This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
Sheena Iyengar This Columbia Business School professor has revolution-


ized how we think about choice by askingone question: Is more always better?


BY BARBARA PALMER


You could say that Sheena Iyengar,who teaches leadershipandglobalization at Columbia Business


School, was born to think about choice. Iyengar, who presented a PCMA Masters Series session on


“The Art of Choosing,” is the daughter of parents who emi- grated from India. As a Sikh-American growing up first in Queens and then in New Jersey, Iyengar’s dual identity meant “that I was constantly going back and forth between two very different cultures,” she said. “At home I was a Sikh, and that is a pretty fundamentalist religious faith—there were lots of rules. On the other hand, I went to an American school, which was all abouthowyou should view everythingthe way you think best. And I constantly had to deal with the conflict of who had the right ideas about choice.” Iyengar’s research into choice also began early, while she was


an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania—although Iyengar says she didn’t realize shewas studying choice at the time. While taking a course withpsychologistMartin Seligman, Iyengar looked atwhethermembers of fundamentalist religious faiths— who had fewer choices—would be more prone to depression. “I found that the oppositewas true,” she said. At Stanford University, where Iyengar earned a Ph.D. in social psychology, she conducted an experiment that’s become so famous that she often hears it quoted back to her—by people who have no clue that it was her original research. In the “Jam Study,” Iyengar found that grocery-store shoppers who were offered a coupon for one of six different jams were more likely to buy a jar than if they were offered a coupon good for one of 17 jams. When Iyengar applied the research model to invest- ment plans, she discovered “the 401(k) effect”: Givingpeople more choices actually makes them save less. “People are more attracted to a lot of choice,” Iyengar said,


“but when it comes to makinga choice, they are more likely to [do so] if they have fewer options [rather] than more.” Since then, Iyengar has become a leading expert on choice by


continuing to challenge an assumption that runs through the history of economics, philosophy, psychology, management, and a host of other disciplines: that choice is always a good thing. Convene recently spoke with Iyengar about how her research applies to topics includingculture, adversity, and conference design.


66 pcma convene February 2011


Did it seem to you that choice was a wide-open field when you started looking at it? Well, what was interestingabout choice is that, in some ways, it has been very heavily studied if you think about political lead- ers like Thomas Jefferson, or philosophers like [John] Locke or [Jean-Jacques] Rousseau. Certainly, there has been a long- standing dialogue about choice that started in the Enlightenment period.We also had a longstanding dialogue about choice in economics withAdamSmith. In psychology, you had a dialogue about choice that came out of judgment and decision-making, as well as out of basic theories onhumanmotivation. The com- mon thread, though, that ran across all of these ideas, was that choice was always good and that more of it was always better. And what I did, really, was ask the question of whether there


were times when choice was not good. Or even more dramatic: That not having a choice was better than havinga choice. And then the second question was: Are there times when we are better off when we have less choice than when we have more?


What other things do people think they know about choice that turn out not to be so clear-cut? I’d say that what people fail to recognize is that choice has its limitations. It is not the solution to all problems. And then, if I were to turn that around and not be so negative and turn that into a lesson, I would say that one of the things that we fail to recognize is that to get the most out of choice, you have to be choosy about choosing.


Do you mean about what kinds of things we choose, or how we make choices, or both of those things? I mean both.


Your studies on cultural differences around the perceptions about choice between Americans, Asians, and Indians have also gotten a lot of attention. To motivate an American employee, you give them more and more choice. But that same increase in choice could actually be viewed in a very negative way by employees in Japan or China, who might actually construe being given a lot of choice by their boss as the boss saying, “Look, I do notknowwhat Iamdoing.”


www.pcma.org


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108