Not too long ago, I mentioned a strange clause that the rock-n-roll group Van Halen placed in one of their concert tour contracts (see "The way a person does one thing is the way they do everything..."). I came across another contract clause that, at least at first glance, was equally as strange. Apparently, the NBA basketball player, Michael Jordan (hands down, at least in my opinion, the greatest player to ever play the game) inserted a clause into one of his early contracts known as the "love of the game" clause. The clause allowed Michael to play any pick-up basketball game at any time, with anyone, and anywhere.
Think of this way. How many NBA team owners, general managers, and coaches (actually, pick any professional sport, not just basketball) would be content with having their superstar, who they pay millions of dollars to win games and championships, risk an injury by playing a game that doesn't matter? The baseball player, Babe Ruth, famously played baseball games in the offseason in order to make "a little extra money on the side", but this was in the days when professional sports players weren't paid anywhere close to what they are paid now. Most team owners now would never even think to allow their superstars to do that - think of it in terms of risk/benefit ratios. Playing a pick-up game in the offseason has almost no benefit to the team owner, but there is certainly a better-than-average risk that a player will suffer an injury.
Why did Michael Jordan want to have this clause inserted into his contract? The name of the clause says it all - for the "love of the game." Michael Jordan simply loved playing the game of basketball. While there is no question that he benefited tremendously from playing in the NBA, I think it is safe to say that there are few players today that loved the game as much as Michael Jordan did - and I believe that is one of the reasons why he was so great. He loved the game so much that he would practice, practice, practice. There are stories of how he would practice free throws or other shots long into the night after games in the regular season. Michael Jordan's "love of the game" turned into an incredible work ethic that rubbed off on his teammates. There is no question that Jordan was competitive, but regardless of how competitive someone is, there is no way that he or she would spend the amount of time that Jordan spent practicing every facet of his game unless he or she truly loved the game.
Engagement like Michael Jordan's is truly a rare gift. It is hard to find - so when we as leaders find examples of this level of engagement, this "love of the game" in our teams, we need to fully leverage it and celebrate it. Our response to someone with this level of engagement can make all the difference - with the right kind of response, it can become infectious! Embrace the "love of the game."
As the soccer great, Mia Hamm once said to her teammates, "Somewhere behind the athlete you've become and the hours of practice and the coaches who have pushed you is a little girl who fell in love with the game and never looked back...play for her."
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Sunday, June 25, 2017
"Door in the face"
One of my all-time favorite cartoons was the "Calvin and Hobbes" cartoon, by Bill Watterson. The comic ran every day (almost) from November 18, 1985 through December 31, 1995. I never knew that the character "Calvin" was named after the 16th century theologian and philosopher, John Calvin, while his stuffed tiger "Hobbes" (who appeared to come to life whenever Calvin was around) was named after the 17th century philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. All very interesting - but what is the point of showing the cartoon above?
I came across this cartoon one day on Twitter (I "follow" the official "Calvin and Hobbes" Twitter feed). Calvin appears to be using a form of "reverse psychology" here - he asks his mother for permission for two really outrageous (and dangerous) acts that no mother in her right state of mind would ever let a six year-old do. He follows these two outlandish requests with a very simple one - "Can I have a cookie?" If we could read Calvin's mind, he's probably thinking to himself, "If she says 'no' twice, maybe she will say 'yes' just once.").
Calvin is using something here called the "door in the face"technique. The essence of this technique is to get a person to agree to a simple request by first making a much larger request that the person will most likely turn down (the metaphor of "slamming the door in the face" is where this technique gets its name). The classic description of this technique was published in 1975 by Robert Cialdini and his team in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Cialdini divided his study subjects (which, as most psychology studies do, were undergraduate college students) into 3 groups. Group 1 subjects were first asked to volunteer to counsel juvenile delinquents for 2 hours every week for two years. As expected, the majority of subjects in group 1 refused this task. Following this initial request, subjects were asked to chaperone juvenile delinquents on a one-day trip to the local zoo. Group 2 subjects were asked the smaller (zoo) request only. The research team described the initial large request (counseling 2 hours per week for 2 years) to the subjects in Group 3, but they only asked the subjects to agree to the smaller (zoo) request. While only 17% of Group 2 subjects agreed to the request (slightly more, 25% of subjects, agreed to the request in Group 3), almost half of the subjects in Group 1 agreed to the request, consistent with the "door in the face" technique.
Since this initial description, there have been a number of studies demonstrating the "door in the face" technique. There is a slightly similar technique, called the "foot in the door" technique, which we will describe in a future post. I have found a number of books on negotiation that suggest using the "door in the face" technique, albeit under carefully planned and controlled circumstances. Personally, I have never used this technique. Obviously it did not work for Calvin, but I suspect that there will be opportunities in the future where I can try this technique, so consider yourself warned!
Thursday, June 22, 2017
"The first 100..."
This past Sunday, "Leadership Reverie" reached an important (well, important for me, I guess) milestone, the 100th blog posting. I wrote my first blog post on January 2, 2016. I created this blog for two simple reasons. First, I wanted to be able to write more. While I still occasionally have the opportunity to contribute an invited review article or editorial, most of my research articles of late have been primarily written by someone else, with me as a co-author. Second, I wanted a place to be able to collect good articles, stories, and examples of leadership. I have thoroughly enjoyed writing articles to Leadership Reverie! As of today, June 22, 2017, there have been over 8,800 "hits" or pageviews to my blog from around the world. I actually never imagined that anyone would read my blog, other than my family! So to all of you who have at least opened up my blog, thank you for inviting me into your lives, even if just through the medium of the Internet.
