The 93% non-verbal communication myth

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away there was an academic called Albert Mehrabian, who - aside from lecturing at California's UCLA and writing a number of tomes and papers - also wrote a book called "Silent Messages". And in that book, he happened to briefly detail some research, where his team had explored how we act alongside what we say in order to accurately get a response from the person we are talking to (1971). As he says, "in our culture, we are excessively sensitized to words" (Mehrabian, 1971, p. 41), and it is "very difficult, unless we have some audio-video record, to identify and to cope with nonverbal expressions of hostility that are cloaked by simultaneous verbal expressions to which we cannot legitimately take exception" (p. 41). In the study, a researcher read single words to university student participants - e.g. 'love' etc - using different tones and expressions, then asked the participants if they felt they understood what the researcher meant (Morgan, 2016). The study aimed to see if the audience could get the researcher's intent despite the difference in tone and delivery (Morgan, 2016).

"One interesting question now arises: Is there a systematic and coherent approach to resolving the general meaning or impact of an inconsistent message? Indeed there is. Our experimental results [...] show [that] Total liking = 7% verbal liking + 38% vocal liking + 55% facial liking. Thus the impact of facial expression is greatest" (Mehrabian, 1971, p. 43)

So the participants "decoded the intent behind the speaker’s words from 'visual clues' 55% of the time, and from 'tone of voice' 38% of the time. Only 7% of the time did the audience go to the actual words" (Morgan, 2016). 

An example given was that of "The fast-talking auctioneer [who] is a champion of inconsistency [. Their] voluble and almost incessant speech shows a great deal of responsiveness, but [their] bland expressions and monotonous voice are at the other extreme — completely unresponsive" (Mehrabian, 1971, p. 43). Perhaps auctioneers were once quite atonal. Not so much these days!

So 55% of meaning comes from the face of the speaker; 38% from the tone; and 7% from the words (Mehrabian, 1971). If we look deep into someone's eyes, while smiling (55% of the message), with a caressing tone of voice (38%) and say we love them (7%), they will get the full force of our consistent message, body language and tone. Yay!

Poor old Albert did NOT mean that only 7% of the message is non-verbal; he was talking about where his participants felt meaning transfer was coming from: the words, the tone or the face. If the message lacks congruence, do we lose sense of the message that the sender is sending us. How we say it is important for message clarity; tone as well as words. If everything is congruent, then our message is better understood by the receiver (Mehrabian, 1971). Perhaps we might be better to say that 45% is what we say and our tone, versus our facial expression?

We should note that the original study was pretty unscientific: it was self-reported; meaning-transfer was not checked for understanding; and the most significant finding was that if "words and non-verbal messages [...] conflict, people believe the non-verbal every time. For example, when a spouse asks, “Are you still angry with me?” and the injured party responds 'No,' with folded arms and an angry tone, only an idiot doesn’t realize that in this case 'no' means 'yes'" (Morgan, 2016).

So if someone tells you that 93% of meaning is non-verbal, remind them that actually it is words, tone and expression. 

Nice to put this myth to bed, too. 

Sam

References:

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent Messages. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.

Morgan, M. (2016, May 20). Build Real Impact: Mehrabian’s Myth – Speakers, Misinformation, Untruths. Presentation Guru. https://www.presentation-guru.com/mehrabians-myth/

read more "The 93% non-verbal communication myth"

The profligate lottery winner fallacy

There is a fallacy about lottery winners: a myth that "Lottery winners squander[...] their newly won money on wild spending sprees, gambling, and drinking, only to end up with debts, alcohol problems, and ruined relationships" (Hedenus, 2011, p. 22). Further, it has been proposed that there are several different categories of winner, largely based on societal tropes gathered through media portrayals: those of the squanderer; the cautious; the free; the greedy; the envious; the lucky; the deserving; and the undeserving (Binde, 2007). The media tropes are not that kind, overall: four negative tropes (squanderer, greedy, envious and undeserving); two positive (free, and deserving); and two neutral (cautious, and lucky). 

However, evidence appears to show that these tropes could be trimmed down to one main one: the wise. That is because lottery winners tend to be prudent, and to NOT lose their winnings. Those who win a significant "lottery do not live up to the myth of winners who leave their jobs for a period of conspicuous consumption and a life of leisure. Nor do they suffer the tragic fate of the squandering winner who is destined to end up in debt, become addicted to gambling and alcohol, and with ruined relationships" (Hedenus, 2014, p. 255). What winners of large lottery prizes actually tend to do is to pay down debt, make a few purchases, invest the remainder, and keep working (Hedenus, 2011). Apparently winners tend to be "concerned about how to manage their fortunes without succumbing to dysfunctional spending behaviours" (Hedenus, 2011, p. 22). Research "survey data on Swedish lottery winners revealed that – more than two years after the windfall – roughly two-thirds of the lump-sum winners still had most of the money left" (Hedenus, 2014, p. 226). A clear example of the prudence of a wise lottery winner:

Initially I didn’t allow [myself] – I almost didn’t dare to do a thing because everything was so expensive, most of the things that aren’t your everyday stuff, the basics. Everything else I thought was unnecessary, and usually expensive, too. At least to my standards. My children were very – I mean, they thought that I – ‘You shouldn’t let that bother you, treat yourself for once! What’s preventing you?’ And that boat trip, it took me a while before I – ‘But it costs so much …’ ‘So what!’ And they got so irritated about it. Such a fuss! In their opinion I – but they haven’t said anything for a while now [laughter]. Maybe I’ve gotten used to it? I don’t know. But it’s mostly the security that I feel. (Sonja, female winner of SEK 10,000 a month for 20 years) (Hedenus, 2011, p. 30).

