My wife and I went to go see the Cincinnati Reds play their final game of the season today. Some of the team's stars (Joey Votto and Eugenio Suarez) were playing, while some of them were not playing. After the third inning or so, both Joey Votto and Eugenio Suarez came out for the last time this season (the Reds aren't going to the play-off and will finish the 2018 season with a losing record, yet again). Both my wife and I commented on the fact that the fans came to the game today to see the star players, not the bench players (most of the players that finished the game today weren't even on the major league roster at mid-season, and several of them spent most of their season in the minor leagues and had just been called up to close out the season). As luck would have it, the Reds lost by one run in extra innings.
Okay, I completely understand that, for all intents and purposes, the season was over several weeks ago when the Reds were mathematically eliminated from play-off contention. I also get it that the team's front office was trying to get some of their bench and minor league players some valuable playing experience. However, I guess I have always been a firm believer in something that former NFL player and coach (and current head coach of the Arizona State Sun Devils) Herm Edwards said in a post-game press conference a long time ago - "You play to win the game!".
If you are going to do something, whatever it is, give it 100% of your best effort. If you are applying for a research grant, give it your best effort the first time around (I know some investigators who apply for a grant without their best effort and before they are truly ready, with the belief that they will get reviewed and receive important feedback for being successful the next time around). If you are applying for a position in another organization - give it your best effort. Update your resume, write a great cover letter, and prepare for the interview so that you nail it! Don't apply just for the sake of gaining interview experience. And, if it's a baseball game, it shouldn't matter that the results of the game really don't matter - you should be playing for pride. You should be playing to win. So, leave your star players in the game!
"You play to win the game." Plain and simple. Great advice for whatever you do.
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Thursday, September 27, 2018
"The Promise"
Down in Gator Nation, they call it simply "The Promise". Ten years ago today, the University of Mississippi ("Ole Miss") football team beat the number four ranked Florida Gators football team by a score of 31-30. Florida was loaded with NFL caliber talent. They had a Heisman Trophy winner, Tim Tebow, playing quarterback. They were coached by one of the top college coaches, Urban Meyer, in the game at that time. They had everything going for them. And they lost.
What Tim Tebow said in his post-game press conference is the stuff of legend. Fighting through tears, he turned to the media and the fans present. And he apologized. He apologized for losing. He apologized for letting the fans down. He knew that the football team - his football team - was better than how they had played that day. And he made a promise. There is a plaque just outside the Florida football stadium that has immortalized Tebow's words in stone:
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9350599/86026638.jpg)
Love him or hate him, Tim Tebow's speech is admirable. His speech is inspirational. And he backed it up. The Gators won ten games in a row, won the SEC Championship, and ultimately won the NCAA National Championship for the second year in a row. On this day, ten years ago, a Heisman Trophy winner became a leader. On this day, ten years ago, a leader was born.
What Tim Tebow said in his post-game press conference is the stuff of legend. Fighting through tears, he turned to the media and the fans present. And he apologized. He apologized for losing. He apologized for letting the fans down. He knew that the football team - his football team - was better than how they had played that day. And he made a promise. There is a plaque just outside the Florida football stadium that has immortalized Tebow's words in stone:
Love him or hate him, Tim Tebow's speech is admirable. His speech is inspirational. And he backed it up. The Gators won ten games in a row, won the SEC Championship, and ultimately won the NCAA National Championship for the second year in a row. On this day, ten years ago, a Heisman Trophy winner became a leader. On this day, ten years ago, a leader was born.
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
"The end of leadership"
By now, you have probably figured out that I really, really enjoy reading. My interests are diverse, and I often pick a certain subject or genre and stick with it for a while before moving on to something else. I spend a lot of time (and money) on Amazon. However, about a year or so ago, I re-discovered the marvel of the public library. The Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County is fantastic - nine times out of ten, I can find the book that I am looking for online, order it, and pick it up at our local branch in just a few days. I also recently discovered the Mercantile Library, a private membership library in downtown Cincinnati that was established by 45 local merchants in 1835 for the purposes of collectively pooling their resources and improving their literary knowledge. It's a pretty fabulous place.
For a few years, I have been wanting to check out a book by Barbara Kellerman, a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government called "The End of Leadership." Infianlly checked it out about a week ago, and I just finished reading it. In the first half of the book, Kellerman documents what has happened to institutional leaders (basically, leaders from all walks of life - political leaders, military leaders, business leaders, etc.) in the last couple of decades. In our society today, largely as a result of cultural and technological changes, the balance of power between leaders and followers has shifted in such a way that leaders have become weaker and followers have become more powerful. She provides several different lines of evidence from corporate America to the cultural and political revolutions in Europe, Asia, and the "Arab Spring." Kellerman further cites several examples of how leaders have lost power and influence through bad, and at times, unethical, decisions (think of the corporate scandals at Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco, the quality control issues at Toyota and General Motors, and the 2008 Financial Crisis as a few important examples). She goes on to cite studies showing significant and widespread declines in trust and confidence in our leaders (for example, in one study, only 7 percent of employees trusted their employers and managers; according to a 2011 CNN poll, only 15 percent of Americans trusted the federal government to do what is right - note that more recent studies on this particular issue have showed even lower percentages).
What is interesting, and what Kellerman discusses in the second half of the book, is that at the same time that leaders are becoming less powerful (compared to followers) and less trusted, there has been a dramatic growth of what she calls the "leadership industry" (all of the leadership training courses, books, graduate and post-graduate programs, and blogs - hopefully not this one). This mismatch begs the question, does the leadership industry accomplish what it claims to do - train leaders? Unfortunately, there is scant data that the "leadership industry" actually does help grow leaders. Kellerman goes on to argue that perhaps the "leadership industry" should focus on training followers as well!
