Preachers, prosecutors, and politicians

Is it possible to train people in different fields to think more like scientists? And if so, do they make smarter choices? Recently, a quartet of European researchers decided to find out. They ran a bold experiment with more than 100 founders of Italian startups in the technology, retail, furniture, food, healthcare, leisure and machinery. Most of the founder’s businesses had yet to bring in any revenue, making it an ideal setting to investigate how scientific teaching thinking would influence the bottom line.

The entrepreneurs arrived in Milan for a training program and entrepreneurship. For four months, they learned to create a business strategy, interview customers, build a minimum viable product, and then refine a prototype. Still, they didn’t know that they had been randomly assigned to either a scientific thinking group or a control group.

The training for both groups was identical, except that one was encouraged to view startups through a scientist’s goggles. From that perspective, their strategies of theory customer interviews helped to develop hypotheses and their minimum viable products and prototype, or experiments to test those hypotheses. Their task is to rigorously measure the results and decide whether their hypotheses are supported or refuted.

Over the following year, the startups in the control group average under $300 in revenue. The startups in the scientific thinking group average over $12,000 in revenue.

They brought in revenue more than twice as fast. This scientific experimental group of entrepreneurs attracted customers sooner while the control group entrepreneurs tended to stay wedded to their original strategies and products. It was too easy to preach the virtues of their past decisions, prosecute the vices of alternative options, and politicize by catering to advisors who favored the existing direction. The entrepreneurs who had been taught to think like scientists, in contrast, pivoted more than twice as often when their hypotheses weren’t supported. They knew it was time to rethink their business model.

What’s surprising about these results is that we typically celebrate great entrepreneurs and leaders for being strong-minded and clear-sighted. They’re supposed to be paragons of conviction - decisive and certain yet evidence reveals that when business executives compete in tournaments to price products. The best strategists are slow and unsure; like careful sciences, they take their time, so they have the flexibility to change their minds. I’m beginning to think decisiveness is overrated. These are the almost verbatim words from the new book “Think Again,” authored by Adam Grant. He suggests that when we ponder and speak, we usually take on the mindset of three different professions: that of preachers, prosecutors, and politicians. We become “The Preacher” when we believe our beliefs are challenged. We deliver heartfelt lectures to defend and advocate our principles. We become “The Prosecutor” when we see faults in other people’s thinking and are determined to prove them wrong. When we seek approval and desire to be liked, then we take on the mindset of “The Politician.” Politicking to gain acceptance. Grant also suggests that to be successful, we must embody the fourth profession and think like “Scientists.” “Treat your strategy as a hypothesis and your product as an experiment,” says Grant.

This way of thinking values humility over pride, questioning over conviction and openness, and curiosity over closure. Instead of starting with the answers, lead with questions, and see where the inquiry leads. Decisiveness and immediate action have been pounded on leaders as signs of effective leadership. Perhaps these concepts have been overrated. I am not suggesting over-thinking, indecision, and analysis paralysis as specific issues may demand quick actions and decisions, but would leaders be fluid enough to change what they have decided and humble enough to hear others’ opinions and ideas?

Try to challenge The Preacher that his theology or doctrine is wrong. Try to persuade The Prosecutor to be gracious towards those who contradict their ideas and try to persuade The Politician to be firm and stand for the truth at the expense of losing popularity. You would know how difficult these would be. We are very good lawyers for our own mistakes, but we make poor judges for others’ mistakes. It’s good to adopt a Scientist’s mindset, according to Grant. Better still to read his book “Think Again.” And if you disagree, I might rethink my views.

(Connect with Francis Kong at www.facebook.com/franciskong2. Or listen to “Business Matters” Monday to Friday at 8 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. over 98.7 dzFE-FM ‘The Master’s Touch,’ the classical music station.)