How very sensible of these winners. 

But I do wonder how many continue to buy tickets after big wins?

Sam

References:

Binde, P. (2007). The good, the bad and the unhappy: The cultural meanings of newspaper reporting on jackpot winners. International Gambling Studies, 7(2). 213–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459790701387667

Hedenus, A. (2011). Finding prosperity as a lottery winner: Presentations of self after acquisition of sudden wealth. Sociology, 45(1), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038510387197

Hedenus, A. (2014). Pennies from heaven? Conceptions and earmarking of lottery prize money. The British Journal of Sociology, 65(2), 225-244. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12073

read more "The profligate lottery winner fallacy"

Have you heard...?

When I am working with my students, I try to use only evidenced data, and to check that data carefully. So when a student suggested in a class forum recently that: "A report by Dell Technologies stated, '85 per cent of the jobs that will exist in 2030 haven't even been invented yet' (SaLemi, 2018)" I was a bit puzzled. I had heard a "75%" factoid bandied around (and never fact-checked it, to my shame), but not an "85%" one. So I went looking, for my own satisfaction.

I managed to (a) find who made that claim - with the help of Newton (2018): it was the think-tank, Institute for the Future, who ran some sessions for Dell Technologies in 2017. The statement was made, as Newton (2018) relates:

"When asked for clarification on the 85% assertion in the report, Rachel Maguire, Research Director at IFF said, 'I cannot offer too much in the way of citation [....it was] offered up during a workshop'".

OK. The statement we use as evidence of this vast change in the world of work was "offered up during a workshop" (Newton, 2018). So if we turn to the report itself, from Dell and the IFTF, it says: 

"The experts that attended the IFTF workshop in March 2017 estimated that around 85% of the jobs that today’s learners will be doing in 2030 haven’t been invented yet. This makes the famous prediction that 65% of grade school kids from 1999 will end up in jobs that haven’t yet been created seem conservative in comparison" (Institute for the Future for Dell Technologies, 2017, p. 14).

What immediately caught my eye was the "65%" comment in the second sentence. If the 85% number was sniffy, here did the 65% stat come from? And why did it sound like one-upmanship, as well? We will take your 65% and raise you to 85%...?

Thanks to a number of dedicated researchers (Doxdator, 2017; Morimoto, 2018; Sander, 2017) I found a relatively early quote in a book, which said "65% of the children who are in pre-school today will work in jobs and careers that have yet to be defined" (Carroll, 2007, p. 62). However, this too appears to be total hokum, and was one of those debunking searches which just went deeper and deeper and deeper. Lots of researchers have had a crack at the 65%, and no-one has been able to get to the bottom of it: it appears to be 'person 1 based their data off person 2, who based it off person 3, who based it off person 1' circular situations (Doxdator, 2017; Morimoto, 2018; Sander, 2017).

This myth is so widespread as to be included in the World Economic Forum report presented at Davos (WEF, 2016, p. 3). Doxtdator (2017) tracked the claim back to 1957 without finding any evidence to support the "65%" statement. The BBC World Service podcast "More or Less" explored the source of the claim (Sander, 2017) and could not find what it was based on, and concluded that we probably need to be teaching our young people critical statistics as a key future skill. 

Crikey: can we trust nothing? Well, as it turns out, the 2018 WEF report statistics draw more carefully from substantiated work, saying that this report "reflects lessons learned from the design and execution of the original survey" (WEF, 2018, p. 4). Nice one, WEF. 

So let's not bandy about 65% or 85% of anything to do with educating our rangatahi without some fact-checking first, eh. 

Sam

References:

Carroll, J. (2007). Ready, set, done: How to innovate when faster is the new fast. Oblio Press.

