Yesterday, Welsh cyclist Geraint Thomas won the 2018 Tour de France, the world's most prestigious professional bicycling race. For those of you who don't know much about professional bicycle road racing (or for those of you who are too young to remember American cyclist Lance Armstrong, who won an unprecedented 7 Tour de France races in a row from 1999-2005, the most ever in history, before being stripped of all 7 victories for admitting to doping), the Tour de France is a grueling, three week long, 21 stage race around the country of France that covers over 2,200 miles. The race is extremely popular in Europe, though it is often overshadowed by other professional sports in the United States. Aside from Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis (whose 2006 Tour de France victory was similarly taken away because he tested positive for performance enhancing drugs), only one American has ever won the Tour de France - Greg LeMond won the race in 1986, 1989, and 1990.
The Tour de France is unique because, while an individual is named the winner, professional road bicycle racing is very much a team sport. A cycling team generally consists of a captain (usually the individual who is the best overall rider and therefore has the best chance of winning the race), different specialists (climbing specialist, sprinters, and time trialists), and the so-called domestiques, who are essentially professional workhorses who do whatever is necessary to help the captain win the race. Domestiques are the riders that you see carrying food bags and water bottles from the team vans that drive in the back of the pack (the peloton) to all of the cyclists on the team. If someone on the team has a flat tire, the domestique stays back with the rider (and in some cases, the domestique may be asked to give up his bike to the other rider, depending on the situation) while the team mechanics quickly change the flat tire. Once the tire is changed, the rider "drafts" behind the domestique to catch back up to the peloton. The domestiques are often used in tactical situations to help the captain stay up in front of the peloton or even win the race.
What is so unique about this year's Tour is that Geraint Thomas started out his career as one of the so-called super-domestiques (the captain of all the domestiques, if you will) for riders Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome when they won the Tour in past years. Four-time Tour de France winner, Chris Froome, in fact, served as the super-domestique for eventual champion Bradley Wiggins in 2012 (Froome finished second in the overall standings that year). One of my earliest Tour de France memories, in fact, was the 1985 Tour de France, when Greg LeMond was serving as the super-domestique for five-time winner Bernard Hinault ("The Badger"). During one of the later stages of the race, Hinault, who had suffered significant injuries in a crash earlier in the race, was struggling to maintain his overall lead and had fallen far behind several riders, including LeMond. I particularly remember an exchange (which was televised) that LeMond had with one of the team managers, almost begging the manager to allow him to push hard to win the stage and wear the famed yellow jersey (the overall leader of the Tour de France gets to wear a yellow jersey) for a few days. The team manager felt that LeMond was in a position to win the overall race, but he made a controversial decision to give Hinault an opportunity to win his fifth Tour by telling LeMond to hold back! LeMond was clearly very frustrated, and following the Tour, Bernard Hinault promised that he would return in 1986 and serve as LeMond's super-domestique to help him win his first Tour. Hinault actually tried hard to win that race too, but LeMond still went on to win his first of three Tours, the first (and only) American to do so.
Domestiques do whatever it takes to help the team leader win the Tour de France. They have one mission only - help the team leader get (and stay) in a position to win. Just imagine if everyone on a team was trying their hardest to achieve one single mission! Surprisingly, and perhaps unfortunately, there are perhaps too many individuals acting like the 1986 Tour de France version of Bernard Hinault, when what is really needed is for individuals to be acting like the 1985 version of Greg LeMond. Success comes hard, but with teamwork, it can happen. We need more domestiques in our organizations! We need Tour de France leadership!
Monday, July 30, 2018
Saturday, July 28, 2018
"Ghost runner on second!”
As I have stated on a number of occasions in various blog posts in the past, one of my favorite comic strips growing up was "Calvin and Hobbes", a daily comic strip by the American cartoonist, Bill Watterson that ran from 1985 to 1995. I follow the official "Calvin and Hobbes" on Twitter now and came across one of the great ones. Calvin and Hobbes were playing baseball and were arguing about the use of "ghost runners" (if you don't know what I am referring to, please read about the "Invisible Runner Rule"). I remember using ghost runners throughout my childhood! Basically, if you were playing kickball, baseball, softball, or whiffle ball with less than the full complement of players, you could use ghost runners. Every kid in our neighborhood seemed to know about the unwritten rules about the use of ghost runners, so I don't remember ever having to argue about them as Calvin and Hobbes do in the comic strip below:
Okay, I know what you are thinking. What in the world does the "Invisible Runner Rule" have to do with leadership? As I was enjoying this particular comic strip and fondly reminiscing about ghost runners, I had to think about “ghost leaders”, or "hidden leaders." One of the most important things that leaders can do in any organization is to cultivate talent. Leaders need to find and develop new leaders - the future of the organization depends upon it. I am amazed at how many times in the past year that we have opened up an internal search for a new leadership position within the organization and found hidden leaders (and I am defining "hidden leaders" as emerging leaders that seemingly fly beneath the radar and are not well-recognized as potential leaders in the organization).
