Today is October 31st - that means it is Halloween! One of the many great things about working in a children's hospital is that you get to wear your Halloween costume to work - and it's completely acceptable! In the spirit of Halloween, I want to talk about one of my all-time favorite television shows growing up - the cartoon series, "Scooby Doo, Where Are You!", which was produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions from 1969 to 1970 (surprisingly, this now iconic series aired for only two seasons before going into syndication and generating a number of spin-offs). The show featured the adventures of Scooby Doo and Mystery, Inc., a group of four teenagers who solved mysteries which frequently involved ghosts, monsters, and the supernatural. Shaggy Rogers (I bet you didn't know his last name was Rogers!) and his best pal, Scooby Doo, once gave some really great advice:
Hold on, man. We don't go anywhere with 'scary,' 'spooky', 'haunted,' or 'forbidden' in the title.
It seems fairly intuitive and simple, but the advice is really great. Unfortunately, most of the mysteries that Scooby Doo and his friends were trying to solve involved going to places with the words 'scary,' 'spooky,' 'haunted,' and 'forbidden' in the title! That happens a lot of times in the real world too. Despite our best intentions, the world can be a dangerous place. And no matter how hard we try, there are times when we are going to have to choose to take risks.
I like to read and write a lot about so-called High Reliability Organizations. High Reliability Organizations (HROs) are usually defined as organizations that have succeeded in avoiding serious accidents or catastrophes in dangerous environments - the kind of environments where accidents are not only likely to occur, they are expected to occur. The important point to realize, however, is that these same HROs don't seek to avoid risk - indeed, they could not exist if they did. Rather, these organizations manage that risk in such a way that when (because it's always a matter of "when" and not "if") accidents occur, the adverse impact on the organization is significantly attenuated.
Shaggy and Scooby Doo tried hard every episode to avoid taking a risk. However, the whole purpose of Mystery, Inc. was to solve the mystery, and solving the mystery required taking a risk. Scooby and his friends usually did a good job of managing risk - I wouldn't say that Mystery, Inc. was a great example of a High Reliability Organization, but they usually did pretty well in the end. There was always the line from the villain in the end, "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids."
So, in the spirit of Halloween, take a leadership cue from the gang at Mystery, Inc. Manage your risks. Solve the mystery. And have fun.
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Beware the NAG
There are three words that are commonly found in a number of articles in the management literature - accountability, authority, and responsibility. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines accountability as an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions. I like to think of accountability as "walking the talk" (it's really about doing what you are supposed to do, even with no one watching you to make sure that you actually do it). Accountability and responsibility are closely related and probably not worth distinguishing. Ideally, accountability and responsibility follow authority.
One of the most common traps for leaders today, particularly in the heavily matrixed organizational structures in most academic health centers, occurs when leaders are held responsible and accountable for a project completion or particular task when they have not been given the proper level of authority. Unfortunately, it's probably happened at least once to most leaders - including me. The trap even has a name - the "no authority gauntlet" or NAG Syndrome.
The NAG syndrome turns highly engaged, talented leaders into bitter, cynical nags that no one likes. Good leaders become bad leaders, and the organization suffers as a result. There are three stages to the NAG syndrome:
1. Jubilation. A talented and emerging leader within the organization is given a new assignment or position. At first (of course), the leader is excited, highly motivated, and optimistic of success.
2. Doubt. After some early wins, the leader starts to reach the pinnacle of his or her influence. The leader finds that there is a limit to how he or she can influence and motivate others to rise to the challenge. The leader starts to meet resistance. The team has already addressed the low-hanging fruit, and the job is becoming more difficult. The leader starts to doubt his or her leadership.
3. Bitterness. The leader starts to face either half-hearted cooperation (at best) or active resistance (at the worst). There is a limit on what the leader can accomplish with the team, and the leader and the team starts to become bitter and cynical.
It's difficult to recover from the NAG syndrome once it reaches the late stages of bitterness. Optimism turns to pessimism. Engagement turns to cynicism. Motivation turns to burnout. Success turns to failure.
The good news is that there is a way to prevent leaders from becoming nags. As Wendi Peck and William Casey write in their article "Responsibility + No authority = Manager Burnout" in the Denver Business Courier, "downsize their accountability to match their authority, or upsize their authorities to match their accountability." It's really that simple. We can't expect leaders to be successful when we hold them accountable for things that are just not under their span of control.
One of the most common traps for leaders today, particularly in the heavily matrixed organizational structures in most academic health centers, occurs when leaders are held responsible and accountable for a project completion or particular task when they have not been given the proper level of authority. Unfortunately, it's probably happened at least once to most leaders - including me. The trap even has a name - the "no authority gauntlet" or NAG Syndrome.
The NAG syndrome turns highly engaged, talented leaders into bitter, cynical nags that no one likes. Good leaders become bad leaders, and the organization suffers as a result. There are three stages to the NAG syndrome:
1. Jubilation. A talented and emerging leader within the organization is given a new assignment or position. At first (of course), the leader is excited, highly motivated, and optimistic of success.
2. Doubt. After some early wins, the leader starts to reach the pinnacle of his or her influence. The leader finds that there is a limit to how he or she can influence and motivate others to rise to the challenge. The leader starts to meet resistance. The team has already addressed the low-hanging fruit, and the job is becoming more difficult. The leader starts to doubt his or her leadership.
3. Bitterness. The leader starts to face either half-hearted cooperation (at best) or active resistance (at the worst). There is a limit on what the leader can accomplish with the team, and the leader and the team starts to become bitter and cynical.
It's difficult to recover from the NAG syndrome once it reaches the late stages of bitterness. Optimism turns to pessimism. Engagement turns to cynicism. Motivation turns to burnout. Success turns to failure.
The good news is that there is a way to prevent leaders from becoming nags. As Wendi Peck and William Casey write in their article "Responsibility + No authority = Manager Burnout" in the Denver Business Courier, "downsize their accountability to match their authority, or upsize their authorities to match their accountability." It's really that simple. We can't expect leaders to be successful when we hold them accountable for things that are just not under their span of control.
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
Chemistry Magic
I once participated in a summer enrichment program sponsored by our local school when I was younger. I don't remember which year or how old I was, but I do remember that one of the classes was called "Chemistry Magic." Chemists are apparently enamored with "magic tricks" - almost every chemistry teacher (in high school) or professor (in college) that I have ever had performed live demonstrations in class on the wonders of different chemical compounds and reactions. Well, this particular summer class was exactly the same. I suppose I should have been impressed, but there was one problem. My father was a chemist. I had grown up watching him perform a variety of chemistry magic tricks. Every Christmas, his company would play host to all of the families, and my father would do a magic show in his laboratory (the "tricks" I remember best were writing in invisible ink, hammering a nail into a piece of wood with a banana, or turning "lemonade" into "grape juice" and back - see a version of the lemonade trick here). He even performed some of these "magic tricks" at home. So, I guess anything that an otherwise complete stranger (my "Chemistry Magic" teacher) did was unlikely to impress me.