Doxtdator, B. (2017, July 8). A Field Guide to ‘jobs that don’t exist yet’: The statistic you either love or hate. https://longviewoneducation.org/field-guide-jobs-dont-exist-yet/

Institute for the Future for Dell Technologies. (2017). The Next Era of Human-Machine Partnerships: Emerging technologies' impact on society and work in 2030 [report]. https://www.delltechnologies.com/content/dam/delltechnologies/assets/perspectives/2030/pdf/SR1940_IFTFforDellTechnologies_Human-Machine_070517_readerhigh-res.pdf

Morimoto, R. (2018). 65% of Future Jobs Not Invented Yet” – A Claim with Unsupported Data (Updated Dec/2019). Rands Blog. http://randsnet.blogspot.com/2018/02/65-of-future-jobs-not-invented-yet.html

Newton, D. (2018, December 28). The Myth Of Jobs That Don't Exist Yet. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereknewton/2018/12/28/the-myth-of-jobs-that-dont-exist-yet/?sh=2f7ea2e470ec

SaLemi, L. (2018, October 29). 85% of Jobs that will exist in 2030 haven't been invented yet.  Linkedin. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/85-jobs-exist-2030-havent-been-invented-yet-leo-salemi/

Sander, H. (Producer) (2017, May 30). More or Less: Have 65% of Future Jobs Not Yet Been Invented? [podcast]. BBC World Service. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p053ln9f

WEF. (2016). The Future of Jobs: Employment, Skills and Workforce Strategy for the Fourth Industrial Revolution [report]. Word Economic Forum. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf

WEF. (2018). The Future of Jobs: Centre for the New Economy and Society [report]. Word Economic Forum. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2018.pdf

read more "Have you heard...?"

An evaluation of Lewin's change model

Organisational change and innovation has been widely acknowledged to not necessarily be straight-forward; nor is it necessarily good. A lot of change research suggests that "An enduring finding in the change management research is that most organizations do not manage change well" (Lips-Wiersma & Hall, 2007, p. 774). 

Organisational change should be deliberate, because there is a need, not because: stability is dangerous; change is necessary; change can be managed; change will be embraced by everyone; change will lead to more success. Planned change for that need is helpful, as: "the idea that anyone who questions the need for change has an attitude problem is simply wrong, not only because it discounts past achievements, but also because it makes us vulnerable to indiscriminate and ill-advised change' (de Jager, 2001, p. 25).

As is shown in the image accompanying this post, there are a lot of change models: but interestingly many of them appear to look back to Lewin's three stage - freeze, unfreeze, and refreeze - model. The presenter in the YouTube video following makes an argument that Lewin's work has been misrepresented, despite constantly working through the 'Freeze, unfreeze, and refreeze model of change' (SAGE Publishing, 2016). Watch the video for more insight. 

Further, the authors provide some advice, in that “When studying change the unit of analysis must be the group, not the individual (as psychology might direct us), the organisation (as modern management studies is want to think) or wider society (as may be the want of the sociologist)" (Cummings et al., 2016, p. 51). Lewin's model contains two key elements: promoting change and promoting constancy. If the group is communicated with and involved (rather than individuals), change processes are more effective. Measuring change is more likely to effective when (a) all stakeholders are involved, and (b) when they work-shop specific processes and alternatives BEFORE agreeing on "the way forward" (Cummings et al., 2016, p. 51).

Sam

References:

Cummings, S., Bridgman, T. and Brown, K. G. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human Relations, 69(1), 33-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715577707

de Jager, P. (2001). Resistance to change: a new view of an old problem. The Futurist, 35(3), 24-27.

Lips-Wiersma, M., & Hall, D. T. (2007). Organizational career development is not dead: a case study on managing the new career during organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(6), 771–792. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.446

SAGE Publishing. (11 March 2016). Unfreezing change as three steps [video]. YouTube.  https://youtu.be/iJfdmT1UtBY

read more "An evaluation of Lewin's change model"

Measuring training results

When we train, we must also measure the results of our training. If we have not measured, we have no idea whether what we have delivered is 'sticky', and therefore has resulted in meeting the learning outcomes our training set out to deliver. Dr Will Thalheimer - a humble guru in the learning space - has written some superb thought-pieces around education, training and measurement of learning, and I will repeat his words here for us all on measurement (Thalheimer, 2023).

"For the learning field, a good evaluation model should do the following (at a minimum):"

• "It should encourage us to consider the many ways we might measure learning, including at a minimum the following ways: (1) attendance, (2) learning activity, (3) learner perceptions, (4) knowledge, (5) decision competence, (6) task/skill competence, (7) behavior change, and (8) results for key stakeholders (including learners, organizations, co-workers/family/friends, community, society, and the environs)"
• "It should remind us that we must be careful to consider whether people will remember what they’ve learned—that demonstrating comprehension now does not guarantee that remembering will be enabled later"
• "It should remind us that learner perceptions may provide good hints about learning effectiveness, but that these indicators should be augmented with other measures of learning"
• "It should remind us that learner ratings of satisfaction and learning reputation are not always correlated with learning effectiveness"
• "It should remind us that attendance and completion are not sufficient metrics because people can attend but not learn, or they can learn the wrong things"
• "It should remind us that learner activity is not a sufficient metric because learners can engage in activities but still not learn, or they can learn the wrong things"
• A good learning-evaluation model or framework should also be infused with wisdom about learning, encouraging us to see that measuring knowledge is not sufficient, that we should also consider measuring decision and task competence" (Thalheimer, 2023) .

For a 'good' evaluation model, check out the scientifically-valid Learning Transfer Evaluation Model (LTEM; 2023a) here.