I don't really know why we are so enamored with the number "100" in today's society. For example, there was a report a few years ago that the $100 bill was closing in on the $1 bill for the most common currency in circulation. One-hundred is the basis of percentages ("per cent" comes from the Latin, meaning "per hundred"). The number "100" is the sum of the first nine prime numbers (check for yourself - 2 + 3 + 5 +7 + 11 + 13 + 17 + 19 + 23 = 100), the sum of the cubes of the first four integers (1^3 + 2^3 + 3^3 + 4^3 = 100), and the square of the sum of the first four integers (100 = (1 + 2 + 3 +4)^2). I bet that you didn't know that there are 100 prime numbers whose digits are in ascending order (for example, 239 and 2357 are both prime numbers) . The boiling point of water is 100 degrees on the Celsius scale. There are 100 Senators in the United States Senate. There are 100 years in a century. If you want to dial the operator in the United Kingdom, the number is "100." We are absolutely fixated on 100.
In the United States, we (or at least our media) make a very big deal about a President's so-called "first 100 days" in office. But why? According to my favorite online source of information (Wikipedia), the concept of a "Hundred Days" started with the second reign of the French emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte. This so-called "Hundred Days" ("les Cent-Jours") began with Napoleon's return from exile on the island of Elba on March 20, 1815 and lasted until the second restoration of Louis XVIII on July 8, 1815 (technically, 115 days!) after Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo.
Apparently it was President Franklin Roosevelt who made the first real "fuss" about the so-called "first 100 days" in office. In retrospect, there was certainly a lot at stake when FDR took over as President. The country was in the midst of the Great Depression, and FDR had made several promises during his campaign that he would lead the United States back to prosperity. By all accounts, every President since FDR has been measured on how successful his (again, since every President to date has been a male) first 100 days in office have been - usually assessed by the number of laws passed. By this measure, there really is no comparison to FDR! According to a recent article on www.fivethiryeight.com, FDR successfully championed/sponsored/led the passage of 76 bills during the first 100 days of his administration - a mark that has not been touched since (Harry Truman was the second "most successful" at 55 bills). Whether or not "success" should be measured by the number of bills passed is arguable, but nevertheless, FDR's benchmark has been difficult to reproduce. Moreover, I believe that history has judged FDR's Presidency as highly successful.
Which brings me back to my original point - why is there so much emphasis on "the first 100 days"? While writing his Inauguration speech, President-elect John F. Kennedy once complained to one of his aides, "I'm sick and tired of reading how we're planning another 'hundred days' of miracles. Let's put in that this won't all be finished in a hundred days or a thousand." The final version of his speech even included the caveat that JFK Administration would likely fail to meet all of their ambitious goals "even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet." Michael Watkins talked about the "the first 100 days" in a recent Harvard Business Review blog. He apparently surveyed 143 senior executives in Human Resources and found that 87% of those surveyed either agreed with the statement, "Transitions into significant new roles are the most challenging times in the professional lives of managers." More relevant to the present discussion, over 70% agreed with the statement that "Success or failure during the transition period is a strong predictor of overall success or failure in the job." In other words, like it or not, "the first 100 days" matters! During this important transition period, a leader lays out his or her vision and sets the appropriate tone to create the culture to achieve that vision. As Watkins says, "The first hundred days mark is not the end of the story, it's the end of the beginning."
Patrick Ducasse and Tom Lutz, from the Boston Consulting Group, asked 20 current CEO's about their first 100 days in their new position. They had several recommendations and words of wisdom:
1. "Diagnose first, decide second."
2. "Follow your instincts."
3. "Take notes, then prioritize and act."
4. "Understand that as the head person, you have only three topics: people, strategy, and values. Everything else is secondary."
5. "Pick a kitchen cabinet of people you trust and use them for problem solving."
Above all else, Ducasse and Lutz said that the CEO's advised that a strong start was almost essential to long-term success, "A strong report card during the first 100 days can set the tone for the next 1,000."
I don't really know why we are so enamored with the number "100" in today's society. For example, there was a report a few years ago that the $100 bill was closing in on the $1 bill for the most common currency in circulation. One-hundred is the basis of percentages ("per cent" comes from the Latin, meaning "per hundred"). The number "100" is the sum of the first nine prime numbers (check for yourself - 2 + 3 + 5 +7 + 11 + 13 + 17 + 19 + 23 = 100), the sum of the cubes of the first four integers (1^3 + 2^3 + 3^3 + 4^3 = 100), and the square of the sum of the first four integers (100 = (1 + 2 + 3 +4)^2). I bet that you didn't know that there are 100 prime numbers whose digits are in ascending order (for example, 239 and 2357 are both prime numbers) . The boiling point of water is 100 degrees on the Celsius scale. There are 100 Senators in the United States Senate. There are 100 years in a century. If you want to dial the operator in the United Kingdom, the number is "100." We are absolutely fixated on 100.