Here's the truth though. There is absolutely nothing magic about chemistry. There's an explanation for everything that happens. And it takes hard work, knowledge, and practice. Team chemistry is the same way. As I wrote last week in an earlier post, team chemistry takes time to develop (as LeBron James says, it's like instant oatmeal that way), and it also takes hard work, knowledge, and practice.
So if team chemistry takes an investment (some would say a substantial one) in time and energy, the question clearly is whether it is worth it or not. The answer is most definitely yes. Chester Spell (Professor of Management at Rutgers University School of Business in Camden) and Katerina Bezrukova (Associate Professor of Organization and Human Resources at the University of Buffalo School of Management) have studied and written extensively on this particular subject (see "The Magic Potion of Team Chemistry"), finding that in almost all cases, team chemistry is critically important for high-performing teams, regardless of setting. For example, they found that team chemistry was worth about three extra wins per season for major league baseball teams (and if you don't think that three extra wins in a season that lasts 162 games means all that much, just look at this most recent season when four teams ended up having to play a one game play-off at the end of the season to determine who won the division championship).
Decades of research has found that a few things are important for team chemistry. Teams that think too much alike are prone to "groupthink", so having a team with a diversity of opinions and backgrounds is important. Conversely, there has to be at least some degree of compatibility for teams to function well together. Stability is important too. Teams that are constantly changing may not have the time to develop team chemistry. Similarly, having stable leadership is important too - at least for successful teams. Research by investigators at the University of Colorado has shown that changing the head coach doesn't necessarily help losing sports teams get better (similarly, winning teams that have a coaching change usually fare worse).
Team chemistry is certainly difficult to measure (and some would argue that "you know it when you see it"). However, there is an emerging body of research that explores this topic in depth. Regardless, suffice it to say that there is more to team chemistry than just "magic." Given the likely rewards, leaders should spend some time learning more about team chemistry.
Here's the truth though. There is absolutely nothing magic about chemistry. There's an explanation for everything that happens. And it takes hard work, knowledge, and practice. Team chemistry is the same way. As I wrote last week in an earlier post, team chemistry takes time to develop (as LeBron James says, it's like instant oatmeal that way), and it also takes hard work, knowledge, and practice.
So if team chemistry takes an investment (some would say a substantial one) in time and energy, the question clearly is whether it is worth it or not. The answer is most definitely yes. Chester Spell (Professor of Management at Rutgers University School of Business in Camden) and Katerina Bezrukova (Associate Professor of Organization and Human Resources at the University of Buffalo School of Management) have studied and written extensively on this particular subject (see "The Magic Potion of Team Chemistry"), finding that in almost all cases, team chemistry is critically important for high-performing teams, regardless of setting. For example, they found that team chemistry was worth about three extra wins per season for major league baseball teams (and if you don't think that three extra wins in a season that lasts 162 games means all that much, just look at this most recent season when four teams ended up having to play a one game play-off at the end of the season to determine who won the division championship).
Decades of research has found that a few things are important for team chemistry. Teams that think too much alike are prone to "groupthink", so having a team with a diversity of opinions and backgrounds is important. Conversely, there has to be at least some degree of compatibility for teams to function well together. Stability is important too. Teams that are constantly changing may not have the time to develop team chemistry. Similarly, having stable leadership is important too - at least for successful teams. Research by investigators at the University of Colorado has shown that changing the head coach doesn't necessarily help losing sports teams get better (similarly, winning teams that have a coaching change usually fare worse).
Team chemistry is certainly difficult to measure (and some would argue that "you know it when you see it"). However, there is an emerging body of research that explores this topic in depth. Regardless, suffice it to say that there is more to team chemistry than just "magic." Given the likely rewards, leaders should spend some time learning more about team chemistry.
Monday, October 22, 2018
"I won the lottery...now what?"
Given all of the hype about the Power Ball and Mega Millions lottery jackpots, now estimated at over $2.2 billion combined, I decided to take a quick detour from my normal blog post schedule (which I will resume again, on schedule). I've written a number of posts in the past on mission, vision, and values. My last blog post ("That's what being a Boilermaker is all about"), as a matter of fact, was about the incredible success of a team with a shared sense of purpose. So, with these thoughts in mind, ponder if you will, how you would answer the following question, "If you won the lottery today, what would you do?"
"Would you quit your job and do something else?" It's kind of an interesting question really. If you never had to worry about money again, what job would you want? If you are one of the fortunate ones (and there are probably more than a few), you might do the same job that you did before winning the lottery. Alternatively, maybe you would leave your current job and go work for a charity or some other nonprofit. I am sure some of us would just go and live on a beach somewhere, and that is okay too.
My point, really, is to get you to think about your purpose in life. If you had all the money that you could ever wish for, or at least if it was enough to give you the personal freedom to do whatever you wished you could do, I bet that you would find yourself doing something that gave you a sense of purpose. I bet that you would find yourself doing something consistent with your personal mission, vision, and values.
Part of being a leader is knowing for who and for what you stand for in life. That, my friends, is called a purpose. Finding a job or position that is consistent with that purpose - something that is consistent with your own personal mission, vision, and values - is really great. If you have found that job or position, you are truly blessed. For those of you who have not found that job or position, I would ask, why not? Does it really take winning the lottery to do that?
"Would you quit your job and do something else?" It's kind of an interesting question really. If you never had to worry about money again, what job would you want? If you are one of the fortunate ones (and there are probably more than a few), you might do the same job that you did before winning the lottery. Alternatively, maybe you would leave your current job and go work for a charity or some other nonprofit. I am sure some of us would just go and live on a beach somewhere, and that is okay too.
My point, really, is to get you to think about your purpose in life. If you had all the money that you could ever wish for, or at least if it was enough to give you the personal freedom to do whatever you wished you could do, I bet that you would find yourself doing something that gave you a sense of purpose. I bet that you would find yourself doing something consistent with your personal mission, vision, and values.
Part of being a leader is knowing for who and for what you stand for in life. That, my friends, is called a purpose. Finding a job or position that is consistent with that purpose - something that is consistent with your own personal mission, vision, and values - is really great. If you have found that job or position, you are truly blessed. For those of you who have not found that job or position, I would ask, why not? Does it really take winning the lottery to do that?
Sunday, October 21, 2018
"That's what being a Boilermaker is all about."
We hear a lot about chemistry these days. NFL Hall of Famer quarterback Roger Staubach once said, "In any team sport, the best teams have consistency and chemistry." And by "consistency", I think he meant that the best teams had the same group of players year in and year out, which translated into a stable team chemistry and hence, a culture of winning and success. By way of example, NBA great LeBron James recently said, when speaking of his new team, the Los Angeles Lakers, that team chemistry needs time to develop. "I always kind of compare it to like instant oatmeal. It is not that fast."
