When I was growing up, my first youth football team was called the "Steelers," so logically my favorite NFL football team at that age was the Pittsburgh Steelers. My timing was impeccable - the year that I played on the youth "Steelers" happened to coincide with the year that the Steelers beat the Minnesota Vikings in Super Bowl IX. I was hooked. I think I followed the Steelers as long as they were winning Super Bowls, though I eventually moved on to other teams. Even if I am no longer a fan, I would have to say that the Steelers are one of the greatest NFL franchises of all time - they have won the Super Bowl six times (Super Bowls IX, X, XIII, XIV, XL, and XLIII) and have played and lost in two others (Super Bowls XXX and XLV). No team (including the San Francisco 49ers, Dallas Cowboys, and New England Patriots) has won more Super Bowls than the Steelers. They have a great coach currently (Mike Tomlin) and a future Hall of Fame quarterback in Ben Roethlisberger. So, I have a lot of respect for what they have accomplished.
However, I really can't respect a team leader (who is also reportedly one of the team captains), Ben Roethlisberger, for the way he recently handled the performance of a couple of his teammates. Apparently, Roethlisberger wasn't happy with his team's Week 12 loss to the Denver Broncos. Fair enough. However, during his weekly Tuesday radio show on a local Pittsburgh radio station, he called out wide receiver Antonio Brown's route running on a play that resulted in an interception, rookie wide receiver James Washington's dropping of a pass on another play that should have resulted in a touchdown (or so he believed), and Offensive Coordinator Randy Fichtner's play calling. Really?
When asked about what he said, he reportedly replied, "I think I have earned the right to be able to do that with as long as I have been here, and I'll just be just as critical of myself [in the media] as well."
He went on, "Being around for a long time with a lot of different players. You have to know how to motivate different guys in different ways. I think that's part of being a leader, being a captain, just understanding players. Sometimes you just grab them off to the side, and sometimes you have to be honest with them."
Okay, Big Ben. I agree with you. Somewhat. You have certainly earned the right to be the team leader AND the team captain. And, as a leader, it is your responsibility to call individual players out if you don't think that they are giving their effort or playing to their capability or level of talent. But here is where I strongly disagree with you - nothing that you have ever done in your career has given you the right to call out individual teammates in public. You do that in private.
Vince Lombardi, arguably one of the greatest NFL coaches of all time (the Super Bowl trophy is named after him) once said, "Praise in public; criticize in private." Apparently he borrowed the quote from the ancient Roman writer Publilius Syrus who said, "Admonish your friends privately but praise them openly" in 35 BC. Coach Lombardi was exactly right. Calling out an individual in public almost invariably fails as a motivational strategy. Worse yet, it leads to bad feelings all around.
Now, there are probably some occasions when a leader should break this rule - for example, when the situation is placing someone, including the individual, at risk of harm, though these instances are fortunately not very common. There is another case in which it is okay (and advisable) to criticize in public - when the behavior is disrespectful or unprofessional. In these situations, while it is difficult, a leader should correct the behavior (or comment) in public. Sharon Bar-David offers the following mistakes to avoid in these situations:
1. Avoid using "I" statements (e.g., "I find your behavior offensive" or "I think you are being unprofessional"). She states, "The purpose of correcting offensive behavior is to create common standards and to enforce organizational values. Whether or not you personally were offended is irrevlevant."
2. Avoid the use of humor in this situation. While humor can be a great tool, in this kind of situation, it will send the wrong message.
3. Never dispute the accuracy of what has been said. Making a judgment on the accuracy of a statement (e.g, "No, not all people in this group act this way") only serves to deepen the discussion or leads to an argument about the accuracy of what has been said. If something was unprofessional or offensive, call it out plainly and simply and leave it at that.
Roger Schwarz posted an article in the Harvard Business Review blog entitled "How Criticizing in Private Undermines Your Team" in 2013. Read the article. I don't think it applies here. What is said in the privacy of a team meeting, among a group of individuals who operate with a high degree of interdependence, work towards a common goal, and mutually share accountability for the success and failure of the team, is perfectly acceptable, in most cases. Most teams are small enough and private enough that calling someone out is usually okay, though discretion is always advised. Using the case described above with Ben Roethlisberger, it would have been perfectly fine (I have absolutely no problem with it) to provide negative feedback or call out his teammates individually or in a team meeting. However, he said it on a public radio show, which is not okay. The public doesn't have the right to know...
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
"When a Mentor Becomes a Thief"
I just came across a Science Magazine article (it's old - from 2002 - but I still think it's relevant and important) on mentorship ("When a Mentor Becomes a Thief"). The article talks about a PhD student named "Ann Green" ("the story is true, only the names have been changed") who worked for 7 years on her doctoral thesis at a highly prestigious university on the East Coast. During her work, she had made a particularly important breakthrough, only to later find out that her thesis advisor had published the results as the first author. Yikes! As someone once told me, there are always three sides to a story - the two individuals' versions and the truth, so I don't know if this story would meet the criteria for theft of intellectual property. Certainly, however, the story is a great example of academic misconduct (taking sole credit for someone else's work - in this case, Dr. Green wasn't even listed as a co-author on the paper).
Mentorship is important - however, there is a right way and a wrong way to be a mentor (see a few articles here, here, and here for some helpful characteristics on how to both succeed and fail as a mentor). I have been blessed, throughout my career, with great mentors at each and every step of the way. At times, these mentors have been pushed me and challenged me to be better. They have served as cheerleaders, giving me the self-confidence and belief in myself that I could do better. And, they have coached me on how to handle different situations, many of which they had been faced with before in their own careers.
Every leader needs a mentor - even CEO's of multi-national Fortune 500 corporations need mentors. To the same extent, all leaders are mentors. Indeed, one of the most important responsibilities AND privileges of being a leader is to serve as a mentor for others. At a minimum, a leader must be a mentor and coach for his or her direct reports. Again, throughout my career, I have been blessed with some great bosses that have been role models and mentors. However, I have also had a few not so great bosses as well.
I once had a boss that was quick to share the credit, but even quicker to pass on the blame. My particular experience with this manager was extremely frustrating. Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in personal accountability. However, a leader should never try to hold someone accountable for issues that are beyond their control. Authority and empowerment must come first. In my example, I was being held accountable (wrongly, in my opinion), for a series of failures on problems that I was neither empowered nor given the authority to solve. In the end, this experience wrecked the relationship that I had with this boss.
So, to summarize, there are three key points on mentorship that I would like to leave you with:
1. Be a good role model. Lead by example. All leaders need mentors, and leaders must, in turn, serve as good mentors too.
2. Accountability without empowerment is a recipe for failure. Deference to expertise requires leaders to trust their direct reports to accomplish the task at hand.
3. Don't be a mentor thief! Give proper credit where credit is due, but also recognize that passing on the blame to mentees and/or direct reports will ruin the mentor/mentee relationship and lead to failure in the end.
Mentorship is important - however, there is a right way and a wrong way to be a mentor (see a few articles here, here, and here for some helpful characteristics on how to both succeed and fail as a mentor). I have been blessed, throughout my career, with great mentors at each and every step of the way. At times, these mentors have been pushed me and challenged me to be better. They have served as cheerleaders, giving me the self-confidence and belief in myself that I could do better. And, they have coached me on how to handle different situations, many of which they had been faced with before in their own careers.
