"Hatred corrodes the container it's carried in..."

Former U.S. Senator, Alan Simpson, spoke at President George H.W. Bush's memorial service a few weeks ago and said something that really resonated with me.  Simpson talked a lot about what kind of person our nation's 41st President was, as well as how he lived his life.  He said of Bush, "He knew what his mother and my mother always knew: hatred corrodes the container it's carried in." 


That was the first time that I've ever heard that saying specifically, and unfortunately I don't know where it came from.  Mark Twain supposedly once said, "Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured."  It probably doesn't matter who said it or where it came from as much as what is says.  The message is a powerful one, especially given how prevalent hatred is in our world today.


We could (and we should) learn a lot from Simpson's quote.  There are so many problems in our world today that we need to solve - and we will only be successful at solving them if we join forces, hand in hand, and work together.  Hatred does not solve any problem.  Rather, hatred creates new ones.  As the Buddha once said, "Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule."


We may disagree with someone's opinions, beliefs, choices, or even lifestyle.  So what?  That doesn't mean that we can't treat one another with kindness, compassion, and understanding.  Just because we don't agree on how to solve the problems of today (we may even not agree on what those problems are) doesn't mean we should be disrespectful, mean, or bitter.  Big problems are hard problems.  Big problems require big solutions.  And big solutions are hard solutions.  Hatred is not the solution.


If we hope to find success, and if we want to be respected, appreciated, and loved, we need to avoid hatred.  At all costs. 

"Let There Be Peace on Earth"

I recently sent out a message via Twitter, referencing a recent New England Journal of Medicine article called "The major causes of death in children and adolescents in the United States."  There was a graph in the article that showed the dramatic drop in these deaths from motor-vehicle accidents especially, as well as some of the other common causes of childhood deaths (cancer, congenital heart disease to name but a few).  What was interesting was the increase in deaths from firearm-related injury.  Notably, the deaths from firearm-related injuries have increased in other age groups as well, but only in the United States. 

In the tweet, I made the comment, "If this doesn't disturb you, then nothing will" and added the hashtag #ThisIsMyLane (notably, this hashtag has gone viral, as many physicians in the last month have made the correct claim that firearm-related injuries are a public health issue that physicians absolutely have the right to address).  Of course, the hashtag caught the attention of a few gun rights activists.  One in particular made some comment questioning my intelligence as well as those who would believe the data I referenced.  The reply made me think - why is it that we can no longer disagree with someone without insulting them?  Why do we have to be immediately offended by anyone who questions our political views, values, or beliefs?

We have lost the practice of civil discourse in this country.  Perhaps we never truly had it, but I think most of us would agree that things are much worse now than in the past.  I don't think we can blame our current political leadership (although they have certainly contributed) - the blame rests solely on all of us.  We are to blame.

If we are ever going to have peace and justice in this world, it has to start with all of us.  I am reminded of a Christmas carol, called "Let there be peace on earth" that really is rather poignant.  The lyrics go like this:

Let there be peace on earth
And let it begin with me
Let There Be Peace on Earth
The peace that was meant to be

With God as our Father
Brothers all are we
Let me walk with my brother
In perfect harmony.

Let peace begin with me
Let this be the moment now.

With ev'ry step I take
Let this be my solemn vow
To take each moment and live
Each moment in peace eternally
Let there be peace on earth
And let it begin with me

It really makes perfect sense.  Peace begins with each of us as individuals.  And if we want peace, it has to start with civil discourse.  Go ahead and have that conversation with someone who doesn’t necessarily agree with you - we should be having that conversation.  We need to have that conversation.  Agree or disagree - it’s okay.   But always, always be respectful.  Always be courteous.  And always be kind.

May you both have peace and give peace this Christmas season.

The Innkeeper's Tale

The Christmas season is upon us.  Regardless of whether or not you celebrate the Christmas holiday, this is also the season where we close out one year and begin another.  It's a time to pause and reflect on the past year's accomplishments, as well as a time of hope for the future.  It's one of my favorite times of the year.


I always enjoyed hearing the Nativity story when our family went to church on Christmas Eve (both while growing up and even now to this day).  For those of you who are not familiar with the story, Mary and Joseph have to travel to Joseph's hometown of Bethlehem because the Roman emperor wanted to conduct a census.  Once they get there (presumably after a long journey), there are no places to stay.  Now, historians say that there weren't hotels or inns back in those days, at least what we think of hotels today, but regardless, the young couple goes to a local innkeeper to find shelter for the night.  The innkeeper tells them that there are no rooms left, but he was probably sympathetic to the fact that Mary was quite pregnant and offered the use of his stable.  Later that evening, Mary gives birth to Jesus, and the rest as they say is history.


