In my last post<\/a>, we took a little journey through the world of social norms<\/strong>. Unfortunately, like most of my journeys, it involved me doing something embarrassing. So let us now continue by looking at the power of social norms to create the kind of behavior your organization wants.<\/p>\n Human beings are social creatures…and yes that even includes most developers. We are designed to live in a world of social interaction<\/strong>. Our brains are massive pattern recognition engines trained for this sort of thing. We live in groups that expect certain behavior in certain situations to follow certain patterns. We can\u2019t function without these norms. They give our behavior context and allow others to efficiently assess, judge and respond. However, you might surprised just how incredibly subtle yet powerful these can be.<\/p>\n The Milgram experiment<\/a> is (in)famous for many reasons. This is the experiment where participants were asked to give electric \u201cshocks\u201d to another person to help them \u201clearn.\u201d It turns out that people are really really<\/em> pliable. Normal people were convinced to administer lethal<\/em><\/strong> electric shocks of 450 volts to a complete stranger while they howled in agony screaming for them to stop. As terrifying as that is, that is not the most amazing part of the experiment<\/strong>.<\/p>\n What is more terrifying is how much the participants did NOT<\/strong> want to do this! As you watch the films and read the transcripts, the participants (the shock-givers) are visibly shaken and clearly upset. They cannot believe that they are actually doing this<\/strong>. It is scary how little<\/em> prodding it actually took. These were not vulnerable people being ordered by their boss or drill sergeant. They were responding to a man in a white coat at Yale politely saying, \u201cPlease continue.\u201d To me, that is the amazing part.<\/p>\n Some explain this result using social conformity<\/a>. This is where a person transfers decision making to the group at large. According to researchers like Muzafer Sherif<\/a> and Solomon Asch<\/a>, people can embrace social norms without even weighing the costs or benefits<\/strong> to themselves or the group. Some game theorists assert this is an adaptive mechanism that has evolved over time.<\/p>\n People are supposed to be self-interested and rational. If social norms were creating sub-optimal outcomes, there be would course corrections and those norms would change…right<\/em>? Not always. Sometimes rational actors can create irrational behavior<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Like a dollar auction<\/a> where participants pay $5 for a $1 bill. The Tragedy of the Commons<\/a> is another example. All this assumes people are rational; a belief I question every holiday shopping season. Once emotions and social pressure get added to the mix, it is easy to create less desirable outcomes.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s look at an example where norms lead a group astray. Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman<\/a> (@DanielKahneman<\/a>) found that people feel a stronger<\/em> emotional reaction to bad outcomes when it was caused by something they did<\/em>, rather than something they avoided doing<\/em>. This is why I cannot sell my 90 million shares of Webvan. What if I sold them and then they went up? (Hey, it could happen! I\u2019m looking at you Kickstarter.) But this phenomenon helps explain why most people are so risk averse and reluctant to change.<\/p>\n Now perhaps you have heard the phrase, \u201cbias towards action?\u201d This phrase doesn\u2019t seem to make sense given what we just talked about. How can people be predisposed to action and more likely to avoid action? Because there is a bias towards only when action is considered the \u201cnormal\u201d response. For example, if there is a crisis, there is an expectation that politicians should \u201cdo something.\u201d Even if the correct response is to \u201cdo nothing,\u201d they feel pressure to act<\/strong>. By doing so they often make matters worse, triggering yet more pressure to act, which makes things even worse…and the mobius strip continues.<\/p>\n The same pressure to act exists for goalkeepers in professional soccer. I cite this next study because it shows the power of social norms to drive sub-optimal behavior. I also cite this study because professional soccer goalkeepers – who are judged in part by their ability to stop penalty kicks – should be highly motivated to make the right decisions. They are also highly experienced in this particular domain. This is as real-world as it gets.<\/p>\n The study, called Action Bias Among Elite Soccer Goalkeepers<\/em>, was published in October 2007 in the Journal of Economic Psychology<\/em>. They reviewed penalty kicks in top leagues and championships worldwide. For those who aren\u2019t soccer fans, penalty kicks are tough to stop under any circumstances; about 80% of penalty kicks succeed. Sports Science has a fascinating breakdown of the penalty kick:<\/p>\n![\"AdamJBurton_Small-300x300\"](\"https:\/\/enterprisestrategies.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/AdamJBurton_Small-300x300.jpg\")
<\/a>But how can that be true?<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n