Every leader needs a mentor - even CEO's of multi-national Fortune 500 corporations need mentors. To the same extent, all leaders are mentors. Indeed, one of the most important responsibilities AND privileges of being a leader is to serve as a mentor for others. At a minimum, a leader must be a mentor and coach for his or her direct reports. Again, throughout my career, I have been blessed with some great bosses that have been role models and mentors. However, I have also had a few not so great bosses as well.
I once had a boss that was quick to share the credit, but even quicker to pass on the blame. My particular experience with this manager was extremely frustrating. Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in personal accountability. However, a leader should never try to hold someone accountable for issues that are beyond their control. Authority and empowerment must come first. In my example, I was being held accountable (wrongly, in my opinion), for a series of failures on problems that I was neither empowered nor given the authority to solve. In the end, this experience wrecked the relationship that I had with this boss.
So, to summarize, there are three key points on mentorship that I would like to leave you with:
1. Be a good role model. Lead by example. All leaders need mentors, and leaders must, in turn, serve as good mentors too.
2. Accountability without empowerment is a recipe for failure. Deference to expertise requires leaders to trust their direct reports to accomplish the task at hand.
3. Don't be a mentor thief! Give proper credit where credit is due, but also recognize that passing on the blame to mentees and/or direct reports will ruin the mentor/mentee relationship and lead to failure in the end.
Sunday, November 25, 2018
Rivalry Week
With the notable exception of one of the most storied rivalries of all time (Army vs. Navy), several college football rivals faced each other this past weekend in the final regular game of the season. There was the Old Oaken Bucket game (Purdue vs. Indiana), the Iron Bowl (Alabama vs. Auburn), the Egg Bowl (Ole Miss vs. Mississippi State), and the Jeweled Shillelagh game (Notre Dame vs. USC). There was the Apple Cup (Washington vs. Washington State), the Duel in the Desert (Arizona vs. Arizona State), and the Holy War (Utah vs. BYU). There was also the Sunshine Showdown (Florida vs. Florida State), Wisconsin vs. Minnesota (fighting for Paul Bunyan's Axe), Ohio State vs. Michigan, and LSU vs. Texas A&M. Most of these games were fiercely competitive, even if one of the teams was much better than the other. As an example, the LSU vs. Texas A&M game ended in a tie after time expired, and Texas A&M won after the seventh overtime 74-72 in the highest scoring game in FBS history!
No matter the context, competition against a rival usually brings out our best effort. Dr. Gavin Kilduff has studied rivalries and competition in a number of contexts, both in sports and business. He defines rivalry as a "unique, ongoing relationship that heightens the psychological stakes of competition and promotes a desire to win beyond the motivation induced by tangible stakes." A rivalry is therefore distinguished from traditional competition and usually emerges as a consequence of similarity, evenly-matched contests, and repeated competition. Dr. Kilduff and a number of other researchers in this area have found that individuals, teams, and organizations exert greater effort when competing against rivals versus non-rivals. Several studies have also shown that competition with rivals can lead to risky and, at times, unethical behaviors. The stakes are higher when we compete against our rivals. We try harder and may take more risks in order to beat our rivals and "play to win." Conversely, a few studies have shown that competition with rivals decreases the appetite for risk, leading to a conservative "playing not to lose" strategy (consistent with something known as the threat rigidity effect).
So, which is more likely when we compete against rivals? Are we more likely to take risks ("play to win") or more likely to play it conservative ("play not to lose")? Dr. Kilduff and his colleagues recently published a rather interesting study to try to answer this very question. In the first set of experiments, the investigators analyzed nine NFL football seasons (2002-2010) worth of data - every single play was analyzed (the results from a total of 485,684 unique plays from 2048 games were analyzed and coded). They focused on two fairly rare events - going for it on fourth down (teams did this 12.14% of the time) and going for two points after a touchdown (teams did this 4.95% of the time). Notably, teams were successful on 51% of their fourth down attempts and 45% of their two point conversion attempts. They analyzed a number of situational factors, including when the attempt occurred (early versus late in the game), where on the field (for the fourth down attempt) the play occurred, how the team was doing at the time (in terms of win-loss records), and when in the season the game was played. Most importantly, they determined whether playing against a rival affected whether or not a team went for it on fourth down or on a two-point conversion.
The results are fairly compelling. Teams that were playing against a rival were significantly more likely to go for it on fourth down (12.96% of chanced when playing against a rival versus 12.10% of chances when playing against a non-rival). Similarly, teams that were playing against a rival were also more likely to go for two-points after a touchdown (6.67% of chances when playing against a rival versus 4.86% of chances when playing against a non-rival). When averaged out over multiple football games played over the course of nine seasons and after controlling for all the other factors that could impact the decision to "go for it", these results are striking! Dr. Kilduff's team next confirmed these results in the laboratory setting, showing again that competing against a rival increases risk-taking behavior in a "play to win" strategy, as opposed to a more conservative, "playing not to lose" strategy.
What's the lesson for leaders? First of all, risk-taking behavior is not inherently good or bad - it depends on the context. For example, leaders can certainly use competition with a rival (either on the individual level, between members of the team or on the organizational level, between different companies) as a lever ("Hey, we need to finish this project before our competition does!") in situations where risk-taking may be beneficial, particularly in the areas of innovation and experimentation. Conversely, in situations where leaders want their teams and organizations to be more conservative (particularly in situations where consistent, reliable performance is required), competition with a rival should not be de-emphasized.
The evidence shows that we are more likely to take risks when we face off against our rivals. However, there is an important caveat. Leaders also need to be aware that competition with a rival can lead to unethical behavior ("cheating") if emphasized too much. Like all things, competition is a tool that can be used to motivate individuals and teams, when appropriate and in moderation.
Next weekend, several college football teams will play against each other in the conference championships. Some are rivals, while others are not. As it turns out, playing for a championship also increases the motivation to succeed and can lead to risk-taking behavior. But that is a topic for another day.
No matter the context, competition against a rival usually brings out our best effort. Dr. Gavin Kilduff has studied rivalries and competition in a number of contexts, both in sports and business. He defines rivalry as a "unique, ongoing relationship that heightens the psychological stakes of competition and promotes a desire to win beyond the motivation induced by tangible stakes." A rivalry is therefore distinguished from traditional competition and usually emerges as a consequence of similarity, evenly-matched contests, and repeated competition. Dr. Kilduff and a number of other researchers in this area have found that individuals, teams, and organizations exert greater effort when competing against rivals versus non-rivals. Several studies have also shown that competition with rivals can lead to risky and, at times, unethical behaviors. The stakes are higher when we compete against our rivals. We try harder and may take more risks in order to beat our rivals and "play to win." Conversely, a few studies have shown that competition with rivals decreases the appetite for risk, leading to a conservative "playing not to lose" strategy (consistent with something known as the threat rigidity effect).
So, which is more likely when we compete against rivals? Are we more likely to take risks ("play to win") or more likely to play it conservative ("play not to lose")? Dr. Kilduff and his colleagues recently published a rather interesting study to try to answer this very question. In the first set of experiments, the investigators analyzed nine NFL football seasons (2002-2010) worth of data - every single play was analyzed (the results from a total of 485,684 unique plays from 2048 games were analyzed and coded). They focused on two fairly rare events - going for it on fourth down (teams did this 12.14% of the time) and going for two points after a touchdown (teams did this 4.95% of the time). Notably, teams were successful on 51% of their fourth down attempts and 45% of their two point conversion attempts. They analyzed a number of situational factors, including when the attempt occurred (early versus late in the game), where on the field (for the fourth down attempt) the play occurred, how the team was doing at the time (in terms of win-loss records), and when in the season the game was played. Most importantly, they determined whether playing against a rival affected whether or not a team went for it on fourth down or on a two-point conversion.