I haven't really ever considered the Nativity story from the perspective of the innkeeper.  I am not really sure why that is the case, as you could certainly argue that the innkeeper played a crucial role.  For example, imagine if the innkeeper refused to offer Mary and Joseph the use of his stable.  What would have happened then?  Thankfully, that is not what happened.  The innkeeper offered the use of his stable, which was better than nothing.  And that, my friends, is an incredible gift.  The innkeeper saw someone in need, and he gave them shelter.


I have been reading a lot lately about something called effective altruism.  Basically, effective altruism, in a broad sense, is evidence-based charity or giving with the goal of having the greatest possible positive impact on the greatest number of individuals.  The movement was founded by the philosopher Peter Singer, Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife, Cari Tuna, professional poker player Liv Boeree, and Oxford researchers William MacAskill and Toby Ord.  William MacAskill recently gave an interview for the "Daily Stoic", and his TED talk now has over one million views. 


There are two fundamental tenants of effective altruism.  First - we have both an obligation and duty to help other people.  Just as the innkeeper in the Nativity story, we should always be ready to offer our assistance to those in need.  Second - we should try to have the greatest impact on others in need by being effective and efficient.  And, when it comes to helping others - even complete strangers - the members of this movement definitely put their money where their mouth is - MacAskill made a commitment in 2009 to give every dollar of his income over $30,000 each year to charity!


Not everyone is willing to make the same kind of commitment that MacAskill has made, and that's perfectly okay.  However, I think we all have an obligation to lend a helping hand to those in need.  Whether it's through our time, talent, or treasure, we can all make a difference.  There are so many problems in the world today, and our help is desperately needed.


There are a number of great resources available to help you decide where to invest your time and energy.  Charity Navigator is an organization that evaluates charities (in terms of how effective they are, how much money they spend on administrative fees or advertising, etc) in the United States and is a great place to start.  Similarly, Give Well also analyzes charities and other giving opportunities to help you decide where your money can have the greatest impact.  The organization, 80,000 hours (so named because we will spend 80,000 hours at work over our lifetimes) provides information on careers that have high-positive impacts.


In this season of giving, this season of hope, let us all remember that there are people in this world who are in desperate need of our assistance.  Let us all remember the words of Carl Satterwhite - "You give to get to give!"  Give.  Advocate.  Volunteer.  And be like the innkeeper of old.

"All that is gold does not glitter"

I can't remember exactly when I first picked up the book, The Hobbit by the author, J.R.R. Tolkien.  All I can say is that once I read it, I was hooked.  For life.  I soon moved on to Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy, which I confess I must have read at least 10 or so times during my childhood and adolescence.  In addition to being a great writer and philologist (philology is the study of languages in both written and oral forms), Tolkien was a gifted poet.  One of my favorites was a poem called, simply enough, "All that is gold does not glitter", or alternatively, "The Song of Aragorn."  The title (and first line) is borrowed from William Shakespeare's play, "The Merchant of Venice" (which, in turn, is taken from an ancient proverb similar to the phrase, "You can't judge a book by its cover"). 


Tolkien's poem is referring to the character, Aragorn, known in the first book of the trilogy, by the name, Strider.  Here is the text of the poem:


All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes, a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.


Simply put, the character Strider is a much more important character than he first appears.  He is infinitely more than he looks.  He is, to borrow another well-worn phrase, a diamond in the rough.


There was a recent article in the magazine, Strategy+Business called "The Four X Factors of Exceptional Leaders" that I think is appropriate here.  The article begins with an analogy involving the National Football League's scouting combine.  Every February, college athletes go through a series of skill tests and drills (e.g., 40 yard dash, vertical leap, bench press) and personality assessments in front of team owners, coaches, and scouts to determine if they have what it takes to be successful players in the NFL.  Not every player who scores exceptionally well on these tests goes on to a Hall of Fame worthy career - indeed, some never make it after training camp.  Moreover, not every Hall of Fame player was identified by the combine either.  So, you could argue (as some have) that the tests that are used at the NFL combine don't have a lot of predictive value.