Interestingly (and perhaps fittingly) enough, Kellerman refrains from providing the "obligatory prescription" for how to address these issues. Rather, in the final paragraph of the book, she suggests that even if we still need leaders (and we do), leadership itself is in grave danger (hence the title, "The End of Leadership"). In order to save leadership, the growing "leadership industry" must focus on four changes (and I will quote here) - "end the leader-centrism that constricts conversation" (i.e., focus equally on the followers), "transcend the situational specifics that make it so myopic" (I didn't touch on this, but here she refers to the fact that we are training so-called "specialists" rather than "generalists" - for example, courses focused on training health care leaders specifically or leadership development courses open only to employees of, say, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, or IBM), "subject itself to critical analysis" (in other words, measure the success of these programs in actually developing leaders), and "reflect the object of its affection - change with the changing times" (modernize the curriculum and focus of these programs).
Kellerman makes a good argument here. And, when you realize that she has been at the center of the growth of the "leadership industry" (as a writer of several articles and books on leadership, as a regularly invited speaker on leadership, and as the Founding Director of the Kennedy School's Center for Public Leadership), her arguments become even stronger. I take a more optimistic viewpoint - maybe we are not witnessing the end of leadership - though I do think we have significant opportunities for improvement here.
It's a good book. Take a look and see if you agree with Kellerman. Better yet, go check the book out from your local library.
For a few years, I have been wanting to check out a book by Barbara Kellerman, a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government called "The End of Leadership." Infianlly checked it out about a week ago, and I just finished reading it. In the first half of the book, Kellerman documents what has happened to institutional leaders (basically, leaders from all walks of life - political leaders, military leaders, business leaders, etc.) in the last couple of decades. In our society today, largely as a result of cultural and technological changes, the balance of power between leaders and followers has shifted in such a way that leaders have become weaker and followers have become more powerful. She provides several different lines of evidence from corporate America to the cultural and political revolutions in Europe, Asia, and the "Arab Spring." Kellerman further cites several examples of how leaders have lost power and influence through bad, and at times, unethical, decisions (think of the corporate scandals at Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco, the quality control issues at Toyota and General Motors, and the 2008 Financial Crisis as a few important examples). She goes on to cite studies showing significant and widespread declines in trust and confidence in our leaders (for example, in one study, only 7 percent of employees trusted their employers and managers; according to a 2011 CNN poll, only 15 percent of Americans trusted the federal government to do what is right - note that more recent studies on this particular issue have showed even lower percentages).
What is interesting, and what Kellerman discusses in the second half of the book, is that at the same time that leaders are becoming less powerful (compared to followers) and less trusted, there has been a dramatic growth of what she calls the "leadership industry" (all of the leadership training courses, books, graduate and post-graduate programs, and blogs - hopefully not this one). This mismatch begs the question, does the leadership industry accomplish what it claims to do - train leaders? Unfortunately, there is scant data that the "leadership industry" actually does help grow leaders. Kellerman goes on to argue that perhaps the "leadership industry" should focus on training followers as well!
Interestingly (and perhaps fittingly) enough, Kellerman refrains from providing the "obligatory prescription" for how to address these issues. Rather, in the final paragraph of the book, she suggests that even if we still need leaders (and we do), leadership itself is in grave danger (hence the title, "The End of Leadership"). In order to save leadership, the growing "leadership industry" must focus on four changes (and I will quote here) - "end the leader-centrism that constricts conversation" (i.e., focus equally on the followers), "transcend the situational specifics that make it so myopic" (I didn't touch on this, but here she refers to the fact that we are training so-called "specialists" rather than "generalists" - for example, courses focused on training health care leaders specifically or leadership development courses open only to employees of, say, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, or IBM), "subject itself to critical analysis" (in other words, measure the success of these programs in actually developing leaders), and "reflect the object of its affection - change with the changing times" (modernize the curriculum and focus of these programs).
Kellerman makes a good argument here. And, when you realize that she has been at the center of the growth of the "leadership industry" (as a writer of several articles and books on leadership, as a regularly invited speaker on leadership, and as the Founding Director of the Kennedy School's Center for Public Leadership), her arguments become even stronger. I take a more optimistic viewpoint - maybe we are not witnessing the end of leadership - though I do think we have significant opportunities for improvement here.
It's a good book. Take a look and see if you agree with Kellerman. Better yet, go check the book out from your local library.
Sunday, September 23, 2018
"...and so on and so on and scooby dooby doo"
There is a great song by the musical group Sly and the Family Stone called "Everyday People". It's a great one - check it out. There's a line in the song that says, "And different strokes for different folks, And so on and so on and scooby dooby doo" that immediately came to mind when I read a post from Ryan Holiday's "Daily Stoic" blog. Holiday titled the post, "Different Folks Need Different Strokes" (okay, my mind works strangely at times). I thought the post was superb, as it talked about something that is certainly relevant to leadership today. Holiday started with a story from the ancient Chinese philosopher, Confucius:
Confucius was once asked for advice by a student, and in replying essentially urged him to wait and be patient. Later he was asked for advice by another student, and advised that student to not be patient and to solve the problem immediately. An observant third student noticed the seemingly contradictory nature of Confucius' responses and asked him to explain.
Confucius replied, "Ran Qiu is over cautious and so I wished to urge him on. Zilu, on the other hand, is too impetuous, and so I sought to hold him back."
Wow - what a fabulous lesson here! If someone is normally impatient and frequently acts in haste, then we as leaders need to tell them to slow down and think more before acting. Conversely, if someone is normally way too conservative, deliberate, and risk averse, then perhaps we as leaders need to tell them to move forward, make a decision, and take a risk. In other words, good leaders will flex and adapt their leadership style to meet the needs of the different individuals on their team.