Sam

References:

Thalheimer, W. (2023). LTEM After Five Years. LinkedIn Pulse. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ltem-after-five-years-will-thalheimer/ 

Work-Learning Research. (2023a). The Learning Transfer Evaluation Model (LTEM). https://www.worklearning.com/ltem/

Work Learning Research. (2023b). The Learning Transfer Evaluation Model (LTEM) [image]. https://i0.wp.com/www.worklearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/LTEM-Graphic.png?resize=705%2C655&ssl=1

read more "Measuring training results"

An update on the Learning Styles Myth

We often have the theory of learning styles (LS) waved in front of us: the "VAK" construct of Barbe et al. (1979) was picked up by two Kiwi secondary school teachers proposing that learner preferences for visual, auditory, read/write, or kinaesthetic ("VARK") learning styles should be matched by the teaching delivery channel (Fleming & Mills, 1992, p. 140-141). LS is proposed "as (a) differential preferences for processing certain types of information or (b) for processing information in certain ways" (Willingham, 2015, p. 266). Despite repeatedly encountering LS in books, literature and online, be aware that it lacks apparent validity and replicability.

"Is there support for either prediction—for educational practice, or barring that, at least that the theory might be correct (even if it’s not helpful)? No. Several reviews that span decades have evaluated the literature on learning styles (e.g., Arter & Jenkins, 1979; Kampwirth & Bates, 1980; Kavale & Forness, 1987; Kavale, Hirshoren, & Forness, 1998; Pashler et al., 2009; Snider, 1992; Stahl, 1999; Tarver & Dawson, 1978), and each has drawn the conclusion that there is no viable evidence to support the theory. Even a recent review intended to be friendly to theories of learning styles (Kozhevnikov, Evans, & Kosslyn, 2014) failed to claim that this prediction of the theory has empirical support. The lack of supporting evidence is especially unsurprising in light of the unreliability of most instruments used to identify learners’ styles (for a review, see Coffield et al., 2004)" (Willingham et al, 2015, p. 267).

"Studies examining belief in the use of Learning Styles [by educators] have been carried out over the last few years in a number of different populations, and the overall trend is down, from 93% of UK schoolteachers in 2012 (Dekker), to 76% of UK schoolteachers in 2014 (Simmonds), 64% of HE [tertiary] academics in the US in 2014 (Dandy and Bendersky) to 58%" in this study. What is also worrying is "that one-third of academics in UK higher education have, in the last year, used a method that was shown to be ineffective more than a decade earlier" (Newton & Miah, 2017, p. 7).

Rather than pigeonholing learners into a single delivery style, we would be better to match our training delivery to the content or outcomes, taking note of dual-coding theory (Artino et al., 2023).

The more open we are, the better.

Sam

References:

Artino Jr, A. R., Iqbal, M. Z., & Crandall, S. J. (2023). Debunking the Learning-Styles Hypothesis in Medical Education. Academic Medicine, 98(2), 289. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004738

Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11, 137-143. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.1992.tb00213.x

Newton, P. M., & Miah, M. (2017). Evidence-Based Higher Education – Is the Learning Styles ‘Myth’ Important? Frontiers in Psychology, 8(444), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00444

Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0098628315589505

read more "An update on the Learning Styles Myth"

Women apply when 100% qualified - busted

A student was telling me how in past roles they would start well, but become bored. While we all enjoy a fresh challenge and learning new things, I was reminded of some research that I had read about - reportedly done by HP - which suggested that men applied for jobs when they had 60% of the job description qualifications; whereas women only applied when they were 100% qualified (Sandberg, 2013). 

Hang on: but doesn't that mean that we women may arrive in a role with close to total mastery? Why would we not be bored in zip time? Is that realistic? It doesn't feel realistic to me. I cannot remember a time that I have arrived into a job with full mastery. 

If this is true, does that explain why we now only stay two years in a role so we achieve mastery then move on? The lure of those constant fresh fields may mean we rarely get bored. But men too are moving every two years or so now. And unless they really are much more clever than we women, they shouldn't be gaining mastery in the same time duration as they are starting from a much lower set of qualifications. Surely? Especially not if we consider the half-century longitudinal study result of men "overrat[ing] their own IQ while women underrate" theirs (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2019, p. 112). 

Of course, this is research done in the USA, so it may not hold quite so true of New Zealand. There are fairly significant cultural differences between our two nations (Chhokar et al., 2007).

Further, I am a bit worried about this "60%" and "100%". I have never been a full match for a job that I have applied for, so these numbers seem a bit glib to me. I might have accepted 40% and 80%. But 100%? Curt Rice has also picked up on this, and he went hunting. He found that this claim was based on a conversation between McKinsey and HP which Sheryl Sandberg heard about. Not research. No papers published. This was 'internal' reporting. Rice (2014) suggested that the conversation went something like this:

"McKinsey interviewer: Do you have any special challenges related to recruiting internally to higher-level positions?

