The legendary NFL coach, Vince Lombardi, once said, "Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence." He was exactly right. Except some times, at least in certain sports, perfection is attainable. As of this past fall, there have been 23 perfect games in major league baseball history. A perfect game occurs when a pitcher (or a combination of pitchers) pitches a victory that lasts a minimum of 9 innings in which no opposing batter reaches base (recall that the opposing batter can reach base with a walk, a hit, getting hit with a pitched ball, or an error). And, since the modern era of major league baseball (generally considered the 1900 season - prior to that, it took 8 balls to get a walk and a batter was not awarded first base if he was hit by a pitch).Twenty-three perfect games - since 1900 there have been over 181,000 major league baseball games. If you consider that the pitcher on each team has a chance to pitch a perfect game, then there have been over 362,000 opportunities to pitch a perfect game. In other words, a perfect game only happens about 0.006% of the time! The last pitcher to do it was a player named Felix Hernandez, who pitched a perfect game on August 15, 2012 for the Seattle Mariners. So, maybe Coach Lombardi was still correct - perfection is rarely, if ever, attainable, even in baseball!
Imagine then, if you were a pitcher who was pitching against the 27th batter and you were just one out away from becoming one of a very, very select few who have pitched a perfect game. Just imagine how excited and how nervous you would be. Then imagine that you threw a great pitch to the batter, who hits a slow grounder that was fielded perfectly, and you see the ball reach your first baseman's glove just before the batter touches first base. Out number 27! You'd be pretty excited, wouldn't you? Now imagine that instead of hearing the umpire yell, "Out", the umpire says "Safe" instead. There goes your perfect game. There goes your no-hitter. There goes your one chance at immortality. Imagine how you would feel if you looked up on the scoreboard to watch the replay, and the batter was clearly out. Imagine.
The Detroit Tigers pitcher, Armando Galarraga found himself in exactly that situation on June 2, 2010. He was pitching in his home stadium, Comerica Park in Detroit, Michigan. Galarraga pitched an incredible game - he retired the first 26 batters that he faced and was one out away. Cleveland Indians hitter, Jason Donald, hit a grounder and was called safe at first by the umpire, Jim Joyce. Galarraga retired the next batter for the last out - he faced 28 batters and threw only 88 pitches (67 strikes and 21 balls) for what is now called the "28-out perfect game" or the "imperfect game."
Joyce realized afterwards that he had made a mistake. He could see the replay too. But there was no such thing as instant replay in major league baseball at that time. The call stood, and Galarraga lost his perfect game. Joyce tearfully apologized to Galarraga afterwards. And what did Galarraga do? He forgave him. He told the reporters after the game, "Nobody's perfect." Just like that.
Galarraga later said that Joyce "probably feels more bad than me. Nobody's perfect. Everybody's human. I understand. I give the guy a lot of credit for saying 'I need to talk to you.' You don't see an umpire tell you that after a game. I have him a hug."
"I know that I pitched a perfect game. I believe I got it. I said before, I got a perfect game. I'm going to show my son. Maybe it's not in the book, but I'm going to tell my son, 'One time I got a perfect game.' I'll show him the CD," Galarraga continued.
The very next day, Joyce was the head umpire and walked to home plate to receive the line-up cards from the two managers. Galarraga walked up to Joyce and handed him the Tigers' line-up card. The two shook hands, while Joyce could barely hold back the tears. The pitcher gave Joyce a pat on the back, and the audience gave Joyce a standing ovation. A full pardon. Forgiveness. Imagine.
Next time you feel that you have been wronged. Remember that we are all human. "Nobody's perfect." We all make mistakes. And then remember that in order to reach perfection, we must forgive. Remember Armando Galarraga. And forgive.
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Sunday, January 28, 2018
Premeditated, purposeful, intentionally-focused training
Just about four weeks ago, I ran my second marathon. I've had a number of individuals at work ask me, "How did it go?" My answer is fairly quick, "I did exactly what I wanted - finish running and finish with a smile on my face." These were, in fact, the same goals that I had set for my first marathon almost two years ago - goals that I did not achieve. I had developed a bad case of "IT band syndrome" the last month or so of my training, and my coach suggested that I "shut things down" and still try to run the marathon. I did. It hurt. A lot. I walked. A lot. My daughter stuck it out with me and held back - we were both crying at the finish. Hers were happy tears. Mine were not.
Even though my time wasn't that good, I was happy to run and finish feeling pretty good. Do not misunderstand - I was very happy the race was over, but I did feel more of a sense of accomplishment. Enough that I am already talking about the next race. Next time, I am running for time. So what did I learn from these two marathons that I can apply to the next? For one thing, I definitely need to do more interval training (running at a faster pace for specific distances, interspersed with rest, walking, or slow jogging). I also need to push myself on the treadmill a little more, if I end up having to do some of my training runs on the treadmill (I don't like running in the rain, and I don't particularly like running in the cold - during the last month of training, I spent a lot of time on the treadmill). I don't particularly enjoy treadmill running, so I run a lot slower than when I do outside. I need to push myself a little more. Lastly, need to do a better job of sticking with my training plan, especially when it calls for "cross training" on Sundays (most of the time, my "cross training" ended up sitting on the couch and relaxing).
In other words, I need to be more premeditated, purposeful, and intentionally-focused in my training. One could certainly argue that what I am describing is a form of something I mentioned in my last post called "deliberate practice." Deliberate practice was initially described (or at least popularized) by a cognitive psychologist named K. Anders Ericsson. Ericsson defined "deliberate practice" as "engagement with full concentration in a training activity designed to improve a particular aspect of performance with immediate feedback, and opportunities for gradual refinement by repetition and problem solving." Ericsson found that expert performers in chess and music typically spent more time on this kind of practice or training than those who were not experts. Malcolm Gladwell further popularized the concept when he wrote about the "10,000 hour rule" in his book, Outliers. You see, Ericsson found that, on average, expert performers spent approximately 10,000 hours or so on deliberate practice. Gladwell took it one step further and suggested that if you spent 10,000 hours of deliberate practice on a particular skill or discipline, you would achieve expertise.
There is a lot of controversy around the "10,000 hour rule" - mostly because the lay press has taken it far too literally. Subsequent research, by both Ericsson and others, has shown that there is nothing magical about 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. Other personality traits (the degree of motivation, persistence, and dedication are a few examples that come immediately to mind) as well as innate ability or talent are important too. Brooke Macnamara, David Hambrick, and Frederick Oswald published a meta analysis of over 20 years of studies on deliberate practice and found that deliberate practice explained only about one-fourth of the variance in performance between individuals for games (e.g., chess), a little less than one-fourth (21%) of the variance in performance between individuals for music (e.g., playing the violin), and about one-fifth of the variance in performance between individuals for sports. Deliberate practice mattered very little for highly cognitive disciplines such as education (innate cognitive intelligence likely plays a much bigger role) and the professions. In other words, while deliberate practice may be a great way for me to train for my next marathon, it's probably not going to help me in my overall day-to-day job of practicing medicine (with, perhaps the notable exceptions of certain technical skills, such as performing different procedures or diagnostic tests).
