What is lacking or what could the article do better or did they skip over or miss an important part of this topic (1 paragraph)
Don’t Let Emotions Screw Up Your Decisions by Francesca Gino bargaining strategy he plans to use, he enlists his wife’s help. His wife makes various salary oNers, and Daniel rejects every one, insisting that he can’t take the job for a penny less than $65,000. As he refuses to budge from his position, his wife starts to make him increasingly attractive oNers. The next scene is Daniel’s negotiation with his boss, who opens the discussion by saying, “Daniel, I am prepared to oNer you $49,000.” Before the boss even Onishes his sentence, Daniel replies: “I’ll take it.” Daniel’s decision to be tough got derailed by the emotions he failed to anticipate: the anxiety triggered by negotiating with his boss. Emotions can cloud our judgment and inLuence our decisions when triggered by the situation at hand, as in Daniel’s case. But research shows it is also possible for emotions triggered by one event to spill over and aNect another, unrelated situation. Imagine, for instance, that you hit heavy traYc while driving to work. Later that day, you have an important meeting with a client who is interested in placing an order for the new product your company is launching. You THINK ABOUT a time when you were weighing an important decision at work or considering a big expense such as buying a house, making a hefty Onancial investment, or starting a new business. Such decisions are inherently complex, and—no matter how much experience you have making them—working through the pros and cons of each choice can be overwhelming. Your emotional reactions to these choices may help direct your attention and energy toward what you feel are the most important aspects of the decision. Yet intense emotions may lead you to make misguided—or outright disastrous—decisions. An amusing example comes from the 1991 movie Defending Your Life. In one scene, the character Daniel Miller (played by Albert Brooks) is preparing for a salary negotiation the next day with his boss. To try out the tough EMOTIONS FROM HBR.ORG Selected content from our website VOICES 14 Harvard Business Review OnPoint | WINTER 2015 | HBR.org FROM HBR.ORG VOICES initiated the product’s development and oversaw its creation. So there’s a lot at stake for you. By the time you reach the oYce, you are 45 minutes late for work and fuming with anger. Your meeting isn’t for another hour, though, so you should be able to push your anger aside by then, right? In fact, my research suggests, we are often unable to do so. Emotions triggered by an event completely unrelated to a new situation can inLuence our thinking and decisions in that situation. In one study, Maurice Schweitzer, of the Wharton School, and I asked a group of participants to estimate the weight of a person solely on the basis of a picture of that person. Participants were paid for the accuracy of their estimate. After they provided their estimates, they watched a short movie clip. Some participants watched a clip from a National Geographic special about Osh at the Great Barrier Reef. Others watched a clip from the movie My Bodyguard that showed a young man being bullied—a clip that, we had discovered in a pilot test, makes people feel angry because the man is treated aggressively and unfairly. All participants were given another participant’s estimate of the weight of the person they had just evaluated and asked whether they wanted to revise their initial estimate. For the participants who saw the clip from My Bodyguard, the anger they experienced while watching the clip carried over to this next, unrelated task. It led them largely to distrust and disregard the other person’s estimates and to rely instead on their initial judgments. In fact, 74% of these participants did not attach any signiOcance to the advice they had received. By contrast, only 32% of the participants who had watched the neutral National Geographic clip disregarded the advice. Disregarding the advice was costly: Listening to it would have led to greater accuracy in their judgment—and thus greater pay. As this research shows, anger triggered by a prior, unrelated experience that objectively should not inLuence our current judgments or decisions can make us unreceptive to what others have to say. In related research, Scott Wiltermuth, of the University of Southern California, and Larissa Tiedens, of Stanford University, found that anger triggered by something unrelated to the decision at hand also aZects how we evaluate others’ ideas. Many jobs require us to evaluate the ideas of others, including our colleagues, customers, employees, friends, and family members. In one study, Wiltermuth and Tiedens had participants complete a writing task and then evaluate ideas generated by others. Half were led to believe they would be judging high-quality ideas and likely be making positive evaluations. The other half believed they would be judging low-quality ideas and probably evaluating them negatively. For the writing task, some participants were told to write about a time in their life when they felt extremely angry. Others were asked to write about how they spent the previous day, a task designed to put them in a neutral emotional state. The result? Although most participants, whether angry or neutral, preferred to evaluate good rather than bad ideas, those who were induced to feel angry found the task of evaluating others’ low-quality ideas much more appealing than did participants in the control