As it turns out, Confucius was absolutely correct. Everything worked out in the end for both Ran Qiu and Zilu (at least in this particular story). "And so on and so on, and scooby dooby doo. Ooh, sha sha."
Confucius was once asked for advice by a student, and in replying essentially urged him to wait and be patient. Later he was asked for advice by another student, and advised that student to not be patient and to solve the problem immediately. An observant third student noticed the seemingly contradictory nature of Confucius' responses and asked him to explain.
Confucius replied, "Ran Qiu is over cautious and so I wished to urge him on. Zilu, on the other hand, is too impetuous, and so I sought to hold him back."
Wow - what a fabulous lesson here! If someone is normally impatient and frequently acts in haste, then we as leaders need to tell them to slow down and think more before acting. Conversely, if someone is normally way too conservative, deliberate, and risk averse, then perhaps we as leaders need to tell them to move forward, make a decision, and take a risk. In other words, good leaders will flex and adapt their leadership style to meet the needs of the different individuals on their team.
As it turns out, Confucius was absolutely correct. Everything worked out in the end for both Ran Qiu and Zilu (at least in this particular story). "And so on and so on, and scooby dooby doo. Ooh, sha sha."
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
"Fools go aimlessly hither and thither..."
Okay - full disclosure. My wife tells me (and she is probably right) that maybe I am not a "doer" as much as I am just impatient. Fair enough. She knows me better than anyone.
However, I want to continue the discussion about "planners" versus "doers" as I think it is still important (maybe the question is better posed as "are you an impatient planner versus a patient planner?"). The phrase "the blind leading the blind" is an old saying that has been around for a long, long time. It is commonly used to describe the scenario when a person who is ignorant to certain details pertinent to a particular situation is getting advice and assistance from another person who also knows almost nothing about the situation. I was surprised to learn that the phrase comes from a set of ancient Sanskrit philosophy texts known as the Upanishads that were published at some time between 800 BCE and 200 BCE:
Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves wise and learned, fools go aimlessly hither and thither, like blind led by the blind.
How many times do we find ourselves going "aimlessly hither and thither?" I had some firsthand experience over the weekend at a leadership retreat at Camp Joy (for a program called Leadership Cincinnati). It was a great experience, and I had a lot of fun. One of my favorite activities involved around 15 or 16 of us to blindfold ourselves and get from point A to point B. Now, to be completely fair, point A was located about 400 yards away from point B, and any wrong turn would lead us into the woods, into the side of a building, or on to a ropes course. We had around 50 minutes to make our plans, closely inspect the course (and remove any movable obstacles), and then navigate our way to our destination. We did spend around 10-15 minutes looking over the course, trying to count our steps, removing any large obstacles along the way, etc. Clearly, some of us were planners and some of us were doers. The planners wanted to conduct a couple of practice "trial runs", while the doers just wanted to go (to borrow Nike's marketing slogan, "Just Do It"). Despite my label as an "impatient planner", in this activity, I was clearly in the "Doer" camp.
We did complete the task - in other words, we did successfully get the whole group from point A to point B, and it was even better that no one slipped or fell along the way! There were some clear learning points for me though, and I think they are relevant to the whole "planner versus doer" discussion:
1. We spent the first 10-15 minutes listening to different suggestions from the group. At one point, I thought that maybe we should have elected a spokesperson to control the discussion. But then, I thought that maybe that wasn't the best way to hear a lot of different ideas. It was a true brainstorming session, and I think we came up with really great ideas that perhaps we wouldn't have considered if we had a spokesperson or elected leader to moderate ("control") the discussion. So, important point #1 is that brainstorming can be a great way to generate innovative ideas and potential solutions.
2. There were a few individuals who definitely contributed a lot to the discussion, maybe at the expense of including some of our other classmates. So, important point #2 is that when you are brainstorming, you have to make sure that everyone gets a chance to speak up and contribute. As a matter of fact, the success of the brainstorming session may be critically dependent upon hearing a diversity of opinions from everyone in the group rather than a limited number of outspoken individuals.
3. Some planning is clearly required, but there clearly is a limit. Overplanning ("paralysis by analysis") is not necessary and can even be detrimental. So, important point #3 is that a good balance between planning and doing is most likely to lead to success!
4. Everyone contributes. Our facilitator moved the leaders to the back of the line on more than one occasion, which then forced someone else to take over the lead position (we were all linked up by placing one hand on the shoulder of the person in front of each one of us). If everyone wasn't familiar with the plan, then we would have failed miserably. So, important point #4 is that everyone has to know and understand the mission, the strategy, and the tactical plans for execution in order to be successful.
5. Good communication is critically important. We were able to accomplish our task because we communicated up and down the line. "There's a dip in the road here" or "We are on the edge of the road here." We were successful because we worked together. And we were able to work together because we communicated with each other. So, important point #5 is that good communication is the key to success, regardless of whether you are a planner or a doer.
It was a fun exercise, but the best part of the exercise was the learning. And, we really weren't going aimlessly hither and thither - we had a purpose, we had a plan, and we executed.
However, I want to continue the discussion about "planners" versus "doers" as I think it is still important (maybe the question is better posed as "are you an impatient planner versus a patient planner?"). The phrase "the blind leading the blind" is an old saying that has been around for a long, long time. It is commonly used to describe the scenario when a person who is ignorant to certain details pertinent to a particular situation is getting advice and assistance from another person who also knows almost nothing about the situation. I was surprised to learn that the phrase comes from a set of ancient Sanskrit philosophy texts known as the Upanishads that were published at some time between 800 BCE and 200 BCE:
Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves wise and learned, fools go aimlessly hither and thither, like blind led by the blind.