So where does leadership fall in all of this? I guess that depends on which facet of leadership you consider. For example, I do believe that there are certain leadership skills that lend themselves very well to improvement through deliberate practice. Communication skills (especially speaking in front of a large group) and managing a team of individuals certainly require practice in order to be good at them. On the other hand, I suspect that there are other skills that require some degree of cognitive ability that will not improve a whole lot with practice.
I still believe that "leaders are made" more than "leaders are born." Simply put, there are a number of skills and techniques that leaders have to use in order to effectively lead and manage - many of these only get better through practice. Ericsson wrote about the use of deliberate practice for leaders in a Harvard Business Review article, entitled "The making of an expert." Developing leaders need continuous feedback from mentors in order to develop and refine the skills that they will need to be successful. Similarly, daily self-reflection on how a leader's day went is also vitally important. These things are, in essence, deliberate practice - premeditated, purposeful, intentionally-focused training!
Even though my time wasn't that good, I was happy to run and finish feeling pretty good. Do not misunderstand - I was very happy the race was over, but I did feel more of a sense of accomplishment. Enough that I am already talking about the next race. Next time, I am running for time. So what did I learn from these two marathons that I can apply to the next? For one thing, I definitely need to do more interval training (running at a faster pace for specific distances, interspersed with rest, walking, or slow jogging). I also need to push myself on the treadmill a little more, if I end up having to do some of my training runs on the treadmill (I don't like running in the rain, and I don't particularly like running in the cold - during the last month of training, I spent a lot of time on the treadmill). I don't particularly enjoy treadmill running, so I run a lot slower than when I do outside. I need to push myself a little more. Lastly, need to do a better job of sticking with my training plan, especially when it calls for "cross training" on Sundays (most of the time, my "cross training" ended up sitting on the couch and relaxing).
In other words, I need to be more premeditated, purposeful, and intentionally-focused in my training. One could certainly argue that what I am describing is a form of something I mentioned in my last post called "deliberate practice." Deliberate practice was initially described (or at least popularized) by a cognitive psychologist named K. Anders Ericsson. Ericsson defined "deliberate practice" as "engagement with full concentration in a training activity designed to improve a particular aspect of performance with immediate feedback, and opportunities for gradual refinement by repetition and problem solving." Ericsson found that expert performers in chess and music typically spent more time on this kind of practice or training than those who were not experts. Malcolm Gladwell further popularized the concept when he wrote about the "10,000 hour rule" in his book, Outliers. You see, Ericsson found that, on average, expert performers spent approximately 10,000 hours or so on deliberate practice. Gladwell took it one step further and suggested that if you spent 10,000 hours of deliberate practice on a particular skill or discipline, you would achieve expertise.
There is a lot of controversy around the "10,000 hour rule" - mostly because the lay press has taken it far too literally. Subsequent research, by both Ericsson and others, has shown that there is nothing magical about 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. Other personality traits (the degree of motivation, persistence, and dedication are a few examples that come immediately to mind) as well as innate ability or talent are important too. Brooke Macnamara, David Hambrick, and Frederick Oswald published a meta analysis of over 20 years of studies on deliberate practice and found that deliberate practice explained only about one-fourth of the variance in performance between individuals for games (e.g., chess), a little less than one-fourth (21%) of the variance in performance between individuals for music (e.g., playing the violin), and about one-fifth of the variance in performance between individuals for sports. Deliberate practice mattered very little for highly cognitive disciplines such as education (innate cognitive intelligence likely plays a much bigger role) and the professions. In other words, while deliberate practice may be a great way for me to train for my next marathon, it's probably not going to help me in my overall day-to-day job of practicing medicine (with, perhaps the notable exceptions of certain technical skills, such as performing different procedures or diagnostic tests).
So where does leadership fall in all of this? I guess that depends on which facet of leadership you consider. For example, I do believe that there are certain leadership skills that lend themselves very well to improvement through deliberate practice. Communication skills (especially speaking in front of a large group) and managing a team of individuals certainly require practice in order to be good at them. On the other hand, I suspect that there are other skills that require some degree of cognitive ability that will not improve a whole lot with practice.
I still believe that "leaders are made" more than "leaders are born." Simply put, there are a number of skills and techniques that leaders have to use in order to effectively lead and manage - many of these only get better through practice. Ericsson wrote about the use of deliberate practice for leaders in a Harvard Business Review article, entitled "The making of an expert." Developing leaders need continuous feedback from mentors in order to develop and refine the skills that they will need to be successful. Similarly, daily self-reflection on how a leader's day went is also vitally important. These things are, in essence, deliberate practice - premeditated, purposeful, intentionally-focused training!
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
Practice makes better, but does "Practice make Perfect"?
I think that the whole "nature versus nurture" debate has been going on since the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel conducted his pea in the 1850's and discovered some of the early laws of heredity. There is no question that an individual's genetic make-up is important. For example, studies have shown that diseases like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes have a strong genetic component (i.e. if one of your parents has cancer, you will have a higher risk of developing cancer at some point in your life). Even susceptibility to certain kinds of infections run in families.
Does an individual's genetic make-up determine whether he or she is good at certain skills (e.g., playing a musical instrument) or sports (e.g., golf)? Sir Francis Galton, one of the early founders of the field of behavioral genetics, argued on the "nature" side of this debate based upon his finding that expertise in music, art, sports, or science tended to run in families. He may have been right - just look at the National Football League's Manning family (Archie Manning was a quarterback for the New Orleans Saints and his two sons, Peyton and Eli, are Super Bowl winners and future Hall of Fame quarterbacks) for proof. The American psychologist John B. Watson, founder of behaviorism, argued on the "nurture" side and stated, "practicing more intensively than others...is probably the most reasonable explanation we have today not only for success in any line, but even for genius."
As it turns out, the answer to the "nature versus nurture" debate is not so simple (as is usually the case, things involving the brain and human behavior are rarely, if ever, simple). Malcolm Gladwell talked about something that he called "the 10,000 hour rule" in his book, Outliers. Gladwell based his "10,000 hour rule" on studies by another psychologist, K. Anders Ericsson. Ericsson looked at a number of different so-called experts (e.g., Chess Grand Masters and violinists, as a few examples) and found that, on average, experts spent more time (around 10,000 hours) on something he called deliberate practice compared to less successful individuals. We will discuss "deliberate practice" next time, but suffice it to say that it is a highly systematic, purposeful form of practice or training based upon specific and continual feedback. I should emphasize that following Gladwell's book, a number of experts have argued against the so-called "10,000 hour rule", even Ericsson himself. Ericsson emphasizes that there is nothing magical to the 10,000 hours - the type of practice (i.e., deliberate practice) is important and experts usually spend much longer on practicing and refining their craft compared to those who are not.
So what about leadership skills? Are leaders "born" or "are they made"? There are a number of studies that strongly suggest that leadership is an acquired skill. I can't agree more. Leadership is an acquired skill - you have to work at it! It takes practice - lots and lots of practice. Talented managers have to be mentored and provided with leadership training. These same managers have to be provided with growing and incremental responsibility in order to practice and perfect their leadership skills. It takes time to develop communication skills, just like it does to learn a foreign language or play the violin. It takes time to learn to "think about the big picture" and work with individuals on a team. It takes time to be able to provide feedback. It takes time to learn how to have crucial conversations with individuals who are not performing up to expectations. Look at any leader - even the ones you might think are "naturals" and have always been good leaders. I guarantee you that they refined their skills over time, often with specific feedback on their performance.