So the logical question then - how effective are we at predicting the success of our leaders?  Can we use a set of processes or tests to identify which individuals will be great leaders?  Does having a certain background or set of credentials predict success for, say, a hospital CEO?  As the Strategy+Business article points out, there is an inherent bias (first described by the cognitive psychologists, Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky) here that is called the illusion of validity.  As the authors of the article state, "this error arises when organizations use the profiles of historically successful leaders within the business to assess the traits of current candidates" for leadership positions. 


There are certain qualifications or skills that many boards of directors view as "table stakes" (previous CEO experience, articulating a vision and having a strategic mindset to accomplish it, executive-level "presence", and financial acumen, typically demonstrated by previous P&L experience).  The question then is whether these are really "table stakes" - do checking the box off on a checklist of typical "CEO-level attributes" necessarily predict whether someone will be a great CEO.  The authors argue not.  Instead, they identify four so-called "X factors" of exceptional leaders, listed below (not necessarily in order of precedence):


1. They simplify complexity and operationalize it.
2. They drive ambition for the whole enterprise.
3. They play well on teams they don't lead.
4. They build leaders.


Not a bad list actually.  And, by focusing on the classic "table stakes", we may miss out on that "diamond in the rough" or the ranger who will become king.  If we don't recognize that "all that is gold does not glitter" - we miss out on someone who can and will be an incredible leader.

"Sometimes it rains"

There was a great movie about baseball that came out in 1988 called "Bull Durham", starring Kevin Costner, Susan Sarandon, and Tim Robbins.  It happens to be one of my all-time favorite sports movies.  Robbins' character, Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh has a memorable scene at the end of the movie where he leaves us all with a great quote (he actually borrowed the quote from Costner's character, Crash Davis) that goes like this:


A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game.  You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes it rains."  Think about that for a while.


"Sometimes it rains."  Well, isn't that the truth?  I think what Nuke is saying here (and I think he surprisingly got Crash's point here too) is that things don't always go your way.  Sometimes you win (or succeed).  Sometimes you lose (or fail).  Sometimes there are sunny days.  Sometimes there are rainy ones.  It really doesn't matter.  What truly matters is you - your attitude, your perseverance, and your resilience.


I suspect that most of us enjoy sunny days far more than the rainy ones.  Rain has certainly been used as a metaphor throughout the ages, but the metaphor is often a complicated one.  For example, I don't think anyone would question that dark, dreary days filled with storm clouds, thunder, lightning, and rain are often used to symbolize feelings of sorrow, loss, failure, despondence, and gloom.  However, there is a deeper meaning to the rain here.  The rain itself often symbolizes healing and rebirth.  Note the common sayings, "Let the rain wash away the pain of yesterday" or "You can't have a rainbow without the rain."  Rain, at least as used here, provides a kind of spiritual cleansing.


I am reminded of a Led Zeppelin song called, simply enough, "The Rain Song".  There is a stanza at the end of the song that goes like this:


These are the seasons of emotion
And like the wind, they rise and fall
This is the wonder of devotion
I see the torch
We all must hold
This is the mystery of the quotient
Upon us all, a little rain must fall


In other words, you can't have the sun without the rain, or at least you can't appreciate the sun without living through the rain every once in a while.  Rain again is life-giving.  It means renewal and rebirth.  We appreciate the bad, as well as the good.


So, next time you are dealing with a frustration in either your personal or professional life, remember that you have to experience the lows to really, truly enjoy the highs.  The next time you fail to get that new position or promotion, remember to be grateful for the job that you currently have.  The next time you receive negative feedback or a formal letter of complaint, remember the times when you received a letter of thanks or positive feedback.  In other words, remember Nuke LaLoosh.  Remember "The Rain Song."  Remember, "sometimes it rains..."

A Big Red X

It's about that time of year again - you know, the time when everyone (well, almost everyone) starts talking about their New Year's resolutions.  I am just like everyone else in this regard - just to prove my case, I started this whole blog as a New Year's resolution!  However, unlike the vast majority of resolutions that I have made, we are still going strong with this one.  In fact, nearly 80% of New Year's resolutions fail by the month of February!  Another commonly cited statistic suggests that only 8% of all individuals stick to their resolutions.  So, what do the experts have to say about what we all should be doing to keep our resolutions?  As it turns out, they have a lot to say.  These sure-fired ways range from the simple to the complex.  I have found a trick that has worked very well for me, and it's surprisingly easy.