In the United States, we (or at least our media) make a very big deal about a President's so-called "first 100 days" in office. But why? According to my favorite online source of information (Wikipedia), the concept of a "Hundred Days" started with the second reign of the French emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte. This so-called "Hundred Days" ("les Cent-Jours") began with Napoleon's return from exile on the island of Elba on March 20, 1815 and lasted until the second restoration of Louis XVIII on July 8, 1815 (technically, 115 days!) after Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo.
Apparently it was President Franklin Roosevelt who made the first real "fuss" about the so-called "first 100 days" in office. In retrospect, there was certainly a lot at stake when FDR took over as President. The country was in the midst of the Great Depression, and FDR had made several promises during his campaign that he would lead the United States back to prosperity. By all accounts, every President since FDR has been measured on how successful his (again, since every President to date has been a male) first 100 days in office have been - usually assessed by the number of laws passed. By this measure, there really is no comparison to FDR! According to a recent article on www.fivethiryeight.com, FDR successfully championed/sponsored/led the passage of 76 bills during the first 100 days of his administration - a mark that has not been touched since (Harry Truman was the second "most successful" at 55 bills). Whether or not "success" should be measured by the number of bills passed is arguable, but nevertheless, FDR's benchmark has been difficult to reproduce. Moreover, I believe that history has judged FDR's Presidency as highly successful.
Which brings me back to my original point - why is there so much emphasis on "the first 100 days"? While writing his Inauguration speech, President-elect John F. Kennedy once complained to one of his aides, "I'm sick and tired of reading how we're planning another 'hundred days' of miracles. Let's put in that this won't all be finished in a hundred days or a thousand." The final version of his speech even included the caveat that JFK Administration would likely fail to meet all of their ambitious goals "even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet." Michael Watkins talked about the "the first 100 days" in a recent Harvard Business Review blog. He apparently surveyed 143 senior executives in Human Resources and found that 87% of those surveyed either agreed with the statement, "Transitions into significant new roles are the most challenging times in the professional lives of managers." More relevant to the present discussion, over 70% agreed with the statement that "Success or failure during the transition period is a strong predictor of overall success or failure in the job." In other words, like it or not, "the first 100 days" matters! During this important transition period, a leader lays out his or her vision and sets the appropriate tone to create the culture to achieve that vision. As Watkins says, "The first hundred days mark is not the end of the story, it's the end of the beginning."
Patrick Ducasse and Tom Lutz, from the Boston Consulting Group, asked 20 current CEO's about their first 100 days in their new position. They had several recommendations and words of wisdom:
1. "Diagnose first, decide second."
2. "Follow your instincts."
3. "Take notes, then prioritize and act."
4. "Understand that as the head person, you have only three topics: people, strategy, and values. Everything else is secondary."
5. "Pick a kitchen cabinet of people you trust and use them for problem solving."
Above all else, Ducasse and Lutz said that the CEO's advised that a strong start was almost essential to long-term success, "A strong report card during the first 100 days can set the tone for the next 1,000."
Sunday, June 18, 2017
""If your kids want to paint their bedroom, let them do it"
The famous engineer, Burt Rutan once said, "Usually the wacky people come up with all the breakthroughs, not the smart ones." If "wacky" is a word he is using for "creativity" then great! We did a lot of "wacky" things during my childhood. All the neighborhood kids used to play "war" throughout the year. It wasn't the kind of "war" that involved toy guns and "playing soldier." We came up with our own "weapons." During the Spring, we used to have "walnut fights" (walnuts, if you don't know, grow on the tree as single-seeded stone fruits perfectly sized to fit in your fist). During the Summer, we moved to "Dirt Clod" fights (it helped that one of our neighbors was digging a pool in their backyard - lots of "dirt clods" were free for us to use that summer). By the Fall, we moved to "acorn fights", and of course, during the Winter we would use snowballs. My best friend and I came up with the "wacky" idea of building a catapult to be use in these neighborhood wars (I think the "rules of engagement" precluded us from using the catapult for walnuts or dirt clods, so it was strictly for acorns). I don't remember if we asked our parents for permission, but I do remember that my father let us use some of his tools (I suspect that had he known we were using it for acorn fights, he would have changed his mind). I also remember flooding the sandbox in our backyard and building an "island" in the middle of the sandbox that was completely surrounded by water. My friends and I would use our "army men" to stage amphibious landings like D-Day and Iwo Jima (just like in the movie, "The Sands of Iwo Jima"). I am 100% confident that periodic "flooding" of our wooden sandbox shortened its life considerably. Every night throughout the summer, all of the neighborhood kids would meet and play "Manhunt" - basically a combination of "Hide and Seek" and football (you had to tackle the kid you were trying to "capture").
As I grew older, my interests changed of course. I started becoming interested in science, especially biology. My parents were there to support me - letting me build my own laboratory behind the wet bar in our family room. I had everything - a microscope, a chemistry set, even several bottles filled with "specimens" that I would later dissect (I remember dissecting a worm, a grasshopper, a fish, and a frog - but there may have been more). Having a father that is an organic chemist has a lot of advantages, so my list of laboratory equipment was fairly extensive! I wasn't satisfied with just the simple experiments outlined in the instruction book that came with my chemistry set. I would come up with my own - thankfully, nothing ever "exploded" but I do remember a few close calls (it turns out that you should never use a common light bulb as your heat source to burn things! They pop when they overheat!).
