Why have people lost trust in experts?

By Dr. Richard A. MacKinnon – Insight Director

The CIPD is launching a new initiative exploring the topic of employee voice called “The Future of Voice” and the Future Work Centre is delighted to be participating. As they put it:

“Having a meaningful voice is critical to better work experience and better outcomes of work. However, this will become more challenging as the nature of the employment relationship, and the face of the workforce, become increasingly diverse. The way we think about employee voice is growing more complex with the emergence of new voice channels through technology and social media, and the rise of the gig economy.”

During my recent interview with the CIPD team, I discussed possible reasons why the public have apparently lost faith in ‘experts’. The 2016 Brexit referendum and the US election are recent examples of a public dialogue where facts were sometimes sacrificed, to fit a comfortable or popular narrative.

Experts aren’t always great at making their points in a way the public can understand, while complex arguments and perspectives can’t really be accurately conveyed on social media like Twitter. A lot gets lost in translation and we can see messages and facts being over-simplified.

Watch the video below to see a little more and let us know in the comments what you think about this tension between public opinion, ‘experts’ and facts.

Thanks again to the team at the CIPD for the invitation to participate. We look forward to seeing how this initiative grows throughout the year.

Sell the sizzle, not the evidence-based sausage

We’re delighted to share a guest blog post by David D’Souza, Head of London & Head of Engagement (branches) at the CIPD. In this piece, David explores how to influence an organisation to become more evidence-based. DDS photo

 

Whenever something goes wrong in the workplace there is rarely a shortage of people queueing up to ask why and how we got here. If there’s one thing that the world’s organisations do not look like running short of then, it is people that have wisdom after the event. One of the most important disciplines in work (and outside) is good decision-making. Learning how to make decisions that have the greatest likelihood of being right.

In a world where there is a constant narrative about pace and learning how to cope with ambiguity, it would seem logical to invest more time in making sure our decisions won’t result in wasted time, energy or resources. It makes sense that we should strive to become better at separating signal from noise, fad from productive way forward and it would most sense of all that business leaders, would be rigorous about looking for and championing this skill in their organisations. It would make sense that you could relax, safe in the knowledge that significant organisational decisions had been through an effective evaluation process that looked at the variety and quality of evidence. That often seems not to be the case. We see organisations chasing the next big thing, ploughing resource into ideas that will not realise a return and we see it time and time again. Even the most basic, yet essential, of business tasks – a hiring decision – is often not so much of a structured process, as much as collision of bias, guesswork and luck.

It is easy to steer away from introducing a more evidence-based approach because it can be seen as slower, it requires more thought, and depending on the problem at hand it can require you to be critical of your own previous work, or that of your organisation. To understand what works, you need to be open to more possibilities of what might work and then critically appraise the options, to ensure any solution chosen is likely to be the right one for your clearly articulated problem. In ‘Think Like a Freak’ Levitt & Dubner advise putting away your moral compass whilst you genuinely look at all the possible options, only bringing that compass back in when deciding which option to choose. Whilst not all of us feel comfortable taking an approach that broad, it is certainly true that the range of options people select from is often narrow and too reliant upon their previous experience. Experience counts, but also limits the horizon of our thinking. It seems that in a business world where people are looking for innovation, we still often default to ‘when I was at company X we did this’ where, unfortunately, company X is nothing like our current organisation.

So, if you’d like your organisation to make a shift towards a more evidence-based approach – and the initial response hasn’t been wholly positive – what are some practical ways of going about that?

 

  1. Make people feel they are missing out

Nobody likes being the odd one out. Nobody wants to fall foul of the business world’s most cardinal sin, ‘being behind the curve’. Paint a picture of organisations that use a more evidence-based approach and how well regarded they are. Sell the sizzle, not the evidence-based sausage.

 

  1. Emphasise choice

Nobody likes feeling that they have no choice. Offer a range of options that all sound reasonable and ask for one to be picked – people will appreciate the freedom and feel more ownership for the following actions. Most leaders like to feel they are making decisions – making decisions feels very in tune with what they believe they get paid for. Your goal is to get work done better, not to be seen as the superhero champion of it. In the words of Harry S. Truman “It’s amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit”.