The great football coach, Vince Lombardi, once said, "Leaders are made, they are not born. They are made by hard effort, which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that is worthwhile." So to answer the question in the title of this post, practice certainly makes someone better, and while it may not necessarily make someone perfect at what they do, practice - lots of it - is perhaps the most important pre-requisite for perfection.
Does an individual's genetic make-up determine whether he or she is good at certain skills (e.g., playing a musical instrument) or sports (e.g., golf)? Sir Francis Galton, one of the early founders of the field of behavioral genetics, argued on the "nature" side of this debate based upon his finding that expertise in music, art, sports, or science tended to run in families. He may have been right - just look at the National Football League's Manning family (Archie Manning was a quarterback for the New Orleans Saints and his two sons, Peyton and Eli, are Super Bowl winners and future Hall of Fame quarterbacks) for proof. The American psychologist John B. Watson, founder of behaviorism, argued on the "nurture" side and stated, "practicing more intensively than others...is probably the most reasonable explanation we have today not only for success in any line, but even for genius."
As it turns out, the answer to the "nature versus nurture" debate is not so simple (as is usually the case, things involving the brain and human behavior are rarely, if ever, simple). Malcolm Gladwell talked about something that he called "the 10,000 hour rule" in his book, Outliers. Gladwell based his "10,000 hour rule" on studies by another psychologist, K. Anders Ericsson. Ericsson looked at a number of different so-called experts (e.g., Chess Grand Masters and violinists, as a few examples) and found that, on average, experts spent more time (around 10,000 hours) on something he called deliberate practice compared to less successful individuals. We will discuss "deliberate practice" next time, but suffice it to say that it is a highly systematic, purposeful form of practice or training based upon specific and continual feedback. I should emphasize that following Gladwell's book, a number of experts have argued against the so-called "10,000 hour rule", even Ericsson himself. Ericsson emphasizes that there is nothing magical to the 10,000 hours - the type of practice (i.e., deliberate practice) is important and experts usually spend much longer on practicing and refining their craft compared to those who are not.
So what about leadership skills? Are leaders "born" or "are they made"? There are a number of studies that strongly suggest that leadership is an acquired skill. I can't agree more. Leadership is an acquired skill - you have to work at it! It takes practice - lots and lots of practice. Talented managers have to be mentored and provided with leadership training. These same managers have to be provided with growing and incremental responsibility in order to practice and perfect their leadership skills. It takes time to develop communication skills, just like it does to learn a foreign language or play the violin. It takes time to learn to "think about the big picture" and work with individuals on a team. It takes time to be able to provide feedback. It takes time to learn how to have crucial conversations with individuals who are not performing up to expectations. Look at any leader - even the ones you might think are "naturals" and have always been good leaders. I guarantee you that they refined their skills over time, often with specific feedback on their performance.
The great football coach, Vince Lombardi, once said, "Leaders are made, they are not born. They are made by hard effort, which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that is worthwhile." So to answer the question in the title of this post, practice certainly makes someone better, and while it may not necessarily make someone perfect at what they do, practice - lots of it - is perhaps the most important pre-requisite for perfection.
Sunday, January 21, 2018
Today's word is..."Tsundoku"
I found out one of my wife's secrets the other day. You see, I have a really bad habit of printing out articles or papers on various topics and stacking them in various corners of our house. I will even occasionally read the articles, but most of them I don't. I tell myself (and my wife), "Some day, I will need this article!" I used to have a large filing cabinet at work with a filing system for most of my journal articles that I claim to need for reference some day, but when I moved my office a few years ago, I threw most of these out ("purge day") and got rid of the filing cabinet. Now my articles collect on my desk at work or my desk at home. Unfortunately, my filing system was far from perfect - I usually only filed away the articles that I had read. Hence, again, several articles would get stacked in various corners around the house. The really important ones would go in my bag and travel back and forth between work and home.
As it turns out, my wife had a system too. She would monitor my stacks of papers closely. If I had not touched a stack in say, six months or so, she would carefully move the stack to a new location. She would wait another six months or so, and if the stack was still there (and if the stack had collected enough dust to provide evidence that I still had not touched it), she would move it again one more time, this time under our bed. Now if I hadn't touched or asked for the stack under our bed in another six months or so, she would throw them out (of course, she dumped them in the recycle bin). Our kids thought this was pretty funny.
I have a sickness - obviously. In all truth, I suspect that if you looked through one of my stacks, you would likely find multiple copies of the same article. Rather than look through the stacks, I probably just look for the article online and print it again. I will collect small scraps of paper or tear out news articles that have quotes or interesting points to make, all with the thought that I will "need the information for reference some day." It gets worse - I also like to read books (just like I haven't really made the transition from paper articles to PDF's, I would much rather read books the old-fashioned way than reading from an e-book device). I have stacks and stacks of books, many of which that I have read, some of which I have not. I really enjoy reading, on a number of different topics. And I seem to go in phases, where I will read books and articles on a specific topic before getting tired of it and moving on to something else.
Imagine my surprise, when I found out there is a word that describes my habit. The Japanese phrase, "tsundoku" is a phrase used to describe the habit of acquiring reading materials but letting them pile up in one's home without reading them. According to Wikipedia, the word originated in the Meiji era (1868-1912) from the Japanese words for "piling things up" ("tsunde-oku") and "reading books" ("dokusho"). I literally just learned this phrase last week - my wife thought the word described me perfectly!
As it turns out, I learned another new word recently. Apparently, people like me, who like to keep quotes, phrases, or various tidbits of information handy keep something called a "commonplace book". The author, Ryan Holiday, posted an article describing his method of keeping a commonplace book which is really helpful. A commonplace book is like a journal, but rather than collecting only your personal reflections, you use the commonplace book to jot down an interesting fact, quote, or just about anything else to keep for handy reference. A number of famous individuals over the course of history have kept commonplace books, some of which have been published over the years (just search for "commonplace book" on Amazon.com if you want to see a few examples).
There are a number of ways to keep a commonplace book. The purists would say that a commonplace book should be handwritten or typed (i.e. you don't "copy and paste" electronically something you find interesting into an electronic version of your commonplace book). After looking at a number of blog sites where individuals talk about how they keep their personal commonplace book, I decided to start one - in my case, I am using an app that is perfect for use as a commonplace book. I can keep pictures, diagrams, cartoons, quotes, poems, or anything I find interesting. And, because my commonplace book is electronic, I can file things under various subheadings to be easily searched at a later date (that, I think, is one major advantage over a handwritten journal). It works for me, and my stacks of papers are slowly but surely withering away.
So there you have it - a word to describe my "problem" ("tsundoku") as well as a word to help me with it ("commonplace book").
