Subscribe via Email
Preface: This continues the previous post, How to Reduce Stress at Work through Conscious Use of Self: Oprah Winfrey, Jennifer Hudson, and the Blizzard, Part 1, in which I described how Oprah Winfrey coped with an nerve-wracking incident at work. Superstar Jennifer Hudson was unexpectedly late for a scheduled taping of the Oprah Winfrey show, throwing off the entire day’s schedule. The unfolding events were shown in “Episode 116” of Season 25, the highly acclaimed reality show.
Employee motivation is a recurrent problem creating stress at work for managers, employees, and just about everyone who works with people. In this post, Professor Jeffrey Ford, an expert on personal leadership effectiveness, succinctly describes how to delegate a task to ensure clarity and increase motivation.
As an added bonus, readers of Reframing Change will recognize that these are a great set of questions for testing assumptions about expectations – whether you are the delegator of the task or the person to whom the task is assigned.
I am grateful to Professor Ford for giving me permission to reproduce this gem of a post.
Get Better Results from Other People
By Jeffrey Ford, on January 27th, 2011
One of the persistent questions I get from people in my classes and training sessions is “What can I do to motivate people to give me work that is complete, accurate, and on time? I am tired of the excuses.” Fair question, though I think it is misdirected. It attributes the problem to their motivation rather than to the quality of the request and promise being made.
If you want to improve the quality and timeliness of what you get back from people, then start making good requests and getting good promises. By good requests and promises, I mean ones in which both parties are clear they are in a performance conversation for giving their word and are awake to what they are committing each other to. All too frequently, people make “drive by requests” and “drive by promises” – ones that are made on the run or while doing something else and where at least one party is not completely present to what they are promising. The result is that what gets delivered is not always accurate, complete, or timely. Making good requests and getting good promises are integral to personal leadership effectiveness.
A good promise is one that is made in response to a good request, and here is how you make a good request:
Step 1:
Request what you want, by when you want it, and explain why it matters.
Step 2:
Get answers to each of the following questions:
1. Do you have any questions about what I want, when I want it, or why?
2. Are you available to do this? Do you see when you could do the work? Are you aware of anything that could keep you from completing it on time?
3. Do you have some ideas as to how this might be done? [This is particularly important when requesting something they haven’t done before.]
4. Do you have the necessary information and resources or do you know where to get them? [This can change over the duration of a project as things that were not known become known – one reason why you would want to schedule progress reports.]
5. Are you accepting my request?
When you get answers that leave you confident the work will be completed accurately, completely, and on time, you have a “good” promise. If you are not confident, explore the answers that give you concern until you are confident. It is better to withdraw a request you are not confident will be completed than to “hope” it will get done.
Peter Bergmann suggests that the secret to ensuring follow through is to create and use a checklist when making each request. Using a checklist (see Bergmann’s checklist) as a matter of policy increases the likelihood of making good requests, increases consistency (which builds trust), and makes the interaction easier.
Reproduced with permission of Jeffrey Ford, Professor of Management in the Max M. Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University, and author of The Four Conversations, www.professorford.com
When you see the phrase “motivators at work”, what do you think? Most people may think of things like pay or time off from work. These are external motivators. Others may think of personal characteristics such as work ethic or drive for success. These are internal motivators.
In previous posts, I described the lessons in integrity, self-regulation, and deferred gratification that Morgan, my seven-year-old granddaughter, is learning. She is developing these internal motivators through her participation in National Lemonade Day, a national event designed to teach children entrepreneurial skills and help them develop positive character traits.
Preface: Martin Prouix, President of Pyxis and an organizational coach, posted this article on his blog, Analytical-Mind.com, this past fall. I thought Martin’s thoughts on team performance were worth sharing.
Jean
Many people are confused about what term is appropriate to use when referring to different others. I provided examples of this in Part 1 of this series on bridging cultural differences. This topic is a hornet’s nest because a term that is appropriate in one context may be inappropriate in another. Choosing the right word can be a daunting task for who wish to avoid offending others and are horrified at thought of being judged.
This recently happened to Oprah Winfrey. For her 25th and last season on network television, Oprah arranged for behind the scenes taping of how each show was produced the entire season. The tapes are now part of a new series, appropriately called Season 25, on her recently launched network, OWN — or the Oprah Winfrey Network.