The results are fairly compelling. Teams that were playing against a rival were significantly more likely to go for it on fourth down (12.96% of chanced when playing against a rival versus 12.10% of chances when playing against a non-rival). Similarly, teams that were playing against a rival were also more likely to go for two-points after a touchdown (6.67% of chances when playing against a rival versus 4.86% of chances when playing against a non-rival). When averaged out over multiple football games played over the course of nine seasons and after controlling for all the other factors that could impact the decision to "go for it", these results are striking! Dr. Kilduff's team next confirmed these results in the laboratory setting, showing again that competing against a rival increases risk-taking behavior in a "play to win" strategy, as opposed to a more conservative, "playing not to lose" strategy.
What's the lesson for leaders? First of all, risk-taking behavior is not inherently good or bad - it depends on the context. For example, leaders can certainly use competition with a rival (either on the individual level, between members of the team or on the organizational level, between different companies) as a lever ("Hey, we need to finish this project before our competition does!") in situations where risk-taking may be beneficial, particularly in the areas of innovation and experimentation. Conversely, in situations where leaders want their teams and organizations to be more conservative (particularly in situations where consistent, reliable performance is required), competition with a rival should not be de-emphasized.
The evidence shows that we are more likely to take risks when we face off against our rivals. However, there is an important caveat. Leaders also need to be aware that competition with a rival can lead to unethical behavior ("cheating") if emphasized too much. Like all things, competition is a tool that can be used to motivate individuals and teams, when appropriate and in moderation.
Next weekend, several college football teams will play against each other in the conference championships. Some are rivals, while others are not. As it turns out, playing for a championship also increases the motivation to succeed and can lead to risk-taking behavior. But that is a topic for another day.
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
The half-time rally
I think just about every college football fan in the country has been watching the 2018 Alabama Crimson Tide football team with awe, excitement, admiration, and respect. The Crimson Tide is undefeated heading into next week's Iron Bowl against cross-state rival, Auburn, and they are currently ranked number 1 in the country. What's perhaps more impressive is how they've been winning. The Crimson Tide offense has averaged almost 49 points per game this year, while the defense has held the Alabama opponents to an average of 13 points per game (the average point differential has been over 35 points per game)! So, the half-time score this past weekend against The Citadel turned more than a few heads - the game was tied 10-10! After the half, the Alabama team was truer to form and eventually won the game, 50-17.
Alabama's football coach, Nick Saban, said during his post-game press conference, "We didn’t play very well as a team in the first half, which I take a lot of responsibility for not getting our team ready psychologically. Every team that comes here and plays us is going to give us their best shot. These guys have everything to gain and nothing to lose. If you can’t motivate yourself to be the best player that you can be, then you’re not going to be ready to play."
In coach-speak, basically that means that Coach Saban gave his players an earful during half-time. To be a fly on the wall for that one! Whatever he said to his players at half-time, it worked. Which brings up an interesting question - can other teams (outside of the world of sports, of course) benefit from a so-called "half-time break"? As it turns out, the available research says yes (for more on using sports teams as models for workplace teams, see the excellent article by Nancy Katz here).
Half-time is unique in that it represents the temporal midpoint in the normal life cycle of a team (whether it is a sports team or a project management team) facing a deadline (in either case, when time runs out). Half-time therefore represents a special opportunity for the team to look back and evaluate what's working well and what's not working well. Reviewing the progress to date then leads to corrective actions to learn and improve, so that the team can achieve its objectives in the time remaining. Several years ago, Dr. Connie J.G. Gersick, then at UCLA, found that project management teams can and usually do benefit from stopping midway to critically evaluate and revise their approach (see here).
In her initial studies (a set of field studies using actual working project management teams), Dr. Gersick found that as opposed to the traditional, sequential, and linear models of group/team development commonly reported in the literature (for example, see Tuchman's classic model of forming, storming, norming, and performing), groups and teams exhibit a variety of behaviors to accomplish their objectives and progress through several different, and often non-linear, phases of development (see here). However, the timing of when the groups that were studied formed, maintained, and changed the ways that they worked together was surprisingly consistent. All of the groups (several different groups were observed) started out with a crescendo and decrescendo of momentum, enthusiasm, and energy. As progress slowed, groups then went through a "concentrated burst of changes" in which old patterns of work were dropped and new methods were adopted. The groups appeared to re-gain lost momentum during this period, which continued on through the completion of the project. Surprisingly, these transitions all consistently occurred at the midway point, i.e. half-time, between the start of the project and its deadline, regardless of how much time each group was allotted to complete their project! She called her new model (at the time), the punctuated equilibrium model of group development.
In her second study, Dr. Gersick confirmed the results of the field study with a set of laboratory simulations. However, these laboratory-based studies shed further light on the nature of the mid-point transition, or half-time. For example, the transition point occurs at the midpoint (halfway between the time the project team starts their work and the deadline) regardless of the pace of work during the initial phase. More importantly, these laboratory studies also showed that if the transition point doesn't occur, teams were unable to progress to completion of their objective.
Whether or not Gersick's punctuated equilibrium model applies to all or even the majority of groups or teams in all settings has not been adequately studied. However, the importance of the transition that occurs at the midway point ("half-time") to the success of the team cannot be emphasized enough. Even though the transition or "half-time" in both the field study and the laboratory simulations occurred more or less spontaneously, even a planned break at the midway point of a project or task (analogous to the half-time in sporting events) is both useful and important. This brief resting point allows teams to reflect upon their progress and make any necessary adjustments as they work towards the team's goals. And if that half-time is led by someone like Coach Saban, all the better!
Alabama's football coach, Nick Saban, said during his post-game press conference, "We didn’t play very well as a team in the first half, which I take a lot of responsibility for not getting our team ready psychologically. Every team that comes here and plays us is going to give us their best shot. These guys have everything to gain and nothing to lose. If you can’t motivate yourself to be the best player that you can be, then you’re not going to be ready to play."
In coach-speak, basically that means that Coach Saban gave his players an earful during half-time. To be a fly on the wall for that one! Whatever he said to his players at half-time, it worked. Which brings up an interesting question - can other teams (outside of the world of sports, of course) benefit from a so-called "half-time break"? As it turns out, the available research says yes (for more on using sports teams as models for workplace teams, see the excellent article by Nancy Katz here).
Half-time is unique in that it represents the temporal midpoint in the normal life cycle of a team (whether it is a sports team or a project management team) facing a deadline (in either case, when time runs out). Half-time therefore represents a special opportunity for the team to look back and evaluate what's working well and what's not working well. Reviewing the progress to date then leads to corrective actions to learn and improve, so that the team can achieve its objectives in the time remaining. Several years ago, Dr. Connie J.G. Gersick, then at UCLA, found that project management teams can and usually do benefit from stopping midway to critically evaluate and revise their approach (see here).