Organizations often can (and should) cultivate talent in the organization by inviting emerging leaders to participate in leadership development programs. Kevin Lane, Alexia Lamaraud, and Emily Yeuh wrote an article for the McKinsey Institute (published in McKinsey Quarterly in January 2017) called "Finding Hidden Leaders". In the article, these authors suggest four ways (one traditional, the other three relatively newer) of finding and developing talent. Harvesting is the traditional method of choice and refers to the practice of letting the "cream rise to the top" where talented individuals emerge as stars within the organization and are placed in progressively higher positions of leadership. Lane, Lamaraud, and Yeuh suggest that there are three better, more proactive (as opposed to the more reactive, harvesting, method) ways of cultivating talent - hunting, fishing, and trawling. Hunting refers to the practice of "seeking out promising individuals from among those who don't normally make the short list" (in other words, rather than waiting on individuals to self-select with the traditional interview process, go out and find these individuals and encourage them to take on greater responsibility within the organization). Fishing involves using "bait" (using "rewards for people who demonstrate specific skills"). Finally, trawling involves digging deep "into the work environment of employees to uncover skills you can't see by looking top-down."
I don't know much about "hunting", "fishing", and "trawling", but I do know that finding hidden leaders takes a more proactive approach than what is traditionally practiced in most organizations today. Ghost runners certainly do exist, but you have to work hard to find them. And that is what leaders should be doing - finding and developing the next generation of talent.
Okay, I know what you are thinking. What in the world does the "Invisible Runner Rule" have to do with leadership? As I was enjoying this particular comic strip and fondly reminiscing about ghost runners, I had to think about “ghost leaders”, or "hidden leaders." One of the most important things that leaders can do in any organization is to cultivate talent. Leaders need to find and develop new leaders - the future of the organization depends upon it. I am amazed at how many times in the past year that we have opened up an internal search for a new leadership position within the organization and found hidden leaders (and I am defining "hidden leaders" as emerging leaders that seemingly fly beneath the radar and are not well-recognized as potential leaders in the organization).
Organizations often can (and should) cultivate talent in the organization by inviting emerging leaders to participate in leadership development programs. Kevin Lane, Alexia Lamaraud, and Emily Yeuh wrote an article for the McKinsey Institute (published in McKinsey Quarterly in January 2017) called "Finding Hidden Leaders". In the article, these authors suggest four ways (one traditional, the other three relatively newer) of finding and developing talent. Harvesting is the traditional method of choice and refers to the practice of letting the "cream rise to the top" where talented individuals emerge as stars within the organization and are placed in progressively higher positions of leadership. Lane, Lamaraud, and Yeuh suggest that there are three better, more proactive (as opposed to the more reactive, harvesting, method) ways of cultivating talent - hunting, fishing, and trawling. Hunting refers to the practice of "seeking out promising individuals from among those who don't normally make the short list" (in other words, rather than waiting on individuals to self-select with the traditional interview process, go out and find these individuals and encourage them to take on greater responsibility within the organization). Fishing involves using "bait" (using "rewards for people who demonstrate specific skills"). Finally, trawling involves digging deep "into the work environment of employees to uncover skills you can't see by looking top-down."
I don't know much about "hunting", "fishing", and "trawling", but I do know that finding hidden leaders takes a more proactive approach than what is traditionally practiced in most organizations today. Ghost runners certainly do exist, but you have to work hard to find them. And that is what leaders should be doing - finding and developing the next generation of talent.
Sunday, July 22, 2018
"It's your world and you can cry if you want to."
I am reading a book right now called "Dear Madam President: An Open Letter to the Women Who Will Run the World" by Jennifer Pamieri. Ms. Palmieri was President Obama's White House Director of Communications (in addition to several positions she held during President Bill Clinton's terms in the White Office) and Director of Communications for Senator Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. It's a pretty good book so far, but there is one chapter that really struck home with me. Ms. Palmieri called it "Nod less. Cry More." Her premise is that women in the working world (a world which was first created by men for men over many, many years: "Men spent centuries building the professional world, devising rules to make sure it was a comfortable place for them and that it was geared toward their particular qualities and skills.") don't show emotion - indeed, they are not allowed to show emotion - because emotion (i.e., crying) is a sign of weakness. "You don't blanch, you don't panic, you show no emotion. I can handle this. I can handle anything." Over the years, women have adopted the so-called "nod" when hearing bad news for the first time. Women "nod" instead of crying.
As I read the chapter, I thought back over the years when I have worked with and for women in positions of authority. I have to confess that I've been guilty over the years of accusing women of showing too much emotion (not women in general here, but specific women in specific situations). I have worked my entire adult life in a profession where empathy, compassion, and sensitivity are not only expected, they are necessary to be successful. Physicians and other health care providers just can't be robots - it's okay to show emotion, because we deal with some incredibly difficult issues, such as the death of one of our patients. However, I can remember times when I have looked on leaders - actually both men and women leaders, but women more so - that have showed too much emotion and suggested that they were bad leaders. For example, when the media accused former U.S. Representative and Speaker of the House, John Boehner, of crying too much, I agreed with them. However, if I were to be completely honest, I have been harder on women leaders than men leaders who show too much emotion. In other words, I have been guilty of doing exactly what Ms. Palmieri writes about in her book - equating women leaders who show emotion (any emotion, let alone "too much emotion") with poor leadership ability.