Don't get me wrong. Individual talent, knowledge, ability, and skill are all important. I am sure that there are a number of college football coaches that would absolutely be thrilled to have the talent that Coach Nick Saban has on his 2018 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. However, we can all think of examples of teams - whether in sports, business, or politics - that had lots of individual talent and skill and yet never really became the kind of team that was successful (the so-called failed "dream" teams).
Some times, chemistry wins over talent. Teams that have a unified purpose and a shared vision (both of which are important facets of team chemistry) can and do win over teams that are much more talented. Legendary hockey coach, Herb Brooks knew that about his 1980 USA Olympic Men's Hockey team when they faced the highly talented and heavily favored Soviet Union team ("If we played 'em ten times, they might win nine...") at the 1980 Lake Placid Olympics. Team USA beat the Soviets 4-3 (Miracle on Ice) and went on to win the Gold Medal.
More recently (just last night, as a matter of fact), the Purdue University (my alma mater) football team defeated the #2 ranked team in the country (the Ohio State Buckeyes) 40-29 in front of a national television audience. Ohio State was ranked #2 for a reason - they are that talented. But there was just something about the Boilermakers last night. They played like a team on a mission (in contrast, Ohio State across the board, including their head coach and his staff, looked stunned and lost). Chemistry, in this case, won over talent.
The Boilermakers were, in fact, playing for a purpose. They were playing for their honorary team captain, a young man named Tyler Trent who is suffering from terminal bone cancer (and in all likelihood has days to a few short weeks to live). Purdue's head coach, Jeff Brohm said in his post-game locker room speech, "You guys know 'Tyler Strong' means something. This young man has been strong. His family's been strong. We're happy as heck to support him and to have him as our team captain. For him to even be here is remarkable. The guy never makes excuses. He never complains. Huge smile on his face every day, he's got a great attitude. He's about giving back to other people. That's what being a Boilermaker is all about."
Team chemistry. It matters. And it matters a lot. Next time, we'll spend some more time talking about just how much chemistry matters...
Don't get me wrong. Individual talent, knowledge, ability, and skill are all important. I am sure that there are a number of college football coaches that would absolutely be thrilled to have the talent that Coach Nick Saban has on his 2018 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. However, we can all think of examples of teams - whether in sports, business, or politics - that had lots of individual talent and skill and yet never really became the kind of team that was successful (the so-called failed "dream" teams).
Some times, chemistry wins over talent. Teams that have a unified purpose and a shared vision (both of which are important facets of team chemistry) can and do win over teams that are much more talented. Legendary hockey coach, Herb Brooks knew that about his 1980 USA Olympic Men's Hockey team when they faced the highly talented and heavily favored Soviet Union team ("If we played 'em ten times, they might win nine...") at the 1980 Lake Placid Olympics. Team USA beat the Soviets 4-3 (Miracle on Ice) and went on to win the Gold Medal.
More recently (just last night, as a matter of fact), the Purdue University (my alma mater) football team defeated the #2 ranked team in the country (the Ohio State Buckeyes) 40-29 in front of a national television audience. Ohio State was ranked #2 for a reason - they are that talented. But there was just something about the Boilermakers last night. They played like a team on a mission (in contrast, Ohio State across the board, including their head coach and his staff, looked stunned and lost). Chemistry, in this case, won over talent.
The Boilermakers were, in fact, playing for a purpose. They were playing for their honorary team captain, a young man named Tyler Trent who is suffering from terminal bone cancer (and in all likelihood has days to a few short weeks to live). Purdue's head coach, Jeff Brohm said in his post-game locker room speech, "You guys know 'Tyler Strong' means something. This young man has been strong. His family's been strong. We're happy as heck to support him and to have him as our team captain. For him to even be here is remarkable. The guy never makes excuses. He never complains. Huge smile on his face every day, he's got a great attitude. He's about giving back to other people. That's what being a Boilermaker is all about."
Team chemistry. It matters. And it matters a lot. Next time, we'll spend some more time talking about just how much chemistry matters...
Friday, October 19, 2018
Never throw a backdoor slider on a 3-2 count to a left-handed hitter
It's October, and that means the World Series is just around the corner. Approximately 30 years ago (actually, 30 years ago this past October 15th to be exact), something happened in a World Series game that is truly the stuff of legends, in everything sense of the phrase. Kirk Gibson hit a game-winning home run in the first game of the 1988 World Series between the Oakland Athletics and the Los Angeles Dodgers. It was his only appearance at bat in the entire Series. It won the game for the Dodgers, and it has been played over and over again in highlight reels ever since.
Here's the background. The heavily favored Oakland Athletics, the American League Champions with a record of 104-58, were led by sluggers Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, and Dave Henderson and pitchers Dave Stewart and Dennis Eckersley, and manager Tony LaRussa. Jose Canseco was the first player in major league history to hit 40 home runs and steal 40 bases that year (though his record has since been tainted by his admission of steroid use). The underdog (they had been picked to finish fourth in their Division) Los Angeles Dodgers, the National League Champions with a record of 94-67 were led by National League MVP Kirk Gibson, National League Cy Young Award winner Orel Hershiser, and manager Tommy Lasorda. The Dodgers were the clear underdog, as they had not finished the regular season in the top 5 of any major offensive statistical category.
Here's the set-up. The series began with game 1 in Los Angeles. Dodgers slugger, Kirk Gibson (who had only been playing for the Dodgers for that year, having been signed as a free agent at the start of the season), had hurt his one good leg during game 7 of the NLCS and was not expected to play at all during the World Series. Gibson was the de facto leader for the Dodgers, having played well enough for the entire season to be named the National League MVP. Gibson had spent most of the night watching the game on television while undergoing physical therapy in the Dodgers clubhouse. Legendary Dodgers sports commentator Vin Scully, working for NBC, commented on television that Gibson was "nowhere to be found." Hearing this, Gibson next told Dodgers manager Tommy Lasorda that he was available to pinch hit, after which he began to warm-up in the batting cage in the clubhouse.
The game went back and forth through 8 innings, but the Athletics led 4-3. Oakland closer, Dennis Eckersley (who led the American League with 45 saves during the regular season and was considered, at that time, to be the greatest closer in baseball) came in to finish the game. Eckersley got two quick outs, and the Dodgers were down to their last out, still losing by one run. Dodgers pinch-hitter Mike Davis got on base with a walk (Davis had played for the Athletics the previous season, and Eckersley didn't want to give up a home run), and the next spot in the batting order was the pitcher's spot. There's a popular story that the Athletics catcher saw and pointed out to Eckersley that the Dodgers' Dave Anderson was in the "on deck" circle (who wasn't that great of a hitter). Reportedly, the Athletics "pitched around" (i.e. didn't give Mike Davis anything to hit, essentially walking him purposely to get to Anderson).