In her initial studies (a set of field studies using actual working project management teams), Dr. Gersick found that as opposed to the traditional, sequential, and linear models of group/team development commonly reported in the literature (for example, see Tuchman's classic model of forming, storming, norming, and performing), groups and teams exhibit a variety of behaviors to accomplish their objectives and progress through several different, and often non-linear, phases of development (see here). However, the timing of when the groups that were studied formed, maintained, and changed the ways that they worked together was surprisingly consistent. All of the groups (several different groups were observed) started out with a crescendo and decrescendo of momentum, enthusiasm, and energy. As progress slowed, groups then went through a "concentrated burst of changes" in which old patterns of work were dropped and new methods were adopted. The groups appeared to re-gain lost momentum during this period, which continued on through the completion of the project. Surprisingly, these transitions all consistently occurred at the midway point, i.e. half-time, between the start of the project and its deadline, regardless of how much time each group was allotted to complete their project! She called her new model (at the time), the punctuated equilibrium model of group development.
In her second study, Dr. Gersick confirmed the results of the field study with a set of laboratory simulations. However, these laboratory-based studies shed further light on the nature of the mid-point transition, or half-time. For example, the transition point occurs at the midpoint (halfway between the time the project team starts their work and the deadline) regardless of the pace of work during the initial phase. More importantly, these laboratory studies also showed that if the transition point doesn't occur, teams were unable to progress to completion of their objective.
Whether or not Gersick's punctuated equilibrium model applies to all or even the majority of groups or teams in all settings has not been adequately studied. However, the importance of the transition that occurs at the midway point ("half-time") to the success of the team cannot be emphasized enough. Even though the transition or "half-time" in both the field study and the laboratory simulations occurred more or less spontaneously, even a planned break at the midway point of a project or task (analogous to the half-time in sporting events) is both useful and important. This brief resting point allows teams to reflect upon their progress and make any necessary adjustments as they work towards the team's goals. And if that half-time is led by someone like Coach Saban, all the better!
Monday, November 19, 2018
"Every picture tells a story"
They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, and I would whole-heartedly agree. Consider, if you will, some of history's most iconic photographs:
Nothing perhaps better symbolized the student-led pro-democracy and human rights protests at Tiananmen Square in 1989 than the picture now known as "Tank Man".
The picture below (often called "The vulture and the little girl" - notably, the individual in the photo was later determined to be a young boy, who indeed survived) taken by Pulitzer Prize winning photographer Kevin Carter during the Sudanese famine crisis of 1993 quickly led to an outpouring of donations to various humanitarian aid agencies when it was first published in the New York Times.
Perhaps no other photograph better captured the emotions of the Syrian Refugee Crisis than the one below of a 3 year-old Syrian refugee boy, Alan Kurdi, who drowned while his family and other refugees attempted to cross the Mediterranean Sea to freedom in 2015.
There are any of a number of photographs that I could have chosen in order to illustrate my point (if you don't believe me, just check out Time magazine's project to assemble a list of the 100 most influential photographs of all time). I selected these three examples, as they were very powerful to me personally and best illustrated some of the most important humanitarian crises of our lifetimes. There are a number of non-governmental organizations (NGO) that responded to provide aid during these crises. These same NGO's will undoubtedly respond to future humanitarian crises. However, in order to fulfill their important missions, these organizations (and even governmental agencies) require assistance (time, talent, and treasure).
As it turns out, perhaps not too surprising, the success of fundraising campaigns can be improved through the use of behavioral economics. NGO's have figured this out -appeal to the heart rather than the head! It's called the "identifiable victim effect" and is summarized succinctly by a quote from Mother Teresa, "If I look at the mass, I will never act. If I look at the one, I will." Similarly, Josef Stalin reportedly once said, in reference to the Battle of Stalingrad during World War II, "The death of a single Russian soldier is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic." However, given that this man was personally responsible for the deaths of millions of Russians during his reign of terror, I greatly prefer Mother Teresa's quote!
Dr. Deborah Small, a marketing professor at the Wharton School of Business investigated the impact of the "identifiable victim effect" on fundraising in a recent study published in the journal, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Basically, Dr. Small and her team of investigators approached students at the University of Pennsylvania to donate money to a charity called "Save the Children" (not a real charity). Students received one of two letters from the charity. The first letter gave specific statistics on how many children in Africa were starving, while the second letter told about the plight of a 7 year-old girl named Rokia. Both letters also talked about how much help even a small monetary donation could provide. Consistent with the "identifiable victim effect", students who were shown the letter talking about Rokia donated significantly more money than those students who were shown the letter with statistics on how many children in Africa were starving. Rokia, in other words, was an identifiable victim. Her personal story was something that resonated with the students in such a way that they felt connected to her and could empathize with her situation, hence they were more likely to donate to support her.
What is surprising is that when the personal story (Rokia's story) was combined with the statistics ("3 million children are starving in Africa"), students were less likely to donate! Moreover, if students were told about the "identifiable victim effect" beforehand, they were less likely to give (and they did not increase the donations when presented with just statistics). These are obviously some interesting, and likely unexpected, findings. Although, consider the number of individuals who donate money to specific individuals on "GoFundMe" pages or after specific cases are highlighted in the media (the "Baby Jessica" case is mentioned in Dr. Small's paper), perhaps these findings aren't that surprising at all.
What's the lesson for leadership here? Well, for one, if you are running a charitable giving or fundraising campaign, "Appeal to the heart and not to the head" - connect to the cause. Use real-life examples of individuals who are in need of help. Better yet, use pictures such as the ones highlighted above. The bottom line, leadership is about making personal connections and sharing a collective vision, and one of the best ways of achieving both is through the use of storytelling. Great leaders tell stories. Painting the right picture is absolutely key to telling a great story.
Incidentally, the title of today's blog comes from one of the all-time classic rock albums, frequently listed among the greatest albums of all time - it's called Every Picture Tells a Story by Rod Stewart and includes some of Stewart's most well-known songs ("Every Picture Tells a Story", "Maggie May", "Mandolin Wind", "That's All Right", "I Know I'm Losing You",and "Reason to Believe"). So, maybe Rod Stewart said it best - "So remember, every picture tells a story don't it."
Nothing perhaps better symbolized the student-led pro-democracy and human rights protests at Tiananmen Square in 1989 than the picture now known as "Tank Man".
The picture below (often called "The vulture and the little girl" - notably, the individual in the photo was later determined to be a young boy, who indeed survived) taken by Pulitzer Prize winning photographer Kevin Carter during the Sudanese famine crisis of 1993 quickly led to an outpouring of donations to various humanitarian aid agencies when it was first published in the New York Times.
Perhaps no other photograph better captured the emotions of the Syrian Refugee Crisis than the one below of a 3 year-old Syrian refugee boy, Alan Kurdi, who drowned while his family and other refugees attempted to cross the Mediterranean Sea to freedom in 2015.
There are any of a number of photographs that I could have chosen in order to illustrate my point (if you don't believe me, just check out Time magazine's project to assemble a list of the 100 most influential photographs of all time). I selected these three examples, as they were very powerful to me personally and best illustrated some of the most important humanitarian crises of our lifetimes. There are a number of non-governmental organizations (NGO) that responded to provide aid during these crises. These same NGO's will undoubtedly respond to future humanitarian crises. However, in order to fulfill their important missions, these organizations (and even governmental agencies) require assistance (time, talent, and treasure).