group. In addition, the angry participants were less interested in evaluating others’ high-quality ideas than were those in the control group. Anger appears to increase the appeal of criticizing others and their ideas. Our feelings can oZer relevant and important feedback about a decision, but irrelevant emotions triggered by a completely unrelated event can take us oZ track. The next time you drink a bitter cup of coZee or have an argument with a loved one, consider how your emotional reactions could linger as you enter into an important task or weigh a complex decision. Fortunately, we often can choose when to perform each of the many tasks required of us. This should allow us to evaluate ideas and advice from others when we believe we are most capable of doing so objectively and thoroughly. Originally published on HBR.org May 6, 2015 Francesca Gino is a professor at Harvard Business School, a faculty affiliate of the Behavioral Insights Group, and the author of Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed, and How We Can Stick to the Plan (Harvard Business Review Press, 2013). She cochairs an HBS executive education program on applying behavioral economics to organizational problems. Follow her on Twitter: @francescagino. READER COMMENTS In Hindu and Arabic traditions, drinking water is believed to help manage the emotions. The idea is that when we get angry, depressed, or joyful, we should immediately drink water before moving on to something else. That way, our emotions will be fresh. —Ramji yahoo Mahadevan, CFO, Ramji Shiva and Associates Leaders can be taught to recognize, use, understand, and manage emotions so that they can make decisions effectively. Before a key negotiation or meeting, anticipate what emotions may arise in yourself and the other people involved, the implications of those emotions, and how best to manage them. —Gauri Maini, founder, The Culture Advantage Anger appears to increase the appeal of criticizing others and their ideas. HBR.org | WINTER 2015 | Harvard Business Review OnPoint 15 When It’s Safe to Rely on Intuition (and When It’s Not) by Connson Locke WE OFTEN use mental shortcuts (heuristics) to make decisions. There is simply too much information coming at us from all directions, and too many decisions that we need to make from moment to moment, to allow us to analyze every single one in detail. Although intuition can sometimes backOre, in many cases it is a perfectly One shortcut—but only under certain conditions. The most important condition is expertise. If I am a novice mountain climber, my intuition about whether a given route is safe will not be accurate— I have no previous knowledge on which to base that decision. Similarly, if a Onancial history professor is making an investment decision, her academic expertise does not automatically extend to Onancial investing, so she should not rely on intuition for that activity. It takes a surprising amount of domain- specific expertise to develop accurate intuitive judgments—approximately 10 years, according to research. And during those 10 years, repetition and feedback are essential. For example, a TV show producer, in order to develop accurate intuitive judgment about new TV shows, would need to repeatedly engage in making decisions about new TV shows and receive rapid, accurate feedback on whether those were good decisions. Eventually, this repetition and feedback becomes embedded as intuitive learning, and it can be used to make fast and eNective intuitive decisions about new shows. Learning can happen subconsciously over time, too (also called “implicit learning”). For example, a factory foreman spends every day scanning the factory environment, ensuring that it is safe and the workers are productive. After many years, the foreman learns to recognize the most important signals or patterns of activity, ignoring irrelevant information. Thus, the experienced foreman can respond to conditions on the factory Loor rapidly, accurately, and intuitively. The second condition relates to the type of decision you’re making. To be conducive to intuitive judgment, the problem should be unstructured. An unstructured problem is one that lacks clear decision rules or has few objective criteria with which to make the decision—for example, aesthetic judgments regarding the future success of a new movie or art exhibit, or political judgments on the best way to get a new initiative approved, or human resource judgments about how to resolve a conLict between two employees. Problems that do not beneOt from intuition have clear decision rules, objective criteria, and abundant data with which to perform an analysis. In making a medical diagnosis, for example, computer algorithms tend to be more accurate than an experienced medical doctor’s judgment. The computer can calculate the probability that a particular set of symptoms indicates a certain illness while also factoring in the patient’s age, sex, and other relevant factors. The human brain, when faced with such a large amount of data, must use heuristics, and those mental shortcuts can be imperfect. With hundreds of possible symptoms and illnesses, it would be very diYcult for any individual doctor to develop the depth of expertise required to make an accurate intuitive judgment on a particular illness. Of course, most decisions lie somewhere between the aesthetic judgment and the computer algorithm. When buying a new car, you can feed data into a computer algorithm to calculate the most efficient, economical model for your needs, but the Onal