Episode 103 of Season 25 provided a behind the scenes look of an incident that happened during the taping of an interview with Terry McMillan, author of How Stella Got Her Groove Back, and Jonathan Plummer, her ex-husband who had announced that he was gay after 6 years of marriage to McMillan.
During the taping, Oprah made this comment to Plummer:
“What’s interesting if I may say this and I mean this only in the best way and obviously I have a lot of gay friends and don’t mean any offense — you seem gayer than you were [during a previous interview].”
After the taping, Lisa Halliday, Oprah’s head of public relations called Oprah to tell her that she thought that the comment would offend gay people. The discussion afterward provided a vivid illustration of what can happen when someone with the best of intentions is accused of making an offensive comment.
Clipping Path copyright PaltoUsed under license from Shutterstock.com
As might be expected, Oprah at first was incredulous that her motives would have been mistaken:
“Everybody knows I am very gay-friendly…. My intention was not to be inappropriate. My intention was to say you have obviously come out and come out in a very big way and now you are feeling your ability to be your authentic self.”
Halliday persisted, “I just say that it’s a very naïve statement, that’s all.”
Clearly still stunned, Oprah then asked her producer to find some gay staffers to solicit their opinion.
Three gay people came into her office, one after another. To each, Oprah asked a variation of the same question: “Was the comment offensive and should it be struck from the tape?” In explaining her rationale for asking them, she commented, “I have my own opinions about things, but when other people weigh in strongly, I’m willing to listen and do a gut check on it.”
What was striking about the ensuing discussion was that most of the staffers appeared to feel free to express their opinion even though Oprah was their boss. Although their nonverbal behavior toward her was deferential, two of the three gay staffers stood firm in their position that her comment indeed had been offensive. I was also struck with how light and friendly the conversation remained, even though it was obviously quite serious. They laughed and joked throughout the discussion, a sign that they had had similar conversations before. One staff member even humorously demonstrated how he had done a double-take when he heard the comment.
When Oprah asked him to explain why her statement had been offensive, he responded:
“It implies that gay is an action and not who you are as a human being. You’re born black, you’re born gay. To allude that our action determines your sexuality is offensive. For someone who is battling his sexuality, I can see it would affect him and some of your viewers who are in his same position.”
As most people would do in her shoes, Oprah repeatedly defended herself by explaining that she had the best of intentions with her remark. The staff responded by reassuring her that they knew this:
“I know that you didn’t mean anything offensive about it.”
“People know your heart and spirit and your intention is not to offend them.”
Once Oprah accepted that her statement had been offensive to some no matter her intentions, the next question was whether the comment should be deleted from the tape. After more back and forth, she thanked the staff and the discussion ended.
In explaining her final decision about whether to keep or omit that comment from the viewing, Oprah said:
“I ended up allowing myself to be censured on that comment because I am not gay and I don’t understand fully what it means to be in that position. So I think, well, gay people will know better than I. And the gay people in the building said ‘you’re wrong, so I was wrong.”
Multicolored plasticine hands on a white background copyright MaleWitchUsed under license from Shutterstock.com
The clip has now been posted on her website. Viewer comments about her decision illustrate how challenging are such situations:
“I say we all need to lighten up a bit. It was funny. Stop being hyper sensitive.”
“I thought that word “gayer” when she said it, was funny. People shouldn’t be offended by it, just because of the way she said it. It was obvious she meant no harm there…..geeeeez!!!”
“The comment was offensive because it reduces being gay to one specific expression of “gayness” (an effeminate man) as if gayness could be reduced to its stereotypes.”
“That was a good call… because Great moments often catch us unaware—beautifully wrapped in what others may consider a small one. People may not remember exactly what you did or what you said, but they will always remember how you made them feel.”
Here is what was so remarkable about the outcome:
If you want to know more about testing assumptions, see Reframing Change, Chapter 2. For more about distinguishing intent from impact, see Chapter 5, “Bridging Differences,” pages 131-132.
Preface: Workplace Undercover will be a recurring segment of this blog, featuring a workplace scenario and a response by a guest consultant. The scenario below was written by Eillen Bui, our research associate. Mary Harlan of Harlan Consulting is guest consultant for this scenario.