I remember one time, much later in my childhood, when I went to my Dad and asked if he could help me build a machine that would help me hold my breath longer. I was on the swim team and felt that I would be able to swim faster if I could hold my breath longer. He looked at me kind of puzzled and asked me what exactly I had in mind. I related a story (several years earlier actually) of watching my Papaw breathe into a bottle after he had his stroke. He would forcefully blow into one bottle, which would push a colored liquid through a straw and into a second bottle. He was supposed to do this three times a day (I realize now that this was merely a form of incentive spirometry that is commonly used in hospitals even today to prevent lung collapse in patients following surgery or who have prolonged immobility). My thought was that if I could build a similar device that I could train my "lung muscles" and increase my lung volumes to be able to hold my breath. My explanation was enough for my Dad - by the next day we had two large bottles hooked up to a system of rubber hoses and filled with blue colored water. The bottles were clearly marked to show the volume of liquid that I had "moved" from one bottle to another. Shockingly, no matter how much I "trained" my muscles, I never was able to hold my breath any longer than I already could...
What is my point here? My point is exactly this - both my parents, but in this latter case, my Dad, never questioned some of my "wacky" ideas or plans. They just let me do things. I remember something that Randy Pausch said in his now famous "Last Lecture". He tells a story of how he wanted to paint his bedroom so that it looked like a submarine. "I always wanted a submarine and an elevator." He goes on to say that he even painted the quadratic formula on his bedroom wall. "And the great thing about this is they let me do it. And they didn't get upset about it. And it's still there. If you go to my parent's house it's still there." He goes on to say (and this is what I remembered most), "And anybody who is out there who is a parent, if your kids want to paint their bedroom, as a favor to me, let them do it. It'll be OK. Don't worry about resale value on the house." That is exactly what both my parents did with me as a child. They let me learn and explore. And it was great.
Leaders, too many times, kill creativity by their actions. Rather than trying to micromanage a team, leaders should let them "learn and explore" through trial and error. Will the team make mistakes? Absolutely. And they may even "overheat a light bulb" from time to time. The important thing is that the team will learn, not by being successful, but by failing. We learn through our failures. There is a reason why organizational experts in innovation recommend something called a "skunk works". These groups are usually placed somewhere isolated from the rest of the organization and are given a high degree of autonomy to be able to design new things using new approaches. Leaders can do the same thing by giving their teams the autonomy and flexibility to try new approaches. And if they "want to paint their bedrooms, let them do it."
As a special note, I used a story from my childhood about my Dad. That was no coincidence. Today is Father's Day, and on this day, I want to thank the first man I ever met. Dad, you taught me everything there is to know about being a Father. I am proud to be your son. Thank you.
As I grew older, my interests changed of course. I started becoming interested in science, especially biology. My parents were there to support me - letting me build my own laboratory behind the wet bar in our family room. I had everything - a microscope, a chemistry set, even several bottles filled with "specimens" that I would later dissect (I remember dissecting a worm, a grasshopper, a fish, and a frog - but there may have been more). Having a father that is an organic chemist has a lot of advantages, so my list of laboratory equipment was fairly extensive! I wasn't satisfied with just the simple experiments outlined in the instruction book that came with my chemistry set. I would come up with my own - thankfully, nothing ever "exploded" but I do remember a few close calls (it turns out that you should never use a common light bulb as your heat source to burn things! They pop when they overheat!).
I remember one time, much later in my childhood, when I went to my Dad and asked if he could help me build a machine that would help me hold my breath longer. I was on the swim team and felt that I would be able to swim faster if I could hold my breath longer. He looked at me kind of puzzled and asked me what exactly I had in mind. I related a story (several years earlier actually) of watching my Papaw breathe into a bottle after he had his stroke. He would forcefully blow into one bottle, which would push a colored liquid through a straw and into a second bottle. He was supposed to do this three times a day (I realize now that this was merely a form of incentive spirometry that is commonly used in hospitals even today to prevent lung collapse in patients following surgery or who have prolonged immobility). My thought was that if I could build a similar device that I could train my "lung muscles" and increase my lung volumes to be able to hold my breath. My explanation was enough for my Dad - by the next day we had two large bottles hooked up to a system of rubber hoses and filled with blue colored water. The bottles were clearly marked to show the volume of liquid that I had "moved" from one bottle to another. Shockingly, no matter how much I "trained" my muscles, I never was able to hold my breath any longer than I already could...
What is my point here? My point is exactly this - both my parents, but in this latter case, my Dad, never questioned some of my "wacky" ideas or plans. They just let me do things. I remember something that Randy Pausch said in his now famous "Last Lecture". He tells a story of how he wanted to paint his bedroom so that it looked like a submarine. "I always wanted a submarine and an elevator." He goes on to say that he even painted the quadratic formula on his bedroom wall. "And the great thing about this is they let me do it. And they didn't get upset about it. And it's still there. If you go to my parent's house it's still there." He goes on to say (and this is what I remembered most), "And anybody who is out there who is a parent, if your kids want to paint their bedroom, as a favor to me, let them do it. It'll be OK. Don't worry about resale value on the house." That is exactly what both my parents did with me as a child. They let me learn and explore. And it was great.