  1. Run a low-cost pilot

If you want to make something easy for someone to say ‘yes’ to, then try and minimise the investment required in terms of time and money. For the next big project ask for just an hour to try something new in terms of critically evaluating the decision and reviewing evidence. It is hard for someone to decline an hour of time invested in improving decision making. If they do decline, then ask for half an hour. That’s twice as hard to turn down.

  1. Pick on established – but non-sensitive failures

The worst and most annoying thing that you could do would be to point at the organisation’s last big failure, the one that still has people’s egos bruised and say ‘my approach would have avoided that’. Nobody likes that – and not only will your approach be unpopular but you probably will be too. Pick on some issues where enough time has passed for there to be emotional distance and where there is a consensus that the wrong approach was taken. Suggest how that situation could be avoided in the future. Everybody likes avoiding future failure, most people like understanding distant failures, nobody likes being reminded of their recent failures.

  1. Pick your advocates with laser like accuracy

Most sensible ideas can gain traction (in most sensible organisations) when some thought and time is given to organisational dynamics and stakeholder management. Plan your approach in terms of winning over advocates and creating a groundswell of approval for the approach. Speak to people before meetings to explain what you’d like to do and ask for support. Make the final approval of a change in approach more of a matter of course rather than a test of fire. When you say ‘I think we should do this’, there should be a corporate choir behind you saying ‘we’ve already spoken to him/her and we agree’.

  1. Focus on acknowledged problems

One of the benefits of an evidence-based approach is that it reduces your chance of solution-eering. Of coming up with things you’d like to do and then retrofitting that solution to a problem. We know that people find this attractive though – and since this article is about how to get an evidence-based approach across the line, I’m going to suggest you utilise that tendency one more time. Pick on commonly acknowledged organisational issues (not enough time, not enough resource, not enough efficiency) and propose that you have the solution.

It’s an evidence-based approach.

Feel free to carry on the conversation with me at @dds180 or d.dsouza@cipd.co.uk

Useful links:

Centre for Evidence Based Management : https://www.cebma.org/faq/evidence-based-management/

CIPD: In Search of the Best Available Evidence https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/strategy/analytics/evidence-based-decision-making

Science for Work: http://scienceforwork.com/

 

 

 

 

No more night time email?

thumbnail_iStock-544449650Legislation passed in France made it into the UK press this month, as it focuses on employees’ use of email outside working hours. The story has been reported in a variety of ways, from horror that employees can ‘ignore’ their email, to broader considerations of how technology is making it increasingly difficult to leave work in the workplace.

Here at the Future Work Centre, we’ve been advocates for revisiting how we use technology in and out of work, but at the same time we’ve warned against one-size-fits-all solutions to the challenge of email. So, we thought it was worth taking a look at this story in more detail.

In summary, the legislation requires firms employing more than 50 people to engage in structured negotiation to agree the terms of email usage outside of normal working hours. We can see that it’s not about ‘banning’ email at night, nor does it apply to all French employees.

Where an agreement isn’t in place, the organisation is still required to clarify their expectations about how and when employees can be contacted by email outside of their agreed working hours. This clarification could represent a very welcome step to clarifying expectations and removing ambiguity on both sides, something we’ve encouraged since the publication of our ‘You’ve got mail!’ report.

Will it work?

A potential positive outcome of this legislation is that employers and employees can get additional clarity on how email can and should be used. This absence of clear norms and expectations has been consistently highlighted in scientific research as one of the downsides of email as a communications tool.

It also has the potential to identify some clear email-free time for employees each evening, giving them the opportunity to relax and step away from work.

Additionally, this legislation doesn’t appear to be a one-size-fits-all regulation, rather the spark for some sensible negotiation and conversation.

On the other hand, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the new law will improve the work–life balance of French employees. It’s a very subjective concept and looks and feels very different for the diverse individuals who make up the workforce. As we’ve pointed out previously, checking your emails at night isn’t necessarily a bad thing, if it’s by choice and a way of fitting work around other important responsibilities in your life.

It remains to be seen what the uptake of negotiations will be and how the agreements will be put in place and monitored over time. And just because you’re not reading your emails at night, it doesn’t mean that they won’t be there to greet you the following morning.

Lots of questions

At this stage – the very early days of these new regulations – we’re left with more questions than answers! For example:

  • Will employees feel confident to take part in these negotiations?
  • Will employers engage positively in the process?
  • Will senior leaders positively role model the agreements?
  • Will it lead to a reduction in email volume?
  • Will employees’ well-being and satisfaction benefit from the changes?

