WEBVTT - Everybody likes to finish

0:00:03.000 --> 0:00:09.360
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Before Breakfast, a production of iHeartRadio. Good Morning.

0:00:10.760 --> 0:00:16.480
<v Speaker 1>This is Laura. Welcome to the Before Breakfast podcast. Today's

0:00:16.480 --> 0:00:21.680
<v Speaker 1>tip is that everybody likes to finish. We all like

0:00:21.760 --> 0:00:26.000
<v Speaker 1>to complete our tasks and achieve our goals. You can

0:00:26.079 --> 0:00:29.760
<v Speaker 1>leverage this appeal to boost your own productivity, and if

0:00:29.800 --> 0:00:35.159
<v Speaker 1>you're a manager, your team members as well. In a

0:00:35.200 --> 0:00:38.960
<v Speaker 1>recent article in the Harvard Business Review, Islet Fischbach and

0:00:39.000 --> 0:00:42.400
<v Speaker 1>Annabel Roberts wrote about a research finding that seems to

0:00:42.440 --> 0:00:47.400
<v Speaker 1>contradict economic theory. People, it seems, would rather pay or

0:00:47.440 --> 0:00:51.000
<v Speaker 1>be paid sooner, even when it is in their financial

0:00:51.000 --> 0:00:55.120
<v Speaker 1>interest to delay. For instance, lots of people want to

0:00:55.160 --> 0:00:58.320
<v Speaker 1>pay off their mortgage as soon as they can, even

0:00:58.360 --> 0:01:01.800
<v Speaker 1>if they would be better off financially making the contracted

0:01:01.840 --> 0:01:06.160
<v Speaker 1>payments and investing what's left over in the stock market.

0:01:07.160 --> 0:01:09.560
<v Speaker 1>In research that the authors did, they found that many

0:01:09.640 --> 0:01:13.479
<v Speaker 1>people would rather pay more for a service sooner rather

0:01:13.520 --> 0:01:17.480
<v Speaker 1>than pay a little less in the future, given the

0:01:17.520 --> 0:01:21.000
<v Speaker 1>time cost of money. This doesn't really make sense, but

0:01:21.040 --> 0:01:24.000
<v Speaker 1>the authors attribute it to what they call the promise

0:01:24.560 --> 0:01:28.760
<v Speaker 1>of relief. As they put it, people often prefer to

0:01:28.840 --> 0:01:34.440
<v Speaker 1>incur larger costs sooner and receive smaller benefits earlier when

0:01:34.480 --> 0:01:37.840
<v Speaker 1>doing so allows them to achieve a sense of completion.

0:01:39.120 --> 0:01:41.480
<v Speaker 1>They say this is especially true when a task or

0:01:41.520 --> 0:01:44.760
<v Speaker 1>payment is the last one to complete a goal, and

0:01:44.800 --> 0:01:47.520
<v Speaker 1>when people believe the unfinished task will hang over their

0:01:47.520 --> 0:01:51.440
<v Speaker 1>heads until it's done. They say, the psychological benefit of

0:01:51.480 --> 0:01:55.680
<v Speaker 1>closure can outweigh small time or financial gains, leading to

0:01:55.800 --> 0:01:59.320
<v Speaker 1>choices that might seem irrational at first glance but provide

0:01:59.360 --> 0:02:04.120
<v Speaker 1>significant psychological value. And you know what, I get that.

0:02:05.080 --> 0:02:09.960
<v Speaker 1>The truth is that everyone likes to finish. Keeping track

0:02:10.080 --> 0:02:14.400
<v Speaker 1>of undone tasks can be a pain, but there is

0:02:14.440 --> 0:02:18.360
<v Speaker 1>a downside to this desire to close the loop. We

0:02:18.480 --> 0:02:21.880
<v Speaker 1>often focus on easy stuff that we will be able

0:02:21.880 --> 0:02:26.160
<v Speaker 1>to finish, rather than wrestling with harder stuff where the

0:02:26.240 --> 0:02:30.280
<v Speaker 1>payoff is an immediate So Fishback and Roberts have a

0:02:30.280 --> 0:02:34.600
<v Speaker 1>few suggestions for warding off this temptation. One is that

0:02:34.639 --> 0:02:39.480
<v Speaker 1>managers reframe important goals as a series of smaller tasks,