As it turns out, my wife had a system too. She would monitor my stacks of papers closely. If I had not touched a stack in say, six months or so, she would carefully move the stack to a new location. She would wait another six months or so, and if the stack was still there (and if the stack had collected enough dust to provide evidence that I still had not touched it), she would move it again one more time, this time under our bed. Now if I hadn't touched or asked for the stack under our bed in another six months or so, she would throw them out (of course, she dumped them in the recycle bin). Our kids thought this was pretty funny.
I have a sickness - obviously. In all truth, I suspect that if you looked through one of my stacks, you would likely find multiple copies of the same article. Rather than look through the stacks, I probably just look for the article online and print it again. I will collect small scraps of paper or tear out news articles that have quotes or interesting points to make, all with the thought that I will "need the information for reference some day." It gets worse - I also like to read books (just like I haven't really made the transition from paper articles to PDF's, I would much rather read books the old-fashioned way than reading from an e-book device). I have stacks and stacks of books, many of which that I have read, some of which I have not. I really enjoy reading, on a number of different topics. And I seem to go in phases, where I will read books and articles on a specific topic before getting tired of it and moving on to something else.
Imagine my surprise, when I found out there is a word that describes my habit. The Japanese phrase, "tsundoku" is a phrase used to describe the habit of acquiring reading materials but letting them pile up in one's home without reading them. According to Wikipedia, the word originated in the Meiji era (1868-1912) from the Japanese words for "piling things up" ("tsunde-oku") and "reading books" ("dokusho"). I literally just learned this phrase last week - my wife thought the word described me perfectly!
As it turns out, I learned another new word recently. Apparently, people like me, who like to keep quotes, phrases, or various tidbits of information handy keep something called a "commonplace book". The author, Ryan Holiday, posted an article describing his method of keeping a commonplace book which is really helpful. A commonplace book is like a journal, but rather than collecting only your personal reflections, you use the commonplace book to jot down an interesting fact, quote, or just about anything else to keep for handy reference. A number of famous individuals over the course of history have kept commonplace books, some of which have been published over the years (just search for "commonplace book" on Amazon.com if you want to see a few examples).
There are a number of ways to keep a commonplace book. The purists would say that a commonplace book should be handwritten or typed (i.e. you don't "copy and paste" electronically something you find interesting into an electronic version of your commonplace book). After looking at a number of blog sites where individuals talk about how they keep their personal commonplace book, I decided to start one - in my case, I am using an app that is perfect for use as a commonplace book. I can keep pictures, diagrams, cartoons, quotes, poems, or anything I find interesting. And, because my commonplace book is electronic, I can file things under various subheadings to be easily searched at a later date (that, I think, is one major advantage over a handwritten journal). It works for me, and my stacks of papers are slowly but surely withering away.
So there you have it - a word to describe my "problem" ("tsundoku") as well as a word to help me with it ("commonplace book").
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
"Don't worry, be happy!"
The singer Bobby McFerrin had a monster hit in the 1980's (it reached number 1 on the U.S. pop music charts and won both "Song of the Year" and "Record of the Year" at the 1989 Grammy Awards) called "Don't Worry, Be Happy!" It was a great song with a catchy tune and inspirational (if not simple) lyrics ("In every life we have some trouble, but when you worry you make it double - don't worry, be happy"). When you really think about it, the lyrics and the message that goes along with them, make perfect sense. As the ancient Stoic philosophers claimed too, there are a lot of things in this world that are under our control (perhaps most importantly, our attitude) and even more things in this world that are not (basically everything else). Why do we worry about the things that are not under our direct control? We should worry about our attitude instead - in many cases, how we respond to a particular set of events has a greater impact on the consequences of those events than the events themselves.
Attitude is very important, and it is a simple truth that our attitude is completely under our control. Attitude impacts behavior. Behavior impacts our response. Our response can then change the attitude (for the better) of those around us. It is a virtuous cycle of change for the better! Shawn Achor wrote a book a few years ago called The Happiness Advantage that highlights this growing body of research. It is a fascinating book that covers research performed over the last several decades (some of the studies were performed even earlier - see below) that show that happier people are more creative and make better decisions than those who are not. Two longitudinal studies from Harvard (the "Study of Adult Development" and the Grant study - reviewed here), in which a cohort of Harvard graduates were followed for over seven decades, suggested that happier graduates led longer, healthier lives! There is also evidence that happier physicians make faster, more accurate diagnoses at the bedside (see study here). As it turns out, small gestures of gratitude or kindness, such as a smile, receiving positive feedback, or receiving a small gift, induces a positive affect, which also leads physicians to solve clinical problems more efficiently (see study here). These last two examples are particularly relevant given the current focus on professional burnout in health care providers (higher rates of burnout have been associated with worse outcomes, higher costs, and worse patient satisfaction - and the rate of professional burnout in health care is about 50%, which is higher compared to all other professions).
Charles Darwin (yes, that Darwin) proposed as early as 1872 something that is now called the "Facial Feedback Hypothesis". Basically, Darwin suggested (and studies since his time have supported) that our facial expressions can significantly influence our emotions:
"The free expression by outward signs of an emotion intensifies it. On the other hand, the repression, as far as this is possible, of all outward signs softens our emotions. Even the simulation of an emotion tends to arouse it in our minds."
William James, the so-called "Father of American Psychology" followed with a similar idea. He wrote in his book, "The Principles of Psychology" that:
"Refuse to express a passion, and it dies."
A number of studies (see one study here) have used a variety of methods to measure both the subjective (self-reported emotional state) and objective (heart rate, sweat production, blood pressure, skin temperature, etc) response to different emotions in response to different stimuli with the presence or absence of facial expression. The majority of these studies have shown that without the ability to smile, the emotional response to a trigger designed to produce "happiness" (such as a funny story or cartoon, or similar to the studies described above, a small gift or positive feedback) is significantly attenuated. More recently, using methods such as functional MRI to objectively analyze the emotional response and Botox injections to inhibit the ability to smile, studies (see an example here) have produced similar results. In other words, if we can't smile, we don't feel happy!
How do we interpret all of these studies in the context of leadership? Easy - small gestures of kindness, positive feedback, or even a simple smile will not only make us feel better, it will make everyone around us feel better. Bobby McFerrin was absolutely correct - "Don't worry, be happy." Even if you are not feeling happy, if you just simply "smile", you will feel better.
Attitude is very important, and it is a simple truth that our attitude is completely under our control. Attitude impacts behavior. Behavior impacts our response. Our response can then change the attitude (for the better) of those around us. It is a virtuous cycle of change for the better! Shawn Achor wrote a book a few years ago called The Happiness Advantage that highlights this growing body of research. It is a fascinating book that covers research performed over the last several decades (some of the studies were performed even earlier - see below) that show that happier people are more creative and make better decisions than those who are not. Two longitudinal studies from Harvard (the "Study of Adult Development" and the Grant study - reviewed here), in which a cohort of Harvard graduates were followed for over seven decades, suggested that happier graduates led longer, healthier lives! There is also evidence that happier physicians make faster, more accurate diagnoses at the bedside (see study here). As it turns out, small gestures of gratitude or kindness, such as a smile, receiving positive feedback, or receiving a small gift, induces a positive affect, which also leads physicians to solve clinical problems more efficiently (see study here). These last two examples are particularly relevant given the current focus on professional burnout in health care providers (higher rates of burnout have been associated with worse outcomes, higher costs, and worse patient satisfaction - and the rate of professional burnout in health care is about 50%, which is higher compared to all other professions).