Leaders, too many times, kill creativity by their actions. Rather than trying to micromanage a team, leaders should let them "learn and explore" through trial and error. Will the team make mistakes? Absolutely. And they may even "overheat a light bulb" from time to time. The important thing is that the team will learn, not by being successful, but by failing. We learn through our failures. There is a reason why organizational experts in innovation recommend something called a "skunk works". These groups are usually placed somewhere isolated from the rest of the organization and are given a high degree of autonomy to be able to design new things using new approaches. Leaders can do the same thing by giving their teams the autonomy and flexibility to try new approaches. And if they "want to paint their bedrooms, let them do it."
As a special note, I used a story from my childhood about my Dad. That was no coincidence. Today is Father's Day, and on this day, I want to thank the first man I ever met. Dad, you taught me everything there is to know about being a Father. I am proud to be your son. Thank you.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
"Be like Young"
About two years ago, I took over as the Chief of Staff at our hospital. My predecessor, Dr. Mike Farrell had served as our Chief of Staff for over 22 years. He had been (and remains) a fixture at our hospital - his current tenure now runs close to 43 years. Dr. Farrell has been everything to this institution. He was our pediatric residency program director for nearly 20 years, training almost 500 residents (virtually all of our community pediatricians that did their residency training here at our hospital either worked with Mike or trained under Mike). As a pediatric gastroenterologist, he worked in our subspecialty clinics at virtually every single ambulatory site. He performed endoscopies in the operating rooms at both of our hospital campuses. He worked in both our emergency department and our urgent care clinics. He touched virtually every facet of our clinical operations. Suffice it to say that Mike Farrell is a local legend. He is a great colleague, a good friend, and a fabulous mentor, and I consider it an honor and privilege to have learned from him.
How do you replace a living legend? I actually asked Mike how I could ever hope to fill his shoes. Mike smiled and told me, "Just be your self. Always put the patient first. And don't screw it up." Great advice! Over the years, whenever I have had trouble with something, I have looked for other similar examples in the literature. In this case, I looked to the world of sports (hey - remember that I was a "Sports Science" major in college!). Specifically, I looked for examples of when someone had to replace a living legend. In this case, I looked at two examples from the National Football League.
Dan Marino was a living legend when he retired from football. Although he never won a Super Bowl (he actually only played in the Super Bowl once, during his second season in the NFL, losing to another living legend, Joe Montana and the San Francisco 49ers in Super Bowl XIX), by the time he finished his career he held virtually every passing record and was a first ballot Hall of Famer. Who replaced Dan Marino after he retired? Do you know? Well, if you said "Jay Fiedler" you were correct - the reason most of us would have never said "Jay Fiedler" is because Jay Fiedler went on to have a "journeyman's career" in the NFL. Fiedler actually did fairly well in his first season (in the 2000 NFL season) as quarterback for the Miami Dolphins, going 10-5 as a starter. But, you could certainly argue that he was a good, but not very memorable quarterback.
I mentioned above that Dan Marino lost to Joe Montana in Super Bowl XIX. Montana was another living legend. He won the NCAA National Championship at the University of Notre Dame in 1977. He was a virtual unknown after his first year of college, but he did well enough in a few late appearances that Notre Dame's coach at the time, Dan Devine, decided to give him a shot as the starter during the spring football game. When a reporter asked, "Who's Joe Montana?", Coach Devine replied, "He's the guy who's going to feed our family for the next few years." He ended up as a great college quarterback and was eventually drafted by the San Francisco 49ers. He went on to win the Super Bowl for San Francisco four times (Super Bowl XVI, XIX, XXIII, and XXIV), winning the Super Bowl MVP three times. He was the NFL MVP twice and was named to 8 Pro Bowls. After leaving San Francisco, he was named the NFL Comeback Player of the Year in 1986 after a successful season for the Kansas City Chiefs. He retired in 1994 and was a first ballot Hall of Famer. Who replaced Joe Montana? Almost everyone who follows football knows that Joe Montana was replaced by Steve Young. Why? Because Steve Young went on to have great success too. He won the Super Bowl three times (twice as Montana's back-up XXIII, XXIV and once as a starter XXIX), was the MVP in Super Bowl XXIX, named to 7 Pro Bowls, and was the NFL MVP twice (1992, 1994). He was another first ballot Hall of Famer.
The lesson here - if you are going to replace a living legend, be like Steve Young and NOT Jay Fiedler. But here is the interesting part. If you could use one word to describe Steve Young as a quarterback, most people would say, "Grit" (ironically, his father's nickname was "Grit"). He was known for his mobility as a quarterback - he could run almost as well as he could throw. He was tough, resilient, and gritty. While at Brigham Young University, Young struggled as a quarterback during his first few years and considered switching to defensive back. He eventually succeeded legendary quarterback Jim McMahon (again, Young replaced a living legend) and won the Davey O'Brien Award his senior season as the best quarterback in college football. He finished second in the Heisman Trophy voting that year, earning All-American honors. He was drafted by the L.A. Express in the upstart USFL (he signed a 40 year contract for $40 million). The team owner went bankrupt in the middle of his second season - at one point, the team bus broke down on the way to the game and the team had to bribe the bus driver to call for a replacement bus. The season went so poorly that Young even played running back at one point. The USFL eventually folded, and Steve Young went to the NFL to play for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers - while there, he had a 3-16 record as a starter. He was eventually signed to play as a back-up for Joe Montana and served in that role for 3 years. The rest, as they say, is history.