How many times do we find ourselves going "aimlessly hither and thither?" I had some firsthand experience over the weekend at a leadership retreat at Camp Joy (for a program called Leadership Cincinnati). It was a great experience, and I had a lot of fun. One of my favorite activities involved around 15 or 16 of us to blindfold ourselves and get from point A to point B. Now, to be completely fair, point A was located about 400 yards away from point B, and any wrong turn would lead us into the woods, into the side of a building, or on to a ropes course. We had around 50 minutes to make our plans, closely inspect the course (and remove any movable obstacles), and then navigate our way to our destination. We did spend around 10-15 minutes looking over the course, trying to count our steps, removing any large obstacles along the way, etc. Clearly, some of us were planners and some of us were doers. The planners wanted to conduct a couple of practice "trial runs", while the doers just wanted to go (to borrow Nike's marketing slogan, "Just Do It"). Despite my label as an "impatient planner", in this activity, I was clearly in the "Doer" camp.
We did complete the task - in other words, we did successfully get the whole group from point A to point B, and it was even better that no one slipped or fell along the way! There were some clear learning points for me though, and I think they are relevant to the whole "planner versus doer" discussion:
1. We spent the first 10-15 minutes listening to different suggestions from the group. At one point, I thought that maybe we should have elected a spokesperson to control the discussion. But then, I thought that maybe that wasn't the best way to hear a lot of different ideas. It was a true brainstorming session, and I think we came up with really great ideas that perhaps we wouldn't have considered if we had a spokesperson or elected leader to moderate ("control") the discussion. So, important point #1 is that brainstorming can be a great way to generate innovative ideas and potential solutions.
2. There were a few individuals who definitely contributed a lot to the discussion, maybe at the expense of including some of our other classmates. So, important point #2 is that when you are brainstorming, you have to make sure that everyone gets a chance to speak up and contribute. As a matter of fact, the success of the brainstorming session may be critically dependent upon hearing a diversity of opinions from everyone in the group rather than a limited number of outspoken individuals.
3. Some planning is clearly required, but there clearly is a limit. Overplanning ("paralysis by analysis") is not necessary and can even be detrimental. So, important point #3 is that a good balance between planning and doing is most likely to lead to success!
4. Everyone contributes. Our facilitator moved the leaders to the back of the line on more than one occasion, which then forced someone else to take over the lead position (we were all linked up by placing one hand on the shoulder of the person in front of each one of us). If everyone wasn't familiar with the plan, then we would have failed miserably. So, important point #4 is that everyone has to know and understand the mission, the strategy, and the tactical plans for execution in order to be successful.
5. Good communication is critically important. We were able to accomplish our task because we communicated up and down the line. "There's a dip in the road here" or "We are on the edge of the road here." We were successful because we worked together. And we were able to work together because we communicated with each other. So, important point #5 is that good communication is the key to success, regardless of whether you are a planner or a doer.
It was a fun exercise, but the best part of the exercise was the learning. And, we really weren't going aimlessly hither and thither - we had a purpose, we had a plan, and we executed.
Sunday, September 16, 2018
"The doer alone learneth..."
The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said, "The doer alone learneth." However, the World War II General and President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower, once said, "Plans are useless, but planning is indispensable." It's an age old argument - which type of individual gets more accomplished, the planner or the doer? Who is right here - Nietzsche or Eisenhower? Or maybe both?
Chances are that by this time in your life, you can probably guess whether you are a planner or doer, right? If you don't know, my recommendation is to go to the closest Ikea store and purchase something - it could almost be anything that is sold in the store or online, just make sure that the box reads "Some assembly required." Now, if you rip open the box, pull out the pieces, and start putting things together without looking too hard at the instructions, it's almost certain that you are a "doer." Conversely, if you slowly open the box, pull out the pieces and separate them, count each piece to make sure that you have everything, and then proceed through the instruction manual, step by step, you are definitely a planner.
Today is Sunday, which means that tomorrow is the start of another work week. If you have a checklist of all the things that you need to do this week while you are at work, or if you have checked your calendar and started thinking about the meetings that you have to attend, then it's almost certain that you are a planner. Conversely, if you rarely send out an agenda for meetings or if you "make up things on the fly", then you are definitely a "doer."
I am definitely a "doer." Two examples are illustrative. About three weeks ago, my wife and I dropped off one of our daughters at college. She and her friends were renting a house near campus, so we had purchased some furniture at Ikea the week before leaving. My wife - the planner - left all the parts for the furniture piece in the box while she slowly reviewed the instructions. She could tell that I was getting frustrated, so she smiled and looked at me and said, "Remember putting together our son's dresser (also from Ikea) the last time that we did this?" Oh yeah, I thought to myself, my son and I got about half way through putting together a dresser before realizing that we missed a couple of key steps. We had to take apart the dresser and back-up and repeat several steps. How many four-letter words did I say that day, you ask? Let's not discuss that.
The second example involves a project kick-off meeting at work. There were three of us scheduled to lead the kick-off session - myself, one of my close colleagues at work (who also happens to be a doer), and one of our newest leaders in the organization. We had a couple of prep meetings before the event, but for the most part, we ended up leading a very successful kick-off meeting without really knowing what we were going to say beforehand. Yes, two of were definitely doers and the third leader was definitely a planner.
Both of these examples illustrate one of the main problems when you have a team composed of a mixture of both planners and doers. Half of the individuals on the team are going to be frustrated and impatient while the other half are sitting around and planning everything step-by-step (as in the first example above). Alternatively, half of the individuals on the team are going to be scared that the project will fail because the other half is rushing into everything without thinking too much about the what, when, and how (as in the second example above).