Charles Darwin (yes, that Darwin) proposed as early as 1872 something that is now called the "Facial Feedback Hypothesis". Basically, Darwin suggested (and studies since his time have supported) that our facial expressions can significantly influence our emotions:
"The free expression by outward signs of an emotion intensifies it. On the other hand, the repression, as far as this is possible, of all outward signs softens our emotions. Even the simulation of an emotion tends to arouse it in our minds."
William James, the so-called "Father of American Psychology" followed with a similar idea. He wrote in his book, "The Principles of Psychology" that:
"Refuse to express a passion, and it dies."
A number of studies (see one study here) have used a variety of methods to measure both the subjective (self-reported emotional state) and objective (heart rate, sweat production, blood pressure, skin temperature, etc) response to different emotions in response to different stimuli with the presence or absence of facial expression. The majority of these studies have shown that without the ability to smile, the emotional response to a trigger designed to produce "happiness" (such as a funny story or cartoon, or similar to the studies described above, a small gift or positive feedback) is significantly attenuated. More recently, using methods such as functional MRI to objectively analyze the emotional response and Botox injections to inhibit the ability to smile, studies (see an example here) have produced similar results. In other words, if we can't smile, we don't feel happy!
How do we interpret all of these studies in the context of leadership? Easy - small gestures of kindness, positive feedback, or even a simple smile will not only make us feel better, it will make everyone around us feel better. Bobby McFerrin was absolutely correct - "Don't worry, be happy." Even if you are not feeling happy, if you just simply "smile", you will feel better.
Monday, January 15, 2018
"Silence is betrayal"
Today, January 15, we celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr Day in the United States. Reverend King was born on January 15, 1929, and we celebrate MLK, Jr Day on the nearest Monday to his birthday every year (this year, MLK, Jr Day and his birthday actually coincide). MLK, Jr Day has been an official federal holiday since 1986, and it is fitting that we do so, perhaps this year more than most.
Reverend King was a Baptist minister and civil rights leader who first came to prominence when he led the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955 (the campaign occurred in response to the arrest of Rosa Parks, an African American woman who refused to give up her seat to a white man). King organized a number of non-violent protests - his non-violent, civil disobedience (King was reportedly heavily influenced by Mahatma Gandhi and the American philosopher, Henry David Thoreau). Reverend King went on to win the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize and was assassinated on April 4, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee.
Most people in the United States know of Reverend King as a civil rights leader - his "I have a dream" speech (watch the speech here) is one of the most well known speeches by any American leader. What is less well known was Reverend King's activism against the Vietnam War during the final years of his life. Exactly one year before he was assassinated, he delivered a speech at the Riverside Baptist Church in New York City on April 4, 1967 - it is called the "Beyond Vietnam" speech. In his opening remarks, he cites a line from the Executive Committee of the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam, a group of ministers and other leaders who were against the American involvement in Southeast Asia - "A time comes when silence is betrayal."
"A time comes when silence is betrayal." It is a statement of purpose and a call to action, even for us today. I see our government leaders today speaking out against some of the things that our current President has said, both in public and private. Unfortunately, some of these leaders choose to speak out only when it is popular to do so, i.e. only when the overwhelming majority of the public supports them. At other times, when siding with the President suits their needs, they choose to look the other way. They choose to be silent.
There are times when leaders should not be silent. There are times when leaders need to go against politics and take a stand for what is right and what is just. Too many leaders are silent when we need them to be the leaders the most. And through their silence, they betray their constituents. They betray all of us.
Today, I will remember Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr for all of the great things he did in his life - not just for African Americans, but for each and every one of us. He was a great man. He was a great leader. And he was not silent.
Reverend King was a Baptist minister and civil rights leader who first came to prominence when he led the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955 (the campaign occurred in response to the arrest of Rosa Parks, an African American woman who refused to give up her seat to a white man). King organized a number of non-violent protests - his non-violent, civil disobedience (King was reportedly heavily influenced by Mahatma Gandhi and the American philosopher, Henry David Thoreau). Reverend King went on to win the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize and was assassinated on April 4, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee.
Most people in the United States know of Reverend King as a civil rights leader - his "I have a dream" speech (watch the speech here) is one of the most well known speeches by any American leader. What is less well known was Reverend King's activism against the Vietnam War during the final years of his life. Exactly one year before he was assassinated, he delivered a speech at the Riverside Baptist Church in New York City on April 4, 1967 - it is called the "Beyond Vietnam" speech. In his opening remarks, he cites a line from the Executive Committee of the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam, a group of ministers and other leaders who were against the American involvement in Southeast Asia - "A time comes when silence is betrayal."
"A time comes when silence is betrayal." It is a statement of purpose and a call to action, even for us today. I see our government leaders today speaking out against some of the things that our current President has said, both in public and private. Unfortunately, some of these leaders choose to speak out only when it is popular to do so, i.e. only when the overwhelming majority of the public supports them. At other times, when siding with the President suits their needs, they choose to look the other way. They choose to be silent.
There are times when leaders should not be silent. There are times when leaders need to go against politics and take a stand for what is right and what is just. Too many leaders are silent when we need them to be the leaders the most. And through their silence, they betray their constituents. They betray all of us.
Today, I will remember Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr for all of the great things he did in his life - not just for African Americans, but for each and every one of us. He was a great man. He was a great leader. And he was not silent.
Sunday, January 14, 2018
Leadership Aphorisms II
According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, the word aphorism is defined as a concise statement of principle or a terse formulation of a truth or sentiment, often by a famous author from antiquity. I have scraps of paper with various leadership aphorisms scattered throughout my office, both at home and work. I would like to share some of my favorites again today (see my first list here):
1. "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."
I am not sure of the exact origin of this aphorism. Some have said that it comes from the Bible, while others say it is from the ancient Chinese philosopher, Lao Tzu, founder of Taoism. I came across more than a few references that says that the English writer, Anne Isablla Thackeray Ritchie coined the phrase in 1885 ("He certainly doesn't practise his precepts, but I supposed the Patron meant that if you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour. If you teach him to catch a fish you do him a good turn."). Regardless of its origin, it is one of my favorite aphorisms because it suggests very plainly that while it may be easier for us, as leaders, to do a job or task in the short run, if we allow our direct reports or teams to complete the task themselves, we will all be better off in the long run. They will certainly appreciate the opportunity to grow and develop, and they will have developed an expertise that will make our jobs as leaders easier and better.
2. "Leaders eat last."
I first heard this aphorism when I was in the Navy, and I think it has a lot to do with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Basically, Maslow suggested that individuals are motivated by certain basic needs, some of which (especially physiological necessities like food, water, clothing, and shelter) must be attended to first before they can ever fulfill the higher level needs (psychological needs and self-actualization needs). Leaders, if they are going to motivate their teams, must make sure that these basic needs are attended to - hence, military leaders in the field (during training or combat) should only eat after the rest of their troops have had a chance to do so, fulfilling Maslow's first level of needs. Even if you are not a military leader, what this says very elegantly (in my opinion) is that the team comes first - a leader's success will depend upon the success of the team. If the team fails, the leader fails. So make sure that your team has everything that they need (from a physiological standpoint for sure, but more likely things like psychological safety, resources, and time) to complete the task at hand.
