M. david consulting

The term “drinking from the firehose” is a metaphor explaining the experience of being presented with an overwhelming amount of new information while simultaneously attempting to understand, remember, and apply it. The phrase may even carry with it a note of pride and toughness, a badge of honor for those who successfully implement their new knowledge and abilities. The approach that it represents is also self-defeating.

In business, the perception of stakeholder demands and the requirement of profit can lead to distraction and emotional distress that overrides effective learning and retention. The reason that rapid learning under pressure is espoused by certain organizations (including the Department of Defense) may be based upon the principle of similarity. Soldiers (and executives) who learn under pressure will hopefully be able to carry that experience forward when presented with genuine events that are life and death (for humans or a corporation). Sadly, this assumption is unsound; evidence from decades of study about learning shows that a high-speed, high-stress environment combined with information overload often results in decreased retention and information processing.

Understanding the fatal flaw in rapid learning under pressure requires delving into several aspects of human cognition.

The first of these is the theory of effort justification. This theory explains the human tendency to place greater positive value on an outcome or experience which had higher difficulty or suffering attached to it. The more you struggle to achieve something, the more likely you are to think the experience was positive and the achievement worthwhile. When people who have to “drink from the firehose” complete their training, they will often forget the difficult parts and create a narrative about how the struggle was worth it. This glossing over effect can also lead to a distortion of performance during the time of struggle.

The second aspect relates to habits. When humans act on habit, they are accessing memories and knowledge about what has worked previously and what feels comfortable or known. The mental short cuts we make about self, world, and others sort through a massive amount of data and parse it into actionable pieces. These shortcuts and frameworks (called heuristics and schemas) allow humans to make quick decisions when uncertain, anxious, or just overloaded. This makes it more likely that someone who is presented with too much information too quickly will sort the information according to what they already believe and understand, rather than meaningfully integrating it and building new insights.

The third aspect relates to brain anatomy and cognition. When humans are under threat, older and more instinctual parts of the brain take over. Your amygdala is your internal threat detector and it will override the parts of your brain where rational thinking and planning occur. Unfortunately, the amygdala cannot distinguish between physical threats (e.g., bears and ninjas) and cognitive or emotional ones (e.g., “I don’t understand! What if I fall behind? What if I fail?”). When a threat is detected and distress arises, the amygdala is more likely to respond and short circuit the logical processing of information. When the amygdala is activated, the part of the brain where long-term memories are stored, the hippocampus, is also disrupted. If you are trying to retain facts, make plans, or think logically about the future, you will be at a severe disadvantage.

These principles show that organizations that pride themselves on the idea of being high speed or full of grit can misapply techniques of learning with the belief that it will improve outcomes. Research on how humans learn best shows that there is almost always a better way- allowing learners time to process, reducing information overload, and managing learning pace are keys to success. The next time you hear a business pitch about rapid learning and strong solutions, take a minute to think it through, rather than getting all wet.

When an organization sends out a survey on employee happiness, the results of the survey won’t help improve morale or company culture. I’m not calling out companies who are trying their best to make things better; happiness is just the wrong focus for change.

In Western culture (and more specifically the USA) happiness has been placed on a pedestal. It has been made into the earned result of a journey or difficult period. That isn’t accurate and the mythos surrounding it makes the suffering we feel as humans worse.

In business, satisfaction and productivity have been linked for decades; historically, companies that report higher levels of employee satisfaction show a correlation with higher productivity. Now, happiness has been placed firmly in the mix of sought-after remedies for diminishing returns. News articles that describe how to be happier at work can be easily found with a few clicks. There are happiness consultants. Do your employees score an average of 4/5 on a happiness questionnaire? Culture is great, productivity should be too.

Unfortunately, this misunderstanding of human emotion continues to progress the mistaken idea of happiness as a desired state of being.

In “The Happiness Trap,” Dr. Russ Harris (2008) lays out the contradiction of seeking happiness. He states, “The common meaning of [happiness] is ‘feeling good.’ We all enjoy these feelings, so it’s no surprise that we chase them. However, like all human emotions, feelings of happiness don’t last…in fact, the harder we chase after pleasurable feelings, the more likely we are to suffer from anxiety and depression” (p. 5).

Paradoxically, chasing happiness leads to more sorrow. Measuring how happy an employee is at any given moment may have nothing to do with their work, their productivity, their engagement, or even their life satisfaction. Dedicating time and resources to happiness is a waste for everyone involved.[1]

A Better Alternative

Rather than measuring something that will change moment-to-moment, start asking your employees about what they find truly, deeply meaningful. When an employee starts to talk about how they want to be and what they want to stand for, critical information is being presented.  These are their values. “Values” has a complicated context in the business world. The values that are being referenced here aren’t something that marketing develops and legal verifies; these are deeply held beliefs that provide the ultimate motivation for individual humans. When a person tells you how they wish to be and act upon the world, they are providing their framework for living a meaningful life. Progressive, dynamic organizations will understand this information and use it to build unique teams, rather than shoehorning talent into predetermined positions.

[1] This post certainly isn’t the first critique of happiness as a poor measure of work performance. I highly recommend reading Dr. Christiaan Verwijs’ article critiquing the inadequate psychometrics of happiness scales here.