As it turns out, perhaps not too surprising, the success of fundraising campaigns can be improved through the use of behavioral economics. NGO's have figured this out -appeal to the heart rather than the head! It's called the "identifiable victim effect" and is summarized succinctly by a quote from Mother Teresa, "If I look at the mass, I will never act. If I look at the one, I will." Similarly, Josef Stalin reportedly once said, in reference to the Battle of Stalingrad during World War II, "The death of a single Russian soldier is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic." However, given that this man was personally responsible for the deaths of millions of Russians during his reign of terror, I greatly prefer Mother Teresa's quote!
Dr. Deborah Small, a marketing professor at the Wharton School of Business investigated the impact of the "identifiable victim effect" on fundraising in a recent study published in the journal, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Basically, Dr. Small and her team of investigators approached students at the University of Pennsylvania to donate money to a charity called "Save the Children" (not a real charity). Students received one of two letters from the charity. The first letter gave specific statistics on how many children in Africa were starving, while the second letter told about the plight of a 7 year-old girl named Rokia. Both letters also talked about how much help even a small monetary donation could provide. Consistent with the "identifiable victim effect", students who were shown the letter talking about Rokia donated significantly more money than those students who were shown the letter with statistics on how many children in Africa were starving. Rokia, in other words, was an identifiable victim. Her personal story was something that resonated with the students in such a way that they felt connected to her and could empathize with her situation, hence they were more likely to donate to support her.
What is surprising is that when the personal story (Rokia's story) was combined with the statistics ("3 million children are starving in Africa"), students were less likely to donate! Moreover, if students were told about the "identifiable victim effect" beforehand, they were less likely to give (and they did not increase the donations when presented with just statistics). These are obviously some interesting, and likely unexpected, findings. Although, consider the number of individuals who donate money to specific individuals on "GoFundMe" pages or after specific cases are highlighted in the media (the "Baby Jessica" case is mentioned in Dr. Small's paper), perhaps these findings aren't that surprising at all.
What's the lesson for leadership here? Well, for one, if you are running a charitable giving or fundraising campaign, "Appeal to the heart and not to the head" - connect to the cause. Use real-life examples of individuals who are in need of help. Better yet, use pictures such as the ones highlighted above. The bottom line, leadership is about making personal connections and sharing a collective vision, and one of the best ways of achieving both is through the use of storytelling. Great leaders tell stories. Painting the right picture is absolutely key to telling a great story.
Incidentally, the title of today's blog comes from one of the all-time classic rock albums, frequently listed among the greatest albums of all time - it's called Every Picture Tells a Story by Rod Stewart and includes some of Stewart's most well-known songs ("Every Picture Tells a Story", "Maggie May", "Mandolin Wind", "That's All Right", "I Know I'm Losing You",and "Reason to Believe"). So, maybe Rod Stewart said it best - "So remember, every picture tells a story don't it."
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Biblical Org Charts
I came across something very interesting the other day, and I thought I would share it. I was reading a book about leadership (of all things), in this case, change leadership (the book is called Organization Change: Theory and Practice, by W. Warner Burke, if you are interested). The author was talking about the history of organizational change and mentioned that the very first example came from the book of Exodus in the Bible. As he told the story, I thought it was interesting enough that I would actually look up the passage. Here is the exact passage (from Exodus 18:13-27):
13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?”
15 Moses answered him, “Because the people come to me to seek God’s will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and instructions.”
17 Moses’ father-in-law replied, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people’s representative before God and bring their disputes to him. 20 Teach them his decrees and instructions, and show them the way they are to live and how they are to behave. 21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied.”
24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 26 They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves.
27 Then Moses sent his father-in-law on his way, and Jethro returned to his own country.
Pretty amazing, huh!?!? There are at least two lessons from this biblical passage. First, there is a lot of evidence to support the concept that leaders should have no more than 10 or so direct reports, and fewer than that is probably even better (there is a great article in Harvard Business Review that can be found here). Why? Simple - our brains only have so much capacity, and we can only focus well on a few things at a time. There's a reason why telephone numbers are limited to 7 digits (see the "magical number seven")! In the story above, Jethro was certainly worried about his son-in-law's capability to effectively lead and manage more than 10 individuals ("The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone."). Leadership and management (remember, they are different!) require the appropriate amount of time, and there probably is a "magical number" of direct reports for leaders and managers to do their jobs well.
Second, and I've written about this topic enough that you may have picked up on it already, Jethro appears to support the concept of "deference to expertise" ("...have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves."). Call it whatever you want (Sua Sponte, Auftragstaktik, Commander's Intent, Mission-type tactics, or Decentralization), the essence is the same. Give the decisionmaking authority to the leaders on the front lines (in the military, in business, or in health care - it's the same concept).
There are really three key points to deference to expertise:
1. Direct reports understand their leader's intent (focus on the outcome or ultimate objective). Again, in the military world, "leader's intent" is also known as mission-type tactics. The emphasis is on the outcome of the mission, not on the specific means of achieving that same outcome. In essence, it's like the old saying, "There are many wins to skin a cat" - it doesn't matter how you do it, just as long as the proverbial cat gets skinned. So, the first order of business in "deference to expertise" is making sure that all of the members of the team understand the desired outcome, goals, or objective.
2. Leaders give proper guidance. Knowing the ultimate desired outcome is not enough. Leaders also need to establish the "rules of the road" or "guard rails" in which direct reports have full operational authority. Within these boundaries or limits, the members of the team can make decisions on their own without asking for permission. However, once outside these pre-determined boundaries, they need to escalate up the chain of command. In the story above, Moses required that his "officials over thousands" come to him only with the problems that they could not solve on their own. His boundary was therefore fairly loose. Other leaders can establish more rigorous boundaries or guardrails, and that is certainly okay too. The important point is that within these boundaries, front line managers and direct reports have full decision making authority and their leaders have both the confidence and the trust that they will accomplish the objective.
3. Direct reports are appropriately trained to act independently. Perhaps the most important consideration for all of this to work is that the front line leaders and direct reports must have the requisite knowledge and training to be able to be successful. The leader's responsibility is to make sure that all of his or her direct reports are thoroughly trained (through "war games", drills, simulation, "chalk talks", huddles, etc.) so that they can be expected to make the right kinds of decisions.
It's really amazing that these are concepts that have been known and practiced for literally thousands of years! If they have stood this kind of test of time, perhaps we should pay attention more closely?
Lastly, it seems that Moses learned his lesson and then sent his father-in-law on his merry way! I wonder what Jethro thought about that - perhaps, "Gee, is that the thanks I get?"
13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?”
15 Moses answered him, “Because the people come to me to seek God’s will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and instructions.”
17 Moses’ father-in-law replied, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people’s representative before God and bring their disputes to him. 20 Teach them his decrees and instructions, and show them the way they are to live and how they are to behave. 21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied.”
24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 26 They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves.
27 Then Moses sent his father-in-law on his way, and Jethro returned to his own country.
Pretty amazing, huh!?!? There are at least two lessons from this biblical passage. First, there is a lot of evidence to support the concept that leaders should have no more than 10 or so direct reports, and fewer than that is probably even better (there is a great article in Harvard Business Review that can be found here). Why? Simple - our brains only have so much capacity, and we can only focus well on a few things at a time. There's a reason why telephone numbers are limited to 7 digits (see the "magical number seven")! In the story above, Jethro was certainly worried about his son-in-law's capability to effectively lead and manage more than 10 individuals ("The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone."). Leadership and management (remember, they are different!) require the appropriate amount of time, and there probably is a "magical number" of direct reports for leaders and managers to do their jobs well.