I remember a time when I was on a medical humanitarian mission with the military. We were in a foreign country and were guests of the highest ranking military official in the region. Our unit's "Officer in Charge" (OIC) was a female. There was a ceremony at the end of our visit, when the OIC and the local ranking officer (in this case, a Brigadier General) were standing together and accepting a gift from a local family that we had helped. The gift was brought up by a small, sickly young boy - I can't remember exactly what condition he had, but I seem to remember that he walked with a very noticeable limp. I remember seeing the OIC moved to tears when the boy walked up. I remember looking at the General who was stood stoically and without emotion, and thinking to myself, "This is not appropriate that our OIC is crying!" As Ms. Palmieri would put it, the General was "nodding" and our OIC was "crying."
Really, what's so wrong about showing emotion - especially in this instance? Crying is not a sign of weakness. Showing emotion is not a sign of weakness. Showing emotion actually shows that you are a caring human being! Looking back now, I have to ask myself the question why the Brigadier General wasn't moved to tears - did he not care about the little boy? Was he trying to put on a show of toughness for his troops and for the visiting Americans? Really, shouldn't we want leaders who are compassionate, empathetic, and sensitive to the circumstances of others? Shouldn't we want our leaders to be human? When it all comes down to it, Ms. Palmieri is absolutely correct. We should "nod less and cry more."
As I read the chapter, I thought back over the years when I have worked with and for women in positions of authority. I have to confess that I've been guilty over the years of accusing women of showing too much emotion (not women in general here, but specific women in specific situations). I have worked my entire adult life in a profession where empathy, compassion, and sensitivity are not only expected, they are necessary to be successful. Physicians and other health care providers just can't be robots - it's okay to show emotion, because we deal with some incredibly difficult issues, such as the death of one of our patients. However, I can remember times when I have looked on leaders - actually both men and women leaders, but women more so - that have showed too much emotion and suggested that they were bad leaders. For example, when the media accused former U.S. Representative and Speaker of the House, John Boehner, of crying too much, I agreed with them. However, if I were to be completely honest, I have been harder on women leaders than men leaders who show too much emotion. In other words, I have been guilty of doing exactly what Ms. Palmieri writes about in her book - equating women leaders who show emotion (any emotion, let alone "too much emotion") with poor leadership ability.
I remember a time when I was on a medical humanitarian mission with the military. We were in a foreign country and were guests of the highest ranking military official in the region. Our unit's "Officer in Charge" (OIC) was a female. There was a ceremony at the end of our visit, when the OIC and the local ranking officer (in this case, a Brigadier General) were standing together and accepting a gift from a local family that we had helped. The gift was brought up by a small, sickly young boy - I can't remember exactly what condition he had, but I seem to remember that he walked with a very noticeable limp. I remember seeing the OIC moved to tears when the boy walked up. I remember looking at the General who was stood stoically and without emotion, and thinking to myself, "This is not appropriate that our OIC is crying!" As Ms. Palmieri would put it, the General was "nodding" and our OIC was "crying."
Really, what's so wrong about showing emotion - especially in this instance? Crying is not a sign of weakness. Showing emotion is not a sign of weakness. Showing emotion actually shows that you are a caring human being! Looking back now, I have to ask myself the question why the Brigadier General wasn't moved to tears - did he not care about the little boy? Was he trying to put on a show of toughness for his troops and for the visiting Americans? Really, shouldn't we want leaders who are compassionate, empathetic, and sensitive to the circumstances of others? Shouldn't we want our leaders to be human? When it all comes down to it, Ms. Palmieri is absolutely correct. We should "nod less and cry more."
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Sometimes it's best just to stay put...
Our family all met up in Chicago this past weekend for a short, fun-filled trip to the Windy City. Actually, Chicago is probably the most centrally located of all the possible cities we could have visited for a weekend trip. It rained almost the whole day on Saturday, but we still had fun (even though we apparently chose the weekend of "Taste of Chicago" AND the Chicago-wide Pokémon Go contest). On Sunday, we drove down to Wrigley Field (the Cubs, alas, were out of town) to pick up some spirit wear (you can never pass that up - and in this case, I was able to easily convince my wife that I desperately needed the home jersey, the visitor jersey, AND the alternate jersey). There are some great photos of the kids and I in front of the Ernie Banks statue and the iconic Wrigley Field, Home of Chicago Cubs). Unfortunately, there were no tours that day (apparently Journey and Def Leppard had just given a concert the night before), but they were hosting a large crowd out in front of the ballpark and playing the FIFA World Cup Final on a jumbo TV.
Now admittedly, I am at best a casual soccer fan, but it was very cool to watch 3 goals being scored in the span of what seemed to be about five minutes. The game never really was that close after that, so congratulations to France on their second World Cup victory (their first was in 1998). And, congratulations to Croatia on their first World Cup Finals. While we all followed the game closely on the radio on the way to brunch, the game would have been a lot more exciting if it was closer. And while many true blue soccer fans would probably disagree with me, I would have liked it even more if the game remained tied until the end, requiring penalty kicks!
Soccer penalty kicks seem really unfair. It seems to me that the goalie has no chance whatsoever. It almost seems as if the goalie neither wins or loses - it comes down to whether the kicker makes a mistake ("chokes") or not. The rules are impossible - the goalie isn't even allowed to move until the kicker actually kicks the ball. The goalie has three options - move to the right (i.e., dive to the right), move to the left, or stay put. What should he or she do? As it turns out, experts in Game Theory have thoroughly analyzed this question (just look up "Soccer penalty kick" and "game theory" on the Internet for a number of published studies, articles, and blog posts). The Wall Street Journal published an article last week about a study that was published in the Journal of Economic Psychology by researchers from Israel's Ben-Gurion University. These researchers analyzed over 300 different penalty kicks. Goalies moved to the left 49.3% of the time, to the right 44.4% of the time, and stayed put only 6.3% of the time. Which strategy was the most successful? Well, kicks went to the left 32.2% of the time, to the right 28.7% of the time, and to the center 39.2% of the time. In other words, the goalie's best strategy was to stay put.