Here's the play. Lasorda quickly pulled Anderson and sent Kirk Gibson to the plate to pinch hit. As Gibson limped to home plate, Vin Scully commented, "And look who's coming up!" Gibson quickly fell behind by two strikes for an 0-2 count, but then took the next two pitches to even the count at 2-2. On the next pitch, he awkwardly swung at the ball for a foul down the first base line. On the next pitch (a ball), Davis stole second base and the count was even 3-2. Now that Davis was in scoring position, all Gibson had to do was hit a single and the Dodgers would tie the game. Surely Gibson could manage a single, right? As the next pitch came, Gibson swung almost entirely with his upper body and sent the ball over the right-field fence for a two-run HR, wining the game. It would be his only plate appearance for the entire Series, but it would set the tone for the games to follow. The Dodgers would end up winning the 1988 World Series 4-1.
Now, here's the back-story. Apparently, the Dodgers had scouted out Dennis Eckersley before the Series and noticed that Eckersley almost always threw a backdoor slider on a 3-2 count to a left-handed hitter. Gibson knew this. Gibson was also a left-handed hitter. And the count was 3-2. So, with the next pitch, Gibson was expecting Eckersley to throw a backdoor slider. And he did. And Gibson hit it out of the park.
I know what you are thinking. What are the key takeaways here? I think there are several from the two perspectives of the Athletics and the Dodgers.
From the Dodgers' perspective:
1. Never give up. Ever. You never know who will step up and deliver.
2. Do your homework. The Dodgers knew Dennis Eckersley always followed certain tendencies, and they made the critical adjustments and took advantage of one of those tendencies.
From the Athletics' perspective:
1. Never count someone out, just because they are in a slump (or if they are injured). On any given day, most major leaguers (if not all) can hit a home run, if given the chance to do so. Similarly, we can expect any member of the team to be able to contribute and deliver, if given the chance to do so. Don't count anyone out, and never, ever underestimate the potential for someone to hit a home run (literally for the Athletics, metaphorically outside of sports).
2. Every once in a while, do the unexpected. Tony LaRussa was always well known for keeping a large notebook on the statistical tendencies of every player on the opposing team (how they hit in certain situations, what kind of pitches they usually preferred, where they hit the ball, etc.). Should he have been surprised that the Dodgers had the same kind of knowledge on his players? No way. If the Dodgers scouts knew that Dennis Eckersley usually preferred a backdoor slider on a 3-2 count to a left-handed batter, perhaps Tony LaRussa should have known that too. Perhaps then he could have told Eckersley not to throw that pitch.
It's a great story. And a great lesson (in my opinion). Never, ever throw a backdoor slider on a 3-2 count to a left-handed hitter. Especially if that hitter is Kirk Gibson.
Here's the background. The heavily favored Oakland Athletics, the American League Champions with a record of 104-58, were led by sluggers Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, and Dave Henderson and pitchers Dave Stewart and Dennis Eckersley, and manager Tony LaRussa. Jose Canseco was the first player in major league history to hit 40 home runs and steal 40 bases that year (though his record has since been tainted by his admission of steroid use). The underdog (they had been picked to finish fourth in their Division) Los Angeles Dodgers, the National League Champions with a record of 94-67 were led by National League MVP Kirk Gibson, National League Cy Young Award winner Orel Hershiser, and manager Tommy Lasorda. The Dodgers were the clear underdog, as they had not finished the regular season in the top 5 of any major offensive statistical category.
Here's the set-up. The series began with game 1 in Los Angeles. Dodgers slugger, Kirk Gibson (who had only been playing for the Dodgers for that year, having been signed as a free agent at the start of the season), had hurt his one good leg during game 7 of the NLCS and was not expected to play at all during the World Series. Gibson was the de facto leader for the Dodgers, having played well enough for the entire season to be named the National League MVP. Gibson had spent most of the night watching the game on television while undergoing physical therapy in the Dodgers clubhouse. Legendary Dodgers sports commentator Vin Scully, working for NBC, commented on television that Gibson was "nowhere to be found." Hearing this, Gibson next told Dodgers manager Tommy Lasorda that he was available to pinch hit, after which he began to warm-up in the batting cage in the clubhouse.
The game went back and forth through 8 innings, but the Athletics led 4-3. Oakland closer, Dennis Eckersley (who led the American League with 45 saves during the regular season and was considered, at that time, to be the greatest closer in baseball) came in to finish the game. Eckersley got two quick outs, and the Dodgers were down to their last out, still losing by one run. Dodgers pinch-hitter Mike Davis got on base with a walk (Davis had played for the Athletics the previous season, and Eckersley didn't want to give up a home run), and the next spot in the batting order was the pitcher's spot. There's a popular story that the Athletics catcher saw and pointed out to Eckersley that the Dodgers' Dave Anderson was in the "on deck" circle (who wasn't that great of a hitter). Reportedly, the Athletics "pitched around" (i.e. didn't give Mike Davis anything to hit, essentially walking him purposely to get to Anderson).
Here's the play. Lasorda quickly pulled Anderson and sent Kirk Gibson to the plate to pinch hit. As Gibson limped to home plate, Vin Scully commented, "And look who's coming up!" Gibson quickly fell behind by two strikes for an 0-2 count, but then took the next two pitches to even the count at 2-2. On the next pitch, he awkwardly swung at the ball for a foul down the first base line. On the next pitch (a ball), Davis stole second base and the count was even 3-2. Now that Davis was in scoring position, all Gibson had to do was hit a single and the Dodgers would tie the game. Surely Gibson could manage a single, right? As the next pitch came, Gibson swung almost entirely with his upper body and sent the ball over the right-field fence for a two-run HR, wining the game. It would be his only plate appearance for the entire Series, but it would set the tone for the games to follow. The Dodgers would end up winning the 1988 World Series 4-1.
Now, here's the back-story. Apparently, the Dodgers had scouted out Dennis Eckersley before the Series and noticed that Eckersley almost always threw a backdoor slider on a 3-2 count to a left-handed hitter. Gibson knew this. Gibson was also a left-handed hitter. And the count was 3-2. So, with the next pitch, Gibson was expecting Eckersley to throw a backdoor slider. And he did. And Gibson hit it out of the park.
I know what you are thinking. What are the key takeaways here? I think there are several from the two perspectives of the Athletics and the Dodgers.
From the Dodgers' perspective:
1. Never give up. Ever. You never know who will step up and deliver.
2. Do your homework. The Dodgers knew Dennis Eckersley always followed certain tendencies, and they made the critical adjustments and took advantage of one of those tendencies.