Second, and I've written about this topic enough that you may have picked up on it already, Jethro appears to support the concept of "deference to expertise" ("...have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves."). Call it whatever you want (Sua Sponte, Auftragstaktik, Commander's Intent, Mission-type tactics, or Decentralization), the essence is the same. Give the decisionmaking authority to the leaders on the front lines (in the military, in business, or in health care - it's the same concept).
There are really three key points to deference to expertise:
1. Direct reports understand their leader's intent (focus on the outcome or ultimate objective). Again, in the military world, "leader's intent" is also known as mission-type tactics. The emphasis is on the outcome of the mission, not on the specific means of achieving that same outcome. In essence, it's like the old saying, "There are many wins to skin a cat" - it doesn't matter how you do it, just as long as the proverbial cat gets skinned. So, the first order of business in "deference to expertise" is making sure that all of the members of the team understand the desired outcome, goals, or objective.
2. Leaders give proper guidance. Knowing the ultimate desired outcome is not enough. Leaders also need to establish the "rules of the road" or "guard rails" in which direct reports have full operational authority. Within these boundaries or limits, the members of the team can make decisions on their own without asking for permission. However, once outside these pre-determined boundaries, they need to escalate up the chain of command. In the story above, Moses required that his "officials over thousands" come to him only with the problems that they could not solve on their own. His boundary was therefore fairly loose. Other leaders can establish more rigorous boundaries or guardrails, and that is certainly okay too. The important point is that within these boundaries, front line managers and direct reports have full decision making authority and their leaders have both the confidence and the trust that they will accomplish the objective.
3. Direct reports are appropriately trained to act independently. Perhaps the most important consideration for all of this to work is that the front line leaders and direct reports must have the requisite knowledge and training to be able to be successful. The leader's responsibility is to make sure that all of his or her direct reports are thoroughly trained (through "war games", drills, simulation, "chalk talks", huddles, etc.) so that they can be expected to make the right kinds of decisions.
It's really amazing that these are concepts that have been known and practiced for literally thousands of years! If they have stood this kind of test of time, perhaps we should pay attention more closely?
Lastly, it seems that Moses learned his lesson and then sent his father-in-law on his merry way! I wonder what Jethro thought about that - perhaps, "Gee, is that the thanks I get?"
Monday, November 12, 2018
Happy Veteran's Day
Today, we officially recognize Veteran's Day in the United States of America (even though the holiday was actually yesterday, November 11, 2018 - see yesterday's post "The War to End All Wars"). So, first I would like to thank all of the veterans again. We don't do enough to thank you for your incredible dedication, patriotism, commitment, and sacrifice.
I thought I would send out one of my favorite poems, called "In Flanders Fields". I first learned the poem in middle school, but I never really truly understood its significance until much later in life. The poem is even more special this Veteran's Day, the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, because it was written by a Canadian physician, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, shortly after the Second Battle of Ypres during that same war. McCrae was inspired to write the poem after presiding over the funeral of one of his good friends, Lieutenant Alexis Helmer, who had died in the battle.
The poem talks about red poppies that grew over the graves of soldiers who lost their lives in the Second Battle of Ypres. Reportedly, the battle so damaged the surface soil in the area that the poppy was one of the few plants able to grow there. To this day, the poem is often associated with Veteran's Day (in the U.S.A.) and Remembrance Day (in Canada). In fact, Canadians have been wearing the "remembrance poppy" on Remembrance Day since 1921.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place, and in the sky,
The larks, still bravely singing, fly,
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead; short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe!
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high!
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields
Happy Veteran's Day - thank you for your service.
I thought I would send out one of my favorite poems, called "In Flanders Fields". I first learned the poem in middle school, but I never really truly understood its significance until much later in life. The poem is even more special this Veteran's Day, the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, because it was written by a Canadian physician, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, shortly after the Second Battle of Ypres during that same war. McCrae was inspired to write the poem after presiding over the funeral of one of his good friends, Lieutenant Alexis Helmer, who had died in the battle.
The poem talks about red poppies that grew over the graves of soldiers who lost their lives in the Second Battle of Ypres. Reportedly, the battle so damaged the surface soil in the area that the poppy was one of the few plants able to grow there. To this day, the poem is often associated with Veteran's Day (in the U.S.A.) and Remembrance Day (in Canada). In fact, Canadians have been wearing the "remembrance poppy" on Remembrance Day since 1921.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place, and in the sky,
The larks, still bravely singing, fly,
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead; short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe!
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high!
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields
Happy Veteran's Day - thank you for your service.
Sunday, November 11, 2018
"The war to end all wars"
Today is November 11, 2018. That is meaningful for two reasons. The first is fairly easy, but the second is perhaps less obvious. First, the easy one - today is Veteran's Day (known as Remembrance Day in Canada and other countries outside the U.S.), an official holiday on which we honor our nation's military veterans (those who served in the Armed Forces). What is perhaps less obvious is that today also marks the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, "the war to end all wars." Veteran's Day was originally known as Armistice Day, for November 11, 1918 was the day that hostilities ended after more than 4 years of war. Peace officially began on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918.
The phrase, "the war to end all wars" is often attributed to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, who in fact only used the phrase once (along with his phrase "make the world safe for democracy"). However, the phrase was probably first used by the British author, H.G. Wells. Wells had published a series of articles on the war in a London newspaper that were subsequently published collectively in a book called The War That Will End War. The phrase was used with some amount of skepticism and cynicism - the British politician, David Lloyd George, reportedly said, "This war, like the next war, is a war to end war."
History, as it seems, has a sense of irony. Reflect for a moment on some of the causes of World War I. While the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by a Bosnian Serb on June 28, 1914 is often considered the crisis that led to the outbreak of war, historians agree that the growing militarism and nationalism during the years preceding the summer of 1914 (the July Crisis) played a major causative role leading to the outbreak of worldwide hostilities. What is ironic is that we are experiencing some of these same militaristic and nationalistic tendencies today, on this hundredth year anniversary of the end of the "war to end all wars."
Just today, French President Emmanuel Macron warned of the growing and disturbing trend of nationalism in a speech commemorating the end of World War I ("Macron warns against nationalism in apparent rebuke of Trump at WWI commemoration"). Macron said, with several world leaders, including the U.S. President, in attendance, "Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism." He went on, "By saying, ‘Our interests first, who cares about the others,’ we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what gives it grace and what is essential: its moral values."
Today, of all days, we should recognize that we need each other. We live in a global age, where the success or failure of each and every nation is both intertwined and interdependent. We can't "go it alone", nor should we try. The growing trends of nationalism and militarism have no place in this new world order. Today, of all days, we should learn the lessons of our past. Today, of all days, we can best honor our veterans by taking the necessary steps to avoid war and find global peace.
Leadership is about doing the right thing, even when its not popular. Today, of all days, we need leaders who will steer us in the opposite direction of the prevailing winds of nationalism and militarism. Then, and only then, will we truly understand the meaning of patriotism. Then, and only then, can we honor those veterans, many of whom gave their lives in the "war to end all wars" and all the ones after.
The phrase, "the war to end all wars" is often attributed to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, who in fact only used the phrase once (along with his phrase "make the world safe for democracy"). However, the phrase was probably first used by the British author, H.G. Wells. Wells had published a series of articles on the war in a London newspaper that were subsequently published collectively in a book called The War That Will End War. The phrase was used with some amount of skepticism and cynicism - the British politician, David Lloyd George, reportedly said, "This war, like the next war, is a war to end war."