———————————————————————————————————-
The scenario: Carina was recently promoted from Operator Technician to Engineer after working at TLC Co. for 15 years. To Carina, this promotion was bittersweet. She knew that she deserved this position, but felt it should have happened long ago. She was already doing everything the Engineer’s job description entailed years ago and was very experienced. The only thing was that she never earned a degree in engineering; everything she knew, she learned from working at the company.
Tom, the engineer she worked under, would assign Carina his tasks and then would take credit for her work. He even received a raise because of all the work that he was supposedly putting out. Carina would work in the background, believing she never received the credit she deserved.
Carina had many reasons for not wanting to bring up the situation to the partners of the company. She felt that as a female, she would never be considered for the position since only males held that title in her company. She also feared that she would be perceived as a weak, emotional female that would complain whenever she felt a “perceived injustice”.
As a first generation Filipino American, Carina was not as fluent in the American language as she wanted to be. She felt that if she brought up the subject, she would not be able to communicate her point to the partners effectively and that Tom would take that opportunity and discount her.
Carina would fume in the background, thinking that the partners surely knew she was the one who was doing all the work and was just turning a blind eye since Tom had seniority and was a white male, just like them!
The day after receiving her promotion, Carina began wondering whether she could now tell the partners how she had suffered in silence all these years, now she had had more of a voice in the company. She suspected what had happened to her was happening to another woman in the company and she thought the partners should know what was going on in their own company. Also, she just couldn’t bear to stay silent any longer.
But would she hurt her career by speaking up? And if she did tell them how she felt, what should she say and how should she say it?
———————————————————————————————————-
Today’s Response by Mary Harlan:
Carina, first of all, congratulations on a well deserved promotion! Yours is a difficult and complicated situation. It’s difficult because you must weigh the immediate emotional release you expect to get by speaking up against the longer term potential for backlash if do you speak up. Both options, particularly the potential for backlash are somewhat laden with assumptions. Consider the possibility that you could find a way to share your experience and your perspective in a way that provides insight rather than accuses.
Your situation is complicated because part of it is emotional (the accumulated years of hurt, betrayal, and resentment) and part of it relates to what you experience as fair or just in your work setting.
I would encourage you to work through your emotional charge on this before you do anything. A first step you might take is clearing your emotions to the point that you can sincerely appreciate where people are in the organization and how they have possibly and unconsciously acted out of their cultural conditioning – the way things have always been done in their organization . This could release you from having an emotionally driven agenda with your decision.
Once you have cleared your emotions, if you decide to say nothing, you will be okay your decision. If you decide to speak up, you will be able to do so with clarity of purpose. This clarity will increase the likelihood that your speaking up provides insight and has a positive outcome for others…and decrease the odds that you are perceived as a “weak, emotional female that would complain whenever you felt a perceived injustice”.
When (and if) you share your experience, two points are important to keep in mind:
Both of these points can be positive for the other person to hear. Hearing that you don’t think they intend to be hurtful can mitigate the reaction that they could have of feeling falsely accused.
Hearing that you’re aware of your perspective can support their openness to understand much more personally and poignantly how their behaviors impact people in the organization and ultimately performance.
Can you imagine sharing with them your experience in such a way that they thank you and ask you to further share with them your experience and perception? This is the possibility available with cultural understanding, accountability (not blame) for our own history, and forgiveness (both for yourself and others).
———————————————————————————————————-
Mary Harlan, President of Harlan Consulting, is a consultant and coach, specializing in change management, cultural competence, diversity, leadership, and teams. For more information, see www.harlanconsulting.com. Mary is also a practitioner with Leading Consciously.
Preface: Workplace Undercover is a recurring segment of this blog, featuring a workplace scenario and a response by a guest consultant. This scenario was written by Carole Marmell. Jennifer Joyce, cofounder of LeadershipSmarts responds. This is the third of a three-part segment.
———————————————————————————————————————
Part III – Support for Bank’s Feedback System
In Part I of this Workplace UnderCover scenario, Molly, a bank employee, received harsh criticism instead of the supportive feedback she had expected during her yearly performance appraisal. In Part II, Jennifer Joyce, a leadership development coach and consultant, described three steps that Molly might take. In this segment, Jennifer discusses the bank’s role in supporting Molly and her supervisor in giving and receiving more effective feedback.