3. "Relinquo mundum meliore loco" ("Leave the world a better place.").
I think I learned this aphorism, or at least a version of it (NOT the Latin version), when I was a Boy Scout. We were always taught to "leave the campsite better than how we found it." I have adopted this one as part of my personal mission, vision, and values. Again, we should always be striving for continuous improvement - of ourselves, of our teams, of our organizations, and perhaps most importantly, of society in general. Leave the world a better place.
4. "The name on the front of the jersey matters more than the one on the back."
Again, I have no idea of the origin of this aphorism. I know the legendary hockey coach, Herb Brooks, said it in the movie, Miracle (the scene when the team loses a pre-Olympic warm-up game and he makes them skate "suicides" on the rink afterwards, even after the arena staff turn off the lights). It also sounds like something that former NFL coach, ESPN commentator, and now head football coach at Arizona State University, Herman Edwards said or would have said. What the aphorism says is very powerful indeed - the team comes first and individuals come second. In the current context, the aphorism says (at least to me) that the needs of the team (i.e., the individuals on the team) far outweigh the needs of the leader (in other words, "Leaders eat last!").
5. "If you always do what you have always done, then you'll always have what you've already got."
I am not sure that Yogi Berra said this or not, but the quote is often attributed to him. Albert Einstein reportedly said something very similar (in a quote that is perhaps more famous), "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." The underlying meaning of both aphorisms is rather poignant. We, as leaders, should always be looking to improve - ourselves, our direct reports, our ways of doing things. "Continuous improvement" should be the goal. If you try to do things the way you have always done them, as Yogi says in his own unique way, you are going to achieve the same results that you have always achieved. We should always be looking for ways to improve. We should always be asking ourselves if there is a better way.
1. "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."
I am not sure of the exact origin of this aphorism. Some have said that it comes from the Bible, while others say it is from the ancient Chinese philosopher, Lao Tzu, founder of Taoism. I came across more than a few references that says that the English writer, Anne Isablla Thackeray Ritchie coined the phrase in 1885 ("He certainly doesn't practise his precepts, but I supposed the Patron meant that if you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour. If you teach him to catch a fish you do him a good turn."). Regardless of its origin, it is one of my favorite aphorisms because it suggests very plainly that while it may be easier for us, as leaders, to do a job or task in the short run, if we allow our direct reports or teams to complete the task themselves, we will all be better off in the long run. They will certainly appreciate the opportunity to grow and develop, and they will have developed an expertise that will make our jobs as leaders easier and better.
2. "Leaders eat last."
I first heard this aphorism when I was in the Navy, and I think it has a lot to do with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Basically, Maslow suggested that individuals are motivated by certain basic needs, some of which (especially physiological necessities like food, water, clothing, and shelter) must be attended to first before they can ever fulfill the higher level needs (psychological needs and self-actualization needs). Leaders, if they are going to motivate their teams, must make sure that these basic needs are attended to - hence, military leaders in the field (during training or combat) should only eat after the rest of their troops have had a chance to do so, fulfilling Maslow's first level of needs. Even if you are not a military leader, what this says very elegantly (in my opinion) is that the team comes first - a leader's success will depend upon the success of the team. If the team fails, the leader fails. So make sure that your team has everything that they need (from a physiological standpoint for sure, but more likely things like psychological safety, resources, and time) to complete the task at hand.
3. "Relinquo mundum meliore loco" ("Leave the world a better place.").
I think I learned this aphorism, or at least a version of it (NOT the Latin version), when I was a Boy Scout. We were always taught to "leave the campsite better than how we found it." I have adopted this one as part of my personal mission, vision, and values. Again, we should always be striving for continuous improvement - of ourselves, of our teams, of our organizations, and perhaps most importantly, of society in general. Leave the world a better place.
4. "The name on the front of the jersey matters more than the one on the back."
Again, I have no idea of the origin of this aphorism. I know the legendary hockey coach, Herb Brooks, said it in the movie, Miracle (the scene when the team loses a pre-Olympic warm-up game and he makes them skate "suicides" on the rink afterwards, even after the arena staff turn off the lights). It also sounds like something that former NFL coach, ESPN commentator, and now head football coach at Arizona State University, Herman Edwards said or would have said. What the aphorism says is very powerful indeed - the team comes first and individuals come second. In the current context, the aphorism says (at least to me) that the needs of the team (i.e., the individuals on the team) far outweigh the needs of the leader (in other words, "Leaders eat last!").
5. "If you always do what you have always done, then you'll always have what you've already got."
I am not sure that Yogi Berra said this or not, but the quote is often attributed to him. Albert Einstein reportedly said something very similar (in a quote that is perhaps more famous), "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." The underlying meaning of both aphorisms is rather poignant. We, as leaders, should always be looking to improve - ourselves, our direct reports, our ways of doing things. "Continuous improvement" should be the goal. If you try to do things the way you have always done them, as Yogi says in his own unique way, you are going to achieve the same results that you have always achieved. We should always be looking for ways to improve. We should always be asking ourselves if there is a better way.
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
Dunbar's Number
I came across an interesting article in "The New Yorker" the other day ("The Limits of Friendship" by Maria Konnikova) on something called "Dunbar's Number (see the TED talk "Can the internet buy you more friends?" by Robin Dunbar). The concept makes a lot of sense to me - basically, there is a limit to the number of friends that one human being can possibly have at any given point in time. Dunbar is an anthropologist and psychologist from the University of Oxford who came across the concept more or less by accident. He was trying to determine why primates spend so much time grooming one another (I know, it's an interesting question!). He found part of the answer in a 1980's hypothesis which is now called the "Social Brain Hypothesis" (formerly known as the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis, apparently).
According to the "Social Brain Hypothesis,"primates (apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, humans) have larger brains because they live in socially complex societies - in this case, the larger the group, the larger the brain. Dunbar extrapolated from regression modeling of data obtained comparing the size of different species of primates' social groups with the size of their frontal lobes. Based on the average size of a human brain, the number of people that any one individual could have in his or her social group was approximately 150 - any number greater than that would be too difficult to handle from a brain capacity standpoint.
After constructing a rationale for the so-called "Dunbar's Number," Dunbar conducted a number of laboratory and field experiments to prove his hypothesis. For example, he surveyed 43 different households and asked questions about (here we go again) how many Christmas cards they sent out and under what circumstances. As it turns out, the average network size (i.e., how many different family members, friends, and acquaintances each household considered part of their social group) was around 153, supporting the concept of Dunbar's Number. He reviewed anthropological records and found that the average group-size of so-called hunter-gatherer societies was 148.4 individuals. Again and again, regardless of what data set he reviewed, Dunbar found evidence to support the concept of Dunbar's Number.