From the Athletics' perspective:
1. Never count someone out, just because they are in a slump (or if they are injured). On any given day, most major leaguers (if not all) can hit a home run, if given the chance to do so. Similarly, we can expect any member of the team to be able to contribute and deliver, if given the chance to do so. Don't count anyone out, and never, ever underestimate the potential for someone to hit a home run (literally for the Athletics, metaphorically outside of sports).
2. Every once in a while, do the unexpected. Tony LaRussa was always well known for keeping a large notebook on the statistical tendencies of every player on the opposing team (how they hit in certain situations, what kind of pitches they usually preferred, where they hit the ball, etc.). Should he have been surprised that the Dodgers had the same kind of knowledge on his players? No way. If the Dodgers scouts knew that Dennis Eckersley usually preferred a backdoor slider on a 3-2 count to a left-handed batter, perhaps Tony LaRussa should have known that too. Perhaps then he could have told Eckersley not to throw that pitch.
It's a great story. And a great lesson (in my opinion). Never, ever throw a backdoor slider on a 3-2 count to a left-handed hitter. Especially if that hitter is Kirk Gibson.
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
"You can't always get what you want..."
There was a time, when I was younger and still at home, that I decided to post a "Quote of the Day" on a small dry erase board on the refrigerator in our family's kitchen. I planned to only use quotations borrowed from rock-n-roll lyrics. It worked great for about 3 days, then I quickly started losing momentum (or alternatively, there weren't enough inspirational quotes that I could find in the music that I listened to). I remember the first quote came from a song called, "You can't always get what you want"by the Rolling Stones. I've never been a huge fan of the Stones (blasphemy, right?!?!) but I always liked this particular song. The song was named the 100th greatest song of all time by Rolling Stone (no relation to the rock group) magazine. It was once said that the song was the Stones' response to the Beatles tune, "Hey Jude" (the Beatles used an orchestra in that song).
There has been a lot of different interpretations of the song's lyrics over the years, but essentially the song addresses the major topics of the 1960's - love, politics, and drugs. There is certainly a deeper meaning here though. Mick Jagger is certainly an intellectual (despite his long affiliation with the 1960's culture of sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll!) and actually went to school at the prestigious London School of Economics before becoming a rock star. Regardless of the deeper cultural meanings in the song, I have always found one of the lines in the chorus to be the most poignant (part of the title comes from the chorus - and this is the line that I used in my "Quote of the Day"):
"You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes. Well you might find. You get what you need."
Wow - this might be the greatest rock-n-roll lyric of all time. It is absolutely packed with lessons on how to approach life, particularly from the Stoic philosophical viewpoint. Be satisfied with what you have in life, because chances are, it's enough. I get it - there are people in this world who don't have enough. That's not who I am talking about. I am specifically talking to those of us who have led a life of privilege. One of the tendencies I see today is that many of us are never satisfied with what we have in life. We aren't satisfied with our job. Our salary. Our title. Our house. The place we live. Our friends. The kind of car we drive. Whatever it is, it just never seems to be enough. The Stoics (and Mick Jagger) would tell us that we should be content with what we have. As the Roman Stoic philosopher, Seneca, once said, “True happiness is to enjoy the present, without anxious dependence upon the future, not to amuse ourselves with either hopes or fears but to rest satisfied with what we have, which is sufficient, for he that is so wants nothing."
So, as Mick Jagger wisely once said, "You can't always get what you want." But that's completely okay. Because chances are... "you get what you need." And that is enough.
There has been a lot of different interpretations of the song's lyrics over the years, but essentially the song addresses the major topics of the 1960's - love, politics, and drugs. There is certainly a deeper meaning here though. Mick Jagger is certainly an intellectual (despite his long affiliation with the 1960's culture of sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll!) and actually went to school at the prestigious London School of Economics before becoming a rock star. Regardless of the deeper cultural meanings in the song, I have always found one of the lines in the chorus to be the most poignant (part of the title comes from the chorus - and this is the line that I used in my "Quote of the Day"):
"You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes. Well you might find. You get what you need."
Wow - this might be the greatest rock-n-roll lyric of all time. It is absolutely packed with lessons on how to approach life, particularly from the Stoic philosophical viewpoint. Be satisfied with what you have in life, because chances are, it's enough. I get it - there are people in this world who don't have enough. That's not who I am talking about. I am specifically talking to those of us who have led a life of privilege. One of the tendencies I see today is that many of us are never satisfied with what we have in life. We aren't satisfied with our job. Our salary. Our title. Our house. The place we live. Our friends. The kind of car we drive. Whatever it is, it just never seems to be enough. The Stoics (and Mick Jagger) would tell us that we should be content with what we have. As the Roman Stoic philosopher, Seneca, once said, “True happiness is to enjoy the present, without anxious dependence upon the future, not to amuse ourselves with either hopes or fears but to rest satisfied with what we have, which is sufficient, for he that is so wants nothing."
So, as Mick Jagger wisely once said, "You can't always get what you want." But that's completely okay. Because chances are... "you get what you need." And that is enough.
Sunday, October 14, 2018
Uncommon Valor
Yesterday, October 13th, the United States Navy celebrated its 243rd birthday (the Navy was established by an act of the Second Continental Congress on October 13, 1775). I am proud to have served in the Navy for 9 years (6 years active duty, 3 years reserve duty). Indeed, the lessons on leadership that I learned during my time in the Navy have remained with me to this day. I have always firmly believed that you can find a lesson in just about every experience or story, and one of the most compelling stories in the 243 year history of the Navy involved a ship named after my hometown.
I have always had a particular fascination with the USS Indianapolis. CA-35, or the "Indy" as she was affectionately known as to her crew was a heavy cruiser that was first commissioned in 1932 and served as the flagship for Admiral Raymond Spruance for the United States Fifth Fleet during World War II. The story of the Indianapolis doesn't end well. When I was young, I was always fascinated by Navy ships - I can remember the first time my family and I visited the USS Alabama in Mobile (a World War II battleship that is now a museum). I asked my father if there had been a battleship named after the state of Indiana. The answer was yes, which then prompted a question about what happened to the USS Indiana after the war (she was sold for scrap, though her prow now sits at Memorial Stadium on the campus of Indiana University). Well, that wasn't particularly interesting to me then, but the story that I heard next has captivated me for my entire life.
My father told me about the USS Indianapolis and how she delivered the first atomic bomb ("Little Boy" - the one that was later dropped on the city of Hiroshima, Japan) from Pearl Harbor to the island of Tinian on July 26, 1945. Shortly after completing that top secret mission, after a brief interlude in Guam, the ship sailed towards Japan to rejoin the Fifth Fleet and was sunk by a Japanese submarine on July 30, 1945. For a number of reasons, no distress signals were sent and no one noticed that the ship was past due. The Navy didn't know that she had been sunk, so the ship's survivors drifted in the water for three and a half days before being spotted, miraculously, by a Navy PV-1 Ventura flown by LT Chuck Gwinn. The story of the survivors is particularly harrowing - in addition to the injuries that they sustained during the torpedo attack, these brave men fought dehydration, hypothermia, sunburn, and shark attacks. The survivors' story is retold in an iconic scene in the 1975 movie, Jaws by one of the main characters, Quint, played memorably by the actor Robert Shaw.