Steve Young's career is a great example of something that all leaders need - resilience. Never give up. Never quit. Be confident in your abilities, and be true to yourself. Keep pushing ahead, even when things look bleak. You never know when success is just around the corner. Resilience is defined as "the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties; toughness." Resilience is a basic, fundamental requirement for leadership in today's turbulent environment. There is no universal formula for resilience, but research would show that resilience can be learned. That is good news for me - and for us.
So, in more ways than one, "Be like Young..."
How do you replace a living legend? I actually asked Mike how I could ever hope to fill his shoes. Mike smiled and told me, "Just be your self. Always put the patient first. And don't screw it up." Great advice! Over the years, whenever I have had trouble with something, I have looked for other similar examples in the literature. In this case, I looked to the world of sports (hey - remember that I was a "Sports Science" major in college!). Specifically, I looked for examples of when someone had to replace a living legend. In this case, I looked at two examples from the National Football League.
Dan Marino was a living legend when he retired from football. Although he never won a Super Bowl (he actually only played in the Super Bowl once, during his second season in the NFL, losing to another living legend, Joe Montana and the San Francisco 49ers in Super Bowl XIX), by the time he finished his career he held virtually every passing record and was a first ballot Hall of Famer. Who replaced Dan Marino after he retired? Do you know? Well, if you said "Jay Fiedler" you were correct - the reason most of us would have never said "Jay Fiedler" is because Jay Fiedler went on to have a "journeyman's career" in the NFL. Fiedler actually did fairly well in his first season (in the 2000 NFL season) as quarterback for the Miami Dolphins, going 10-5 as a starter. But, you could certainly argue that he was a good, but not very memorable quarterback.
I mentioned above that Dan Marino lost to Joe Montana in Super Bowl XIX. Montana was another living legend. He won the NCAA National Championship at the University of Notre Dame in 1977. He was a virtual unknown after his first year of college, but he did well enough in a few late appearances that Notre Dame's coach at the time, Dan Devine, decided to give him a shot as the starter during the spring football game. When a reporter asked, "Who's Joe Montana?", Coach Devine replied, "He's the guy who's going to feed our family for the next few years." He ended up as a great college quarterback and was eventually drafted by the San Francisco 49ers. He went on to win the Super Bowl for San Francisco four times (Super Bowl XVI, XIX, XXIII, and XXIV), winning the Super Bowl MVP three times. He was the NFL MVP twice and was named to 8 Pro Bowls. After leaving San Francisco, he was named the NFL Comeback Player of the Year in 1986 after a successful season for the Kansas City Chiefs. He retired in 1994 and was a first ballot Hall of Famer. Who replaced Joe Montana? Almost everyone who follows football knows that Joe Montana was replaced by Steve Young. Why? Because Steve Young went on to have great success too. He won the Super Bowl three times (twice as Montana's back-up XXIII, XXIV and once as a starter XXIX), was the MVP in Super Bowl XXIX, named to 7 Pro Bowls, and was the NFL MVP twice (1992, 1994). He was another first ballot Hall of Famer.
The lesson here - if you are going to replace a living legend, be like Steve Young and NOT Jay Fiedler. But here is the interesting part. If you could use one word to describe Steve Young as a quarterback, most people would say, "Grit" (ironically, his father's nickname was "Grit"). He was known for his mobility as a quarterback - he could run almost as well as he could throw. He was tough, resilient, and gritty. While at Brigham Young University, Young struggled as a quarterback during his first few years and considered switching to defensive back. He eventually succeeded legendary quarterback Jim McMahon (again, Young replaced a living legend) and won the Davey O'Brien Award his senior season as the best quarterback in college football. He finished second in the Heisman Trophy voting that year, earning All-American honors. He was drafted by the L.A. Express in the upstart USFL (he signed a 40 year contract for $40 million). The team owner went bankrupt in the middle of his second season - at one point, the team bus broke down on the way to the game and the team had to bribe the bus driver to call for a replacement bus. The season went so poorly that Young even played running back at one point. The USFL eventually folded, and Steve Young went to the NFL to play for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers - while there, he had a 3-16 record as a starter. He was eventually signed to play as a back-up for Joe Montana and served in that role for 3 years. The rest, as they say, is history.
Steve Young's career is a great example of something that all leaders need - resilience. Never give up. Never quit. Be confident in your abilities, and be true to yourself. Keep pushing ahead, even when things look bleak. You never know when success is just around the corner. Resilience is defined as "the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties; toughness." Resilience is a basic, fundamental requirement for leadership in today's turbulent environment. There is no universal formula for resilience, but research would show that resilience can be learned. That is good news for me - and for us.
So, in more ways than one, "Be like Young..."
Sunday, June 11, 2017
"Don't eat sugar"
I came across an interesting blog this morning by a leadership expert named Michael Rogers. The story involves Mahatma Gandhi and takes place in the early 1930's. Apparently, a young mother was trying to convince her son not to eat so much sugar. The boy had become obsessed with eating sugar, and his mother had tried everything to get him to stop. She decided to take a long journey walking under the scorching hot Indian sun to visit the leader, Mahatma Gandhi. She asked Gandhi to tell her son to stop eating sugar. Perhaps the boy would listen to this great man.