"Hewlett-Packard senior executive: Well, as a matter of fact, it’s much more difficult to get women to apply for senior positions than men. It seems like they lack self-confidence. They don’t even think about applying unless they’re 100% confident they’re qualified. The men, if they feel like they’re even 60% there, they go for it"

It seems there is not a warrant for the claim. The claim lacks validity - it seems to not be based on discoverable research data. This brief examination of Ms Sandberg's book raises more questions than it provides answers.

Sam

References:

Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C. & House, R. J. (Eds) (2007). Culture and Leadership Across the World: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Chrobot-Mason, D., Hoobler, J. M. & Burno, J. (2019). Lean In Versus the Literature An Evidence-Based Examination. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(1), 110-130. https://doi.org/10.5465amp.2016.0156a

Rice, C. (22 April 2014). Anecdata, or how McKinsey’s story became Sheryl Sandberg’s fact. Curt Rice | Science in balance. https://curt-rice.com/2014/04/22/what-happens-when-under-qualified-women-apply-for-jobs-and-why-sheryl-sandberg-and-mckinsey-wrongly-think-we-dont-know/

Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean In: women, work, and the will to lead. Alfred A. Knopf.

read more "Women apply when 100% qualified - busted"

The pyramid scheme that was Maslow

Source: Thompkins-Jones (24 July 2014)

In 1943, a psychologist called Abraham Maslow presented a framework in a paper proposing that we humans had a stepped range of needs, called the hierarchy of needs. Maslow says in his paper that while the needs appear to be progressive, they are not equally important to individuals, and further notes that he does not want to "give the false impression that a need must be satisfied 100 per cent before the next need emerges" (1943, p. 389). He provides an example that an average person might reach "85 per cent in [their] physiological needs, 70 per cent in [their] safety needs, 50 per cent in [their] love needs, 40 per cent in [their] self-esteem needs, and 10 per cent in [their] self-actualization needs" (p. 390). And note those headings: they too have changed since Maslow wrote his original psychology paper.

Researcher John Ballard hunted through the "Maslow archives at the Center for the History of Psychology at the University of Akron in Ohio", and after an extensive and wide-ranging research programme with his fellow authors, Todd Bridgman and Stephen Cummings, "found no trace of Maslow framing his ideas in pyramid form” (2019, p. 82). They further note that up until the 1980s, the preferred model for Maslow's hierarchy of needs was a ladder, where the reader could imagine simultaneous points of contact with different rungs. This ladder framework is more in keeping with what Maslow outlines in his original 1943 paper. Maslow's ideas do not fit a pyramid.

What is also interesting is how Maslow's work transferred from psychology to management. Bridgman et al. state "Douglas McGregor [..] encountered it in 1944 and drew on it in developing his famous Theory X and Theory Y concept" (2019, p. 84). Correspondence which followed between the two academics resulted in McGregor championing the hierarchy of needs; in industry, at conferences, and publishing papers about it. McGregor's interest arose at an opportune time when returned service people were coming back from WW2 in Europe and the Pacific, and enrolling at university. The GI Bill for returned service people included fully-funded MBAs from a grateful American public.

It was McGregor who made Maslow famous, although until the early 1960s, Maslow's thinking which inspired McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y was hidden, unacknowledged, within McGregor's work (Bridgman et al., 2019). Maslow's hierarchy first appears as a demi-ziggurat image by Davis (1957, as cited by Bridgman et al., 2019), and then as a pyramid from McDermid (1960, as cited by Bridgman et al., 2019). Both of models are clearly targeting business readers, being published respectively in Human Relations in Business, and Business Horizons (Bridgman et al., 2019). Maslow is now a management hot property, complete with a shape which means change in mathematics, with the layers of the model named as physiological needs, safety, social, esteem, and self-realisation needs (McDermid, 1960, as cited by Bridgman et al., 2019). Note the changes of rung names from paragraph one.

Many elements got lost as time ticked on, such as Maslow's initial idea that people can be at many stages, all at once (1942). In a later book, Maslow talks about transcendence, which seems to imply there may be a level past that of self-actualisation (1962). Maslow also proposes that, to be healthy and to grow, humans need to use their capacities - such as striving, physiology, intelligence, and love - or potentially may suffer from either physical or psychic disease (1962). These ideas have not been reflected in the pyramid that the management field has adopted.

After the experiences of WW2, Maslow sought peace, yet we have "ignore[d] some of [his] more egalitarian principles" (MacLellan, 2019). Additionally, Maslow had some interesting ideas about women - saying about Mexican women that "one woman is about as good as another, and that she is interchangeable with others. She discovers that she is not valuable; it is the class 'woman' that is valuable" in the eyes of Mexican men (1962, p. 121). Ouch.

Maslow was a free-thinker, and his thinking probably still has value: even if we have not been able to gather research evidence that his model actually works in practice. We do, however, need to remind ourselves that his model is: (a) not a pyramid; (b) not sequential; (c) not absolute; and (d) is not a management model.

If we read what Maslow originally wrote, then it is a useful as a lens to consider what may be holding us - or others - back.


