How Does Continuous Learning Shape Our Ability to Navigate Change?

[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.