The truth is that a successful team needs both planners and doers. It falls to the leader to push the planners a little, while he or she holds the doers back a little bit. Leaders also need to be self-aware of their own tendencies, and just like no single leadership style is appropriate for every situation, there is a time for planning and a time for doing. Good leaders should be flexible enough to accommodate both planning and doing. Clearly, I have a lot of room for improvement here. I fully recognize that there are a lot of cases when I need to do more planning and less doing. As Eisenhower suggest, however, you can't make a plan to cover every possible contingency - avoid "paralysis by analysis" on the one hand, but be careful not to rush into every situation without developing a strategy and tactics for how to reach the team's goal (i.e. avoid "extinction by instinct").
As for the piece of Ikea furniture at my daughter's college house? While my wife might disagree, we probably finished it in just the amount of time it probably would have taken had we done it my way. But, I 100% guarantee you that there were far fewer four-letter words coming out of my mouth.
Chances are that by this time in your life, you can probably guess whether you are a planner or doer, right? If you don't know, my recommendation is to go to the closest Ikea store and purchase something - it could almost be anything that is sold in the store or online, just make sure that the box reads "Some assembly required." Now, if you rip open the box, pull out the pieces, and start putting things together without looking too hard at the instructions, it's almost certain that you are a "doer." Conversely, if you slowly open the box, pull out the pieces and separate them, count each piece to make sure that you have everything, and then proceed through the instruction manual, step by step, you are definitely a planner.
Today is Sunday, which means that tomorrow is the start of another work week. If you have a checklist of all the things that you need to do this week while you are at work, or if you have checked your calendar and started thinking about the meetings that you have to attend, then it's almost certain that you are a planner. Conversely, if you rarely send out an agenda for meetings or if you "make up things on the fly", then you are definitely a "doer."
I am definitely a "doer." Two examples are illustrative. About three weeks ago, my wife and I dropped off one of our daughters at college. She and her friends were renting a house near campus, so we had purchased some furniture at Ikea the week before leaving. My wife - the planner - left all the parts for the furniture piece in the box while she slowly reviewed the instructions. She could tell that I was getting frustrated, so she smiled and looked at me and said, "Remember putting together our son's dresser (also from Ikea) the last time that we did this?" Oh yeah, I thought to myself, my son and I got about half way through putting together a dresser before realizing that we missed a couple of key steps. We had to take apart the dresser and back-up and repeat several steps. How many four-letter words did I say that day, you ask? Let's not discuss that.
The second example involves a project kick-off meeting at work. There were three of us scheduled to lead the kick-off session - myself, one of my close colleagues at work (who also happens to be a doer), and one of our newest leaders in the organization. We had a couple of prep meetings before the event, but for the most part, we ended up leading a very successful kick-off meeting without really knowing what we were going to say beforehand. Yes, two of were definitely doers and the third leader was definitely a planner.
Both of these examples illustrate one of the main problems when you have a team composed of a mixture of both planners and doers. Half of the individuals on the team are going to be frustrated and impatient while the other half are sitting around and planning everything step-by-step (as in the first example above). Alternatively, half of the individuals on the team are going to be scared that the project will fail because the other half is rushing into everything without thinking too much about the what, when, and how (as in the second example above).
The truth is that a successful team needs both planners and doers. It falls to the leader to push the planners a little, while he or she holds the doers back a little bit. Leaders also need to be self-aware of their own tendencies, and just like no single leadership style is appropriate for every situation, there is a time for planning and a time for doing. Good leaders should be flexible enough to accommodate both planning and doing. Clearly, I have a lot of room for improvement here. I fully recognize that there are a lot of cases when I need to do more planning and less doing. As Eisenhower suggest, however, you can't make a plan to cover every possible contingency - avoid "paralysis by analysis" on the one hand, but be careful not to rush into every situation without developing a strategy and tactics for how to reach the team's goal (i.e. avoid "extinction by instinct").
As for the piece of Ikea furniture at my daughter's college house? While my wife might disagree, we probably finished it in just the amount of time it probably would have taken had we done it my way. But, I 100% guarantee you that there were far fewer four-letter words coming out of my mouth.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Don't be a jerk
I was once asked during a job interview to describe my leadership style. I don't remember exactly what I said, but I do remember saying that I didn't exclusively use one specific style. It was kind of a trick question, as there are a number of different types of leadership styles that are classified in a number of different ways by a number of different authors. Personally, I like the classification scheme that the author and leadership expert Daniel Goleman proposed in his article, "Leadership That Gets Results" in the March/April 2000 issue of the Harvard Business Review. Goleman talks about six different leadership styles:
1. Authoritarian
2. Paternalistic
3. Democratic
4. Laissez-Faire
5. Transactional
6. Transformational
As Goleman emphasizes in his article, which is consistent with the current research by a number of leadership experts, good leaders don't rely on just one style. Rather, good leaders switch between the different leadership styles as a particular situation dictates. What works well in one context may not necessarily be the best style to use in another.
All of Goleman's leadership styles deserve further discussion, but I wanted to focus today on the so-called "authoritarian" leadership style (note that other authors have called this style the "autocratic" or "command and control" style). I am particularly interested in this type of leadership style, as it is commonly associated with the type of leadership style frequently used in the military. I will admit, I was just a physician in the Navy, but I can honestly say that I completely disagree with the suggestion that military leaders prefer to use the "authoritarian" leadership style. Military leaders give orders, and orders are generally followed. However, in my experience, military leaders also use a variety of leadership styles and don't just rely upon the authoritarian style.
I have also found that popular belief holds that the authoritarian leadership style is best in so-called "life and death" situations (this may be at the root of the misconception that the military most commonly utilizes the authoritarian leadership style). Again though, in my experience, crisis leadership doesn't necessarily require authoritarian leaders! I have been in a number of crisis situations during my career - for example, observing leaders or actually being the leader during the resuscitation of a child who has suffered a cardiac arrest or during a mass casualty event) - and in virtually all of these cases, I have rarely found that the authoritarian leadership style is used. Moreover, in most of these cases, when the authoritarian leadership style is used, it's not been as successful.