There are a number of great books about the survivors of the USS Indianapolis - I just finished the latest, Indianapolis: The True Story of the Worst Sea Disaster in U.S. Naval History and the Fifty-Year Fight to Exonerate an Innocent Man by Lynn Vincent and Sara Vladic. Shortly after the survivors were rescued, the Navy conducted a board of inquiry and court martial of the Indy's Commanding Officer, CAPT Charles McVay III. McVay was found guilty (wrongly in my opinion) and left the Navy shortly after the war ended. He never forgave himself and eventually committed suicide in 1968. Vincent and Vladic detail the story of how the ship was sunk, why it took so long to rescue the survivors, and how many of the survivors fought to restore CAPT McVay's good name. Interestingly enough, it took a sixth-grade student from Florida named Hunter Scott, who researched the story for a school history project, working with another Navy Captain, CAPT William Toti, the last commanding officer of the SSN-697 (the USS Indianapolis, a nuclear powered attack submarine) and several of the survivors to petition Congress to exonerate McVay more than 50 years after the incident.
The tale of the USS Indianapolis is a tragic one, but it is also an amazing story of survival and uncommon valor, as well as a story of resilience, commitment, persistence, and in the end, loyalty. Happy 243rd Birthday to the United States Navy!
I have always had a particular fascination with the USS Indianapolis. CA-35, or the "Indy" as she was affectionately known as to her crew was a heavy cruiser that was first commissioned in 1932 and served as the flagship for Admiral Raymond Spruance for the United States Fifth Fleet during World War II. The story of the Indianapolis doesn't end well. When I was young, I was always fascinated by Navy ships - I can remember the first time my family and I visited the USS Alabama in Mobile (a World War II battleship that is now a museum). I asked my father if there had been a battleship named after the state of Indiana. The answer was yes, which then prompted a question about what happened to the USS Indiana after the war (she was sold for scrap, though her prow now sits at Memorial Stadium on the campus of Indiana University). Well, that wasn't particularly interesting to me then, but the story that I heard next has captivated me for my entire life.
My father told me about the USS Indianapolis and how she delivered the first atomic bomb ("Little Boy" - the one that was later dropped on the city of Hiroshima, Japan) from Pearl Harbor to the island of Tinian on July 26, 1945. Shortly after completing that top secret mission, after a brief interlude in Guam, the ship sailed towards Japan to rejoin the Fifth Fleet and was sunk by a Japanese submarine on July 30, 1945. For a number of reasons, no distress signals were sent and no one noticed that the ship was past due. The Navy didn't know that she had been sunk, so the ship's survivors drifted in the water for three and a half days before being spotted, miraculously, by a Navy PV-1 Ventura flown by LT Chuck Gwinn. The story of the survivors is particularly harrowing - in addition to the injuries that they sustained during the torpedo attack, these brave men fought dehydration, hypothermia, sunburn, and shark attacks. The survivors' story is retold in an iconic scene in the 1975 movie, Jaws by one of the main characters, Quint, played memorably by the actor Robert Shaw.
There are a number of great books about the survivors of the USS Indianapolis - I just finished the latest, Indianapolis: The True Story of the Worst Sea Disaster in U.S. Naval History and the Fifty-Year Fight to Exonerate an Innocent Man by Lynn Vincent and Sara Vladic. Shortly after the survivors were rescued, the Navy conducted a board of inquiry and court martial of the Indy's Commanding Officer, CAPT Charles McVay III. McVay was found guilty (wrongly in my opinion) and left the Navy shortly after the war ended. He never forgave himself and eventually committed suicide in 1968. Vincent and Vladic detail the story of how the ship was sunk, why it took so long to rescue the survivors, and how many of the survivors fought to restore CAPT McVay's good name. Interestingly enough, it took a sixth-grade student from Florida named Hunter Scott, who researched the story for a school history project, working with another Navy Captain, CAPT William Toti, the last commanding officer of the SSN-697 (the USS Indianapolis, a nuclear powered attack submarine) and several of the survivors to petition Congress to exonerate McVay more than 50 years after the incident.
The tale of the USS Indianapolis is a tragic one, but it is also an amazing story of survival and uncommon valor, as well as a story of resilience, commitment, persistence, and in the end, loyalty. Happy 243rd Birthday to the United States Navy!
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
My Achilles Heel
I started running (again) about five years ago. Since that time, I have run several short 5K runs and two marathons (the 2015 Marine Corps Marathon and the 2017 Disney Marathon). About three or four months ago, after running in the soft sand on a beach in San Diego, California, I woke up with a lot of pain in my left heel. After a few weeks of alternating between days off and on running, I ended up going to a sports medicine physician who diagnosed me with Calcific tendonitis and recommended stretching, strengthening, and most importantly, prolonged REST. As per the doctor's orders, I took a break from running. It's been a long road back.
A few weeks ago, I started running again. My triumphant return to running really just involves a nice, easy 1/2 mile walk followed by a nice, easy 1 mile jog, followed by a cool-down. I've not been running every day, but I have been trying to at least walk at a brisk pace every day that I don't run. This past weekend, my wife and I went for a walk at a local park. I pushed myself a little and ended up running about 1.3 miles this time. It felt pretty good. The conversation with my wife went something like this:
My wife: "How did it go?"
Me: "Okay. I felt pretty good. But less than a year ago, I was running this entire trail."
My wife: "Yeah, but one month ago you weren't even running."
Leave it to my wife to set me straight. She was absolutely right. As we talked more, she told me that I should focus on the fact that I am running more now than I was a few months ago rather than the fact that I am running less than I was 1 year ago. My wife is a wise woman!
As I thought about it more, how many times do we fall into a similar situation. We've experienced a certain level of performance in either our personal or professional life, and then after suffering some kind of setback, we've had to slowly build back up to our historical level of performance. I am sure this same phenomenon happens in organizations too.
All of us - organizations included - will at times suffer some setback or decrement in performance. Alternatively, we may fall short of an annual goal - frequently a stretch goal. The tendency in these cases is to focus too much (in my opinion) on the long-term goal of getting back to our so-called "historical best" and not enough on the short-term goals of what needs to be done to reset and get back to that same "historical best." We know what we can personally accomplish or what our teams can accomplish if we are firing on all cylinders, but we neglect the fact that something has caused us to fall short.