decision will be inLuenced by your reaction to the look and feel of the car—something a computer Getty Images 16 Harvard Business Review OnPoint | WINTER 2015 | HBR.org FROM HBR.ORG VOICES can’t assess for you. Likewise, the decision to sell your product in a new market can be analyzed quantitatively, but the Onal outcome will be aNected by the new customers’ feelings about the product, which a computer can’t predict. Nonetheless, if clear decision rules can be used to create an algorithm, if relevant data is available, and if the decision will be assessed with purely objective criteria (for example, not aesthetic judgments or feelings), then an analytical approach is likely to be more helpful than intuition. The third and Onal condition is the amount of time available. If you have only a small window, intuition can be helpful because it is faster than a detailed analysis. This is especially true when there is very little information with which to make the decision. When information and time are scarce, using heuristics such as intuition can often be as eNective as a rational approach. However, lack of time by itself is not necessarily a good reason to use intuition. As much as we want to believe that our intuition is telling us something meaningful, it is still a shortcut that could lead us down the wrong path. Intuition is essentially a feeling, and we don’t know the source of that feeling. Our aversion to a particular option may reLect a hidden nervousness, insecurity, or fear of the unknown. If so, our intuition may cause us to reject a perfectly good option. At the same time, research has found that feelings are relevant— even essential—to decision making. A study of patients with a tumor in the emotion area of the brain found they could generate alternatives but were unable to choose one. Ultimately, in most situations, we should use both intuition and analysis. At times, intuition helps narrow down the options, which can then be analyzed logically and rationally. Or the reverse: An initial detailed analysis may identify a few options that seem equally good, and intuition is needed to single out the right one. But before you decide to trust your gut, ask yourself: Am I an expert? Is this an unstructured problem? How much time do I have to choose? Originally published on HBR.org April 30, 2015 Connson Locke is a leadership researcher, teacher, and consultant specializing in leadership development, culture, and change. She is a senior lecturer at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Follow her on LinkedIn and Twitter: @connsonlocke. READER COMMENTS When you have experience, and you can quickly test your intuitive decisions against reality, then you can trust your gut instincts. I find it odd that when we seek to persuade C-level executives who have testable expertise, we speak almost exclusively to Mr. Rational and ignore Mr. Intuitive. —Michael Harris, CEO, Insight Demand A fourth condition to consider is how important the decision is to the organization. Leaving an important decision to intuition is a bad idea. The probability of being wrong is high because the decision can’t be defended rationally, and support for implementation will be low because the rest of the organization doesn’t understand the logic of the decision and wasn’t involved in it. I suggest making the rationale for the economic decisions in a business transparent to all employees so that they understand and share in the financial results. —Bill Fotsch, founder | president, Open-Book Coaching Decisions Don’t Start with Data by Nick Morgan I RECENTLY worked with an executive who was keen to persuade his colleagues that their company should drop a longtime vendor in favor of a new one. He knew that members of the executive team opposed the idea (in part because of their well-established relationships with the vendor), but he didn’t want to confront them directly, so he put together a PowerPoint presentation full of stats and charts showing the cost savings that the change might achieve. He hoped the data would speak for itself, but it didn’t. The team stopped listening about a third of the way through the presentation. Why? After all, it was good data, and the executive was right. But, even in business meetings, numbers don’t ever speak for themselves. To influence human decision making, you have to get to the place where decisions are really made—in the unconscious mind, where emotions rule and data is mostly absent. Yes, even the most savvy executives begin to make choices that way. They get an intention, a desire, or a want in their unconscious minds and then decide to act on it. Only afterward do they become consciously aware of what they’ve decided and start to justify it with rational argument. In fact, recent research from Carnegie Mellon University indicates that our unconscious minds actually make better decisions when left alone to deal with complex issues. Data is helpful as supporting material, of course. But because it spurs thinking in the conscious mind, it must be used with care. ENective persuasion starts not with numbers but with stories that have emotional power; that’s the best way to tap into unconscious decision making. We decide to invest in a new company or business line not because the OnanFeelings are relevant—even essential—to decision making. HBR.org | WINTER 2015 | Harvard Business Review OnPoint 17 cial model shows it will succeed, but because we’re drawn to the story told by the people pitching it. We buy goods and services because we believe the stories