Sam

References:

• Ballard, J.A. (2006). The diffusion of Maslow’s motivation theory in management and other disciplines. Paper presented at the 66th Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Knowledge, Action and the Public Concern,11-16 August, Atlanta GA, USA.
• Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & Ballard, J. A. (2019). Who Built Maslow’s Pyramid? A History of the Creation of Management Studies’ Most Famous Symbol and Its Implications for Management Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 18(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0351
• MacLellan, L. (11 April 2019). Maslow’s pyramid” is based on an elitist misreading of the psychologist's work. https://qz.com/work/1588491/maslow-didnt-make-the-pyramid-that-changed-management-history/
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
• Maslow, A. H. (1962). Toward a Psychology of Being. D Van Nostrand Company Inc.
• Thompkins-Jones, R. (24 July 2014). Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Applied to Employee Engagement. https://notesfromanaspiringhumanitarian.com/illustration-applies-maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-to-employee-engagement/

read more "The pyramid scheme that was Maslow"

The Myth of Digital Natives

Many of us drank the Kool-Aid on this one: the concept of digital natives.

The idea behind the digital natives concept was that those born after 1980 would be so normalised to technology that they would effortlessly understand its use and would outstrip those older than themselves in technological nous, application and efficiencies (Prensky, 2001a, 2001b, 2005, 2009).

It was a great premise, but it wasn't borne out by the research (Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010; Margaryan & Littlejohn, 2008; Stoerger, 2009). Koutropoulos (2011) summarised Prensky's arguments, illustrating some of the fallacies in the assumption that younger people will naturally be sound users of technology.

• Firstly the argument assumes a binary state: younger people are 'digital natives' because they were born since the advent of computers. Those born before computers are 'digital immigrants' (Koutropoulos, 2011). We are each one or the other, and we cannot change our base state. This idea seems to fall back into the 'born verus made' argument, or the idea of horoscopes. The science doesn't indicate that if we are born on a certain date that we are imbued with certain characteristics (and there is some argument about whether the date is 1980 or 1984). Further, the idea of a date with before and after contains an implied power relationship: the 'digital natives' own technology skills, while the 'immigrants' don't (Koutropoulos, 2011). It also implies that education is futile: there is no point training older people because they are 'digital immigrants' and therefore can't learn (Helsper & Enyon, 2011).
• Secondly, the argument appears to have made an assumption that 'digital natives' everywhere will have the same access to technology, the same desire to use technology, and the same ability to understand and learn technology. This too is not borne out by the research. Research into 'digital natives' in South Africa, the UK, the US, and Australia reflect differing levels of technology access, uptake, and focii (Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010; Koutropoulos, 2011; Margaryan & Littlejohn, 2008; Stoerger, 2009).
• Thirdly, we could reasonably expect 'digital natives' to be superb users of technology. The use of technology apparently rewires their brains to process information differently to previous generations. Research has found this to be unsupported by evidence (Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010).
• Fourthly, the innate skill that 'digital natives' are expected to have will give them the ability and flair to focus on solving digital problems when roadblocks are encountered. However, research appears to be finding that 'digital natives' lack the grit to persevere with non-intuitive applications or systems (Koutropoulos, 2011, citing Garcia & Qin, 2007).
• Fifthly, if when you were born is the key driver of technical nous, what about those who created and designed the world that 'digital natives' inhabit (Stoerger, 2009)? I would assume that those software and hardware designers are at least as able as 'digital natives' are assumed to be.

The 'digital native' idea is an interesting one, but - like VARK Learning Styles, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Dale's Cone of Experience, and Generational Theory - it too is a myth. We should not perpetuate it, and we should challenge it whenever we find it.


Sam

References:

• Brown, C. & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the ‘digital native’: beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00369.x
• Helsper, E. & Enyon, R. (2011). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503-520. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902989227
  
• Koutropoulos, A. (2011). Digital Natives: Ten Years After. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 525-538. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f026/dac484f43c1ee32b5cc1bc21c7d9a48d7c36.pdf
• Margaryan, A., & Littlejohn, A. (2008). Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students’ use of technologies for learning. Glasgow Caledonian University Insight Paper. Retrieved from https://oro.open.ac.uk/53083/1/Digital%20Natives%202008.pdf
• Prensky, M. (2009). H. Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(3). Retrieved from http://www.wisdompage.com/Prensky01.html
• Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the Natives. Learning in the Digital Age, 63(4), 8-13.
• Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On The Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
• Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2: Do They Really Think Differently?. On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843
• Stoerger, S. (2009). The digital melting pot: Bridging the digital native-immigrant divide. First Monday, 14(7). Retrieved from https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2474/2243%E2%82%AC

read more "The Myth of Digital Natives"

The IT myths we still believe

Reported by TechRepublic, a survey by HighSpeedInternet.com found that computer users in the USA hold onto some outdated ideas about technology, including that Apple computers and iPhones don't get viruses (false), that cameras with higher megapixels take better pictures (false), that leaving your phone on charge overnight will kill the battery (false), and that PCs need to be turned off each night (false). People also thought that X-ray scans at the airport could wipe their HDD data (also false). Funnily enough, while I knew that a powerful magnet could damage credit cards, and high intensity X-rays could fog film, I had never heard that X-rays could affect digital data (which, of course, it can't).