Jennifer Joyce continues:
As noted at the very beginning of the case study, there is room for Molly’s supervisor and the bank administration to do a better job of providing quality feedback. There are two steps I would recommend they take:
1) Ensure regular and timely feedback
2) Provide training on effective feedback
Ensure Regular and Timely Feedback
The bank’s policy of providing formal performance appraisals after every project as well as yearly appraisals is a great start. When an organization waits until the end of the year to provide evaluation information, they run the risk of losing out on better performance for the entire year. What’s more, the employees stay in the dark for long periods of time without really knowing how they are doing.
The policy of including more people in the appraisal of any one person is also positive in that it promotes more objective opinions than one person can provide.
However, there appears to be an effectiveness gap in the feedback that Molly received from her previous and her current supervisor. That is evidenced by the shock Molly experienced when she received critical feedback from her new supervisor. It’s also curious that Molly feels that the new supervisor is a better communicator than her previous supervisor.
If I were consulting for the bank, I would want to explore what is behind those two concerns. Was the previous supervisor holding the formal appraisal sessions as policy states? How do they know? Is it documented?
Effective Feedback
If the appraisals were regularly held, the next area to explore is the quality of the feedback. The issues listed in the first paragraph suggest that the bank managers and staff don’t have the necessary skill to do a good job in providing meaningful feedback.
If the skill gap proves to be fairly universal for the staff, I would recommend training on how to provide effective feedback in performance evaluations and how to receive feedback for the most positive results.
There are many good points from Chapter 4 in Reframing Change that would be part of that workshop. They include providing feedback that:
Summary
Having the skill to provide truly useful feedback that builds relationships and inspires positive change takes focus and practice. In my experience, it is the most powerful tool an organization has. Frequent quality feedback ensures a culture that recognizes and fixes problems quickly, keeps employees free from the tension of repressed feelings, and keeps communication flowing.
In my work as a leadership consultant, I often think to myself, “If I can just get these folks to talk to each other, my work here is done.”
References: Reframing Change, Building Effective Relationships, Chapter 4
———————————————————————————————————————
Jennifer Joyce, cofounder of LeadershipSmarts.com, is a leadership development consultant and coach. She specializes in diversity, continuous quality Improvement, team effectiveness, change leadership, strategic planning, meeting design and facilitation, leadership development and executive coaching. For more information, see www.leadershipsmarts.com
Carole Marmell, LMSW-IPR, C-SWHC, is a hospice social worker.
Preface: Workplace Undercover is a recurring segment of this blog, featuring a workplace scenario and a response by a guest consultant. This scenario was written by Carole Marmell. Jennifer Joyce, cofounder of LeadershipSmarts, responds. This is the second of a three-part segment.
———————————————————————————————————————
In the previous post, Molly, a young bank employee, had expected supportive feedback from her manager during her yearly performance appraisal. Instead her manager strongly criticized her and accused her of acting arrogant and believing she is smarter than everyone else. What can Molly do?
Jennifer Joyce responds:
In this scenario, it may be easy to find problems with how Molly’s supervisor and the appraisal committee are providing feedback. The feedback doesn’t appear to have a strengths-based approach or include positive feedback. It is entirely negative. The information is not specific and is full of judgment (“arrogant”) and assumptions (Molly thinks she’s smarter than us). And it sounds as though there may be issues around Molly receiving the direction and guidance she needs to do a good job on unfamiliar tasks. Finally, Molly is blind-sided by the information as she is expecting a glowing evaluation.
Nonetheless, making a case for “poor Molly” would take Molly down the path to powerlessness. Handled well, the situation could prove to be a gold mine for developing interpersonal skills, building more trusting relationships, and gaining new self-awareness about blind spots that have been undermining her success at work. To turn this situation into a positive career win, Molly should focus on three things: engage in self-management, “be in the question,” and “uncollapse” the issues of personal effectiveness from quality of work.
Any of us could easily be knocked off our center when receiving critical feedback, especially when we’re not expecting it. Molly doesn’t appear to be too emotionally triggered, so she has a good chance of managing herself well during the interaction. Nonetheless, she is struggling with how to explain her side of things without sounding defensive and questioning her own sense of reality and belief in herself.
During the discussion, Molly needs to have two main goals: to stay calm and to stay curious. That could be difficult if, like most of us, her natural inclination is to defend herself.
Molly needs to buy a little time to center herself and access her self-management skills. To release her stress, she might want to take a few deep breaths, relax back in her chair, and review the points that her supervisor brought up.