We’ve recorded a special episode of our podcast ‘Evidence Talks’ to briefly discuss this story and we’d welcome your input as we monitor developments over the coming months. Get in touch if you’re directly impacted by this new legislation in France, whether as an employee or employer.

Or, if you’re located elsewhere, tell us if you’d welcome similar legislation in your own country and why.

We look forward to finding out more about how usage of email changes in France (if at all) and of course we’ll share our findings with you here.

Trustworthy scientific evidence for all

By Lorenzo Galli, Founder, ScienceForWork

sfw3Accessing and making sense of scientific evidence isn’t always easy. One organisation has made it made it their mission to make high quality, trustworthy scientific evidence available to everyone. We’re delighted to partner with ScienceForWork, and in this guest blog post, their founder Lorenzo Galli, shares the mission and aims of the organisation.

ScienceForWork is a non-profit association of evidence-based practitioners that want to change the way people make decisions at work.

What’s wrong with the way we make decisions, you ask? Nowadays, we are becoming more aware that basing decisions only on professional experience and best practices can lead to poor outcomes, often with little understanding of why things went wrong. We are all prone to cognitive biases that lead us to misinterpret the world around us, and this makes our professional judgement unreliable when used as the only source of information. On the other hand, we know that when we include high quality data and solid evidence in our decision-making process, we can achieve better outcomes and become more accountable for what we do.

ScienceForWork was born with the purpose of helping practitioners consider more of this kind of information when making important decisions at work. Our contribution is simple: we make high quality and trustworthy scientific evidence available to everyone. For free.

Imagine being able to tap into the results of the best 65 case studies on exactly the topic you are interested in, carried out in 12 different countries and with the highest level of rigour. Imagine being able to do that by reading only an executive summary that explains the overall results in plain English. Too good to be true, right?

Not anymore. We identify the best available evidence on topics that are relevant for your daily practice and we summarise it for you to read in just 5 minutes!

What do we mean when we say “best available evidence”? Not all scientific research is created equal. Because of this, we critically appraise each study’s quality and methodology to evaluate how trustworthy it is, and we assign it a Trustworthiness Score.

The final product is a short, actionable summary that gives you an overview of the topic of your interest, along with practical suggestions on how to make more effective and accountable decisions about it.

The main difference with us is that you know you can trust our findings, because we have done the hard work for you and selected only the most trustworthy pieces of information that pass our rigorous standards. We won’t overstate any finding: in the end, we are not trying to sell you anything. We just want to inform you.

What you’ll read is not our opinion, it’s not anybody’s opinion. It’s data. The best data there is available.

Follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn to make sure to make sure you don’t miss these free insights from the science of people management and organisations. http://scienceforwork.com

 

 

The future of work. Should we not talk about the present first?

By Almuth McDowall

In the first of series of guest blog posts, we’re delighted to share the thoughts of Almuth McDowall, Assistant Dean, Department of Organisational Psychology, Birkbeck University of London, about the many predictions being made about the future of work.

Businessman holding a glass ballMuch is being written and said about the future of work. For many jobs and roles, our working lives are turning out to be more digital, more interconnected and more fluid and flexible than we might have anticipated some years ago. We had a lively debate about this topic at the CIPD’s Future of Work Session at the annual conference and exhibition in Manchester between myself (Almuth McDowall, Birkbeck University of London), Richard MacKinnon, Future Work Centre and David D’Souza from the CIPD.

But are we focusing too much on the future, and not enough on the present? Office of National Statistics Data (ONS) shows that the world of work is changing right here, right now, as part time jobs increase and unskilled jobs decrease. At the same time, it’s a simple fact that professional jobs rely on technology, used to undertake and document our daily tasks and of course for ever present communication. Ofcom research shows that one in three adults has a real need for a ‘tech time out’ and makes conscious efforts to switch off.  This is not because people don’t like using technology, as people report their online lives in general as positive, and experience FOMO (fear of missing out!) when they are not online.

So what are the implications for the workplace, and more widely?  Given the pace of change in the workplace, we need people with excellent problem solving and adaptation skills. It is concerning that the UK school curriculum is moving back to a knowledge focus, rather than preparing pupils for what is expected of them in the workplace. It’s becoming less important what you remember and hold in your head, but more important to know where to find the information and how to piece puzzles together.