I am not saying that the authoritarian leadership style should never be used. There are probably situations that it should be used or teams that respond better to it than any of the other leadership styles. But (and this is a big "but"), I can emphatically state that being authoritarian leader doesn't give you the right to be a jerk.
Authoritarian leaders are not jerks. Plain and simple. Leaders are not jerks. The converse is also true - jerks are not leaders.
So, if you want to use the authoritarian leadership style every once in a while - go for it. However, using this leadership style doesn't give you the right to be a jerk. Treat people with respect - just as you would want to be treated. And don't be a jerk.
1. Authoritarian
2. Paternalistic
3. Democratic
4. Laissez-Faire
5. Transactional
6. Transformational
As Goleman emphasizes in his article, which is consistent with the current research by a number of leadership experts, good leaders don't rely on just one style. Rather, good leaders switch between the different leadership styles as a particular situation dictates. What works well in one context may not necessarily be the best style to use in another.
All of Goleman's leadership styles deserve further discussion, but I wanted to focus today on the so-called "authoritarian" leadership style (note that other authors have called this style the "autocratic" or "command and control" style). I am particularly interested in this type of leadership style, as it is commonly associated with the type of leadership style frequently used in the military. I will admit, I was just a physician in the Navy, but I can honestly say that I completely disagree with the suggestion that military leaders prefer to use the "authoritarian" leadership style. Military leaders give orders, and orders are generally followed. However, in my experience, military leaders also use a variety of leadership styles and don't just rely upon the authoritarian style.
I have also found that popular belief holds that the authoritarian leadership style is best in so-called "life and death" situations (this may be at the root of the misconception that the military most commonly utilizes the authoritarian leadership style). Again though, in my experience, crisis leadership doesn't necessarily require authoritarian leaders! I have been in a number of crisis situations during my career - for example, observing leaders or actually being the leader during the resuscitation of a child who has suffered a cardiac arrest or during a mass casualty event) - and in virtually all of these cases, I have rarely found that the authoritarian leadership style is used. Moreover, in most of these cases, when the authoritarian leadership style is used, it's not been as successful.
I am not saying that the authoritarian leadership style should never be used. There are probably situations that it should be used or teams that respond better to it than any of the other leadership styles. But (and this is a big "but"), I can emphatically state that being authoritarian leader doesn't give you the right to be a jerk.
Authoritarian leaders are not jerks. Plain and simple. Leaders are not jerks. The converse is also true - jerks are not leaders.
So, if you want to use the authoritarian leadership style every once in a while - go for it. However, using this leadership style doesn't give you the right to be a jerk. Treat people with respect - just as you would want to be treated. And don't be a jerk.
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
A day we will never forget.
Seventeen years ago today, the world changed for all of us. I can remember exactly how I first learned about what was happening on that fateful day. I had one of those pagers that sent text messages for sports scores, stock quotes, and breaking news updates. The first page that came across on the way to the hospital said that a plane crashed into the World Trade Center. My first thought was that it had to be an accident. By the time I got to the hospital, the second page came across that a second plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. My wife then called me with the news that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon. And I knew then, "We were under attack."
All of us watched as the events unfolded. Our hearts broke on that day. Our lives changed forever. It was the end of the innocence. I have never looked at a plane the same way again. I have never looked at a skyscraper the same way again. Everything has changed.
I also remember the incredible leadership and heroism displayed on that day and the many days that followed. My family and I visited New York City and toured the September 11 Memorial and Museum. It was an amazing experience, and I highly recommend it. There's a quote on the ground floor by Virgil that really fits - "No day shall erase you from the memory of time." We will never forget those who lost their lives on that day. We will never forget the first responders who rushed into the building, even after the first tower fell. It was their duty. And they did not forget.
It's been 17 years. I took a few moments today to remember that day. A day I will never forget. Heroism. Leadership. Duty. Courage. It was all there. A day we will never forget.
All of us watched as the events unfolded. Our hearts broke on that day. Our lives changed forever. It was the end of the innocence. I have never looked at a plane the same way again. I have never looked at a skyscraper the same way again. Everything has changed.
I also remember the incredible leadership and heroism displayed on that day and the many days that followed. My family and I visited New York City and toured the September 11 Memorial and Museum. It was an amazing experience, and I highly recommend it. There's a quote on the ground floor by Virgil that really fits - "No day shall erase you from the memory of time." We will never forget those who lost their lives on that day. We will never forget the first responders who rushed into the building, even after the first tower fell. It was their duty. And they did not forget.
It's been 17 years. I took a few moments today to remember that day. A day I will never forget. Heroism. Leadership. Duty. Courage. It was all there. A day we will never forget.
Sunday, September 9, 2018
"Whatever you are, be a good one."
There's a magnet up in my office with a quotation commonly attributed to President Abraham Lincoln that reads, "Whatever you are, be a good one." One of our former critical care fellows gave it to me when she graduated from her fellowship, and I have kept it to this day. As a matter of fact, my wife told me something very similar during a conversation this past week. No matter what job you are doing, you should always, always focus on doing the absolute best job that you can do, and if you do, opportunities will come.
When you think about it, it really is quite simple. It's advice that I have given to others over the years, and it's advice that I sometimes need to hear as well. Don't worry about your next promotion, your next job, or what roles you can play in the future. Focus on the job at hand. Concentrate on the here and now. And always, always do your best.
If you give 100% of your effort to something and success follows - great! If you give 100% of your effort and you don't get that next job offer, that next promotion, or that next great opportunity, that's great too. At least you worked hard and did your best. In the end, that is all that really matters, isn't it? We will be measured, ultimately, by how hard we work and by how much passion, enthusiasm, and energy we bring to the job. So, "whatever you are, be a good one."
