Another example of framing and reframing that comes to mind, and that we've talked about, is the strength based approaches to organizations. A strength based approach to an organization involves thinking about what's working well, where people feel energized and engaged. As opposed to often the traditional way we've thought of entering an organization as a consultant or as an observer. Where we've often been told or admonished to come in and ask where are the problems, what's going wrong? Where are the dead bodies buried? >> [LAUGH] >> I've been in a lot of those meetings. >> Yes. >> The strength-based approaches really reframe how we look at organizations, to come in looking for their strengths rather than their deficits. This research has come out of the work by David Cooperrider at Case Western Reserve, and we encourage you to look at it. We found it very, very useful. And as we think about research, Rommia, you and I, or all four of us really, have been talking about Tversky and Kahneman's research. And some of the work they've done on framing and reframing. >> Yes, absolutely, thank you for bringing that up. So let's talk a little bit about the work of Tversky and Kahneman. They are renowned psychologists and they conducted extensive research on how can we frame decisions and how people choose. So according to them, it's often possible to frame a problem in more than one way. So very much like, Daniel, your analogy of people looking through different lenses on their camera. So they explored this framing effect in a hypothetical life and death situation in 1981. Participants in the study were asked to choose between different programs to combat the outbreak of a deadly disease which could affect 600 lives. So the choice was presented to them either with a positive framing, of how many people will live, or with negative framing, how many people will die. It may not surprise you that 72% of these participants chose the program that was presented to them with positive framing. And, however, only 22% of the participants chose the same program when this was presented to them with negative framing. So both the problems were identical. Interesting, isn't it? So why the difference between the 72% and 22%? The difference was in the outcomes that were described as either saving lives in a positive frame versus the number of lives lost. >> That is so interesting. But we don't really feel it until we experience it. So I think it's time that we get you out of the seat, and we will ourselves get out there, and take on a brief experiential exercise. The time that you will give this exercise is 15 minutes. You will don four roles or take on four frames, and those are, I hope you're making a note of it. First, an innovative architect. Looking at where you are, might be at work place, might be in the neighborhood, might be at a park, or a museum, or your favorite place. So take the frame of an innovative architect, or a health and safety expert. How safe is this place? Or someone in a wheel chair, a disabled person in a wheel chair. How easy is it to navigate? And the last one, which is the favorite and I think we're going to fight over who does that, is the five-year-old kid. Now, what you have to do is walk around your environment, taking two of the four roles that we just mentioned. So you can compare and contrast how framing influences the way we experience an environment and we're going to do the same. If possible, take a colleague around, take a friend along and compare how the same roles, if both of you, for instance, choose to take on health and safety expert, both of you will still arrive at very different experiences. How does that sound to all of us? >> So do two of the four? >> Two of the four, yes. >> Okay. >> So two of the four, take someone along if possible. and 15 minutes, make a lot of notes, because we will be making a lot of notes. And then we'll come back and we'll compare and see where we get.