However, another myth which the survey by HighSpeedInternet.com found was that users believed older models of smartphones are throttled back when newer models were released. This finding intrigued me as it was reported as false, yet was found to be actual anti-competitive practices by the Italian judiciary in 2018, against Samsung and Apple (Gibbs, 24 October 2018). So 'the people' are actually right in this instance, and the surveyors are incorrect. Not all popular beliefs are incorrect, and the evidence was there to prove it in this case.

So: don't worry about leaving your phone on the charge pad. Leave your PC on at night if you are in the midst of doing something and aren't worried about the power consumption. Check the camera specs, lens quality and reviews rather rely on megapixels for image values, and if you are an Apple user, ensure you set up and regularly review your antivirus and malware systems.

And don't worry about airport X-ray machines.


Sam

References:

• Gibbs, S. (24 October 2018). Apple and Samsung fined for deliberately slowing down phones. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/24/apple-samsung-fined-for-slowing-down-phones
• TechRepublic (11 January 2018). The 6 biggest tech myths Americans still believe. Retrieved from https://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-6-biggest-tech-myths-americans-still-believe/?ftag=TREe01923b&bhid=40778246

read more "The IT myths we still believe"

Conflating Education Myths

Who amongst us has not heard the magical "we remember 10% of what we read, 20% of what we watch", and so on, down to "90% of what we do"...?

(and have you thought it should have had 100% of what we sing in the car for 30+ years? You would if you had experienced any of our family road-trips).

Well, dammit: it is yet another myth. Who would have thought it? All those lovely neat percentages! The worst thing is that we have bought so blindly into it for over a century. Yes, the first known evidence that a team of tireless myth-debunkers have found is in the 1913 Journal of Education, saying "We remember 2/10 of what we hear, we remember 5/10 of what we see, we remember 7/10 of what we touch, we remember 9/10 of what we do" (Subramony, Molenda, Betrus, & Thalheimer, 2014f, p. 32). This appears to have come straight from folklore, without all that bothersome detouring through research.

Ah: but have you heard it called Dale's Cone of Experience as well? If so, somehow the retention saying got conflated with the Cone. The Cone of Experience - without any percentages - was illustrated in Edgar Dale's textbook, "Audio-visual Methods in Teaching" (1954, p. 43). The Cone of Experience is the image on the far left of the image accompanying this article. At some point, someone obviously saw that Dale's Cone looked like it would be a good fit with the retention saying and put them together.

The earliest existing evidence of the conflation of the Cone with the retention saying and a nascent inverted pyramid is Ann Bauman, in train the trainer documentation (Subramony, Molenda, Betrus, & Thalheimer, 2014f), although there is anecdotal evidence of an earlier hand.

The research done by these four scholars, Deepak Subramony, Michael Molenda, Anthony Betrus, and Will Thalheimer (of Work-Learning Research blog), has unpicked where each part - the Cone, the "10% of what we read" and the inverse pyramid of what we remember "after two weeks" - came from (2014a-f). Their investigation is systematic, careful and fascinating. Educational Technology dedicated an entire issue to their papers (list of papers below). If you get the opportunity, read the papers. I found them absorbing.

And the best part is that all three parts - retention saying, Cone, inverted pyramid - are without any research foundation. Ignore it: it is as useless as vinegar and brown paper for concussion.

It is not even a useful aide memoire.


Sam

References:

• Betrus, A. (n.d.). The Corruption of Dale's Cone of Experience. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/thecorruptedconeoflearning/
• Dale, E. (1954). Audio-visual methods in teaching (revised edition). New York, USA: A Holt-Dryden Book, Henry Holt and Company.
• Subramony, D. P., Molenda, M., Betrus, A. K., & Thalheimer, W. (2014a). Exhibits for Special Issue. Educational Technology, 54(6), 39-49.
• Subramony, D. P., Molenda, M., Betrus, A. K., & Thalheimer, W. (2014b). Figures for Special Issue. Educational Technology, 54(6), 35-38.
• Subramony, D. P., Molenda, M., Betrus, A. K., & Thalheimer, W. (2014c). Previous attempts to debunk the mythical retention chart and corrupted Dale's Cone. Educational Technology, 54(6), 17-21.
• Subramony, D. P., Molenda, M., Betrus, A. K., & Thalheimer, W. (2014d). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Bibliographic Essay on the Corrupted Cone. Educational Technology, 54(6), 22-31.
• Subramony, D. P., Molenda, M., Betrus, A. K., & Thalheimer, W. (2014e). The Mythical Retention Chart and the Corruption of Dale's Cone of Experience. Educational Technology, 54(6), 6-16.
• Subramony, D. P., & Molenda, M. (2014). The Mythical Retention Chart and the Corruption of Dale's Cone of Experience: Introduction to Special Issue. Educational Technology, 54(6), 3-5.
• Subramony, D. P., Molenda, M., Betrus, A. K., & Thalheimer, W. (2014f). Timeline of the Mythical Retention Chart and Corrupted Dale's Cone. Educational Technology, 54(6), 31-34.

read more "Conflating Education Myths"

Leadership & Education Myths

There are two myths that I keep running into, so I decided to do a quick post about them, not only to keep track of the meta-studies which evaluated these theories, but also to refer others to so I don't have to keep repeating myself.