While not always true, staying put is often the best strategy in life too. Don't get me wrong - I am not advocating that individuals or organizations should refrain from change (I actually would say the opposite, change is often good). What I am saying is that moving from a job that you enjoy to another job is not always the best strategy. The old adage that the "grass is not always greener on the other side" is frequently true. Over the years, I have had a number of opportunities elsewhere. I have often found, however, that most organizations either don't compare to my present one, or even if they do, there are just too many unknowns. I have been fortunate to move up in my organization, and with each opportunity I have more challenges that have been fun, exciting, and intellectually stimulating. Is my organization perfect? No, far from it. But I see opportunities in every single one of our imperfections. Opportunities are new challenges, and new challenges keep me motivated and enthusiastic. I have worked hard to establish my credibility (I hope) here, and if there are times when the job can get far too political, at least I know the political lay of the land.
So, if you feel like you are contributing to the greater cause, if you have bought in completely to the organization's mission and vision, and if you are provided with new opportunities and challenges every so often, it seems that the best strategy might be to stay put. Just like the goalies.
Now admittedly, I am at best a casual soccer fan, but it was very cool to watch 3 goals being scored in the span of what seemed to be about five minutes. The game never really was that close after that, so congratulations to France on their second World Cup victory (their first was in 1998). And, congratulations to Croatia on their first World Cup Finals. While we all followed the game closely on the radio on the way to brunch, the game would have been a lot more exciting if it was closer. And while many true blue soccer fans would probably disagree with me, I would have liked it even more if the game remained tied until the end, requiring penalty kicks!
Soccer penalty kicks seem really unfair. It seems to me that the goalie has no chance whatsoever. It almost seems as if the goalie neither wins or loses - it comes down to whether the kicker makes a mistake ("chokes") or not. The rules are impossible - the goalie isn't even allowed to move until the kicker actually kicks the ball. The goalie has three options - move to the right (i.e., dive to the right), move to the left, or stay put. What should he or she do? As it turns out, experts in Game Theory have thoroughly analyzed this question (just look up "Soccer penalty kick" and "game theory" on the Internet for a number of published studies, articles, and blog posts). The Wall Street Journal published an article last week about a study that was published in the Journal of Economic Psychology by researchers from Israel's Ben-Gurion University. These researchers analyzed over 300 different penalty kicks. Goalies moved to the left 49.3% of the time, to the right 44.4% of the time, and stayed put only 6.3% of the time. Which strategy was the most successful? Well, kicks went to the left 32.2% of the time, to the right 28.7% of the time, and to the center 39.2% of the time. In other words, the goalie's best strategy was to stay put.
While not always true, staying put is often the best strategy in life too. Don't get me wrong - I am not advocating that individuals or organizations should refrain from change (I actually would say the opposite, change is often good). What I am saying is that moving from a job that you enjoy to another job is not always the best strategy. The old adage that the "grass is not always greener on the other side" is frequently true. Over the years, I have had a number of opportunities elsewhere. I have often found, however, that most organizations either don't compare to my present one, or even if they do, there are just too many unknowns. I have been fortunate to move up in my organization, and with each opportunity I have more challenges that have been fun, exciting, and intellectually stimulating. Is my organization perfect? No, far from it. But I see opportunities in every single one of our imperfections. Opportunities are new challenges, and new challenges keep me motivated and enthusiastic. I have worked hard to establish my credibility (I hope) here, and if there are times when the job can get far too political, at least I know the political lay of the land.
So, if you feel like you are contributing to the greater cause, if you have bought in completely to the organization's mission and vision, and if you are provided with new opportunities and challenges every so often, it seems that the best strategy might be to stay put. Just like the goalies.
Sunday, July 15, 2018
Goal-oriented or recognition-oriented?
My wife and I were having a conversation the other day, and while I am not completely sure how we ended up on this particular subject, I think it has some direct relevance to leadership. In fact, I am sure that it does. Our question was whether it was better for a person to be goal-oriented or recognition-oriented. There have been times in both of our lives when we could have said that we were more goal-oriented than recognition-oriented, and vice versa. Let me give you an example. As I have stated in the past, some of my fondest memories growing up came from my time in the Boy Scouts of America. The Eagle Scout Award is Scouting's highest honor - in fact, very few Boy Scouts earn the rank of Eagle Scout. I set a goal to become an Eagle Scout - a goal that I happily achieved. I can't tell you for sure whether reaching the goal was the more important driver of my achievement or if it was the award that came at the end of the work. Certainly earning the rank of Eagle Scout came with a lot of recognition and positive accolades. Which was more important in my case? I honestly can't say for sure.