Several years ago, I set a goal to lose weight by eating less and exercising more.  I was looking for ways to track both my calories consumed and my calories burned.  I ended up using a free app called My Fitness Pal.  There are a number of apps that are freely available, so I am not saying that you should use this one in particular.  However, one of the features that "My Fitness Pal" uses that I found extremely helpful is a "Days Streak" - in other words, every day that I logged either my diet or exercise, I received credit.  After several days, I had built up a streak of consecutive days that I used the app.  As the number of days in my streak increased, I felt this unbelievable pull to keep going in order to maintain my streak.  Letting the streak get back to zero was just not an option that I found acceptable.  At one time, my streak was well over 600 days!

Only this past year, I decided that I wanted to teach myself to read, write, and converse in German.  I really had no particular reason other than wanting to learn to speak a different language.  I thought that it would be easier to learn German, as I had at least some knowledge of the German language from taking it in high school and college.  I used an app called Duolingo - it's another free app that basically helps you spend as little as 5-10 minutes per day writing, speaking, and listening to German.  Again, the app has a built-in feature of a "Days Streak" - again, there is an unbelievable pull not to let the streak fall to zero!

A few years ago, the actor and comedian, Jerry Seinfeld, admitted that he too used the "Days Streak" method to meet the goal of writing comedy every day.  Comedy is just like everything else - it requires practice.  Every year, Seinfeld would buy a calendar, and every day that he practiced comedy, he would draw a big red "X" on the calendar day.  He found, just as I did, an unbelievable pull to continue the streak of big red X's on the calendar. 

I am not saying that this method will work for everyone.  Admittedly, it's not always worked 100% perfectly for me - witness that my current "My Fitness Pal" streak stands at 50 days and my current "Duolingo" streak stands at only 4 days.  However, I am here to tell you that there is a huge weight off my shoulders every day when I am able to see the streak counter on both these apps increase by one!  It's just like a big red "X."

So, this year, for your own New Year's resolution, try Seinfeld's "big red X" method and see if it works for you.  It may not work, but if it does, you may find that you are losing weight, exercising more, writing a blog, or even learning to speak German!

Auf Wiedersehen and Viel Gluck!

Our National Embarrassment

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a statement on November 29, 2018 stating that the U.S. life expectancy had declined again for second time in three years.  According to CDC Director, Robert R. Redfield, MD:


The latest CDC data show that the U.S. life expectancy has declined over the past few years. Tragically, this troubling trend is largely driven by deaths from drug overdose and suicide.


Life expectancy gives us a snapshot of the Nation’s overall health and these sobering statistics are a wakeup call that we are losing too many Americans, too early and too often, to conditions that are preventable.


CDC is committed to putting science into action to protect U.S. health, but we must all work together to reverse this trend and help ensure that all Americans live longer and healthier lives.


According to the most recent statistics (the full report is available on the CDC website), the average U.S. citizen will live to about the age of 78 years (though the average life expectancy declined from 78.9 years in 2014 to 78.7 years in 2015 through 2016, with a further decrease to 78.6 years from 2016 to 2017, the most recent year for which these statistics are available).  The age-adjusted death rate increased overall by 0.4% from 728.8 deaths per 100,000 population to 7321.9 deaths per 100,000 population (see CDC brief), with the age-specific death rate increasing in the 25-34, 35-44, and 85 and over age groups (there was a decline in the age-specific death rate for those 45-54 years of age).  Notably, the decrease in life expectancy is occurring at a time when the life expectancy in almost every other country in the world is increasing!


These statistics should be alarming to everyone who calls the United States home.  We are, after all, the United States of America, the world's largest economy (a position that the U.S.A. has occupied since 1871) with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of approximately $19 trillion in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).  Unfortunately, we rank 45th for average life expectancy out of more than 200 countries for which this statistic is available (of interest, the U.S. territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands rank higher than the U.S.A. as a whole).  If you want to live a long life, move to Hong Kong which ranks first overall with an average life expectancy of 84.5 years. 


There is another side to the story that Dr. Redfield calls out in the CDC's press release above.  The number of Americans who are losing their lives to opioid-related deaths and suicides continues to increase rapidly.  The age-adjusted death rates from drug overdoses increased by 9.6% compared to 2016, while the age-adjusted suicide rate increased by 33%! 


We should be embarrassed by these statistics.  What is concerning is that these trends really aren't all that new - the opioid crisis has received incredible attention in both the lay press and medical literature for the past few years, while suicide has been the 10th most common cause of death since at least 1980.  Consider also that accidental deaths have held a solid place in the top 10 list of causes of death.  Moreover, many of the most important risk factors for the top four causes (heart disease, cancer, stroke, and COPD) can be modified with changes in lifestyle (see an important article from Dr. Ralph Keeney at the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University, "Personal Decisions Are the Leading Cause of Death").  For all of the criticisms against the U.S. health care system (some that are completely justified), we could find as much fault with our (lack of) social safety net and an insufficient focus on the social determinants of health.