It’s always a good idea to take notes in a feedback discussion, as this will help catch the most important points for review later. In addition, reviewing her notes in the meeting would help Molly buy a little time to think through how best to respond.
Like many of us, Molly may feel pulled to “be in the answer,” which means she will stick with her own assessment of the situation that makes Molly right and others wrong.
But if Molly uses that strategy she loses on many counts. First, she will damage her relationships and her reputation as people will not only see her as arrogant, but also as unwilling to take feedback and make necessary changes. More importantly, she will miss the gift that feedback could provide: the chance to see things about herself that others see and she doesn’t. Without that outside-in view, she could continue to go through life not getting the results she wants and never understanding why.
The way through this dilemma is for Molly to “be in the question,” which means setting aside assumptions in order to become curious about everything that is happening. “What is it that causes people to see me as arrogant?” “What behaviors could they describe to give me a clue about how they experience me?” “Could they give me an example of a negative appraisal I made that seems out of line?” These questions would help her supervisor provide more specific quality feedback.
Molly could act as her own personal anthropologist trying to understand the world through other’s eyes. If she can stay “in the question,” she will jump start new levels of self-awareness that could lead to tremendous personal growth. She may be able to begin changing assumptions and behaviors that are undermining her effectiveness and begin an upward spiral in her professional development.
Molly’s biggest concern is that that her team might consider her work substandard. That would be awful for Molly as she takes great pride in producing high-quality work. It’s an important value of hers.
However, if Molly reviewed her notes, she would realize that her supervisor said nothing about the quality of her work. Rather, the feedback is about the quality of her interpersonal effectiveness. She needs to address the two issues separately: first the interpersonal effectiveness issue, and then the work quality issue.
If she was able to be “in the question” when she received that feedback, she is well on her way to addressing the first issue of interpersonal effectiveness.
But that still leaves Molly worried about perceptions about her work performance. Now that she understands the interpersonal issues, she can ask her supervisor to give her feedback on the quality of her work.
Again, she must stay in the question so she can truly hear what her supervisor has to say. She can use the same skills and ask for specific examples to help her understand the feedback, which may be quite good. She can help her supervisor uncollapse the issues by asking “Now that I understand the concerns regarding my interpersonal effectiveness, could we spend a few minutes reviewing the quality of my work?”
Summary. Here are three steps Molly might take:
But what about the bank’s role? How might the bank as an organization support Molly and her supervisor in giving and receiving more effective feedback? This will be discussed in the next post.
References: Reframing Change, Building Effective Relationships, Chapter 4
———————————————————————————————————————
Jennifer Joyce, cofounder of LeadershipSmarts.com, is a leadership development consultant and coach. She specializes in diversity, continuous quality Improvement, team effectiveness, change leadership, strategic planning, meeting design and facilitation, leadership development and executive coaching. For more information, see www.leadershipsmarts.com
Carole Marmell, LMSW-IPR, C-SWHC, is a hospice social worker.
Preface: Workplace Undercover is a recurring segment of this blog, featuring a workplace scenario and a response by a guest consultant. The scenario below was written by Carole Marmell. Jennifer Joyce, cofounder of LeadershipSmarts responds. This is the first of a three-part segment.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
Molly is a 30-year-old bank employee. The bank has a very structured environment, with formal performance appraisals after every project as well as every year. The appraisals go both ways, for supervisors as well as line staff. All appraisals are done by committees consisting of supervisors and line staff. In addition, the supervisors have procedures for providing coaching and feedback to all line staff to help them advance step by step.
In practice, Molly feels she does not receive appropriate coaching and feedback from her immediate supervisor and project manager. She feels that they assume she knows more than she really does, simply because she is so good at figuring things out for herself.
Molly is fairly confident of her approaching yearly appraisal. When her supervisor decides to provide an advance heads-up, Molly believes she will receive supportive feedback for her hard work. Instead it is barely mentioned. She feels her supervisor is telling her she is not conforming to expectations that she didn’t know existed.
“The perception around here,” says the supervisor, “is that you are a bit arrogant and feel you are smarter than everyone else. Your appraisals of others are more negative than we expect, and we worry this is an indication that you are not able to work well with others.”
