Tim Osborn’s Blog

The Facade Design Pattern provides an interface that simplifies access to a more complex (or in some cases poorly designed) API or subsystem. One of the motivations for use is to reduce the communication and dependencies between subsystems. Recently I was reflecting on how this pattern is frequently applied not only to software interfaces, but human interactions as well.

Visit the grocery store, stop by the bank, pass a colleague in the hall, answer a telemarketer’s call (thank heaven for caller ID), or just about anything that involves verbal communication, and the most common opening inquiry is, “How are you?”And without one iota of actual research I’m confident the most frequent response (at least in America) is, “Fine.” A completely meaningless and context-free response whose sole purpose is to simplify (and/or minimize) communication, and move it to the next state. (Can you imagine someone following that response with “Oh really, tell me more”?) It is, as I call it, the “Fine Facade Pattern”.

There’s nothing wrong with this pattern. It provides a solution to a commonly occurring problem of how to open the communication channel with another person, in a way that is safe, effective, and low cost. But perhaps there’s another way. Last year, over an early breakfast on the Microsoft campus, Julian, Miguel  and I agreed to the following experiment: for the next seven days we would respond to the question, “How are you?” not with the Fine Facade Pattern, but with our intended state. Not necessarily how we were, but with how we wanted to be. So for the next week each of us sincerely replied, “Great!” and observed the results. The following week we met again and shared the following observations:

• People were often caught off guard (highly conditioned to the Fine Facade), but the majority actually gave a genuine smile after a short delay, seemingly brightened by the response
• Conversations tended to be more upbeat, focused on what was right, not wrong
• Our memories of our interactions evoked positive emotions as we shared our experiences
• A tiny sample seemed offended, as if we had no right to be so positive in the midst of their own dire emotional state

It’s not that we transformed into a trio of Pollyannas, viewing our actual circumstances outside the lens of any reality filter. And we recognized that overuse could diminish the effects and render it equivalent to the Fine Facade. But we liked the results (even those that were offended, as we knew who to take off our “eagles” lists). And we decided that if our facade was not going to represent the actual complexity of our subsystems, why should we always be only fine, when we could instead choose to be great?

Three people working together. A plate of five cookies available on the break. Social norms dictate that no one take the last (fifth) cookie, but what about the fourth?

Such was the inquiry of the “cookie experiment” reported by Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson (2000). Groups of individuals were placed into teams of three, with two responsible for creating a social policy paper and one randomly assigned to evaluate the output.  After  30 minutes, “the experimenter arrived with a plate of five cookies. This allowed each participant to take one cookie, and at least one participant to comfortably take a second cookie, thus leaving one cookie on the plate.” No one was expected to take the fifth cookie and no one did. But what about the fourth, the one that could be taken without awkwardness, or negotiation? The results of the study showed that the “boss” (the evaluator) was clearly more likely to take a second cookie.  (Videotapes of the interactions also showed them more likely to eat with their mouths open and scattering crumbs widely.) The conclusion is that individuals in power are more “disinhibited” and prone to focus on their own needs to the exclusion of others.

The authors proceed to identify some candidate behaviors that are more “prosocial” in nature, with less focus on self and more on others. One of those, expressing approval,  led me to think about ways in which to improve and be more effective in this area.

1. Take the time to point out areas of positive contribution of employees. Don’t assume they “just know” they are appreciated.
2. Be specific, demonstrating authentic knowledge of the contribution. (In large organizations you often see congratulatory emails work their way up the chain to increasing levels of abstraction until you see a final reply all of the nature, “I want to thank each and every one of you for your efforts in this endeavor.” Not exactly Hoosiers-like inspiration.)
3. Give them some insight as to how this benefits the company, especially beyond the obvious. Ideally everyone has the vision of how what they are doing benefits the company. Ideally.
4. Resist the temptation to temper it with some constructive criticism, as if their performance might degrade due to the poor aerodynamic properties of an engorged head. Authentic (and rigorous) feedback about improvement areas is vital, but it does not have to permeate every conversation. Share five large positive things and one minor area of criticism with someone and what will he remember? Just the one negative thing. Save it for another conversation.
5. Don’t fish for return compliments. It should be more sincere than simply a bartered transaction at an accolade flea market.

Simple things requiring little investment, yet with potentially high returns in terms of motivation. And who knows, if you do it enough you might start to notice there’s a few less crumbs on your shirt at the end of the day. 

“I have yet to find the man, however exalted his station, who did not do better work and put forth greater effort under a spirit of approval than under a spirit of criticism.” – Charles Schwab