Going back to my original discussion, my (eventual) long-term goal is to get back where I can
routinely run 5 or 10K races with an occasional half-marathon (and perhaps even another marathon). But my goal for the here and now should be to get back to where I am running on a regular basis again. In other words, I should break my long-term goal into short- and intermediate-term goals. If I focus too much on the fact that I have lost a lot of progress over the last 3-4 months, I will get discouraged and lose motivation. I think the same concept applies to organizations.
I actually don't know what the goal-setting literature says about all of this, but I do know from my own firsthand personal experience what works best for me. And, I think I have seen similar examples in my professional life. The road back to recovery can be difficult. Getting back to the historical best performance after a setback is exactly the same. Don't lose momentum by focusing too much on the long-term goal. Instead, focus on the short-term objectives with the end-game in mind. And remember my Achilles heel.
A few weeks ago, I started running again. My triumphant return to running really just involves a nice, easy 1/2 mile walk followed by a nice, easy 1 mile jog, followed by a cool-down. I've not been running every day, but I have been trying to at least walk at a brisk pace every day that I don't run. This past weekend, my wife and I went for a walk at a local park. I pushed myself a little and ended up running about 1.3 miles this time. It felt pretty good. The conversation with my wife went something like this:
My wife: "How did it go?"
Me: "Okay. I felt pretty good. But less than a year ago, I was running this entire trail."
My wife: "Yeah, but one month ago you weren't even running."
Leave it to my wife to set me straight. She was absolutely right. As we talked more, she told me that I should focus on the fact that I am running more now than I was a few months ago rather than the fact that I am running less than I was 1 year ago. My wife is a wise woman!
As I thought about it more, how many times do we fall into a similar situation. We've experienced a certain level of performance in either our personal or professional life, and then after suffering some kind of setback, we've had to slowly build back up to our historical level of performance. I am sure this same phenomenon happens in organizations too.
All of us - organizations included - will at times suffer some setback or decrement in performance. Alternatively, we may fall short of an annual goal - frequently a stretch goal. The tendency in these cases is to focus too much (in my opinion) on the long-term goal of getting back to our so-called "historical best" and not enough on the short-term goals of what needs to be done to reset and get back to that same "historical best." We know what we can personally accomplish or what our teams can accomplish if we are firing on all cylinders, but we neglect the fact that something has caused us to fall short.
Going back to my original discussion, my (eventual) long-term goal is to get back where I can
routinely run 5 or 10K races with an occasional half-marathon (and perhaps even another marathon). But my goal for the here and now should be to get back to where I am running on a regular basis again. In other words, I should break my long-term goal into short- and intermediate-term goals. If I focus too much on the fact that I have lost a lot of progress over the last 3-4 months, I will get discouraged and lose motivation. I think the same concept applies to organizations.
I actually don't know what the goal-setting literature says about all of this, but I do know from my own firsthand personal experience what works best for me. And, I think I have seen similar examples in my professional life. The road back to recovery can be difficult. Getting back to the historical best performance after a setback is exactly the same. Don't lose momentum by focusing too much on the long-term goal. Instead, focus on the short-term objectives with the end-game in mind. And remember my Achilles heel.
Sunday, October 7, 2018
"You give to get to give!"
Tomorrow, October 7th marks the start of our organization's annual United Way fundraising campaign. This year, I am proud to be serving as our Executive Sponsor. I have to confess that I haven't always donated money to the United Way - in fact, I've probably only been giving for the last 7-8 years. I can't tell you why I never gave in the past, but I would like to spend some time discussing why I give now. More importantly, I would like to spend some time why giving, advocating, and volunteering for charitable organizations and private foundations such as the United Way is such an important and necessary part of leadership.
During last year's United Way campaign, I was honored to hear one of our local business executives, Carl Satterwhite (notably, Mr. Satterwhite previously served as the Chair of the Board of Directors for our local United Way) speak at one of our fundraising events. He titled his talk, "You give to get to give" ("G2G2 Give" also happens to be his personalized license plate and part of his Twitter handle). Satterwhite's concept is pretty straightforward and comes from the old adage "It's better to give than to receive." Simply put, giving to a worthy cause feels good. Giving leads to happiness and a sense of fulfillment. Happiness and a sense of fulfillment, by their very nature, often lead to greater blessings and success in both our personal and professional lives. Greater blessings and success lead to greater opportunities, both financial and non-financial, which then leads to the chance to give even more! It's really a virtuous cycle!
There's also a biblical verse (from the New Testament) that says, "He who sows sparingly and grudgingly will also reap sparingly and grudgingly, and he who sows generously will also reap generously." In other words, you reap what you sow. You get what you give. And by giving, you get to give even more!
I will admit, a lot of this sounds like I am suggesting that we should give for personal gain. Nothing can be further from the truth. We should give because it is the right thing to do. We often hear statistics (and they are all true) that the United States spends far more on health care than any other country in the world. And we also hear statistics (again, all true) that the United States lags behind many of those same countries in terms of frequently used measures of health, such as infant mortality and life expectancy. But here's the thing. A few years ago, an investigator at Yale University named Elizabeth H. Bradley (Dr. Bradley is now the President of Vassar College) conducted an incredibly interesting study that was published in the journal, Health Affairs (she also wrote a book based upon her research called The American Health Care Paradox: Why Spending More is Getting Us Less ). Basically, if you compare what the United States spends on social services that directly impact the so-called social determinants of health AND health care, there is not much difference. In other words, we are spending more (lots more) on health care and less (much less) on social services compared to almost every other industrialized country in the world.
In other words, perhaps the United States is spending money on the wrong thing? Maybe we should be investing our money on things that impact the social determinants of health rather than spending it all on health care delivery. Unfortunately, I can almost guarantee that the current chaos that defines the U.S. government will never be able to make the decisions or kinds of changes necessary to re-deploy health care dollars on things that improve health. The only way we will be successful in making these kinds of changes is by supporting many of the private foundations and charitable organizations that exist to do exactly what I am talking about - improve health!
So, for two reasons then, organizations such as the United Way need our leaders to step up and do what they do best - lead. Leaders need to lead the way by supporting these organizations through giving, advocating for what these organizations do in our local communities, and volunteering for these organizations so that they can better fulfill their mission. Give. Advocate. Volunteer. In other words, "give to get to give."
During last year's United Way campaign, I was honored to hear one of our local business executives, Carl Satterwhite (notably, Mr. Satterwhite previously served as the Chair of the Board of Directors for our local United Way) speak at one of our fundraising events. He titled his talk, "You give to get to give" ("G2G2 Give" also happens to be his personalized license plate and part of his Twitter handle). Satterwhite's concept is pretty straightforward and comes from the old adage "It's better to give than to receive." Simply put, giving to a worthy cause feels good. Giving leads to happiness and a sense of fulfillment. Happiness and a sense of fulfillment, by their very nature, often lead to greater blessings and success in both our personal and professional lives. Greater blessings and success lead to greater opportunities, both financial and non-financial, which then leads to the chance to give even more! It's really a virtuous cycle!