Molly is not upset with her supervisor; she is actually relieved to hear this feedback before going in front of the whole committee. For that matter, she feels that this supervisor, who is new, is much better at communicating than the previous one. However, she now worries whether her work is considered substandard, rather than high-quality as she assumed. She has totally lost confidence in her own judgment.
What can Molly do now?
============================================================================
Jennifer Joyce responds:
In this scenario, it may be easy to find problems with how Molly’s supervisor and the appraisal committee are providing feedback. The feedback doesn’t appear to have a strengths-based approach or include positive feedback. It is entirely negative. The information is not specific and full of judgment (arrogance) and assumptions (Molly thinks she’s smarter than us). And it sounds like there may be issues around Molly receiving the direction and guidance she needs to do a good job on tasks with which she is not familiar. Finally, Molly is blind-sided by the information as she is expecting a glowing evaluation.
Nonetheless, making a case for “poor Molly” would take Molly down the path to powerlessness. Handled well, the situation could prove to be a gold mine for developing interpersonal skills, building more trusting relationships, and gaining new self-awareness about blind spots that have been undermining her success at work. In order to turn this situation into a positive career win, Molly should focus on three things: Self-management, “be in the question,” and “uncollapse” the issues of personal effectiveness from quality of work.
[to be continued in the next post]
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
Jennifer Joyce, cofounder of LeadershipSmarts.com, is a leadership development consultant and coach. She specializes in diversity, continuous quality Improvement, team effectiveness, change leadership, strategic planning, meeting design and facilitation, leadership development and executive coaching. For more information, see www.leadershipsmarts.com
Carole Marmell, LMSW-IPR, C-SWHC, is a hospice social worker.
In the last few months, I have gotten into friendly debates with others about whether it is appropriate for local school boards to ban candy and soda from their public schools in light of the alarming increase in childhood obesity.
A recent Rasmussen Reports public poll shows how controversial an issue this is. Results indicated that 52% of the public favors the ban and 40% oppose it. This is a case in leading consciously.
On the one hand are the advocates of personal responsibility. They contend that instead of banning candy and soda from school vending machines, schools and parents should teach children proper nutrition.
On the other hand are those who emphasize changing systems, not just individuals. These advocates base their opinions on a growing body of behavioral science research on how we as human make choices. The evidence is emerging that our environment influences our behavior more than most people imagine.
All of this was brought to mind when I discovered a wonderful website that succinctly summarizes research studies about how heavily influenced we are by subconscious thoughts and the environment in which we live and work.
The website includes a publication entitled MINDSPACE, an acronym for influences on our behavior. Quoting directly from the website:
In short, most of our day-to-day behavior is influenced by what feels good in the moment, what others are doing around us, and the habits we have formed. Our habits are made by strong neural connections in our brains from one thought to the next. The stronger the neural links, the more automatic the behavior.
With regard to fatty foods, though, there is even more to it than bad habits. Recent research has found that our body has fat receptors that respond to how much fat we take in. Once our body gets used to having a certain level of fat, reducing the fat intake causes the body to crave more fat.
To illustrate how difficult it is for children to resist sugary snacks and soft drinks, one university nutrition researcher showed a photo of children sitting in a snack room at a table surrounded by huge vending machines filled with soft drinks and junk foods.
Let’s enter the subconscious mind of Little Johnny, age 10, sitting around a table with his friends in the school’s snack room layered by vending machines along the walls. Using, the MINDSCAPE acronym, what influences Johnny’s decision to either buy soda and candy from the vending machines or to eat the homemade muffin and orange juice his mother packed for him in his lunchbox?
Most people I know highly value their right to choose. Yet MINDSCAPE reminds us that as human beings, we are prone to mindless behavior — to take the path of least resistance. As a friend of mine likes to say, the advertising industry is betting trillions of dollars that we make choices based on environmental influences whether we believe it’s true or not.
It’s hard to override our subconscious mind if we are unaware of what influences our behavior. When we become aware, we are prepared to lead consciously — to intentionally choose among alternatives so that the choices really are our own.
Even if Johnny’s school enacts bans on soft drinks and soda within school boundaries, he and his parents still have the responsibility to make sure that he chooses his foods wisely. Yet to break mindless habits, it helps to set up the environment so that desired behavior may occur with less effort.
If anyone offers an example, we can analyze it through the MINDSCAPE lens.