Here's another example. Throughout high and college, I worked hard so that I would one end medical school and become a physician. As anyone who has gone to medical school can attest, it's not an easy path. While the percentages differ from year to year (and by how the number is determined), around forty percent of individuals applying to medical school get accepted (importantly, the U.S. News and World Report states that only about 9% of applicants get accepted, but this number is based on faulty statistics and doesn't take into account that most individuals apply to more than one medical school). Once you get to medical school, it gets even harder! There is no question that being a physician (even today) brings with it a lot of recognition and positive accolades. However, if the only reason I studied all those hours was to earn that recognition, I probably would have never made it. In this case, the goal was a more powerful motivator than the reward.
There is an age-old argument about intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is when individuals engage in a behavior or perform a certain action simply because they enjoy it. Conversely, Extrinsic motivation occurs when individuals engage in a behavior or perform a certain action for the reward that they receive at the end (the reward can be money, fame, or praise). Most management studies suggest that leaders would do well to rely upon intrinsic, as opposed to extrinsic motivation. However, there is a very subtle difference between what I my wife and I were talking about (being goal-oriented versus recognition-oriented) and intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. In both of the examples I mentioned above, you would be exactly right if you argued that there certainly elements of extrinsic motivation (earning an Eagle Scout badge in the first, earning the right to add the initials "M" and "D" after my name in the second). However, I can also tell you that if I hadn't enjoyed doing all of the things that I did in Boy Scouts, I would have never stuck with it long enough to earn the Tenderfoot badge let alone the Eagle Scout one. Similarly, if I didn't find biology, chemistry, and physics interesting all through school, I would have never done well in school, nor would I have stayed in the undergraduate majors that I did.
So, where did my wife and I end up in our discussion? The simple answer is that there isn't a simple answer. There are times when individuals are going to be more goal-oriented than recognition-oriented. At other times, they are going to be more motivated by earning the recognition than they are by achieving the goal. The important thing for leaders is to understand the differences and use both as motivators. Leaders should set goals for their teams (and for themselves). Along the way, leaders should continue to encourage their teams to push on, even when it gets hard. They should stay positive and recognize their teams by saying "Good job" and "Thank you." And when the team finally achieves the goal, they should be recognized. In addition, leaders should know what kind of individuals that are on their team - there are some individuals who will lean more towards being "goal-oriented" just like there will be some that are more "recognition-oriented." I think my wife settled on something similar. The best approach often is the one that works best.
Here's another example. Throughout high and college, I worked hard so that I would one end medical school and become a physician. As anyone who has gone to medical school can attest, it's not an easy path. While the percentages differ from year to year (and by how the number is determined), around forty percent of individuals applying to medical school get accepted (importantly, the U.S. News and World Report states that only about 9% of applicants get accepted, but this number is based on faulty statistics and doesn't take into account that most individuals apply to more than one medical school). Once you get to medical school, it gets even harder! There is no question that being a physician (even today) brings with it a lot of recognition and positive accolades. However, if the only reason I studied all those hours was to earn that recognition, I probably would have never made it. In this case, the goal was a more powerful motivator than the reward.
There is an age-old argument about intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is when individuals engage in a behavior or perform a certain action simply because they enjoy it. Conversely, Extrinsic motivation occurs when individuals engage in a behavior or perform a certain action for the reward that they receive at the end (the reward can be money, fame, or praise). Most management studies suggest that leaders would do well to rely upon intrinsic, as opposed to extrinsic motivation. However, there is a very subtle difference between what I my wife and I were talking about (being goal-oriented versus recognition-oriented) and intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. In both of the examples I mentioned above, you would be exactly right if you argued that there certainly elements of extrinsic motivation (earning an Eagle Scout badge in the first, earning the right to add the initials "M" and "D" after my name in the second). However, I can also tell you that if I hadn't enjoyed doing all of the things that I did in Boy Scouts, I would have never stuck with it long enough to earn the Tenderfoot badge let alone the Eagle Scout one. Similarly, if I didn't find biology, chemistry, and physics interesting all through school, I would have never done well in school, nor would I have stayed in the undergraduate majors that I did.
So, where did my wife and I end up in our discussion? The simple answer is that there isn't a simple answer. There are times when individuals are going to be more goal-oriented than recognition-oriented. At other times, they are going to be more motivated by earning the recognition than they are by achieving the goal. The important thing for leaders is to understand the differences and use both as motivators. Leaders should set goals for their teams (and for themselves). Along the way, leaders should continue to encourage their teams to push on, even when it gets hard. They should stay positive and recognize their teams by saying "Good job" and "Thank you." And when the team finally achieves the goal, they should be recognized. In addition, leaders should know what kind of individuals that are on their team - there are some individuals who will lean more towards being "goal-oriented" just like there will be some that are more "recognition-oriented." I think my wife settled on something similar. The best approach often is the one that works best.
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
Primordial Soup
I have always been fascinated by science - I suspect that is one of the main reasons why I became interested in medicine at an early age. I was the child who had the chemistry set, but didn't follow the directions (I made up my own experiments). I remember stabbing one of my fingers with a needle to look at a drop of my own blood beneath the microscope. I inherited a set of dissecting tools from one of my parents (I think it was my mother's) and remember going to the Kay-Bee Toy and Hobby Shop (which apparently is coming back) at our local mall to buy the latest specimen in a jar of formaldehyde to dissect and examine. I remember dissecting a worm, a grasshopper, a perch, and a frog, at least. One of the earliest and perhaps most vivid school memories was the time I opened up our science textbook and saw the picture of a contraption built to replicate Earth's early atmosphere to create the so-called primordial soup. I am sure you have seen it before too - basically, a group of scientists combined all of the physical and chemical conditions of the Earth's atmosphere, some time around the beginning of time (methane, water, ammonia, and hydrogen combined with the right amount of heat, pressure, and electricity to mimic lightning). After several days, the scientists found that these conditions created a number of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. I was incredibly impressed - this was it! The origins of life on Earth.