This is a compelling reason why we need to educate people in the use of technology right from the word ‘go’. As a mother of three girls in or approaching teenage, I am only too mindful that they no longer know the concept of ‘switching off’.  This is both an enabler, for instance when they do ad hoc research for their homework whilst on a boring car journey, but also a real danger, when conversations on new media take a negative or critical tone which affects them deeply.

But such awareness, training and education needs to continue into the world of work, through all stages of employment. Technology is here to stay, but we need to manage its use, rather than let it manage us. As technology develops and advances at a rapid pace, we need to equip people with the skills to use it wisely, and not let technology rule us. An email is no substitute for a quick team meeting, sending out an update via Yammer does not mean that every intended recipient has actually read it. In other words – there is no app for leadership and people skills.

UK employers need to listen to these challenges, and enlist professional support to get the present and future of work right. Finding out what is working for your employees and workers, and where they struggle is the best good starting point, and then develop strategy and activities accordingly. In other words, it’s all about building and using your own local evidence-base. Are you sure you’ve got it right?

 

 

HR Analytics: Useful insight or data fishing trips?

By Dr Richard MacKinnon, Insight Director

I was delighted to share the Future Work Centre perspective on HR Analytics at this year’s CIPD HR Analytics conference in London earlier this week. My thanks again to the CIPD for the invitation to speak. The day was a game of two halves, with a presentation in the morning with our client from University Hospital of North Midlands NHS Trust and an afternoon session musing on the future of analytics and technology.

In the morning, Kaine Davidson and I outlined the work we’ve done to help his colleagues gain additional insight from their employee opinion survey, taking the analysis from being purely descriptive to reports which delve much deeper into the data, helping to shape data-led action. We’re particularly excited about what the future holds, in terms of bringing together relevant disparate data sets (e.g. performance data) to help provide a joined-up picture of the staff experience.

In the afternoon, I shared our perspective on what the future may hold for HR Analytics and cautioned delegates on the risks of over-zealous data gathering and analysis. Technology provides organisations with a plethora of data sources (e.g. how frequently we use our email, where we physically are in a building, how much physical activity we engage in daily), but without a clear purpose and rationale, there’s a risk that this data gathering will turn into a bit of a fishing trip.

This comes back to two key points I’ve made consistently at conferences and workshops over the last two years:

  • Firstly, before taking action, we really need clarity on the problem we’re trying to solve. In the absence of this, we risk taking unhelpful action, buying into fads or myths and causing disruption and needless costs.
  • Secondly, just because we can measure something, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we should. The HR Analytics movement sometimes emphasizes looking for meaning in large data set. There is a risk that organisations will find statistical relationships between variables that lead to uncomfortable decisions and very real ethical challenges. With a clear focus on problem formulation, we’ll be clearer on the data we actually need to examine and avoid the tendency to go fishing for ‘interesting’ information.

On a final note, I suggested to my audience that all HR Analytics really represents is the appliance of the scientific method. Formulating a hypothesis, gathering and analyzing relevant data and taking appropriate action on the results.

Contemporary technology allows us to gather and analyse workplace data faster and easier than ever. This shouldn’t encourage us to sidestep the need to consider what we’re trying to do in the first place.

Predicting the future of work

By Dr Richard MacKinnon

Introduction

Businessman holding a glass ballI was delighted to be invited to speak at this year’s CIPD Annual Conference in Manchester, taking part in two panel discussions about the future of work and technology’s role in that future. In fact, the topic was a popular one at the conference and it got me thinking about how useful it is to have an eye on the future. That’s not surprising, as looking to the future allows us to look beyond today’s problems and limitations and imagine a new world. That’s exciting, right?

Actually, quite a bit of the discussion on both panel discussions focused on the downside of future technology, including the risks of excluding less skilled employees and the various unintended consequences arising from increased automation. Examples ranged from unmanned military drones through to supermarket scanning devices.

As a practitioner who emphasises the benefits of an evidence-based perspective when it comes to the world of work, I find myself strangely attracted to futurology and predictions about how the technology of tomorrow will change our lives. Such predictions often paint an exciting future, where technology solves our problems, leaving us to enjoy more leisure time.