marketers build around them: “A diamond is forever” (DeBeers), “Real beauty” (Dove), “Think diNerent” (Apple), “Just do it” (Nike). We take jobs not only for the pay and beneOts but also for the self-advancement story that we are told—and tell ourselves—about working for the new company. Sometimes we describe this sense as a good “gut feeling.” What that really means is that our desire has unconsciously led us to decide to go forward, and our conscious mind is seeking a rationale for that otherwise invisible decision. I advised the executive to scrap his PowerPoint presentation and tell a story about the opportunities for future growth with the new vendor, reframing and trumping the loyalty story the opposition camp was going to tell. So, in his next attempt, rather than just presenting data, he told his colleagues that they all should strive toward a new vision for the company, no longer tethered to the past. He began with an alluring description of the future state—improved margins; a cooler, higher-tech product line; and excited customers—and then asked his audience to move with him toward that goal. It was a quest story, and it worked. Good stories—with a few key facts woven in—are what attach emotions to your argument, prompt people into unconscious decision making, and ultimately move them to action. Originally published on HBR.org May 14, 2014 Nick Morgan is a speaker, a coach, and the president and founder of Public Words, a communications consulting firm. He is also the author of Power Cues: The Subtle Science of Leading Groups, Persuading Others, and Maximizing Your Personal Impact (Harvard Business Review Press, 2014). READER COMMENTS Steve Jobs was the one person who mastered this art. Demand for his product innovations were hardly supported by market research and data. He just tried to do things that connected emotionally with consumers. He followed his own heart and listened to his subconscious mind. He knew that his subconscious decisions were right; otherwise he wouldn’t have been able to ward off so much resistance that came his way. —Atul Prasad, vice president of sales, Altruist Technologies When I made hospital fund-raising videos for a living, I was famous for getting grateful patients to “tell their story” on camera. A good survival story brought out the checkbooks every time; the abstract information on square footage and flow diagrams did not. Why are so many people emotionally distant and dry in their workplace communications? Or create a PowerPoint presentation and believe that a rational argument, by itself, will inspire anyone to stand at the barricades? In training future leaders, we place far too much emphasis on being rational, perfect, and correct and not enough on emotional vulnerability. This is a cultural artifact from the industrial era, when emotion was generally suppressed in the workplace. Truly effective leaders understand the need to reach people on an emotional level. —Justin Locke, author | playwright | publisher | speaker, Justin Locke Productions If storytelling rules over data, a good storyteller can sell the worst decision ever. Data is objective information from the past and is supposed to teach us, empower us. If story telling rules over data, it means humans will never learn, and that is sad. —Fred Inside Information Leads to Worse Decisions by Srini Pillay TIP-OFFS IN business are surprisingly common—and (except for stock market insider trading) legal—and often make people on the receiving end feel special. They now have information that others don’t and can be among the Orst to act on it. For example, in private your boss might tell you about an upcoming organizational change and how it might aNect you. Or a client might mention a not-yet-public decision, one that has consequences for your company’s relationship with the client’s Orm. Initially you may feel privileged to receive secret information. But being an insider may actually cause you to unconsciously bias the quality of this information because your brain is unable to distinguish between what is important and what is simply dramatic, and then mistakenly encodes the dramatic information as “important.” I call this the “shhh eNect,” and it is one of the major unconscious biases in decision making. In a recent paper, Rafael Huber and colleagues from the University of Basel’s department of psychology found that when people receive private information, their brains respond by overweighting this data when making decisions. Even though it may be optimal to follow other advice, people ignore that advice because the brain is so taken by the fact that it has received privileged information. The more we overweight private information, the more certain brain regions are turned on and others turned oN, changing how we think. Private information turns on certain brain regions that make us averse to risk and intolerant of uncertainty and interferes with brain regions that allow us to update our beliefs. Numbers don’t ever speak for themselves. 