I've been reading a book the past few days called "The Immense Journey" by the American anthropologist, philosopher, and naturalist Loren Eiseley. The book is basically a more scientific version of Henry David Thoreau's classic book, Walden. There is a chapter in the book where Eiseley talks about one of the early theories on the origin of life. As it turns out, when the first trans-oceanic cables were being laid, sludge from the bottom of the sea was dredged up. Analysis of the sludge revealed a number of organic compounds, leading more than a few scientists to hypothesize that life may have began at the bottom of the sea (note that this particular theory follows the sequence of the theory of evolution, in that life started out in the water and eventually crawled out of the ocean and on to land). As early as 1868, the British biologist Thomas Henry Huxley studied samples taken from the bottom of the Atlantic and called this substance, Bathybius haeckelii, in honor of the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, who was one of the first to suggest the concept of a "primordial soup" (he called it Urschleim). The bottom of the ocean was covered with this primordial slime, and all of life on Earth originated from Huxley's Bathybius haeckelii, or so he believed (he was not alone). After the oceanographic Challenger expedition of 1872-1876 failed to find any evidence of Bathybius haeckelii, Huxley's theories rapidly fell out of favor. Surprisingly, Huxley's theories were much closer to the present day thinking than he could have ever imagined, as recent theories suggest that life began near deep-sea hydrothermic vents.
What's the point of all of this, you ask? My point is this - the increase in our knowledge starts with observations and experiments that lead to a theory, which in many cases is not correct. In fact, in some cases, the theory can be dead wrong! However, the important thing is that if we learn what is wrong, we will eventually learn what is right. The opposite of counterfactual is factual. Even when we are way off the mark, we are just that much closer to being on the mark. As the saying goes, you will never learn if you never make a mistake. The only way to advance knowledge is to learn by making mistakes. Huxley was certainly not correct, but by putting his theory out there, we moved one step closer to the truth. We learned through his mistakes, as well as the mistakes of others. Perhaps the true "primordial soup" of knowledge rests in our ability to take risks, learn from our mistakes, and move forward as we learn about life.
I've been reading a book the past few days called "The Immense Journey" by the American anthropologist, philosopher, and naturalist Loren Eiseley. The book is basically a more scientific version of Henry David Thoreau's classic book, Walden. There is a chapter in the book where Eiseley talks about one of the early theories on the origin of life. As it turns out, when the first trans-oceanic cables were being laid, sludge from the bottom of the sea was dredged up. Analysis of the sludge revealed a number of organic compounds, leading more than a few scientists to hypothesize that life may have began at the bottom of the sea (note that this particular theory follows the sequence of the theory of evolution, in that life started out in the water and eventually crawled out of the ocean and on to land). As early as 1868, the British biologist Thomas Henry Huxley studied samples taken from the bottom of the Atlantic and called this substance, Bathybius haeckelii, in honor of the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, who was one of the first to suggest the concept of a "primordial soup" (he called it Urschleim). The bottom of the ocean was covered with this primordial slime, and all of life on Earth originated from Huxley's Bathybius haeckelii, or so he believed (he was not alone). After the oceanographic Challenger expedition of 1872-1876 failed to find any evidence of Bathybius haeckelii, Huxley's theories rapidly fell out of favor. Surprisingly, Huxley's theories were much closer to the present day thinking than he could have ever imagined, as recent theories suggest that life began near deep-sea hydrothermic vents.
What's the point of all of this, you ask? My point is this - the increase in our knowledge starts with observations and experiments that lead to a theory, which in many cases is not correct. In fact, in some cases, the theory can be dead wrong! However, the important thing is that if we learn what is wrong, we will eventually learn what is right. The opposite of counterfactual is factual. Even when we are way off the mark, we are just that much closer to being on the mark. As the saying goes, you will never learn if you never make a mistake. The only way to advance knowledge is to learn by making mistakes. Huxley was certainly not correct, but by putting his theory out there, we moved one step closer to the truth. We learned through his mistakes, as well as the mistakes of others. Perhaps the true "primordial soup" of knowledge rests in our ability to take risks, learn from our mistakes, and move forward as we learn about life.
Sunday, July 8, 2018
"If you want to do great things and make a big impact, learn to delegate..."
Former Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Sandra Day O'Connor reportedly once said, "The really expert riders of horses let the horse know immediately who is in control, but then guide the horse with loose reins and seldom use the spurs." She was right, of course. One of the most difficult things for any new leader is the art of delegation. We can't do it all. Nor should we. Unfortunately, we tend to hold on to authority and responsibility, even for the simple and straightforward tasks.
Why can't we delegate? For many new leaders especially, the inability (or in some cases, the outright refusal) to delegate stems from a perceived fear of losing power. The new leader has just been given authority and responsibility, and he or she does not want to screw up so early in his or her new tenure. New leaders (and many seasoned leaders) also don't want to delegate for fear of failure and not getting the job done. These leaders don't trust their teams to be able to do the work in a manner that they feel is warranted in order to accomplish the task successfully.