0:02:40.160 --> 0:02:42.880
<v Speaker 1>each of which would grant employees a feeling of closure

0:02:43.000 --> 0:02:47.000
<v Speaker 1>upon completion. They write that way their direct reports won't

0:02:47.000 --> 0:02:50.280
<v Speaker 1>be pulled away by completing easier and quicker tasks like

0:02:50.440 --> 0:02:53.360
<v Speaker 1>deleting all their emails, that may be a little bit

0:02:53.440 --> 0:02:57.040
<v Speaker 1>less important. So, for instance, if you have a direct

0:02:57.040 --> 0:02:59.640
<v Speaker 1>report who is working on hiring a new marketing firm,

0:03:00.520 --> 0:03:03.680
<v Speaker 1>you might reframe that big goal into several smaller tasks.

0:03:04.400 --> 0:03:07.119
<v Speaker 1>Gathering insight from your team about what you're looking for,

0:03:07.880 --> 0:03:13.239
<v Speaker 1>writing a request for proposals, circulating that RFP, reviewing the proposals,

0:03:13.919 --> 0:03:19.880
<v Speaker 1>conducting screening interviews, arranging panel interviews for finalists, collecting evaluations

0:03:19.880 --> 0:03:25.600
<v Speaker 1>from interviewers, checking references, negotiating the contract, and finalizing the

0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:29.079
<v Speaker 1>higher That's a lot of tasks, and all of them

0:03:29.120 --> 0:03:32.320
<v Speaker 1>will be satisfying to complete. If the employee had been

0:03:32.360 --> 0:03:35.360
<v Speaker 1>focused on the big goal of hiring the new marketing firm,

0:03:35.760 --> 0:03:39.000
<v Speaker 1>it might have been harder to maintain focus and easier

0:03:39.040 --> 0:03:42.000
<v Speaker 1>to get pulled away to quick tasks. Much better to

0:03:42.040 --> 0:03:46.680
<v Speaker 1>make the most important goal a little more motivating. I

0:03:46.680 --> 0:03:49.800
<v Speaker 1>think an individual contributor could apply this logic to reframing

0:03:49.880 --> 0:03:53.440
<v Speaker 1>their own tasks too. Your manager doesn't have to do

0:03:53.480 --> 0:03:57.120
<v Speaker 1>it for you. You could consider each of the incremental

0:03:57.160 --> 0:04:00.240
<v Speaker 1>steps in a big project as a goal that will

0:04:00.240 --> 0:04:04.560
<v Speaker 1>be satisfying to finish. You could also identify distinct phases

0:04:04.600 --> 0:04:08.240
<v Speaker 1>in the project you will find yourself excited to finish

0:04:08.280 --> 0:04:13.120
<v Speaker 1>the final task. In each of those phases, there is

0:04:13.160 --> 0:04:18.200
<v Speaker 1>no point lamenting that people are irrational. We are, and

0:04:18.240 --> 0:04:20.360
<v Speaker 1>so we are a lot better off figuring out how

0:04:20.400 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 1>to leverage what we know about human behavior to nudge

0:04:23.960 --> 0:04:26.880
<v Speaker 1>us in the direction we want to go, and in

0:04:26.920 --> 0:04:30.000
<v Speaker 1>this case, that's in the direction of giving ourselves things

0:04:30.000 --> 0:04:36.360
<v Speaker 1>to finish, because finishing feels good in the meantime. This

0:04:36.440 --> 0:04:40.760
<v Speaker 1>is Laura. Thanks for listening, and here's to making the

0:04:40.800 --> 0:04:51.039
<v Speaker 1>most of our time. Thanks for listening to Before Breakfast.

0:04:51.600 --> 0:04:55.320
<v Speaker 1>If you've got questions, ideas, or feedback, you can reach

0:04:55.400 --> 0:05:05.080
<v Speaker 1>me at Laura at Laura vandercam dot com. Before Breakfast

0:05:05.120 --> 0:05:09.360
<v Speaker 1>is a production of iHeartMedia. For more podcasts from iHeartMedia,

0:05:09.440 --> 0:05:13.479
<v Speaker 1>please visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you

0:05:13.520 --> 0:05:14.760
<v Speaker 1>listen to your favorite shows.