And yet, I also find myself arguing that we really should be quite sceptical where it comes to predictions about the future workplace, for some very good reasons:

  1. We’re not very good at predictions

Consider the predictions made in the various popular science TV shows in the 1980’s. They were exciting, presenting compelling visions of a highly automated future, based on the fledgling technology they had access to. As I look around me in 2016, few if any of the predictions about how we would be living are lives have come to pass. At the same time, most of us carry around super-computers in our pockets and frequently use cheap or free video-conferencing to speak to colleagues on the other side of the world. Some of this technology would seem magical to our ancestors. But we use it daily without a thought. The speed of technological advancement and its adoption are so difficult to predict, is it worthwhile making such predictions in the first place? Given our past predictions have been so off the mark, who’s to say predictions made today will be any better? They might be better viewed as entertainment, rather than as the basis for organisational planning.

  1. We haven’t learnt many lessons from the past

The science of psychology has been making the same points about employee wellbeing for a few decades now and they’ve yet to be fully addressed across most workplaces. We know so much about the limitations of human performance under a variety of workplace conditions, we know so much about personality and we know what leads to unwanted pressure and stress. Even so, we continue to deploy new technology in the workplace that flies in the face of this evidence, leading to all kinds of unintended consequences. If you consider how email has morphed from a valuable communication tool to a frequent source of stress, conflict and anxiety, are you really so keen on introducing yet another replacement that promises to solve all its problems?

  1. The ‘fads and fashions’ trap

The future, by its very nature, represents opportunities to do new things, in new ways and with new technology. This novelty can be seductive and allow us to believe that we must prepare for these inevitable changes with new products, processes and beliefs. Suppliers of these products and services will be only too happy to meet these needs! And thus, we fall victim to organisational fads and fashions which can be incredibly costly and disruptive.

  1. Simple answers to complex problems

When we over-generalise (“Millennials”, anyone?) we can lose sight of the complexity of a problem. If you imagine the workplace of the future, are you picturing an office? Or an operating theatre? Or the street. Or the battlefront. The workplace takes many forms, yet predictions tend to be strangely uniform. New technology may solve a problem, but may only for some people, in some roles, in some organisational contexts.

So what’s the alternative?

From an evidence-based, scientific perspective, I’d recommend bearing the following in mind when thinking about technology and the future of work:

If someone is making predictions about the future workplace with certainty, challenge them to provide you with the evidence that underpins their thinking. Especially if their predictions relate to their product or service!

From a top-down perspective in your organisation, consider what you can and will do to make the introduction of new technology easier and justified by a rounded business case; one that includes the impact on employees alongside predicted productivity gains and cost reduction. From a bottom-up perspective, consider how technology will impact and be used by individual employees. Consider also who the winners and losers will be when the technology is introduced and how you can minimise the latter.

Ask yourself whether, just because the technology exists, should it be introduced now? Or ever? And if you think technology is going to be beneficial, make sure you have clarity on the problems you think it’s going to solve. Much technology is frankly a solution in search of a problem.
Consider the unintended consequences of introducing new technology to your workplace. I’m not a luddite, but new technology represents change and the impact of change can take time to manifest. Think beyond the point of implementation, and consider the impact on individuals, interpersonal relationships, the organisation and its place in society.

Join our team

Retro black hand pointing finger
We’re looking for a new member of the team, to help us achieve our mission to improve the quality and experience of work. This exciting new role is primarily focused on generating new business and growing our portfolio of clients. But as a key member of our team, you’ll also have an important voice in helping us shape the future of our business – contributing to and influencing how we can best help organisations, how we support and educate professionals, and what research we do and share.

To find out more about the role, please read the job description.

Common decision-making errors

Walking direction on asphalt.

In our last blog post, ‘Think like a Scientist!’, we outlined the benefits of adopting a sceptical approach to challenge myths, fads and fashions at work. Now we’re exploring some of the most common decision-making traps we all fall in to, along with some suggestions for how to avoid them.

Here’s the bad news: we don’t always make good decisions! We frequently rely on gut feel, choosing options we personally prefer or rely on faulty logic. And whilst we don’t set out to make poor decisions, it’s a function of how our brains operate, along with what else is going on in our environment. Every one of us has ‘cognitive biases’ which impact how we process information and make decisions, some of which we summarise below:

 We fail to deal with ‘information overload’?