President Ronald Reagan (who, incidentally, nominated Justice O'Connor) said, "Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don't interfere as long as the policy you've decided upon is carried out." In other words, leaders need to establish the mission, vision, and values, develop the strategy, set the goals and objectives, and then delegate both the authority and responsibility to execute the strategy to meet the goals and objectives. It shouldn't be that difficult. If a leader doesn't trust his or her team to execute the strategy, then one of two things needs to occur. Either find the right individuals to be on the team or develop the ones that are already on the team so that they can be successful.
There are so many more benefits to delegation than there are risks. First and foremost, delegation is a development opportunity for emerging leaders on the team. There's no more powerful statement of trust and confidence than for a leader to delegate authority and responsibility to someone else on the team. Delegation often leads to new and/or enhanced skills and knowledge. Delegation fosters loyalty, increases motivation, and improves overall job satisfaction. As the team develops additional experience and skills, they can take on even more difficult jobs and projects. All of these things will free up time for the leader, so that he or she can focus on being more strategic, more innovative, and more visionary. Finally, the leader that delegates will develop a reputation in the organization for building trust, loyalty, and camaraderie, as well as developing talent.
The author John C. Maxwell said, "If you want to do a few small things right, do them yourself. If you want to do great things and make a big impact, learn to delegate." He was absolutely correct. Learn to delegate.
Why can't we delegate? For many new leaders especially, the inability (or in some cases, the outright refusal) to delegate stems from a perceived fear of losing power. The new leader has just been given authority and responsibility, and he or she does not want to screw up so early in his or her new tenure. New leaders (and many seasoned leaders) also don't want to delegate for fear of failure and not getting the job done. These leaders don't trust their teams to be able to do the work in a manner that they feel is warranted in order to accomplish the task successfully.
President Ronald Reagan (who, incidentally, nominated Justice O'Connor) said, "Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don't interfere as long as the policy you've decided upon is carried out." In other words, leaders need to establish the mission, vision, and values, develop the strategy, set the goals and objectives, and then delegate both the authority and responsibility to execute the strategy to meet the goals and objectives. It shouldn't be that difficult. If a leader doesn't trust his or her team to execute the strategy, then one of two things needs to occur. Either find the right individuals to be on the team or develop the ones that are already on the team so that they can be successful.
There are so many more benefits to delegation than there are risks. First and foremost, delegation is a development opportunity for emerging leaders on the team. There's no more powerful statement of trust and confidence than for a leader to delegate authority and responsibility to someone else on the team. Delegation often leads to new and/or enhanced skills and knowledge. Delegation fosters loyalty, increases motivation, and improves overall job satisfaction. As the team develops additional experience and skills, they can take on even more difficult jobs and projects. All of these things will free up time for the leader, so that he or she can focus on being more strategic, more innovative, and more visionary. Finally, the leader that delegates will develop a reputation in the organization for building trust, loyalty, and camaraderie, as well as developing talent.
The author John C. Maxwell said, "If you want to do a few small things right, do them yourself. If you want to do great things and make a big impact, learn to delegate." He was absolutely correct. Learn to delegate.
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
Happy Fourth!
Today, July 4, 2018, is Independence Day in the United States - the Fourth of July. Today is the day we celebrate the founding of our great country. Independence Day has always been one of my favorite holidays. Over the years, our family has celebrated the Fourth of July in a number of ways - watching parades in places such as Coronado Island (California), Jacksonville (North Carolina), and Cincinnati. We have watched fireworks while laying down on a beach in Guam, from the hood of our car in downtown Indianapolis, or while sitting in a park in downtown Loveland, Ohio. We have had cook-outs, family reunions, family baseball games, and water balloon fights. Regardless of where we have been, what we have done, or how we have celebrated the many Fourths over the years, one thing has stayed consistent - our love for this country.
We have challenges in America today. There are those who would say that America is going through one of the most difficult periods in all of our history. There are those who claim that America's best days are behind us and not ahead of us. Many of our citizens have been embarrassed or downright shamed by things that our current leaders have done or have said (or have tweeted).
To all of us who wish for more stability and hope for better days ahead, I would say one thing. Our country - our nation - is so much more than our leaders. We, all of us, are America. And if we hold together, if we stay true to the ideals of our founders and the patriots of the past, we will continue to be America. Perhaps that is why the Fourth remains one of my favorite holidays. The Fourth of July is symbolic of these ideals. Justice. Duty. Selflessness. Honor. We are America because together, we choose to be something better and greater than we can be alone. We are America because together, we choose to be united in these ideals.
I love this country. I am still proud to be an American. I still believe that our best days lie in front of us, not in back of us. Today, I ask God to bless each and everyone one of us, as Americans.
We have challenges in America today. There are those who would say that America is going through one of the most difficult periods in all of our history. There are those who claim that America's best days are behind us and not ahead of us. Many of our citizens have been embarrassed or downright shamed by things that our current leaders have done or have said (or have tweeted).
To all of us who wish for more stability and hope for better days ahead, I would say one thing. Our country - our nation - is so much more than our leaders. We, all of us, are America. And if we hold together, if we stay true to the ideals of our founders and the patriots of the past, we will continue to be America. Perhaps that is why the Fourth remains one of my favorite holidays. The Fourth of July is symbolic of these ideals. Justice. Duty. Selflessness. Honor. We are America because together, we choose to be something better and greater than we can be alone. We are America because together, we choose to be united in these ideals.