Those myths are Learning Styles theory and Generational theory.

Learning styles theory (Fleming & Mills, 1992) is sometimes known as VAK or VARK, standing for whether a person prefers learning material to be delivered in a visual, audial or kinaesthetic way. The theory proposes that we are either watchers, listeners, or doers. Later versions of this theory suggested a "D" for digital interaction, completely forgetting that we would still get our learning via watching, listening, or doing (how inconvenient). Hmm. VAKD has a bit of a ring to it. I vakd yesterday...

So how do we find out about our learning style and what do we do with that knowledge? "Proponents of learning-style assessment contend that optimal instruction requires diagnosing individuals learning style and tailoring instruction accordingly" (Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008, p. 105)... which means we do a quiz to find out. There are more than 70 quizzes, so that has been quite good business (Newton & Miah, 2017). Then teachers have to do lots of planning to ensure that all teaching was delivered in four ways. Sooo... not difficult for educators at all, really!

This idea completely ignores whether learning is equally sticky in all delivery styles (i.e. effective or efficient). Liking does not equal good learning, regardless of whether the learner enjoys a particular delivery channel. It also pigeon-holes students, and may limit their exploration of other styles, to the student's detriment. None of the studies researching the learning styles theory has withstood the test of time and replicability to satisfactorily prove that the theory exists or has validity (Cuevas, 2015; Newton & Miah, 2017).

Generational theory is another neat little pigeon-holing theory. A generation is the thirty year gap which lies between population groups (a definition to be extended at some stage due to the slowing birth rate and the ageing of first mothers?). Generational theory is the idea that people born at a certain time will have certain characteristics, so theoreticians have helpfully clustered generations into groups which 'possess' certain attributes. What I have been noting for some time is that how 'Gen X' used to be spoken of (i.e. the 'characteristics' they displayed) over time became how 'Millennials' were spoken of... and now this seems to be how 'iGen' is spoken of. Hmm: the inexorable force of time, perhaps? The amazing ability of humankind to over-generalise and stereotype?

At present, up to five generations may conceivably be currently in the workforce. Those generations are (and yes, this is a little tongue-in-cheek):

1. Traditionalists (1915-1944): Also called the silent generation. Should have retired long ago. Use a computer as a hammer. Entitled because they won WWII and starved in the Great Depression.
2. Baby Boomers (1945-1964): committed, motivated, confident, diligent. Ride Harleys. Entitled, want it all, including cosmetic surgery to stay young forever.
3. Generation X (1965-1981): want lots of benefits, cynical, autonomous and self-reliant. Except for those inconvenient children who turned up, dammit. Oh, and entitled.
4. Generation Y/Millennials (1982-2000): roving, disloyal, flibberty-gibbets who may be 'digital natives' if their family was affluent enough (and if digital natives were really a 'thing'). Eeek: now getting married! Totally entitled.
5. iGen (2000+): 'digital natives' (that other myth), want it all, supposedly too hip to operate machinery if it doesn't swipe... and of course, entitled.

Last year I had two students wanting to study generational theory. I showed them a study from the IBM Institute for Business Value which showed that differences were negligable between the generations, or went against current assumptions. While I managed to persuade one to use two theories as a cross-comparison, the other student stuck to Generational theory <sigh>. Earlier this year, I was reading the New Zealand Institute of Director's Boardroom magazine, and was confronted by the article asking "What do the different generations want?". At the same time, a meta-study by Rudolph, Rauvola, and Zacher (2018) crossed my desk from the Leadership Quarterly debunking generational theory. At last, I thought! We can now fold our generational tents and follow along with Super's Life Stage theory instead, which actually does have some evidence. I emailed the IOD and suggested they stop publishing on Generational theory. I have yet to hear back.

Debunking. Pushing out human ignorance one person at a time :-)


Sam

References:

• Cuevas, J. (2015). Is learning styles-based instruction effective? A comprehensive analysis of recent research on learning styles. Theory and Research in Education, 13(3), 308-333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515606621
• Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another in ventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11, 137-143. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.1992.tb00213.x
• IBM Institute for Business Value (2015). Myths, exaggerations and uncomfortable truths: The real story behind Millennials in the workplace. Retrieved 12 April 2016 from http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=WH&infotype=SA&appname=GBSE_GB_TI_USEN&htmlfid=GBL03032USEN&attachment=GBL03032USEN.PDF
• Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006
• Newton, P. M., & Miah, M. (2017). Evidence-Based Higher Education – Is the Learning Styles ‘Myth’Important? Frontiers in Psychology, 8(444), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00444
• Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
• Rudolph, C. W., Rauvola, R. S., & Zacher, H. (2018). Leadership and generations at work: a critical review. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 44-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.09.004

read more "Leadership & Education Myths"