18 Harvard Business Review OnPoint | WINTER 2015 | HBR.org FROM HBR.ORG VOICES So, unaware that our brain is taking us on a wild goose chase, we make a series of new assumptions on the basis of the private information. For example, people who hear conOdentially about impending changes in their company may prematurely start to look for a new job, unintentionally care less about their work, and eNectively “check out.” This behavior may cause them to get Ored—even if the company’s original intention was to keep them. By overweighting the initial information about organizational changes and triggering unconscious thought processes, people may act prematurely and then inadvertently suNer negative consequences. Jennifer Louise Cook and colleagues, from the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour in the Netherlands, found that people who have dominant personality styles might be at greater risk of distorted decision making. However, leaders who were socially dominant (higher up in the pecking order and rated high on task leadership by peers) were different from those who were a&ressively dominant (rated poorly on social relationships and socioemotional leadership). Socially dominant people take in a variety of social information when making decisions, whereas aggressively dominant people do not. This suggests that we can be further misled if we are prone to aggression (for example, when the secret information makes us angry), because we may leave out other important data when making decisions. I saw this scenario play out with a senior executive client. He recently became enraged by a colleague who confessed that she had accidentally undermined him by justifying her own department’s recent budget redistributions to the CEO. Although she hadn’t meant to call my client’s judgment into question with the CEO, her explanation implied that my client’s budgets were probably too large. She went on to tell my client that she had only been trying to defend her own actions and that she actually thought his budgets were One. My client’s immediate reaction was anger, and then anxiety. These feelings escalated to the point where all he could think about was his standing with the CEO. Should he speak directly to the CEO? Should he “out” this undermining colleague? Because of his obsession with this issue (which he would never have known about had his colleague not “confessed”), he lost sight of the need to share his ideas about where he wanted to take his department in the future. He also neglected to ask for other people’s opinions about his decisions and, as a result, backed himself into a biased corner. When we talked about this, my client realized that the private information from his colleague was aNecting his course of action. It was only by delaying a hasty decision and incorporating the opinions of others that my client was able to readjust, refocus, and make decisions that made more sense for the company. So what should you do when you receive private information? Before you act, look at the data supporting the information so that You don’t need to reject secret knowledge, but you should question, examine, and discuss it. Getty Images HBR.org | WINTER 2015 | Harvard Business Review OnPoint 19 you don’t overweight it. Consciously ask yourself or discuss with colleagues whether this information is relevant and accurate, and if so, how it Ots within the context of other data. If, for example, you learn of “big changes ahead” in the company, rather than hastily jumping to conclusions, remember that the “shhh eNect” can bias you. Then, write or talk openly about other information that you know, making it conscious and using it overtly to update your beliefs. You don’t necessarily need to reject this new secret knowledge, but you should question, examine, and discuss it. Learn how to distinguish inside information from mere gossip. Organizations are full of gossip, which can distract and depress you, causing you to become unproductive. However, a recent study showed that we can deliberately adjust our responses to gossip so that we do not get carried away by it. The next time you hear oNensive gossip, don’t give it a second thought. Train your brain to let go of it immediately. Encourage transparency. Model it. Leaders should be transparent in order to encourage a culture of open communication and trust. Transparency in business communities thus has a positive effect, not just on business culture but also on the brain, because it reduces the risk of overweighting private information. Privileged information meant to help us can actually hurt us. By becoming more conscious of the brain’s exaggerated responses to information delivered secretively, we can avoid becoming victims of our own hyperresponsive brains. Originally published on HBR.org April 2, 2015 Srini Pillay is the CEO of NeuroBusiness Group and an award-winning author of numerous books, including Life Unlocked: 7 Revolutionary Lessons to Overcome Fear (Rodale Books, 2010) and Your Brain and Business: The Neuroscience of Great Leaders (FT Press, 2011). He is also an assistant clinical professor at Harvard Medical School and teaches in the executive education program at Harvard Business School. When an Inability to Make Decisions Is Actually Fear of Conflict by Ron Ashkenas WHEN A company’s planning and decision- making process involves a lot of meetings, discussions, committees, PowerPoint decks, e-mails, and announcements, but very few hard-andfast agreements, I call that “decision spin.” Decisions bounce around the company, from group to group, up and down the hierarchy and across the matrix, their details and consequences changing as diNerent stakeholders weigh in. Often, the underlying problem isn’t an inability to make decisions—it’s a tendency to avoid conLict. Decision spin doesn’t prevent decisions from being made altogether. But the decisions often don’t stick because people hesitate to express their disagreements during the discussion. There is a lot of head nodding, smiling, and camaraderie—which is undermined later when participants don’t follow