Every day we’re bombarded with new information and making sense of it all can be challenging. To help process all this data and information we rely on mental short-cuts and a selective focus. These usually serve us well, so we can give our limited attention to the most important information and activities. However, even with these tricks up our mental sleeve, we can be overwhelmed by information and options. Confirmation bias occurs when we place more emphasis on the information that supports our own views, disregarding contradictory evidence. For example, we might have a very positive opinion of an employee, rating them positively and ignoring their performance issues as ‘occasional slip ups’.

We draw inaccurate conclusions – correlation does not equal causation!

As humans, we like the satisfaction of deriving meaning from information, even if that means we have to creatively fill in some blanks. One example of this is false causation, where we mistakenly believe one thing causes another, when in fact we don’t have any evidence for this – merely that the two things exist together. So, for example if you had data which correlated employee satisfaction with performance, you might be tempted to claim that more satisfied employees perform better. But not necessarily, it could equally be true that employees who receive higher performance ratings report being more satisfied (wouldn’t you?). So beware of claims based on correlational data!

We make decisions under time pressure – doing something, is better than doing nothing. Right?

A common trap that we can fall into when making decisions under pressure is to feel more comfortable taking some form of action over no action at all. Even when we’re unsure what we’re about to do will work. This is (unsurprisingly) called action bias and, as you might imagine, can lead to disruption and wasted time and resources.

How to deal with these biases?

We can improve the quality of our decision-making by:

  • Seeking input from colleagues, especially someone willing to be a ‘devil’s advocate’ who will make you explain your rationale to them.
  • Exploring possible alternative meanings of data, before making up your mind.
  • Pausing before action when decisions are made under time pressure.
  • Questioning whether a decision needs to be made immediately or even at all.
  • Focusing on the problem to be solved, not the selection of options that are immediately obvious.

 

We’ve developed a series of workshops called Pathway, to help you and your team overcome thinking errors and use evidence and data to make more effective decisions. To find out more visit: http://www.futureworkcentre.com/what-we-do/education/pathway-development-programme/ or contact – info@futureworkcentre.com.

Think like a Scientist!

What do we mean by ‘Think like a Scientist!’?P1_scientist_logo

Let’s start by asking you to think of a scientist. Do you picture someone famous you’ve seen on TV? A character from CSI, working in a lab? A medical scientist, researching a cure for a serious illness. Our point is this: there are many kinds of scientists, real and imaginary.

Yet they all have something in common: they use rigorous scientific methods to answer challenging and interesting questions.

And we can be just like them.

Scientists aren’t a breed apart, born with superhuman gifts of intelligence. They’re simply inquisitive and use established scientific methods to get answers interesting and challenging questions.

At the Future Work Centre, we use a scientific approach to explore the world of work and help organisations and individuals make better, more evidence-based decisions.  This means combining a scientific mind-set and a questioning outlook with several other ‘ingredients’ to improve decision-making and challenge misleading claims or organisational myths. We weigh up available evidence and apply it in the context we work in. We challenge simple answers to complex problems and consider the risk of unintended consequences when we take action.

Put simply it means finding out what works, in what way and for whom. We think everyone could benefit from thinking like a scientist more often, especially when faced with difficult decisions.

From thinking critically about the claims made by a supplier about their product or service, through to evaluating the effectiveness of systems and approaches at work, we can use a scientific mindset to help us make better quality decisions and investments.

The limits of human decision-making

Whilst we don’t set out to make poor decisions, a combination of internal factors (e.g. emotions, faulty logic) and external factors (e.g. poor quality information or information overload) can mean we make poor decisions on a surprisingly frequent basis.

We often use a combination of experience, ‘gut feel’ and personal preference when making decisions, which is absolutely fine when selecting from a restaurant menu, but less effective when making important decisions at work.

What about when we’re hiring new staff? Or evaluating someone’s performance to calculate their annual bonus? When we’re making a large organisational investment in new technology or processes? How helpful is gut feel then?

Without considering evidence, without thinking more scientifically, we leave ourselves open to wasting time, money and effort. We remain susceptible to the many fads and fashions that are so prevalent in the workplace, whose impact is disruptive as well as expensive. We miss the opportunity to find out how things work and therefore, how they could be improved.

So here’s our challenge to you: what’s the next important decision you need to make at work where you could think like a scientist? What opportunities do you have to ask for more evidence and weigh it up objectively?

A good starting point is to read our white paper called ‘Think like a Scientist!

If you’d like to know more about how the Future Work Centre can help you and your team think more scientifically, contact us on info@futureworkcentre.com