When you think about it, it really is quite simple. It's advice that I have given to others over the years, and it's advice that I sometimes need to hear as well. Don't worry about your next promotion, your next job, or what roles you can play in the future. Focus on the job at hand. Concentrate on the here and now. And always, always do your best.
If you give 100% of your effort to something and success follows - great! If you give 100% of your effort and you don't get that next job offer, that next promotion, or that next great opportunity, that's great too. At least you worked hard and did your best. In the end, that is all that really matters, isn't it? We will be measured, ultimately, by how hard we work and by how much passion, enthusiasm, and energy we bring to the job. So, "whatever you are, be a good one."
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Vision Quest
Okay, I will admit it. I am a big fan of the 1980's. One of my favorite satellite radio stations is the 80's on 8 and whenever I channel surf and come across a movie from the 1980's, I almost always stop and watch it. For reasons that completely escape me, I was thinking about the 1985 hit movie, Vision Quest the other day.
The movie is classic 1980's - a high school wrestler from Spokane, Oregon meets and falls in love with an aspiring artist on her way to California. The wrestler, Louden Swain (played by the actor Matthew Modine) decides that he needs to do something truly meaningful with his life (great concept so far). So, he decides to drop two weight classes (from 190 lbs to 168 lbs) to wrestle a three-time state champion who has never lost a wrestling match in his entire high school career, Brian Shute. Everyone is against it at the beginning of the movie - his coach, his teammates, and even his own family. As you can imagine, the drastic loss in weight required by starving himself and working out literally all the time has an adverse impact on his personal health (depicted in the movie as frequent nose bleeds). In the middle of all this, his widower father takes on a boarder (played by the actress Linda Fiorentino - Carla, the aspiring artist on her way to California. Of course, the two fall in love. Louden's feelings for the girl get in the way of his dreams and he starts to lose focus. She decides to leave, breaking his heart. He gets back on track, she comes back at the end, and - you guessed it! - he beats Shute in the final climactic scene of the movie.
It's a great movie with an all-star cast. In addition to Modine (in his break-out role), Fiorentino (you may remember her more for her role in the movie, Men in Black), Michael Schoeffling (who is perhaps better remembered for his role as Jake in the movie Sixteen Candles), Daphne Zuniga, and Madonna! The movie soundtrack was pure 1980's with hits by Journey, Madonna (of course), John Waite, Sammy Hagar, Foreigner, and Red Rider ("Lunatic Fringe").
The movie's title comes from a Native American rite of passage (Louden's best friend, played by Schoeffling, claims to be part Cherokee Indian) called a vision quest. A "vision quest" is about going into the wilderness on your own to discover who you are and who your people are and how you fit into the circle of birth and growth and death and rebirth" (quote by the author, Terry Davis who wrote the novel on which the movie is based). So, Louden finds his way in life by making the impossible possible - beating a three-time state champion wrestler who has never been beat.
The lesson that I took away from the movie (even when I first saw it as a senior in high school, right at the start of swim season) is this - if you want to be the best, you have to work hard for it. Being the best at something takes 100% commitment, dedication, perseverance, and passion. And hard work - lots of it. Take Louden Swain as an example. All through the movie, he literally never stops working out. He actually goes to Shute's wrestling matches at other high schools and takes notes (in one of the movie's scenes, he is speaking into a tape recorder with the crowd cheering in the background, "Notes on the Shute-MacLean match"). Shute became his obsession.
Now take Shute as an example. In one of my favorite scenes, Louden and his friend walk into the local football stadium to find Shute carrying this gigantic log on his shoulders while he steps up on to the bleachers from the field level to the top of the stadium. Now that is what I call training! Obviously Shute didn't get to be an undefeated, three-time defending state champion without a lot of hard work, commitment, and dedication. As General Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State under George W. Bush once said, "A dream doesn't become reality through magic; it takes sweat, determination, and hard work."
My point is this. If you want to be the best at something, you are going to have to commit to it 100%. It's going to take hard work. It's going to take unwavering commitment and dedication. And it's going to take incredible focus. It doesn't matter whether you are an 18 year-old high school wrestler, an aspiring artist, or even a physician or nurse. The same is true even for hospitals. If you want to be the best, you have to be 100% committed to being the best.
The movie is classic 1980's - a high school wrestler from Spokane, Oregon meets and falls in love with an aspiring artist on her way to California. The wrestler, Louden Swain (played by the actor Matthew Modine) decides that he needs to do something truly meaningful with his life (great concept so far). So, he decides to drop two weight classes (from 190 lbs to 168 lbs) to wrestle a three-time state champion who has never lost a wrestling match in his entire high school career, Brian Shute. Everyone is against it at the beginning of the movie - his coach, his teammates, and even his own family. As you can imagine, the drastic loss in weight required by starving himself and working out literally all the time has an adverse impact on his personal health (depicted in the movie as frequent nose bleeds). In the middle of all this, his widower father takes on a boarder (played by the actress Linda Fiorentino - Carla, the aspiring artist on her way to California. Of course, the two fall in love. Louden's feelings for the girl get in the way of his dreams and he starts to lose focus. She decides to leave, breaking his heart. He gets back on track, she comes back at the end, and - you guessed it! - he beats Shute in the final climactic scene of the movie.
It's a great movie with an all-star cast. In addition to Modine (in his break-out role), Fiorentino (you may remember her more for her role in the movie, Men in Black), Michael Schoeffling (who is perhaps better remembered for his role as Jake in the movie Sixteen Candles), Daphne Zuniga, and Madonna! The movie soundtrack was pure 1980's with hits by Journey, Madonna (of course), John Waite, Sammy Hagar, Foreigner, and Red Rider ("Lunatic Fringe").
