Employees and their uniforms

The current Walmart uniforms (if they can be called uniforms) were determined to be "sucky" during class on Wednesday. I think the purpose of Walmart uniforms is mainly for the customers. A nice uniform provides the look of professionalism to the customers. But of course the uniforms can't be too intimidating or give off a sense of smugness. The employees must be approachable but also look like they know what they are doing. The proposed uniforms do just that. The new uniforms give off that sense of professionalism which directly affects the atmosphere of the store.

The uniforms must also appeal to the employees as well. The uniforms must be be comfortable so the employees can remain focused on their work and less on their attire. It is also important for the uniform to look professional enough to make their job feel more important. Doing this has the potential of increasing one's work output.

Decision making quiz

That quiz we took on Monday was difficult to say the least, it really mad you think. I am glad Dr. Goates did not grade the quiz because I would have failed for sure. The test gave us these common sense questions that went against or with our thought processes depending on who you are. After the test we learned about all of our biases that affect us everyday. Our brain takes past experiences and using them to solve future problems. This is great if the experience is the same but I personally found it annoying. After reading the questions I often found myself second guessing myself. Theses biases are called heuristics.

I found myself falling into each heuristic based trap. These can help you but they can also hurt you.

Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. report 2

                In chapters one and two of Made to Stick: Why some ideas survive  and others die, the authors elaborate on the introduction and talk about two things that are necessary to make ideas stick. You have to keep your ideas simple and unexpected. When conveying an idea or message you have to keep it simple and straight to the point. When you convey an idea to someone you have to make sure it is understandable to the listener. The authors give an example using a pomelo. The pomelo is a large citrus fruit. The rind is very thick, the fruit has a light yellow to coral pink flesh, and it can taste seductively spicy-sweet to tangy and tart. One the authors supplied this explanation of a pomelo they asked the reader a follow up question. That question is; if you mixed pomelo juice half and half with orange juice, would it taste good. You could venture a guess but you would not be too sure. They then go to an alternate explanation of a pomelo and here it is. A pomelo is basically a supersized grapefruit. They have made it easier for you to learn a new concept by tying it to an old concept the grapefruit. If you are conveying a message it’s easier for a listener to understand what you are conveying if you relate it to something they already know.

                This can be critical in negotiations or when working in groups. It is important to keep your ideas and explanations as simple and understandable as possible. That does not mean you should treat your listeners as morons. Just communicate to core or your idea and let is flower and expand. Making your idea simple allows for better communication and it give your idea a better chance of sticking with people.

                An idea must also be unexpected. It must go against rational thinking but also be rational. You want to surprise a person’s natural thought process. Humans are attracted to out of the ordinary things. Your mind will fixate on these things. Examples are red warning lights that you can see just everywhere and police sirens. These things are supposed to grab a person’s attention and hold it. The authors grabbed an example on of them heard on an airline. Almost everyone knows the whole safety speech given by one of the attendants on the plane. Most people tune it out when they are on a plane because they have heard it so many times before. This airline attendant gave that speech in a comical fashion. She integrated jokes into the safety lecture and when she was done everyone applauded. She took this old idea, which is to supply the passengers with the necessary information, and revamped it in a creative and unexpected way.

                This can be related to our first case analysis. The company needed something to make their product stand out even though it was the same quality as other competitors’ products. The team took the old product and completely revamped it and it was a hit. To make an idea it has to be unexpected. If you’re working with a group and you are competing with another group you must find an unexpected way to present your idea so it will stand out.

                These two strategies are necessary for an idea to stick. An idea must remain simple and to the core. An idea must also be unexpected. This surprises people and gives the idea a better chance of sticking. Just think of any commercials that you have seen that have really stuck with you. It is necessary to use these two strategies when presenting an idea no matter where you are.

Three Approaches to Resolving Disputes

In last class we discussed the article Three Approaches to Resolving Disputes. There also was a live performance of one of the examples in the article. The example was two people are fighting over their last orange. What should they do. The author goes on to discuss what the right and sensible option is. A normal person might think that the orange should be cut in half and shared with the two, even though that answer may make sense until you figure out what the two need the orange for. One just wants the rind to add to his cake while the other just wants the orange to make juice. Looking at the interests shows how each person can be satisfied and how the solution can turn into a win/win. 


