Sample Awareness Hack

The Details:
I have a friend—let’s call him Morty. Morty is charming, intelligent, and annoying. He is charming because of his sense of humor, intelligent because he is knowledgeable about diverse topics, and annoying because he compares himself to anyone he can find. We all compare ourselves to others, of course. But Morty is fixated on comparing his accomplishments to other people’s. Morty does fine by established standards (he has a 3.8 college GPA), but he prefers to evaluate his own accomplishments against those of friends, relatives, and coworkers. He gets miffed when other people accomplish anything, even have babies, get married, or celebrate anniversaries—events he considers predictable and mundane. In other words, Morty’s not a lot of fun to be friends with on social media.

We all engage in comparison, but Morty’s method—comparing his performance to other people’s—is only one way to do it. Some of us compare ourselves to our own set of guidelines and set goals by besting our own past performance, as I did when I started running. People in this category are content if they are better, faster, or accomplish more than last time. Others use societal benchmarks, or “standards,” to set performance targets. These standards include things like speed limits, passing rates, or company- or team-determined goals. The Anchor Hack helps you figure out the benchmarks being used for comparisons. When you know the comparison benchmark, you are in a much better position to roll out appropriate Action Hacks to accomplish your performance goals or help others reach theirs.

Why it works:
​Points of comparison—“anchors”—set boundaries for people’s goals and behaviors, and knowing which anchor a person uses helps determine how to change undesirable behaviors. For example, people may compare themselves to others if standards are not clear and explicit enough, or they may do it to justify their own behavior, or they might want to boost their egos by finding someone else inferior—three very different motivations for the same comparison anchor. What matters most is detecting the type of comparison, because comparison methods align with specific goal attainment strategies. As you might have surmised, comparing ourselves with others often doesn’t produce the same level of competence as comparing ourselves to a defined standard.

Social comparisons can motivate improvement, but only one type: upward comparisons. Comparing yourself to someone you perceive as superior can prompt you to improve your own performance (always play tennis against someone better than you, if you want to improve). Downward comparisons generally just make you feel better about your current state, rather than motivating you to improve; these comparisons are used by people who lack confidence or self-esteem and who worry about what others think of them. Downward comparison feels good; when we think others are inferior to us, our brains produce the feel-good neurotransmitter dopamine, enhancing our perception of well-being. It’s best to avoid making social comparisons yourself. Either type of social comparison—upward or downward—can have bad effects: if you come up short in the comparison, your self-esteem plummets, and your motivation drops like a stone. This can short-circuit your attempts to set challenging goals or attempt difficult tasks that others successfully pull off (like getting a high-paying job or earning a college degree). It may heighten your fear of failure. Social comparison can produce apathy and lack of effort—after all, you can’t look bad in comparison to others if you don’t do anything. No action, no show, no ego blow.

Application:
The Anchor Hack is especially important for managers, teachers, and parents, because people who use social comparison as their anchor must be managed differently than people using past performance or standards anchors. Social comparers fear falling short, and they may need extra incentives to act assertively or to try new things. Since social comparison influences self-perception, when social comparers come up short (in reality or in their imaginations), they experience anxiety, ruminate over their “inadequacies,” and think less clearly as a result. To counteract their worrying, work with the person to set clear, measurable goals that are achievable with reasonable sustained effort.

The Anchor Hack is also useful in organizational contexts. Like individuals, some companies deliberately choose to stay out of the limelight; they don’t want to be seen as industry leaders. These types of companies compare themselves to other successful firms. While there are no psychological or motivational consequences for companies that use this strategy, the tactic can limit the growth and innovation of the individuals who make up the organization. Workers may see little value in being creative when success means imitating competitors. For example, many academic institutions take a reactive position, only making changes when they look bad compared to “peer institutions.” This reactionary approach fosters complacency; people in the organization lose their sense of initiative, not acting unless they are explicitly told to by higher-ups. This reactionary approach is one reason why both academic and corporate organizations don’t always thrive. The organization sometimes doesn’t realize it should change its benchmarks until it is too late to recover from organizational apathy.