Gandhi replied, "Woman, I cannot tell him that. But you may bring him back in a few weeks and then I will talk to him."
The woman was incensed. She had traveled so long and so far to see Gandhi. Not only did he refuse to comply with her simple request, but he had asked her to come back in a few weeks! She took the boy back home.
The woman continued to tell her son to stop eating sugar, but he just would not listen. "If only Gandhi had told him to stop eating sugar," she thought to herself.
She decided it was worth another try, so she again took the long journey and returned to Gandhi after two week. This time, Gandhi smiled at the woman and looked directly at the boy and said, "Boy, you should stop eating sugar. It is not good for your health." The boy nodded his head and promised that he would stop eating sugar.
The woman did not understand. Why couldn't Gandhi have said this two weeks earlier, for it would have saved her another trip. She asked him why he could not tell the boy to stop eating sugar two weeks ago.
Gandhi replied, "Mother, two weeks ago I was eating a lot of sugar myself."
The moral of the story here is clear, "Lead by example." One of my mentors once told me, "I will never ask others to do something that I am not willing to do myself." In this story, Gandhi felt that he could not, in good faith, tell the boy to stop eating sugar until he had stopped eating sugar himself. If he was not willing to stop, then how could he have expected (or even asked) the boy to stop? He asked the woman to return after he himself had stopped eating sugar. Then and only then did he feel comfortable asking the boy to do so.
Lead by example - don't eat sugar.
Gandhi replied, "Woman, I cannot tell him that. But you may bring him back in a few weeks and then I will talk to him."
The woman was incensed. She had traveled so long and so far to see Gandhi. Not only did he refuse to comply with her simple request, but he had asked her to come back in a few weeks! She took the boy back home.
The woman continued to tell her son to stop eating sugar, but he just would not listen. "If only Gandhi had told him to stop eating sugar," she thought to herself.
She decided it was worth another try, so she again took the long journey and returned to Gandhi after two week. This time, Gandhi smiled at the woman and looked directly at the boy and said, "Boy, you should stop eating sugar. It is not good for your health." The boy nodded his head and promised that he would stop eating sugar.
The woman did not understand. Why couldn't Gandhi have said this two weeks earlier, for it would have saved her another trip. She asked him why he could not tell the boy to stop eating sugar two weeks ago.
Gandhi replied, "Mother, two weeks ago I was eating a lot of sugar myself."
The moral of the story here is clear, "Lead by example." One of my mentors once told me, "I will never ask others to do something that I am not willing to do myself." In this story, Gandhi felt that he could not, in good faith, tell the boy to stop eating sugar until he had stopped eating sugar himself. If he was not willing to stop, then how could he have expected (or even asked) the boy to stop? He asked the woman to return after he himself had stopped eating sugar. Then and only then did he feel comfortable asking the boy to do so.
Lead by example - don't eat sugar.
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
Ike's Back-up
Today is June 6. Seventy-three years ago today, on June 6, 1944 (D- Day) Allied Forces began the largest amphibious military assault ever conducted on the coast of Normandy, France. Over 160,000 American, British, and Canadian troops, as well as soldiers from Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Free France, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and New Zealand landed at Omaha Beach, Utah Beach, Sword Beach, Juno Beach, and Gold Beach. Planning for D-Day had started almost a year earlier under the leadership of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. D-Day marked the beginning of the end - the liberation of Europe from Nazi Germany.
"Ike" wrote a letter to his troops on the morning of June 6 that is powerful in both words and meaning. His message went as follows:
Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force:
You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months.
The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.
In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped, and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.
But this is the year 1944. Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned. The free men of the world are marching together to victory.
I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory.
Good luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.
Ike's words are inspirational. By expressing his confidence in his men, he in turn instills confidence in the Allied forces just before they head into battle. His message is clear - "we will prevail."
Ike's letter is well known. But Ike had a back-up letter that he wrote that same morning, "just in case." His alternative letter is perhaps less well known, but it is also instructive:
Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.
The lesson here? Ike said it clearly in both letters. The credit for the victory goes to the team. The blame for the loss goes to the leader. A good leader gives the credit for success to his or her team. The good leader accepts full responsibility for any failure.
"Ike" wrote a letter to his troops on the morning of June 6 that is powerful in both words and meaning. His message went as follows:
Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force:
You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months.
The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.
In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped, and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.
But this is the year 1944. Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned. The free men of the world are marching together to victory.
I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory.
Good luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.
Ike's words are inspirational. By expressing his confidence in his men, he in turn instills confidence in the Allied forces just before they head into battle. His message is clear - "we will prevail."
Ike's letter is well known. But Ike had a back-up letter that he wrote that same morning, "just in case." His alternative letter is perhaps less well known, but it is also instructive:
Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.
The lesson here? Ike said it clearly in both letters. The credit for the victory goes to the team. The blame for the loss goes to the leader. A good leader gives the credit for success to his or her team. The good leader accepts full responsibility for any failure.
Sunday, June 4, 2017
"Why didn't you tell me about the 'Jeep Wave'?"
