Max Mednik
  • Home
  • About
  • Interests
    • Angel investing
    • Magic
    • Scuba Diving
  • Blog
  • Contact

Readings and musings

Teams, Randomness, and Murder Mysteries: First MBA Learnings

9/10/2010

7 Comments

 
Picture
I feel a bit like Borat as I write the title of this post -- reminds me too much of "Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan." Except in this case, it's not just cultural learnings, and it's not just Kazakhstan that's benefiting.

The "America" that I dived into this week is called business school orientation at UCLA Anderson. It's been a lot of fun, and I've really enjoyed meeting my classmates and taking part in all of the activities so far.

The experiences have been pretty varied, including classwork and games/experiential activities. I'm looking forward to even more non-traditional learning experiences next week as we play even more games and do an obstacle course (yes, of course this is critical for becoming a true professional!).

At the same time on my own, I've been reading Nassim Taleb's first book (before Black Swan) called Fooled by Randomness. I've been pleasantly surprised to have already learned something substantial and non-intuitive from my orientation experiences which ties in with my independent reading as well.

My main "light bulb moment" learning experience was during the murder mystery. Yes, we had a murder mystery to solve on our second day of business school. It was presented like a normal business school "case" (written by Stanford Graduate School of Business), except instead of a business situation, it presented the facts and testimonies of different suspects of a murder mystery. Our task was to solve it, and we were allowed to work in teams.

My team, like almost all the others, formed by just combining the people sitting around the same area (who were all assigned seats randomly anyways). We read the case, discussed it, and picked the wrong answer. Nice way to fail the first assignment, huh?

Except that this failure probably taught me more than if we had succeeded.

What we later learned is that not every person received the same case handout and mystery facts. In fact, different versions with extra information were spread out around the room, so getting input from people around the room would've helped solve the crime better.

In addition, our team's conversation started with a vote of who each of us thought did it, then a discussion of the merits of each person's case, and then finally a team compromise or decision on who we would convict. We started with the goal of conviction, discussed the evidence that most of us had in common in our cases rather than diving deeply into analyzing some details of the evidence, and came out with little new information than when we started. This proved to be a pretty ineffective way to go in hindsight.

I learned many things from this exercise. First, studies have shown that most teams end up forming by physical proximity, personal similarity, and other criteria of convenience. This ends up putting people together who already share a lot in common. This makes it easy to work together but lousy to create new ideas or have intense breakthroughs or changes in any one person's opinion.

The best teams are often the most diverse, bringing people together from different backgrounds and ideally dissenting intellectual opinions so as to foster critical, deep analysis rather than simply agreeing or glossing over things that each person assumes all the others know or agree with.

The second thing I learned was that in teams, the most discussed knowledge is common knowledge. People like talking about things they understand and know and compare new data to that. They tend to have a "confirmation bias" in incorporating new data that makes it a lot more difficult to take in a fact that refutes an established theory than one that simply supports what they already know. Unfortunately, this makes it a lot harder to actually be creative and sometimes leads to fatal mistakes, like the NASA Columbia disaster, blamed in part on this type of "groupthink."

It turns out that teams that welcome dissenting and minority opinions and environments where even smaller or non-traditional viewpoints are thoroughly discussed and fleshed out produce better outcomes. Having someone play devil's advocate sincerely or actively considering multiple options before deciding on a plan of action will make it a lot less likely to ignore important details. For example, in the murder mystery, if someone had extra information about the stolen wallet and asked a question like, "What about the wallet?," many teams would respond by saying, "Yeah, so what?," thereby making it awkward to discuss something that is actually not common knowledge but which is made to seem like common knowledge. Instead of making assumptions or jumping to conclusions on what's redundant or already known, each team member's thoughts should be fully heard out and considered for what they could potentially change or refute in the team's current thinking.

Also, we would statistically have been better off if we worked in an evidence-based manner (rather than verdict-based). Instead of first starting with a vote and seeing how close we were to our "mission" of reaching consensus, we could've ignored our own initial anchoring positions and simply delved into the evidence directly and discussed it as a group. This would prevent anyone from having to go back on what they proposed earlier or worry about saving face. This sort of advice goes well for juries that are deciding a final verdict based on evidence.

This discussion of being evidence-based and looking for clues that refute existing theories reminded me a lot of my reading in Fooled by Randomness. I'm only halfway through the book, but the first half has been stressing the difference between pseudo-science/finance/economics/"theories" that can never be proven because they speak about something fundamentally untestable or about the future versus true science and theories that can easily be refuted/shown wrong. For example, "All swans are white" can be refuted by the existence of one black swan, but seeing thousands of white swans does not really help in "proving" the initial statement. If teams can come up with hypotheses together that can be tested against evidence and challenged/shown wrong, then the team can make decisions in a manner that's rational and eventually more effective.

This was exactly the approach shown by the "correct answer" of the case: analyzing each character's evidence in turn and seeing what pieces of evidence could "acquit" a particular character's "guilty" verdict. The character who could not be acquitted by any evidence was the one chosen as the guilty party.

I'm looking forward to many more fun and deeply educational experiences in the coming weeks.
7 Comments
Jesse
9/10/2010 05:19:14 pm

Good recap of this past week Max. Look forward to going through this program with you over the next two years.

Reply
Max
9/11/2010 04:16:29 am

Thanks! Same here.

Reply
Matt
9/12/2010 03:12:59 pm

nice post max. it was an awesome week that seemed to go by in a whirlwind! glad to be in the same class as you!

Reply
Max
9/12/2010 11:02:32 pm

Thanks!

Reply
GM
9/13/2010 01:45:04 pm

great thinking, thnx

Reply
Gadget
9/14/2010 06:20:30 pm

Hi Max,

Interesting post, thanks. I will be joining UCLA Anderson on an MBA exchange from South Africa in the Winter and will follow your blog with interest. I find it more insightful to get information from people doing the real work (i.e. students) rather from magazines and/or MBA books.

Reply
Max
9/15/2010 01:19:53 am

Thanks, GM and Gadget.

Gadget, I look forward to meeting you in the Winter. I was in J-burg and Cape Town a couple years ago and loved it; I look forward to hearing your stories.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    November 2023
    August 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    January 2022
    October 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    April 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010

    Categories

    All
    Angel Investing
    Cacti
    Cars
    China
    Community Service
    Culture
    Design
    Djing
    Dogs
    Education
    Entertainment
    Entrepreneurship
    Family
    Finance
    Food
    Google
    Happiness
    Incentives
    Investment Banking
    Judaism
    Law
    Lighting
    Magic
    Marketing
    Medicine
    Networking
    Nolabound
    Philosophy
    Professionalism
    Psychology
    Reading
    Real Estate
    Religion
    Romance
    Sales
    Science
    Shangri-La
    Social Entrepreneurship
    Social Media
    Sports
    Teams
    Technology
    Travel
    Turtles
    Ucla
    Venture Capital
    Web Services
    Weddings
    Zen

    Subscribe

    RSS Feed

Picture
Picture
  • Home
  • About
  • Interests
    • Angel investing
    • Magic
    • Scuba Diving
  • Blog
  • Contact