I love this country. I am still proud to be an American. I still believe that our best days lie in front of us, not in back of us. Today, I ask God to bless each and everyone one of us, as Americans.
Sunday, July 1, 2018
"The Urn of Mystery"
Here is one more example from Douglas Hubbard's book, "How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of "Intangibles" in Business" - this one is about something that Hubbard calls the "Urn of Mystery." As a reminder, Hubbard claims that small sample sizes actually can provide meaningful information that can be used to make inferences about the population as a whole. According to his "Rule of Five", there is a 93.75% chance that the median of a population is between the smallest and largest values in any random sample of five from that same population. As it turns out, it's even possible to make inferences about a population from even less data.
Suppose, for example, that there is a large warehouse filled with large urns containing green or red marbles. The percentage of green marbles in any one single urn can range between 0% to 100% - in other words, each urn can contain either all red marbles (i.e., 0% green marbles), all green marbles (i.e., 100% green marbles), or a mixture of red and green marbles. Each urn contains different proportions of green and red marbles - the marbles are randomly mixed in each urn.
Suppose I randomly select one urn and make a bet on what the majority of the marbles are colored in that urn. I can choose either green (>50% of the marbles in the urn are green) or red (>50% of the marbles in the urn are red). If I gave you 2 to 1 odds, would you make a bet with me that I am right? In other words, if we bet $10 each time I choose an urn (I am not a gambler!), if I am correct in choosing the majority color, I win $10. However, if I am wrong, you win $20. The catch is that we have to make the bet with 100 urns. Statistically speaking, you will stand to win around $500, by the end of the game, right? I will probably win 50% of the time, and you will win 50% of the time. Your net winnings are your expected wins (0.5 x $20 x 100, or $1000) minus your expected losses (0.5 x $10 x 100, or $500). Would you make that bet? You should!
Now, let's change things up a bit. Let's play the same game, only this time, I am allowed to randomly select one marble (in such a way that I can't see any of the other marbles) from each urn and look at its color. Would you still make that bet? In other words, does the fact that I pick out just one marble from a large urn containing a large, unknown number of marbles that can be any proportion of red or green, provide any additional information to increase my chances of winning and your chances of losing? It turns out that your bet has become a lot more risky! Surprised? I was.
As it turns out, if I randomly select one marble out a large urn filled with marbles, there is a 75% chance that the color of the marble that I select is the majority color for the rest of the marbles in that same urn. Your estimated net winnings have now changed dramatically in my favor. In fact, I will win, on average, $2.50 per urn. In order to understand the mathematics behind this, you have to account for something known as Bayes' Theorem, which describes the probability of an event based on prior knowledge of conditions that are related to that event.
It seems counterintuitive, but trust me, the mathematics are correct. We can gain a lot of information from a small sample size, even as small as a sample of one. What's the lesson for leadership? Small tests of change can be very, very powerful. We can make inferences given just a little bit of knowledge - in other words, the old adage that a little bit of knowledge goes a long way, is absolutely true.
Suppose, for example, that there is a large warehouse filled with large urns containing green or red marbles. The percentage of green marbles in any one single urn can range between 0% to 100% - in other words, each urn can contain either all red marbles (i.e., 0% green marbles), all green marbles (i.e., 100% green marbles), or a mixture of red and green marbles. Each urn contains different proportions of green and red marbles - the marbles are randomly mixed in each urn.
Suppose I randomly select one urn and make a bet on what the majority of the marbles are colored in that urn. I can choose either green (>50% of the marbles in the urn are green) or red (>50% of the marbles in the urn are red). If I gave you 2 to 1 odds, would you make a bet with me that I am right? In other words, if we bet $10 each time I choose an urn (I am not a gambler!), if I am correct in choosing the majority color, I win $10. However, if I am wrong, you win $20. The catch is that we have to make the bet with 100 urns. Statistically speaking, you will stand to win around $500, by the end of the game, right? I will probably win 50% of the time, and you will win 50% of the time. Your net winnings are your expected wins (0.5 x $20 x 100, or $1000) minus your expected losses (0.5 x $10 x 100, or $500). Would you make that bet? You should!
Now, let's change things up a bit. Let's play the same game, only this time, I am allowed to randomly select one marble (in such a way that I can't see any of the other marbles) from each urn and look at its color. Would you still make that bet? In other words, does the fact that I pick out just one marble from a large urn containing a large, unknown number of marbles that can be any proportion of red or green, provide any additional information to increase my chances of winning and your chances of losing? It turns out that your bet has become a lot more risky! Surprised? I was.
As it turns out, if I randomly select one marble out a large urn filled with marbles, there is a 75% chance that the color of the marble that I select is the majority color for the rest of the marbles in that same urn. Your estimated net winnings have now changed dramatically in my favor. In fact, I will win, on average, $2.50 per urn. In order to understand the mathematics behind this, you have to account for something known as Bayes' Theorem, which describes the probability of an event based on prior knowledge of conditions that are related to that event.
It seems counterintuitive, but trust me, the mathematics are correct. We can gain a lot of information from a small sample size, even as small as a sample of one. What's the lesson for leadership? Small tests of change can be very, very powerful. We can make inferences given just a little bit of knowledge - in other words, the old adage that a little bit of knowledge goes a long way, is absolutely true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)