😤 Control Freaks 😤

“Of all the miseries of humanity, the bitterest is this: to know so much and to have control over nothing.” -Herodotus

I’ve never loved job interviews.

Perhaps you’ve read my resume of failures and had a hunch.

Or perhaps you are thinking,

“Josh, do you know anyone who loves job interviews?”

Touche.

When I am the interviewee, I’m frustrated by the disconnect between things I can control when preparing for an interview and things I can’t (i.e. whether or not I am offered a job.)

When I am the interviewer, I know that saying that standard job interview questions are an inexact science…is an insult to science.

In each case, I’m frustrated about my lack of control.

We want to believe that hard work leads to an objective, predictable outcome. And even though we pay lip service to the role luck plays in our work, that does not stop us from spending hours upon hours stressing over the things we can control before we enter a process where we can’t.

And yet, a desire for control is a kind of thought process. And while we can’t change our desire to have more control when we really don’t, we can use different language to account for our lack of control.

It’s still doubtful I’ll enjoy job interviews, but it’s still worth reading…

Illusion of Control

In what will surprise none of you, most people think they have more control over events than the numbers suggest.

Ellen Langer calls this gap the “illusion of control,” the title of her 1975 paper where she demonstrates that people possess “an expectancy of a personal success probability inappropriately higher than the objective probability would warrant,” believing that they can beat the odds through specific interventions unique to them even when they cannot.

For example, 44% of Americans believe that they have the tools to become billionaires, in spite of the fact that the total number of billionaires divided by the total human population suggests that a person only has a 0.0000345% chance of becoming a billionaire. While this belief is largely harmless and may even do some good, consider how the illusion of control can have terrible impacts when gambling versus playing the lottery:

1. Lottery: When you buy a Powerball ticket, do you immediately begin spending the money you’re sure you will win? Of course not! People understand that lotteries are the essence of chance. You’ve got little to lose by trying, but should you win, you didn’t do anything to “deserve” the money other than buying a ticket.
2. Poker: However, perhaps you love playing poker. While you understand that these games involve luck, they also involve some degree of skill (otherwise, no one would make a living playing poker.) However, the boundary between “luck” and “skill” in poker is more opaque than in the lottery, leaving gamblers the opportunity to keep throwing good money after bad until their “luck starts to change.”

As a result, while there is evidence that lotteries do have addictive qualities and many prey on lower-income communities, far more people get addicted to gambling than the lottery. A little illusion of control can do serious damage.

Langer argues that “when factors like choice, familiarity, involvement, and competition, which in the past signaled controllability, are introduced into a chance setting, they may still function as discriminative stimuli for control behaviors and induce a skill orientation.” The more a situation involves some factors that are in our control, the more likely we assume that the outcomes should break our way because of the skill we bring to the situation.

Returning to job interviews, as a candidate I can control what I wear, what I say, how much I smile, etc. What I can’t control is the hiring decision. As a result, it becomes easy for job seekers to obsess over many things that they can control that, in truth, probably matter in terms of preparation but should matter less when stressing over why one did not get the job.

But it’s not all bad news. Langer notes increased illusion of control can help people take healthy risks, risks people might not take if they only acted when the odds were in their favor. Unlike gambling, many risks are not harmful, so long as we learn how to calibrate our expectations.

The Signal and the Noise

Perhaps you’ve known about Nate Silver for years, ever since he correctly predicted every state in the electoral college, wrote a data-driven blog ranking burritos, or designed his own wonky baseball statistic, known as PECOTA. The guy has incredible skills.

Personally, I love Silver’s contrarian nature and his willingness to hold talking heads accountable for their terrible takes on politics, sports, etc. Whether in politics, sports, economics, or the weather, Silver wants us to realize that

“Absolutely nothing useful is realized when one person who holds that there is a 0 percent probability of something argues against another person who holds that the probability is 100 percent.”

I’ve lost count of how many debates about the future of the Jewish Community are framed in 0 versus 100 probabilities, and it should surprise no one that almost none of those predictions come true.

Instead, Silver makes the case in The Signal and the Noise that more of our predictions should be informed by something called Bayesian reasoning (BR). You can read more about BY in the footnote, but in essence, BR is a framework where any belief should be treated like a hypothesis, and as we acquire information, this hypothesis can become stronger or weaker. If we take the desire to find the truth seriously, Silver argues that over time, “our beliefs should converge toward one another…as we are presented with more evidence.”

Returning to job interviews, I started thinking about the job application process through the lens of BR several years ago. Let’s say that I am applying for a job and estimate that a potential employer will receive 100 resumes for this position. Here are my odds:

1. Call for Resumes: 100 candidates. My chances: 1%.
2. First Round Interviews: 20 candidates. My chances: 5%.
3. Second Round Interviews: 10 candidates. My chances: 10%.
4. Finalist Interviews: 3 candidates. My chances: 33%.

Remedial math aside, ultimately my job application can be seen through a kind of BR; my chances change as I acquire more information. And rather than get stuck in 0 versus 100 thinking, if I reach the final round of a job I want and someone asks me how I like my chances, I can honestly say my chances are “33%.”

While it may raise eyebrows to speak in those terms, it’s significantly more realistic. As Langer points out, many processes are not in my control, even if I want them to be; in response, I need to change my language around hope and expectations. Nothing changes except my attitude, but attitude can make a huge difference in terms of mental health.

And odds are that is good for all of us.

Everyone Is Kind of Weird

46,336

Employees who participated in a study on employee wellness programs published in the Industrial Relations Journal by William J. Fleming in the Industrial Relations Journal. The results from the study should give us pause.

What I Read This Week

1. Men Explain the Barbie Movie: I recently watched the Barbie movie, and it was as good as advertised. However, I am aware that the movie contains a number of subtleties I cannot fully understand as a man. Liz Plank wrote a powerful piece on how men need to listen to what this movie is saying (and simultaneously resist the temptation to think we fully understand it.)
2. Why You Should Plan to Get Less Done: Adopting David Epstein’s recommendation will take all of my strength, and even then, I suspect I’ll fail. But he makes a strong point.
3. A Tribute to Nick Saban: I have no connection to the Crimson Tide, but I love Nick Saban. His retirement is a big blow, but I hope people learn from him. Roll Tide. And do it again…
4. Elon Musk’s Substance Abuse: Substance abuse is nothing to be ashamed of. However, Elon Musk controls much of our technological infrastructure, and we need to take notice when he acts erratically. The Wall Street Journal did us a tremendous service.
5. Top Global Risks for 2024: I haven’t mentioned Ian Bremmer much, but I love his podcast. This is his firm’s annual report on the greatest risks in the world — the biggest risk: the USA. Gulp…