Book Report – Mindwise by Nicholas Epley

Brian Regan – hands down the best comedian of my lifetime – does a fun routine that recalls being the kid in the way, way back of an old station wagon. Staring at passengers in other vehicles, you had a completely different vacation experience than the rest of the family. Nicholas Epley calls this “the neck problem” in his 2015 manifesto Mindwise. Probing why we often misinterpret others, Epley explains that one cause occurs when people look in two different directions – quite literally, with necks pointing opposite one another – but claim they’re the one in the know. More problematic is “the lens problem,” manifesting itself when multiple folks are looking at the exact same thing but with markedly varying perspectives. The challenge is how to overcome all the preconceived notions, stereotypes, and biases we bring to the party when we so badly overestimate our skill in reading situations. Through his work, the author, a behavioral science professor from the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, proves that we likely all score a Needs Improvement when it comes to truly knowing others – and even ourselves.

Bosses assuming what their employees want – and vice versa – is a conundrum that has surely always existed, dating back to when cavemen held their first Dairy Queen ribbon cutting. The book canvases workplace communication gaps spanning many decades. To wit, often managers, because they’ve been there/done that – having literally occupied a subordinate’s role – are guilty of believing they know someone inside and out when they simply don’t. “Learn that someone is a member of a different group than you,” writes Epley, “and you will drop egocentrism and pick up a stereotype to reason about that person’s mind instead.” In plain speak, the reader is encouraged to not lean too heavily on employee stereotypes. While he admits that they can prove helpful when seeking initial insight into the minds of others, stereotypes are ultimately “wicked” in that using them provides too little information, defines groups only by their differences, and prevents understanding of the true causes of group differences. A deeper connection and clarity on employee motivation is critical to successfully leading direct reports into the work day fray.

Perhaps the most misguided conclusion we jump to in the workplace involves compensation. Officers purportedly flee the military for civilian jobs to seek better pay. Officials rank comp as the #1 reason for defections when only three percent of ex-officers will cite pay as their driving force for a career change, with a full seventy-three percent of responders ranking money last. What, pray tell, is the catalyst for change? “The job was not intrinsically motivating enough,” shares Epley. Furthermore, a sixty-year-old survey of some 4,000 plant workers was conducted to help supervisors better understand employee motivation and “there was almost no correlation between what [supervisors] personally valued and what they believed their workers valued.” No correlation means no better than chance, a coin toss when it comes to really knowing that Robbie’s goal was to purchase the new 13″ black-and-white Emerson television while Rosie’s was to be named Riveter of the Week. In today’s calamitous world of corporate consolidation and belt tightening in service of higher profits and gaudy share prices, it’s not a huge leap to think that managers may not be prioritizing connecting on a personal level with their employees. Whether you have one direct report or a dozen, the author admonishes that you understand why they punch the clock other than a check on the 1st and 15th of the month. To paraphrase my high school gym teacher George “Yoda” Dennett, when you ass-u-me you make an ass out of you, me, and Rosie.