As it turns out, Dunbar surmised (and again found supportive evidence) that there are a series of relevant group network sizes, depending upon the degree of "closeness" between individuals. For example, out of the 150 members of a person's social group, there are about 50 individuals who would be considered close friends (close enough to invite to a dinner party). Of those 50 individuals, there are 15 or so individuals who are close confidants (people that you would tell most things to). Finally, of that last group, there are about 5 individuals that are considered "best friends" and family members. Conversely, group network size can increase to 500 individuals if you consider them to be merely acquaintances and 1,500 for people you would be able to "put a name to a face." Note that all of these groups are multiples of three - hence, Dunbar's "rule of three." Going back to his original Christmas card study, Dunbar was again able to provide supportive evidence of his "rule of three."
I know what you are thinking right now - what about social media (Facebook friends, LinkedIn contacts, Twitter followers, etc)? For example, the average Facebook user has 338 "friends," while the average LinkedIn user has over 500 contacts. Social media apparently does not conform to Dunbar's Number. However, Dunbar has a lot to say about the impact of social media on group social behavior and whether one of your Facebook "friends" is truly someone that you would consider "close enough to invite to a dinner party." That is not for me to answer here, but what I will say is that the new generation who grew up with social media may answer this question very differently from someone like me, who grew up in an age without social media.
So what does all of this have to do with leadership? Well, as it turns out, leaders likely need a certain brain capacity to be able to process all of the things that they need to do to effectively lead and manage their group networks, and the number 150 seems to be important again. Since the days of the Roman Empire, the size of military units have been based on a similar concept to match unit leaders with an appropriate number of soldiers to effectively lead in battle. For example, the basic military unit is called a company and consists of approximately 150 soldiers. Companies are comprised of platoons (around 30-50 soldiers), which are comprised of squads (around 8-12 soldiers). Multiple companies form battalions (around 500 soldiers), and multiple battalions form regiments or brigades (1,000-1,500 soldiers), which eventually form divisions (10,000 soldiers). In other words, the military, since antiquity, has been effectively divided into social groups that roughly correspond to Dunbar's "rule of three"!
Most organizations today are designed with "Dunbar's Number" (or some version of it) in mind, even if not fully cognizant of doing so. There have been a number of articles that have asked the question, "How many direct reports should a manager have?" (there is a good Harvard Business Review article here). The answer likely depends on a number of factors (some of these factors may include the leader's locus of control, level of responsibilities both within and outside the organization, and the degree of collaboration with other areas of the organization that is required by the job). Most experts would recommend somewhere between 7-9 direct reports. Here again, we see evidence of Dunbar's "rule of three"! The direct reports would correspond (roughly) to the "best friends" and family members described above for individuals outside of the work setting. I am not suggesting that you should be best buddies with your direct reports or have your brother or sister report to you. Rather, what I am suggesting is that the level of interaction and number of daily or weekly contacts that you have with your direct reports should equate roughly to how many contacts you would have with your "best friend" or close relative. In order to effectively lead and manage, the number of direct reports needs to be workable based on the leader's brain capacity! As it turns out, it all comes back to primate behavior and the "Social Brain Hypothesis" - perhaps we should all be anthropologists!
According to the "Social Brain Hypothesis,"primates (apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, humans) have larger brains because they live in socially complex societies - in this case, the larger the group, the larger the brain. Dunbar extrapolated from regression modeling of data obtained comparing the size of different species of primates' social groups with the size of their frontal lobes. Based on the average size of a human brain, the number of people that any one individual could have in his or her social group was approximately 150 - any number greater than that would be too difficult to handle from a brain capacity standpoint.
After constructing a rationale for the so-called "Dunbar's Number," Dunbar conducted a number of laboratory and field experiments to prove his hypothesis. For example, he surveyed 43 different households and asked questions about (here we go again) how many Christmas cards they sent out and under what circumstances. As it turns out, the average network size (i.e., how many different family members, friends, and acquaintances each household considered part of their social group) was around 153, supporting the concept of Dunbar's Number. He reviewed anthropological records and found that the average group-size of so-called hunter-gatherer societies was 148.4 individuals. Again and again, regardless of what data set he reviewed, Dunbar found evidence to support the concept of Dunbar's Number.
As it turns out, Dunbar surmised (and again found supportive evidence) that there are a series of relevant group network sizes, depending upon the degree of "closeness" between individuals. For example, out of the 150 members of a person's social group, there are about 50 individuals who would be considered close friends (close enough to invite to a dinner party). Of those 50 individuals, there are 15 or so individuals who are close confidants (people that you would tell most things to). Finally, of that last group, there are about 5 individuals that are considered "best friends" and family members. Conversely, group network size can increase to 500 individuals if you consider them to be merely acquaintances and 1,500 for people you would be able to "put a name to a face." Note that all of these groups are multiples of three - hence, Dunbar's "rule of three." Going back to his original Christmas card study, Dunbar was again able to provide supportive evidence of his "rule of three."
I know what you are thinking right now - what about social media (Facebook friends, LinkedIn contacts, Twitter followers, etc)? For example, the average Facebook user has 338 "friends," while the average LinkedIn user has over 500 contacts. Social media apparently does not conform to Dunbar's Number. However, Dunbar has a lot to say about the impact of social media on group social behavior and whether one of your Facebook "friends" is truly someone that you would consider "close enough to invite to a dinner party." That is not for me to answer here, but what I will say is that the new generation who grew up with social media may answer this question very differently from someone like me, who grew up in an age without social media.
So what does all of this have to do with leadership? Well, as it turns out, leaders likely need a certain brain capacity to be able to process all of the things that they need to do to effectively lead and manage their group networks, and the number 150 seems to be important again. Since the days of the Roman Empire, the size of military units have been based on a similar concept to match unit leaders with an appropriate number of soldiers to effectively lead in battle. For example, the basic military unit is called a company and consists of approximately 150 soldiers. Companies are comprised of platoons (around 30-50 soldiers), which are comprised of squads (around 8-12 soldiers). Multiple companies form battalions (around 500 soldiers), and multiple battalions form regiments or brigades (1,000-1,500 soldiers), which eventually form divisions (10,000 soldiers). In other words, the military, since antiquity, has been effectively divided into social groups that roughly correspond to Dunbar's "rule of three"!
Most organizations today are designed with "Dunbar's Number" (or some version of it) in mind, even if not fully cognizant of doing so. There have been a number of articles that have asked the question, "How many direct reports should a manager have?" (there is a good Harvard Business Review article here). The answer likely depends on a number of factors (some of these factors may include the leader's locus of control, level of responsibilities both within and outside the organization, and the degree of collaboration with other areas of the organization that is required by the job). Most experts would recommend somewhere between 7-9 direct reports. Here again, we see evidence of Dunbar's "rule of three"! The direct reports would correspond (roughly) to the "best friends" and family members described above for individuals outside of the work setting. I am not suggesting that you should be best buddies with your direct reports or have your brother or sister report to you. Rather, what I am suggesting is that the level of interaction and number of daily or weekly contacts that you have with your direct reports should equate roughly to how many contacts you would have with your "best friend" or close relative. In order to effectively lead and manage, the number of direct reports needs to be workable based on the leader's brain capacity! As it turns out, it all comes back to primate behavior and the "Social Brain Hypothesis" - perhaps we should all be anthropologists!