There was a time, in my younger days (I mean, like really young - around high school) when I thought that my dream car to own would be a Porsche 911. The dream must have lasted, because I also remember one of my old college roommates buying me a die cast model and framed picture of a 911 and said, "Dude, some day this will be yours!" I know I am older, and I must be wiser now. Or at least I have reached the point where there is absolutely no way that I would ever spend $100,000 on a car! For quite some time, my dream car has been a Jeep Wrangler. The Wrangler is not necessarily a family friendly car, so over the years my wife and I have owned a long line of sports utility vehicles and mini-vans. The last time that I walked in to a Jeep dealer, I ended up buying a Jeep Liberty as a more economical, family friendly, practical car. The dream of a Wrangler would just have to wait a little longer.
Well it just so happened that over the last 2 weeks, the Wheeler family has found ourselves in need of another car. My wife and I usually flip flop on the car purchases, so it was my turn to purchase a new car this time. She basically told me, "Get what you want!" (I have an incredibly loving wife!). So after researching Jeep Wranglers on the Internet, I test drove a new 2017 Jeep Wrangler Sahara Unlimited last weekend. The salesman was a wonderful elderly man who did not pressure me at all. I thanked him for his time, and I told him I liked the car and would probably be back later (the first thing that I told him was that I was not going to purchase a new car that day). I went back to the dealership on Memorial Day, and now I am the owner of a new 2017 Jeep Wrangler - my dream car! It is awesome, and I love it!
I was meeting my wife and one of my daughters for dinner. On the way, I passed two other Jeep Wranglers driving in the opposite direction. Both drivers waved at me. I thought to myself, "That's kind of different." I know that motorcycle riders wave at each other on the road, so maybe this was a "Jeep thing" too. While waiting for my wife and daughter to arrive, I looked up "Jeep" and "wave" on the Internet. Sure enough, there is something called the "Jeep Wave" that Wrangler drivers do whenever they pass one another on the road. Now why didn't the car salesman at the Jeep dealership tell me that? I felt really rude that I hadn't waved at the other drivers. Now I do. It's kind of fun!
As I was thinking about the "Jeep Wave", I could not help but think that people are really quite similar. All we want to do is to feel like we belong. Jeep Wrangler owners all have something in common, and I suspect it's more than just owning a Jeep Wrangler. I suspect that it is a feeling of being a kindred spirit - driving down the road (or even off the road) with the top down and the wind blowing your hair all over. It's all about freedom. Freedom to drive wherever you want, without the constraints of having to drive on the road.
There is something really powerful in the shared understanding that comes with being part of a group. All we really need in this world is something to be a part of - whether it is a family, a community, a club, or a team. We just want to belong to something. What a great gift for a team leader - that feeling of togetherness that we are all here for one purpose, one goal, one mission. There is a collective vision that keeps pushing us towards our ultimate goal, and as a team, we can achieve great things together.
For Jeep Wrangler owners (and really for everyone else that is part of something bigger), there's a lot more to it than just a wave. I know that now - I had to figure that out on my own. And maybe that was the salesman's intent all along.
Well it just so happened that over the last 2 weeks, the Wheeler family has found ourselves in need of another car. My wife and I usually flip flop on the car purchases, so it was my turn to purchase a new car this time. She basically told me, "Get what you want!" (I have an incredibly loving wife!). So after researching Jeep Wranglers on the Internet, I test drove a new 2017 Jeep Wrangler Sahara Unlimited last weekend. The salesman was a wonderful elderly man who did not pressure me at all. I thanked him for his time, and I told him I liked the car and would probably be back later (the first thing that I told him was that I was not going to purchase a new car that day). I went back to the dealership on Memorial Day, and now I am the owner of a new 2017 Jeep Wrangler - my dream car! It is awesome, and I love it!
I was meeting my wife and one of my daughters for dinner. On the way, I passed two other Jeep Wranglers driving in the opposite direction. Both drivers waved at me. I thought to myself, "That's kind of different." I know that motorcycle riders wave at each other on the road, so maybe this was a "Jeep thing" too. While waiting for my wife and daughter to arrive, I looked up "Jeep" and "wave" on the Internet. Sure enough, there is something called the "Jeep Wave" that Wrangler drivers do whenever they pass one another on the road. Now why didn't the car salesman at the Jeep dealership tell me that? I felt really rude that I hadn't waved at the other drivers. Now I do. It's kind of fun!
As I was thinking about the "Jeep Wave", I could not help but think that people are really quite similar. All we want to do is to feel like we belong. Jeep Wrangler owners all have something in common, and I suspect it's more than just owning a Jeep Wrangler. I suspect that it is a feeling of being a kindred spirit - driving down the road (or even off the road) with the top down and the wind blowing your hair all over. It's all about freedom. Freedom to drive wherever you want, without the constraints of having to drive on the road.
There is something really powerful in the shared understanding that comes with being part of a group. All we really need in this world is something to be a part of - whether it is a family, a community, a club, or a team. We just want to belong to something. What a great gift for a team leader - that feeling of togetherness that we are all here for one purpose, one goal, one mission. There is a collective vision that keeps pushing us towards our ultimate goal, and as a team, we can achieve great things together.
For Jeep Wrangler owners (and really for everyone else that is part of something bigger), there's a lot more to it than just a wave. I know that now - I had to figure that out on my own. And maybe that was the salesman's intent all along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)