There's also a biblical verse (from the New Testament) that says, "He who sows sparingly and grudgingly will also reap sparingly and grudgingly, and he who sows generously will also reap generously." In other words, you reap what you sow. You get what you give. And by giving, you get to give even more!
I will admit, a lot of this sounds like I am suggesting that we should give for personal gain. Nothing can be further from the truth. We should give because it is the right thing to do. We often hear statistics (and they are all true) that the United States spends far more on health care than any other country in the world. And we also hear statistics (again, all true) that the United States lags behind many of those same countries in terms of frequently used measures of health, such as infant mortality and life expectancy. But here's the thing. A few years ago, an investigator at Yale University named Elizabeth H. Bradley (Dr. Bradley is now the President of Vassar College) conducted an incredibly interesting study that was published in the journal, Health Affairs (she also wrote a book based upon her research called The American Health Care Paradox: Why Spending More is Getting Us Less ). Basically, if you compare what the United States spends on social services that directly impact the so-called social determinants of health AND health care, there is not much difference. In other words, we are spending more (lots more) on health care and less (much less) on social services compared to almost every other industrialized country in the world.
In other words, perhaps the United States is spending money on the wrong thing? Maybe we should be investing our money on things that impact the social determinants of health rather than spending it all on health care delivery. Unfortunately, I can almost guarantee that the current chaos that defines the U.S. government will never be able to make the decisions or kinds of changes necessary to re-deploy health care dollars on things that improve health. The only way we will be successful in making these kinds of changes is by supporting many of the private foundations and charitable organizations that exist to do exactly what I am talking about - improve health!
So, for two reasons then, organizations such as the United Way need our leaders to step up and do what they do best - lead. Leaders need to lead the way by supporting these organizations through giving, advocating for what these organizations do in our local communities, and volunteering for these organizations so that they can better fulfill their mission. Give. Advocate. Volunteer. In other words, "give to get to give."
Wednesday, October 3, 2018
"Failing Forward"
I was recently asked to give a talk to a group of our employees as part of our organization's "Lessons in Leadership" seminar series. Actually, I gave the talk earlier today, so the timing is great for tonight's blog post! I was asked to talk about learning from failure and turning failures into success. I don't know about the success part, but I have certainly had my share of failures. Anyone who says that they've never failed is either (1) not telling the truth or (2) completely risk-averse that they've never pushed past their comfort zone. The author J.K. Rowling (I hope you have heard of her!) certainly believes this to be true and told the 2008 graduating class of Harvard (watch her commencement address here - it's well worth your time) that, "It is impossible to live without failing at something, unless you live so cautiously that you might as well not have lived at all - in which case, you fail by default."
Rowling failed early on - both professionally and personally. But it was only because she failed that she moved to her life's true passion, writing. She writes, "Failure gave me an inner security that I had never attained by passing examinations. Failure taught me things about myself that I could have learned no other way. I discovered that I had a strong will, and more discipline than I had suspected; I also found out that I had friends whose value was truly above the price of rubies."
She goes on, "You will never truly know yourself, or the strength of your relationships, until both have been tested by adversity. Such knowledge is a true gift, for all that is painfully won, and it has been worth more than any qualification I ever earned."
There is absolutely nothing wrong with failure. As a matter of fact, it is almost virtually impossible to learn without failing. Harvard Business School professor, Amy Edmondson has spent most of her career learning about how individuals, teams, and organizations can learn by failing. Her research suggests that good leaders will build a "learning culture" in their organization such that both small and large failures are always recognized, continuously reported, and thoroughly analyzed so that the organization can learn, experiment, and improve.
By failing, then, we gain new knowledge and experience. As the inventor Thomas Edison was heard to say after trying 10,000 times, unsuccessfully, to build a light bulb, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways how not to build a light bulb." By failing, as Rowling suggested above, we grow more resilient. We test our boundaries and push beyond our comfort zone, and we find that failing is not that bad. We learn that we will be okay, and the next time we push just a little harder and go just a little further outside of our comfort zones.
Before I finish, I have to make a confession. While I have heard of the phrase, "Failing Forward", I actually didn't know where it came from. Its actually the title of a book by the leadership guru John C. Maxwell. I picked up a copy from our local library and will definitely take a deep dive into it later this week. It looks to be packed with helpful anecdotes about famous (and not so famous) people who have failed and were all the more better for it. Just my kind of book.
So perhaps my first and most important lesson from today's talk about failure was this - don't be afraid of failure. We will all fail. But growth and maturity come from learning from our failures and getting better for the next time. Life is not always filled with successes. Some times, it seems that life is full of failures. Embrace the failures. Learn from them. You will be a better person and a better leader because of your failures.
Rowling failed early on - both professionally and personally. But it was only because she failed that she moved to her life's true passion, writing. She writes, "Failure gave me an inner security that I had never attained by passing examinations. Failure taught me things about myself that I could have learned no other way. I discovered that I had a strong will, and more discipline than I had suspected; I also found out that I had friends whose value was truly above the price of rubies."
She goes on, "You will never truly know yourself, or the strength of your relationships, until both have been tested by adversity. Such knowledge is a true gift, for all that is painfully won, and it has been worth more than any qualification I ever earned."
There is absolutely nothing wrong with failure. As a matter of fact, it is almost virtually impossible to learn without failing. Harvard Business School professor, Amy Edmondson has spent most of her career learning about how individuals, teams, and organizations can learn by failing. Her research suggests that good leaders will build a "learning culture" in their organization such that both small and large failures are always recognized, continuously reported, and thoroughly analyzed so that the organization can learn, experiment, and improve.
By failing, then, we gain new knowledge and experience. As the inventor Thomas Edison was heard to say after trying 10,000 times, unsuccessfully, to build a light bulb, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways how not to build a light bulb." By failing, as Rowling suggested above, we grow more resilient. We test our boundaries and push beyond our comfort zone, and we find that failing is not that bad. We learn that we will be okay, and the next time we push just a little harder and go just a little further outside of our comfort zones.
Before I finish, I have to make a confession. While I have heard of the phrase, "Failing Forward", I actually didn't know where it came from. Its actually the title of a book by the leadership guru John C. Maxwell. I picked up a copy from our local library and will definitely take a deep dive into it later this week. It looks to be packed with helpful anecdotes about famous (and not so famous) people who have failed and were all the more better for it. Just my kind of book.
So perhaps my first and most important lesson from today's talk about failure was this - don't be afraid of failure. We will all fail. But growth and maturity come from learning from our failures and getting better for the next time. Life is not always filled with successes. Some times, it seems that life is full of failures. Embrace the failures. Learn from them. You will be a better person and a better leader because of your failures.