Sunday, January 7, 2018
The Patriot Way Redux
I don't like the New England Patriots. I don't like Bill Belichik. I don't like Tom Brady. However, even I have to admire the winning culture - the so-called "Patriot Way" - that they have established in the National Football League (NFL). You simply have to admire what they have done over the last several years (almost two decades, in fact). Since he has been the Head Coach, the Patriots have won 5 Super Bowl championships (most recently coming from behind against the Atlanta Falcons in Super Bowl LI last year) and have lost two others (both times to the New York Giants). He has continued to win, year after year, and he will likely go down as one of the greatest coaches in the history of the NFL. And he probably deserves it. Tom Brady has been his quarterback for all of those Super Bowl wins (and losses), and he too will likely go down as one of the greatest NFL quarterbacks of all time. And he probably deserves it too.
The radio sports talk shows and ESPN television have been buzzing with a recent story by ESPN writer, Seth Wickersham, indicating that there is some tension at the Patriots headquarters. Apparently, the tension revolves around two issues (the whole "Deflate-gate" controversy is probably a third issue that is involved, though the story doesn't specifically address this theory) - the whole TB12 issue (Tom Brady has been working with a new fitness and health guru, Alex Guerrero, that he claims is one of the reasons why he can still play at such a high level at the age of 40 years - apparently there is some friction there between his head coach and Guerrero) and the recent Jimmy Garoppolo trade, that apparently Belichik did not want to do). Reportedly, Brady was so upset with Coach Belichik that he went over his head and went straight to the Patriots' owner, Robert Kraft. Kraft sided with Brady over his head coach (the Patriots have publicly denied these allegations). In other words, the so-called "Patriot Way" is not immune to drama or ego.
Leadership is a key aspect of establishing a successful culture. How leaders manage their superstars (athletes as well as employees) is a key aspect of driving high performance. The cliché, "There is no 'I' in team" is particularly relevant here. Ego tends to lead to unnecessary drama. Drama tends to lead to losing or lack of success (paraphrasing the old Jedi Master Yoda here - "Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to suffering..").
It will be interesting to see how the Patriots handle all of this - I wouldn't be too surprised if this was all a big sham engineered by Coach Belichik to motivate his team. Probably not, but I would not put it past him. Anyway, if the highly favored Patriots fail to win their sixth Super Bowl this year, the pundits will point directly to this controversy. Time will tell.
The radio sports talk shows and ESPN television have been buzzing with a recent story by ESPN writer, Seth Wickersham, indicating that there is some tension at the Patriots headquarters. Apparently, the tension revolves around two issues (the whole "Deflate-gate" controversy is probably a third issue that is involved, though the story doesn't specifically address this theory) - the whole TB12 issue (Tom Brady has been working with a new fitness and health guru, Alex Guerrero, that he claims is one of the reasons why he can still play at such a high level at the age of 40 years - apparently there is some friction there between his head coach and Guerrero) and the recent Jimmy Garoppolo trade, that apparently Belichik did not want to do). Reportedly, Brady was so upset with Coach Belichik that he went over his head and went straight to the Patriots' owner, Robert Kraft. Kraft sided with Brady over his head coach (the Patriots have publicly denied these allegations). In other words, the so-called "Patriot Way" is not immune to drama or ego.
Leadership is a key aspect of establishing a successful culture. How leaders manage their superstars (athletes as well as employees) is a key aspect of driving high performance. The cliché, "There is no 'I' in team" is particularly relevant here. Ego tends to lead to unnecessary drama. Drama tends to lead to losing or lack of success (paraphrasing the old Jedi Master Yoda here - "Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to suffering..").
It will be interesting to see how the Patriots handle all of this - I wouldn't be too surprised if this was all a big sham engineered by Coach Belichik to motivate his team. Probably not, but I would not put it past him. Anyway, if the highly favored Patriots fail to win their sixth Super Bowl this year, the pundits will point directly to this controversy. Time will tell.
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
“The greatest teacher, failure is.”
I am proud to admit that I have watched every Star Wars movie at least once, and I have watched the original trilogy many, many, many times. For the last 3 years, a new Star Wars movie has come out around Christmas time. My son, youngest daughter, and I have made it an annual tradition to go see the latest release on Christmas Eve day (full disclosure - in the old days, I was one of those last minute shoppers and would have still been shopping on Christmas Eve - either I have been rehabilitated or online shopping is the world's most outstanding invention, or maybe it's a combination of both). Anyway, there is a scene in this most recent release ("The Last Jedi") in which the wise Jedi Master, Yoda (technically, he's dead, so it's his "force shadow") is once again sitting down with his former apprentice, Luke Skywalker, teaching him another important lesson. In this case, Yoda is teaching Luke about failure. I won't spoil the movie (you can look online for that!), just trust me.
Yoda uses his own unique style and tells Luke, "The greatest teacher, failure is." As soon as I heard that, I made a mental note to myself to write the quote down as soon as the movie was over. When you really stop and think about it, Yoda is absolutely right (of course he is - he is a Jedi Master after all!). As I think about lessons that I have learned over the years, the ones that really stick with me were the ones that I learned after some kind of failure. A few months ago, I came across a catchy acronym for the word, "fail" (first attempt in learning). I know, it's a little too cute, but it definitely makes a lot of sense.
There are a number of quotes about failure - here are some of my personal favorites:
Thomas Edison: "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." (here, Edison is referring to the fact that he reportedly tried at least 10,000 times to build a light bulb that worked before he got it right).
Henry Ford: "Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently."
Johnny Cash: "You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space."
LeBron James: "You have to be able to accept failure to get better."
Winston Churchill: "Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm."
Malcom Forbes: "Failure is success if we learn from it."
Author unknown: "Life is a strange teacher. It gives the test first and the lesson after."
All of these quotes (from very successful individuals, I might add) all say the same thing - just like Master Yoda's quote. Failure is a wonderful teacher. Learn from your mistakes and move on.
Yoda uses his own unique style and tells Luke, "The greatest teacher, failure is." As soon as I heard that, I made a mental note to myself to write the quote down as soon as the movie was over. When you really stop and think about it, Yoda is absolutely right (of course he is - he is a Jedi Master after all!). As I think about lessons that I have learned over the years, the ones that really stick with me were the ones that I learned after some kind of failure. A few months ago, I came across a catchy acronym for the word, "fail" (first attempt in learning). I know, it's a little too cute, but it definitely makes a lot of sense.
There are a number of quotes about failure - here are some of my personal favorites:
Thomas Edison: "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." (here, Edison is referring to the fact that he reportedly tried at least 10,000 times to build a light bulb that worked before he got it right).
Henry Ford: "Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently."
Johnny Cash: "You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space."
LeBron James: "You have to be able to accept failure to get better."
Winston Churchill: "Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm."
Malcom Forbes: "Failure is success if we learn from it."
Author unknown: "Life is a strange teacher. It gives the test first and the lesson after."
All of these quotes (from very successful individuals, I might add) all say the same thing - just like Master Yoda's quote. Failure is a wonderful teacher. Learn from your mistakes and move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)