through on the decisions they didn’t really accept. Decision spin can be incredibly frustrating at all levels of an organization. It also has a huge eNect on cost, productivity, and customer service. For example, when managers at one company I worked with couldn’t agree on the best way (or the few best ways) to conOgure their sales management software, they ended up with dozens of variations, which not only increased licensing fees but also made it much more diYcult to coordinate sales across divisional and geographic lines. Similarly, when another company needed to reduce its expenses, the pain was spread like peanut butter across the diNerent cost centers because the senior management team couldn’t decide where to focus—which meant that areas with growth potential lost as much muscle as those with less opportunity. From the outside, of course, this kind of behavior looks silly. Why can’t managers—even at a very senior level—have open, honest, and candid debates; work through their differences; and then reach agreement? After all, that’s what they’re paid to do. Unfortunately, it’s not that easy, for two reasons. One is that managers have a human desire to be liked. They want others to think well of them and not feel that they’re diYcult to work with. They want to get along and seem like team players. So even when they disagree with something, they often don’t express that opinion vociferously. Many managers I’ve talked to are afraid that disagreements might turn into uncomfortable battles that will damage or destabilize relationships. So they unconsciously pull their punches to keep things calm. The second reason for avoiding conLict is that many managers lack the skills to engage in it constructively. Perhaps because of the psychological issues described here, these managers don’t get a lot of practice at conLict, or they’ve never been trained in conLict management. As a result, they don’t understand some of the basic principles of engaging in positive conLict, such as deOning the overarching goal, identifying common ground, focusing on the problem instead of the person, objectively listing points of agreement and disagreement, listening more than talking, and shifting from debating to problem solving. Although those principles are not rocket science, most people have to learn them Orst. And without understanding them, it’s easy Managers have a human desire to be liked. 20 Harvard Business Review OnPoint | WINTER 2015 | HBR.org FROM HBR.ORG VOICES for business conLicts and disagreements to quickly escalate into interpersonal tensions—which triggers the avoidance syndrome described here, and a continuation of decision spin. Breaking this kind of cycle is not easy, particularly if it’s deeply engrained in the culture of your company and in the emotional makeup of key senior leaders. However, if you want to address it—from wherever you are in the organization— you can take two key steps. First, convene your team or a group of colleagues to discuss whether decision spin is an issue. If it is, share some real examples, how they played out, and the consequences for the company. Consider whether these are isolated instances or part of a recurring pattern and the potential payoN in reducing some of the spin. The key is to avoid abstractions and build some awareness and alignment about the need for improvement. Once you all agree that decision spin is worth attacking, work with your team or colleagues to develop ground rules for constructive conLict: giving everyone two minutes to share his or her views, appointing someone to write down the pros and cons of an issue, reminding everyone that disagreements are not personal attacks, setting a time limit for debates, or agreeing that decisions don’t get changed unilaterally. Obviously, this is not the same as full-blown conLict management training, but it’s a way to get started—and if it’s successful, it could create the readiness for additional developmental work. Companies can’t aNord to let decisions spin around with no resolution. Shortening that cycle, however, requires managers to understand that conLict should be embraced, not avoided. Originally published on HBR.org June 4, 2014 Ron Ashkenas is a senior partner of Schaffer Consulting. He is a coauthor of The Boundaryless Organization: Breaking the Chains of Organizational Structure (Jossey-Bass, 2002). He is also the author of Simply Effective: How to Cut Through Complexity in Your Organization and Get Things Done (Harvard Business Review Press, 2009). READER COMMENTS This phenomenon seems to be most prevalent among new leaders or younger middle managers who want to climb the corporate ladder. Play nice. Smile constantly. Listen to issues attentively. Be politically astute. But make no decisions that might rock the boat or solve a problem that might catch the eyes, ears, and potential (but not necessarily real) wrath of more-senior leaders. Somehow they miss seeing that sweeping problems under the rug has real consequences. —Craig Polak, workforce performance consultant, Allstate Insurance The ability to manage conflict productively is one of the best skills managers and leaders can have. Avoiding conflict tends to simply leave it festering, often with very painful consequences. Being able to have a productive conflict and then come to some sort of agreement is a learnable skill, but it often involves changing dysfunctional and deeply held beliefs about oneself and the world. —David Kaiser, executive coach and leadership development consultant, Dark Matter Consulting Getty I