History, as it seems, has a sense of irony. Reflect for a moment on some of the causes of World War I. While the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by a Bosnian Serb on June 28, 1914 is often considered the crisis that led to the outbreak of war, historians agree that the growing militarism and nationalism during the years preceding the summer of 1914 (the July Crisis) played a major causative role leading to the outbreak of worldwide hostilities. What is ironic is that we are experiencing some of these same militaristic and nationalistic tendencies today, on this hundredth year anniversary of the end of the "war to end all wars."
Just today, French President Emmanuel Macron warned of the growing and disturbing trend of nationalism in a speech commemorating the end of World War I ("Macron warns against nationalism in apparent rebuke of Trump at WWI commemoration"). Macron said, with several world leaders, including the U.S. President, in attendance, "Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism." He went on, "By saying, ‘Our interests first, who cares about the others,’ we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what gives it grace and what is essential: its moral values."
Today, of all days, we should recognize that we need each other. We live in a global age, where the success or failure of each and every nation is both intertwined and interdependent. We can't "go it alone", nor should we try. The growing trends of nationalism and militarism have no place in this new world order. Today, of all days, we should learn the lessons of our past. Today, of all days, we can best honor our veterans by taking the necessary steps to avoid war and find global peace.
Leadership is about doing the right thing, even when its not popular. Today, of all days, we need leaders who will steer us in the opposite direction of the prevailing winds of nationalism and militarism. Then, and only then, will we truly understand the meaning of patriotism. Then, and only then, can we honor those veterans, many of whom gave their lives in the "war to end all wars" and all the ones after.
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
Sua Sponte
The basketball coaching legend, John Wooden, once said, "Not everyone is equipped to be a leader, but in a sense, everyone is a leader to someone..." I want to stay with the theme from my last blog post on leadership training and the U.S. military. The 75th Army Ranger Regiment is a light airborne infantry special forces regiment (a typical U.S. Army regiment consists of 3-4 battalions, which are in turn composed of 3-4 companies) and is the subject of the book Sua Sponte: The Forging of a Modern American Ranger by the author, Dick Couch. Couch's title comes from the 75th Regiment's motto, Sua Sponte, which is Latin for "of their own accord."
"Sua Sponte" refers to the fact that Army Rangers will take action on their own initiative and without formal permission, direction, or approval from a higher authority. In other words, paraphrasing Coach Wooden, every Army ranger is a leader. As a matter of fact, Army Ranger School is frequently described as one of the finest leadership training courses in the world.
It's important to note, as it is confusing, that the training required (and described by Couch in his book on the Rangers) to become a member of the 75th Army Ranger Regiment is, in fact, different and completely distinct from Army Ranger School. Soldiers (importantly - usually men, but the first two female soldiers graduated from Ranger School in 2017) go through Ranger School to wear the coveted Ranger tab, but soldiers go through RASP (Ranger Assessment and Selection Program) to become members of the 75th Army Ranger Regiment and wear the coveted Ranger scroll. If that's not confusing enough, virtually all members of the 75th Army Ranger Regiment eventually go through Ranger School. But I digress...
What makes Ranger training so special? I think (or so I am told) it all comes down to the philosophy that every Ranger is a leader. It's the High Reliability Organization principle of "Deference to Expertise" on steroids! Call it "Sua Sponte" or "commander's intent" (U.S. military) or even "auftragstaktik" (from the German Wehrmarcht) - it's all about pushing decisionmaking authority as far as possible to the front line. Rangers are so effective for the simple reason that they take action on their own initiative, without waiting for orders or direction from above. They evaluate the situation, and based upon their training, respond appropriately.
One of the bedrock foundational principles of High Reliability Organizations is that frontline experts will take action based upon their evaluation and assessment of the situation at hand. Waiting for direction from a leader who does not have firsthand knowledge of all the details about what is happening takes valuable (and unnecessary) time. Importantly, just like the U.S. Army Rangers (and the other special forces units we discussed), the principle of "deference to expertise" works in High Reliability Organizations because of the amount of time spent on training. High Reliability Organizations use things like simulation to practice and drill over and over and over again.
Those of us in health care can learn a lot from these High Reliability Organizations and the 75th Army Ranger Regiment. As the title of my previous post says, "If you want to be the best, you have to train like the best." Similarly, if you want to be a High Reliability Organization, you have to train like a U.S. Army Ranger.
Sua Sponte. Or if you prefer Coach Wooden, "everyone is a leader."
"Sua Sponte" refers to the fact that Army Rangers will take action on their own initiative and without formal permission, direction, or approval from a higher authority. In other words, paraphrasing Coach Wooden, every Army ranger is a leader. As a matter of fact, Army Ranger School is frequently described as one of the finest leadership training courses in the world.
It's important to note, as it is confusing, that the training required (and described by Couch in his book on the Rangers) to become a member of the 75th Army Ranger Regiment is, in fact, different and completely distinct from Army Ranger School. Soldiers (importantly - usually men, but the first two female soldiers graduated from Ranger School in 2017) go through Ranger School to wear the coveted Ranger tab, but soldiers go through RASP (Ranger Assessment and Selection Program) to become members of the 75th Army Ranger Regiment and wear the coveted Ranger scroll. If that's not confusing enough, virtually all members of the 75th Army Ranger Regiment eventually go through Ranger School. But I digress...
What makes Ranger training so special? I think (or so I am told) it all comes down to the philosophy that every Ranger is a leader. It's the High Reliability Organization principle of "Deference to Expertise" on steroids! Call it "Sua Sponte" or "commander's intent" (U.S. military) or even "auftragstaktik" (from the German Wehrmarcht) - it's all about pushing decisionmaking authority as far as possible to the front line. Rangers are so effective for the simple reason that they take action on their own initiative, without waiting for orders or direction from above. They evaluate the situation, and based upon their training, respond appropriately.
One of the bedrock foundational principles of High Reliability Organizations is that frontline experts will take action based upon their evaluation and assessment of the situation at hand. Waiting for direction from a leader who does not have firsthand knowledge of all the details about what is happening takes valuable (and unnecessary) time. Importantly, just like the U.S. Army Rangers (and the other special forces units we discussed), the principle of "deference to expertise" works in High Reliability Organizations because of the amount of time spent on training. High Reliability Organizations use things like simulation to practice and drill over and over and over again.
Those of us in health care can learn a lot from these High Reliability Organizations and the 75th Army Ranger Regiment. As the title of my previous post says, "If you want to be the best, you have to train like the best." Similarly, if you want to be a High Reliability Organization, you have to train like a U.S. Army Ranger.
Sua Sponte. Or if you prefer Coach Wooden, "everyone is a leader."
Sunday, November 4, 2018
If you want to be the best, you've got to train like the best.
There is a common refrain heard today that America is in the midst of a leadership crisis. I have touched upon this topic in a previous blog post (see "The End of Leadership"). My wife and I recently attended the 2018 Warren Bennis Leadership Experience at the University of Cincinnati. The two guest speakers this year were David Gergen (former White House advisor, CNN Senior Political Analyst, writer, and Harvard Professor) and Doris Kearns Goodwin (who has written several biographies of former U.S. Presidents, including one of my all-time favorites, Team of Rivals and most recently a book on leadership called, Leadership in Turbulent Times). Both speakers were fantastic, and both speakers touched upon this crisis of leadership. When asked why this was the case, Gergen talked about the fact that so many of our past leaders in both politics and government came from the military. Unfortunately, or so he claimed, this is no longer the case. Ms. Kearns Goodwin agreed with him. The military does a great job of training men and women to become leaders.
