If you’ve ever been fit for prescription glasses, you’ve no doubt had the experience of the eye exam where the doctor flips between different lens strengths and asks “Is this better or worse than before?” It’s basically A/B testing.
This came to mind after reading a research paper authored by Dan Gilbert and Jane Ebert  and listening to Gilbert’s TED Talk, “The surprising science of happiness.” The key bit, as described by Gilbert:
Let me first show you an experimental paradigm that’s used to demonstrate the synthesis of happiness among regular old folks. This isn’t mine, it’s a 50-year-old paradigm called the “free choice paradigm.” It’s very simple. You bring in, say, six objects, and you ask a subject to rank them from the most to the least liked. In this case, because this experiment uses them, these are Monet prints. Everybody ranks these Monet prints from the one they like the most to the one they like the least. Now we give you a choice: “We happen to have some extra prints in the closet. We’re going to give you one as your prize to take home. We happen to have number three and number four,” we tell the subject. This is a bit of a difficult choice, because neither one is preferred strongly to the other, but naturally, people tend to pick number three, because they liked it a little better than number four.
Sometime later — it could be 15 minutes, it could be 15 days — the same stimuli are put before the subject, and the subject is asked to re-rank the stimuli. “Tell us how much you like them now.”
The result was that their previous #3 was ranked as #2 and their previous #4 was ranked as #5. This reflects what Gilbert calls “synthetic happiness.” Having been denied their #1 and #2 choices, experiment participants was forced to “settle” for a lesser choice. However, having made the choice they increased they preference for the lesser choice and thereby synthesized happiness with that choice. Just as interesting, the previous #4 choice was pushed further down the scale as if to put some distance between the previous #3 choice. In effect, distinguishing the decision to take home #3 as clearly the better choice.
All this gave me an idea for something to try with a team I’ve working with that needed to rehabilitate their team identity into something healthier. Typically, teams sour on the idea of going through an exercise like this. The team I was working with was no exception. They likened it to defining team goals – a largely tedious and uninspiring chore.
I wanted to know if I could present two possible team identity statements – A/B style – of which one would be clearly undesirable and another more in line with what I suspect the team may be comfortable. The A/B presentation would keep this simple (presenting a selection of six team identity statements as in the experiment with pictures described by Gilbert would be a non-starter.)
Offering a choice should compel them to chose one over the other. I’m counting on their brains to do what brains do. When faced with a choice, they make one. If I were to present them with a single identity statement and ask “How would you like to change this to be more in line with the identity you want?”, I’ve every confidence the room would be filled with silence.
The very first presentation had a blank page on the left and my intentionally lame and inaccurate team goal on the right.
The team was well aware “no goal” wasn’t an option and wouldn’t reflect well on their performance review with HR and management. My theory was that when faced with an empty goal and one that was inaccurate, they’d suggest something, however minimal, that was an improvement on the initial goal. This is what happened and the team then spent a few minutes tuning the goal into something a little less cringe-worthy. This began the process of converting the goal from the scrum master’s goal to the team’s goal.
Then I deliberately let a week or more pass.
On next presentation, the goal on the left was the goal they chose and tuned previously. The second choice was similar but contained one or two slight modifications intended to move the team’s identity in a more positive and healthy direction. Over the course of several months I tested – A/B/Eye Exam style – numerous team goals. “Which goal do you prefer, the one on the right or the one on the left?”
So we had a start. From here on out it was just a matter of improvement. Keying off of things the team said or did, I’d modify the “accepted” goal and present it as an option at the next opportunity.
The key or driver in this approach, the hypothesis goes, is to set it up so that the team makes the decisions rather than having something foist upon them. The are virtually guaranteed to reject or strongly resist the latter. With the former, they have ownership in the decision. To reject their decision is to say, in essence, that they made a bad or wrong choice, a bad or wrong decision. In general, people don’t like to admit such a thing so they stick with a decision – for better or worse – if it’s a decision they made and are responsible for.
Another important element in play with this approach is the anchoring cognitive bias, particularly early on. People are much more comfortable making comparisons between things than they are with coming up with something original. By presenting a blank goal and one that reflects a direction in which I want the team to move – from nothing to something positive – the hypothesis is that the team will assimilate toward more positive goals and that this assimilation will become self-reinforcing over time.
 D. T. Gilbert, J. E. J. Ebert (2002) Decisions and Revisions: The Affective Forecasting of Changeable Outcomes
, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 4, 503–514
Photo credit: Max Pixel