The author goes on discuss three ways to resolve disputes. You look at a problem to see who has the most power, who is right, and what are the interests of the parties. Looking to see who has the most power can be tricky like the example with the foreman and his employee. If you try to determine who has the rights, you often can see each party has the right for whatever like the example with Egypt and Israel. It is often best to look at the parties interests. If base your solution around the interests than the different parties involved are more likely to be satisfied with the solution.

Negotiating

After reading the article for class I did not realize how complicated the art of negotiating is. There are several different strategies for different scenarios. I guess it takes time and practice to master. I think the best pointer he gave us for proper negotiating is to always make it seem that you are ready to walk out at any moment. This technique will give the advantage in a negotiating.

Today in class I was hoping I could test out a few strategies in class, but my partner did not really put up a fight when negotiating. It felt like a hollow victory. I gotta good deal but I wish my partner would have put up more of a fight.

The Prisoner dilemma Game

Class on Monday was very interesting. I can understand why that Nash guy went nuts working on that problem. I learned that there are no winners in that game unless you the person who back stabs the other person. It seems like such a simple problem first time looking at it but you makes your head spin in circles as you try to find the best answer for yourself and trying to find out what the other person is thinking. If both parties could communicate it's much easier to come to a decision. That is what the activity showed us. But it also showed that you can't trust people especially if cannot communicate with them and even when you do communicate all of your negotiations and deals are thrown out the window when it comes down to the last round. 

This whole activity made me think if it is part of human nature to not trust people and to stomp on others for personal gain.

Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. report 1

The main purpose of the book, Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die, is too teach the reader how to make ideas stick using the six principles of successful ideas. The six principles given are: Simplicity, Unexpectedness, Concreteness, Credibility, Emotions, and Stories. Coincidently these six ideas form the acronym SUCCESs. They use four different examples in the introduction to explain these principles. Three of them are examples how ideas can effective and the other one shows how an idea can fail. The first one is The Kidney heist urban legend. If you don’t know it, here it is. A friend of a friend is offered a drink by a fairly attractive woman, then he wakes up in a tub full of ice, he can’t remember how he got there, and one of his kidneys are gone. The idea is simple and there are many versions of this story but they are all the same once you get to the core of the story. It’s a simple idea, the story has a twist, it in invokes concrete images, your friend has to be at least a little credible, the story causes fear, and it’s got a story behind the idea not to accept drinks from total strangers. The author uses the other two stories in a similar way.

            The authors also describe two different tests that were performed. The first test involved “tappers” and “listeners”. Several people were given the job of tapping out a popular song like happy birthday and the star spangled banner and they could not tell them anything about the song that they are tapping. It was up to the listeners to pick out the song that the tappers were tapping. The results were surprising. The listeners were right only 4% of the time. The answer for the results is kind of interesting. It was easy for the tappers to tell what the song is because it is in there head while the listeners have the disadvantage of not knowing what the song is.  The listeners were not able to distinguish the taps of the different songs. This test also shows how poor communication skills can hinder performance of a team or group. They describe this as the curse of knowledge and compare the tappers and listeners as a CEO and Frontline employees. These two groups have to communicate with each other but there is an imbalance of information. What makes sense to one person might seem pointless and boring to another because the second person lacks the information to understand the problem. The authors state that the six principles are your best weapon to defeat the curse of knowledge. 

            The second test was conducted by an Israeli research team in 1999. They assembled a group of random people and separated them into three smaller groups. Their job was to create ads for three products: shampoo, a diet-food item, and a sneaker. The ads would be tested by consumers. The first group was given background information on the products, the second group wa trained for two hours by an experienced creativity instructor, and the third group was given both the information and the training. Obviously the third group’s ads tested the most positive but the first group’s ads were tested the least positive. This test showed that the best group knows information but more importantly, they are trained and have experience. In the first case analysis the group was both experienced and creative, that is why they were very successful.