Did you know that twenty-six of our U.S. Presidents served in the military (26/44, or nearly 60%)? Currently, there are 80 members of the U.S. House of Representatives who have served in the military - that's almost 20% of all the Representatives in Congress! There are 24 Senators who have served in the military (24/100, or 24%). Compare that to the fact that in the early 1970's, nearly 3/4 of the members of Congress were veterans of our armed forces. So, while the number of veterans in Congress is down compared to the past (Gergen was correct), the relative percentage of our government leaders who are veterans is still much higher than the percentage of Americans who have served in the military (as a point of fact, based on the most recent 2010 Census, only 7% of Americans have served in the military). The military is an excellent proving ground for leadership.
My experience in the military was fantastic - the opportunities for leadership, even at the earliest stages of my career, were incredibly valuable to me, both personally and professionally. However, I wanted to know more about this connection between military service and leadership. What does the military do differently to educate and train leaders? I decided to go directly to the source, and I turned to some of the most elite military units in the world.
I just finished reading a series of books by the ex-Navy SEAL and former CIA officer, Dick Couch. While some of his stories are fiction, the ones that I read were non-fiction books on the selection and training process for Navy SEALs (The Warrior Elite and The Finishing School), the U.S. Army Rangers (Sua Sponte), and the U.S. Army Special Forces, commonly known as the Green Berets (Chosen Soldier). He also wrote a non-fiction book on the U.S. Marine Special Forces Unit, but I have not read that one yet.
The U.S. Navy SEALs, U.S. Army Rangers, and Green Berets are arguably the best trained military units in the world, and the long and arduous process that sailors and soldiers go through to join these units are legendary. I was particularly interested in learning about the selection process (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, or BUDS for the SEALs, Ranger School and the Ranger Assessment and Selection, or RASP for the U.S. Army 75th Ranger Regiment, and the Special Forces Qualification course, or Q course for the Green Berets).
Two points caught my immediate attention. First, the military invests an incredible amount of time and resources in training these elite commando units. For example, it takes a little over a year for a sailor to become a U.S. Navy SEAL, and that doesn't include the initial "boot camp" training that all sailors go through or the 8 weeks that most sailors spend in Navy Special Warfare Preparatory School. After graduating from BUD/S (24 weeks), sailors go through airborne training (3 weeks) and SEAL Qualification Training (26 weeks). Only then does a sailor get to pin on the coveted Navy Special Warfare badge and truly become a "U.S. Navy SEAL." Soldiers who want to join either the 75th Ranger Regiment or the Green Berets also have a long and arduous training process. It takes a really long time to become a Navy SEAL, Ranger, or Green Beret!
I get it - it takes a long time to become a doctor, a nurse, or an allied health professional too. But the second point that caught my attention was how much time the military spends on training AFTER their sailors and soldiers join these elite units. For example, all of the soldiers reaching a certain rank have to go through additional leadership training - there is special platoon leader and company commander training for officers (and more after that as they continue to advance in rank) or squad leader, unit NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer), First Sergeant, and Master Sergeant training for enlisted ranks. Please note that the military continues to invest this much time in training, even during war time! Consider also that all of these sailors and soldiers receive their training from their peers in their same elite units. So, even when our military needs sailors and soldiers on the front lines to fight, they continue to invest time and precious resources to train leadership.
It really does bring to mind the old adage, "If you want to be the best, you've got to train like the best." Maybe our current crisis in leadership is due to the fact that our government and business leaders are no longer coming from the military as frequently as they did in the past. Regardless, I think there is certainly a lot that those of us in health care can learn from the military on how they train their everyday workforce and their leaders. More to come...
Did you know that twenty-six of our U.S. Presidents served in the military (26/44, or nearly 60%)? Currently, there are 80 members of the U.S. House of Representatives who have served in the military - that's almost 20% of all the Representatives in Congress! There are 24 Senators who have served in the military (24/100, or 24%). Compare that to the fact that in the early 1970's, nearly 3/4 of the members of Congress were veterans of our armed forces. So, while the number of veterans in Congress is down compared to the past (Gergen was correct), the relative percentage of our government leaders who are veterans is still much higher than the percentage of Americans who have served in the military (as a point of fact, based on the most recent 2010 Census, only 7% of Americans have served in the military). The military is an excellent proving ground for leadership.
My experience in the military was fantastic - the opportunities for leadership, even at the earliest stages of my career, were incredibly valuable to me, both personally and professionally. However, I wanted to know more about this connection between military service and leadership. What does the military do differently to educate and train leaders? I decided to go directly to the source, and I turned to some of the most elite military units in the world.
I just finished reading a series of books by the ex-Navy SEAL and former CIA officer, Dick Couch. While some of his stories are fiction, the ones that I read were non-fiction books on the selection and training process for Navy SEALs (The Warrior Elite and The Finishing School), the U.S. Army Rangers (Sua Sponte), and the U.S. Army Special Forces, commonly known as the Green Berets (Chosen Soldier). He also wrote a non-fiction book on the U.S. Marine Special Forces Unit, but I have not read that one yet.
The U.S. Navy SEALs, U.S. Army Rangers, and Green Berets are arguably the best trained military units in the world, and the long and arduous process that sailors and soldiers go through to join these units are legendary. I was particularly interested in learning about the selection process (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, or BUDS for the SEALs, Ranger School and the Ranger Assessment and Selection, or RASP for the U.S. Army 75th Ranger Regiment, and the Special Forces Qualification course, or Q course for the Green Berets).
Two points caught my immediate attention. First, the military invests an incredible amount of time and resources in training these elite commando units. For example, it takes a little over a year for a sailor to become a U.S. Navy SEAL, and that doesn't include the initial "boot camp" training that all sailors go through or the 8 weeks that most sailors spend in Navy Special Warfare Preparatory School. After graduating from BUD/S (24 weeks), sailors go through airborne training (3 weeks) and SEAL Qualification Training (26 weeks). Only then does a sailor get to pin on the coveted Navy Special Warfare badge and truly become a "U.S. Navy SEAL." Soldiers who want to join either the 75th Ranger Regiment or the Green Berets also have a long and arduous training process. It takes a really long time to become a Navy SEAL, Ranger, or Green Beret!
I get it - it takes a long time to become a doctor, a nurse, or an allied health professional too. But the second point that caught my attention was how much time the military spends on training AFTER their sailors and soldiers join these elite units. For example, all of the soldiers reaching a certain rank have to go through additional leadership training - there is special platoon leader and company commander training for officers (and more after that as they continue to advance in rank) or squad leader, unit NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer), First Sergeant, and Master Sergeant training for enlisted ranks. Please note that the military continues to invest this much time in training, even during war time! Consider also that all of these sailors and soldiers receive their training from their peers in their same elite units. So, even when our military needs sailors and soldiers on the front lines to fight, they continue to invest time and precious resources to train leadership.
It really does bring to mind the old adage, "If you want to be the best, you've got to train like the best." Maybe our current crisis in leadership is due to the fact that our government and business leaders are no longer coming from the military as frequently as they did in the past. Regardless, I think there is certainly a lot that those of us in health care can learn from the military on how they train their everyday workforce and their leaders. More to come...