The movie's title comes from a Native American rite of passage (Louden's best friend, played by Schoeffling, claims to be part Cherokee Indian) called a vision quest. A "vision quest" is about going into the wilderness on your own to discover who you are and who your people are and how you fit into the circle of birth and growth and death and rebirth" (quote by the author, Terry Davis who wrote the novel on which the movie is based). So, Louden finds his way in life by making the impossible possible - beating a three-time state champion wrestler who has never been beat.
The lesson that I took away from the movie (even when I first saw it as a senior in high school, right at the start of swim season) is this - if you want to be the best, you have to work hard for it. Being the best at something takes 100% commitment, dedication, perseverance, and passion. And hard work - lots of it. Take Louden Swain as an example. All through the movie, he literally never stops working out. He actually goes to Shute's wrestling matches at other high schools and takes notes (in one of the movie's scenes, he is speaking into a tape recorder with the crowd cheering in the background, "Notes on the Shute-MacLean match"). Shute became his obsession.
Now take Shute as an example. In one of my favorite scenes, Louden and his friend walk into the local football stadium to find Shute carrying this gigantic log on his shoulders while he steps up on to the bleachers from the field level to the top of the stadium. Now that is what I call training! Obviously Shute didn't get to be an undefeated, three-time defending state champion without a lot of hard work, commitment, and dedication. As General Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State under George W. Bush once said, "A dream doesn't become reality through magic; it takes sweat, determination, and hard work."
My point is this. If you want to be the best at something, you are going to have to commit to it 100%. It's going to take hard work. It's going to take unwavering commitment and dedication. And it's going to take incredible focus. It doesn't matter whether you are an 18 year-old high school wrestler, an aspiring artist, or even a physician or nurse. The same is true even for hospitals. If you want to be the best, you have to be 100% committed to being the best.
Sunday, September 2, 2018
"Magical Feedback"
While I was doing some background reading on Coach Gregg Popovich for my last blog post, I came across a really interesting article that talked about something called "magical feedback". The article jogged my memory a bit - as it turns out, I've heard about this "magical feedback" before in a book called The Culture Code by Daniel Coyle. Coyle talks about a research study published by a group of psychologists from Stanford, Yale, and Columbia that focused on how middle-school teachers could give constructive criticism or feedback to their minority students, who tend to mistrust the system of education, their teachers, and society in general (for a lot of really good reasons). What these researchers found is both interesting and instructive.
Basically, 7th grade students were asked to write an essay on their favorite hero. Students (both white students and black students) were randomized to either the planned intervention (something that they called "wise criticism" and Coyle calls "magical feedback") or control. The teachers marked up the essays with corrections, suggestions, and both positive and negative feedback (basically what teachers do all the time). However, in the "wise criticism" (i.e., "magical feedback") group, the teachers also added the following note:
"I'm giving you these comments because I have very high expectations and I know that you can reach them."
Pretty simple - nineteen words that basically say:
1. You are part of this group.
2. This group is special, and we have high standards in our group.
3. I believe that you can reach those high standards.
The students that received this kind of feedback chose to revise their paper (they had an option to revise the essay and turn it back in for a grade) far more often than those who did not receive this kind of feedback. In fact, while there was a 40% increase in the number of white students who chose to revise their essay, there was a 320% increase in black students who chose to revise their essay. The students were more likely to follow the teacher's recommendations, and the quality of the essay also significantly improved (based on a standardized rubric). Also of interest (but maybe less relevant to the present discussion), the degree of mistrust of the educational system decreased, even as late as 3 months after the intervention.
It's pretty cool that a simple intervention like this can increase motivation and, in turn, increase the chance of successful performance. Simple feedback that establishes a connection, highlights the expected standards of the group, and expresses confidence that the individual can meet those standards is really all about caring for and valuing the members of the team (which, if you've been reading my last two posts here and here is exactly what we've been talking about).
"Wise criticism" or "magical feedback" - call it whatever you want. Value your team and take care of them. Set high standards, but express confidence that your team can meet those high standards. It's something that Coach Popovich and many other leaders like him have found particularly successful. It worked for them, and it will work for you.
Basically, 7th grade students were asked to write an essay on their favorite hero. Students (both white students and black students) were randomized to either the planned intervention (something that they called "wise criticism" and Coyle calls "magical feedback") or control. The teachers marked up the essays with corrections, suggestions, and both positive and negative feedback (basically what teachers do all the time). However, in the "wise criticism" (i.e., "magical feedback") group, the teachers also added the following note:
"I'm giving you these comments because I have very high expectations and I know that you can reach them."
Pretty simple - nineteen words that basically say:
1. You are part of this group.
2. This group is special, and we have high standards in our group.
3. I believe that you can reach those high standards.
The students that received this kind of feedback chose to revise their paper (they had an option to revise the essay and turn it back in for a grade) far more often than those who did not receive this kind of feedback. In fact, while there was a 40% increase in the number of white students who chose to revise their essay, there was a 320% increase in black students who chose to revise their essay. The students were more likely to follow the teacher's recommendations, and the quality of the essay also significantly improved (based on a standardized rubric). Also of interest (but maybe less relevant to the present discussion), the degree of mistrust of the educational system decreased, even as late as 3 months after the intervention.
It's pretty cool that a simple intervention like this can increase motivation and, in turn, increase the chance of successful performance. Simple feedback that establishes a connection, highlights the expected standards of the group, and expresses confidence that the individual can meet those standards is really all about caring for and valuing the members of the team (which, if you've been reading my last two posts here and here is exactly what we've been talking about).
"Wise criticism" or "magical feedback" - call it whatever you want. Value your team and take care of them. Set high standards, but express confidence that your team can meet those high standards. It's something that Coach Popovich and many other leaders like him have found particularly successful. It worked for them, and it will work for you.