agreed. Oh, no." If we're going to start dividing people and putting them in boxes and locking the lids, we're never going to get anywhere.

[00:55:09]

Sohrab: Yeah. Absolutely. Now Linda, looking at the time box, I want to wrap this up. Our topic today was how our thinking and acting shape each other. There is this great quote...and let me look it up. I think it's from Winston Churchill. We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us. When I thought about our topic of the session, immediately that quote came to my mind. We've talked about some things that we can do like the take 10 or taking the outside view or timeboxing to 20 minutes. Very concrete things. Now when we do that on a regular basis, does it make us better system one thinkers? Does it result in us becoming better at identifying the gelato decisions versus all the other decisions? And does it help us be more comfortable with taking those decisions quicker and not overanalyzing things? What has your experience been?

[00:56:22]

Linda: I would have to say of course, it does. And that we're never going to get away from difficult decisions or easy decisions. But now I know. I immediately recognize, "Ah, I'm in a gelato decision. Just do it." And I don't analyze it or worry about it or think, "Well, maybe this wasn't the best decision," or walk up and down in front of all the flavors of gelato thinking, "Oh," and spending a lot of my life wasting time on a gelato decision. I'm happy. I'm happy to do that and I'm happy to go with whatever the gelato is. I don't feel when the decision is over like, "Oh, my goodness. Was this the best decision? Maybe I should've gotten the double chocolate instead." I never do that. Actually, I never did that anyway but just in case, now you know. This was the best decision you could make. It's the best decision process. And when I get stuck, when I have tough problem, when I'm really struggling with something and I think, "Oh, I don't know what to do here and I'm..." I think, "Just leave it. Just leave it."

And sometimes it happens immediately. When I stand up and I leave my den and walk into the kitchen, "Ah, there it is."

[00:57:54]

Sohrab: Not even 10 minutes.

[00:57:55]

Linda: Not even 10 minutes. I see. I see it now. And I'll bet most of the people who are listening have also had that. And they thought it was magic at the moment but no, it's how your brain works. And it's deliberate. And you can get into the habit of making that magic in your own life.

[00:58:26]

Sohrab: I think these are some really great last words as part of today's episode. Linda, I'd like to thank you so much. I love the fact that it was very concrete, that you gave very...things that people can immediately do. Every individual, every team can immediately apply the take 10. Easy to implement. And I hope people take inspiration from that. And based on that, become better system one thinkers who don't forget about system two but don't overuse it and don't underuse system one. Linda, thank you so much for participating today.

[00:59:04]

Linda: My pleasure. Thank you.