So what is the take-home message?  While two data points does not make a trend, our nation and our industry should be very concerned about these statistics.  Here is our rally point, where we begin to look to turn things around before the numbers become a trend.  Health care organizations can't do it alone, but we certainly need to do a better job investing in the social determinants of health.  As Major Dick Winters (from one of my favorite TV series "Band of Brothers") said, "If you're a leader, you lead the way.  Not just on easy ones, you take the tough ones too."  Health care organizations need to "lead the way" on this issue.  We will need to work with the local, state, and federal government, as well as nonprofit organizations and other advocacy groups to address these issues.  It will take work, but the rewards will be worth it.

Don't judge a book by its cover

There's an old saying that you should not judge a book by its cover.  As a matter of fact, it's so old that something very similar to it was first uttered by the ancient Roman, Juvenal, somewhere around the first or second century AD ("Never have faith in the front").  The phrase, as it usually written or stated, was first used in a book by the author, George Eliot (who was really Mary Anne Evans - she used "George Eliot" as a pen name because she didn't want to be stereotyped or discriminated against as a female) in the novel, The Mill on the Floss when describing Daniel Defoe's novel, The History of the Devil (Ouch! In this case, Eliot was being literal, not metaphorical).  Regardless of who first used it, the phrase basically means that you shouldn't judge a person's worth or character by outward appearances.

You should never judge a book by its cover - i.e., you should never judge a person by his or her outward appearance.  The meaning is clear, but the practice is not as easy.  I refer you to the story of the singer Susan Boyle.  Susan Boyle has an absolutely beautiful voice.  She first came to prominence when she sang the song, "I Dreamed a Dream" from the musical Les Misérables on the hit show, "Britain's Got Talent" on April 11, 2009.  Just watch the video.  The three judges, as well as the audience, appear to be making fun of her appearance and her quirky personality!  But when she starts singing, their response is priceless.  After she receives a standing ovation by everyone, including the three judges, she simply walks off the stage.  They call her back and tell her that she has one of the most beautiful voices they've ever heard (and they apologize for pre-judging her).  She went on to finish second place in the contest, but has become incredibly successful as a singer (she has even sang for the Queen of England).  During an interview with the Washington Post, Boyle said this about her experience:

"Modern society is too quick to judge people on their appearances. ... There is not much you can do about it; it is the way they think; it is the way they are. But maybe this could teach them a lesson, or set an example."

I had the opportunity to learn this lesson again in a recent visit to the Cincinnati Police Academy.  Two of the officers there that day were talking about a video they show recruits on the first day - they use it as a lesson to "not judge a book by its cover."  The event happened on February 2, 1998 in an area of downtown Cincinnati known as Over-the-Rhine.  Officer Katie Conway had just finished a "prison run" (taking an individual downtown to the city jail for processing) and had stopped at a traffic light, when a mentally unstable man walked by, hit her with a "boom box" radio, pulled out a gun, and shot her four times in the hip and legs.  She was paralyzed and couldn't feel anything below her waist.  The man shoved her to the side, got in the car, and started driving away at high-speed.  Officer Conway was on the radio calling for help.  She remembered her training (she had only graduated from the Police Academy about 1 year earlier), pulled out her service revolver, and shot the man in the head twice.  In the aftermath of the event, the investigation at the scene only found one bullet hole in the man's head, so the investigating officers first thought that Officer Conway had missed once - the autopsy subsequently showed two bullets in the man's head.  Officer Conway had shot the man twice in the exact same location - two shots, one hole. 

Officer Conway survived.  If you listen to the police radio recording (for more details, see the local news story), it's amazing how calm she remained during the entire incident.  The two officers that I met at the Police Academy were Police Sergeants at the time - both in the same precinct where Officer Conway had worked.  They said that they underestimated how effective she could be as a police officer, because of her gender and her small stature ("She was always just Katie").  They learned that day that incredible strength can come in even small packages.  Never judge a book by its cover.

I am sure that leaders often fall into the same trap that the three judges and audience at "Britain's Got Talent" and the two officers at the Cincinnati Police Academy fall into - it's likely a very common occurrence.  The lesson for us, as leaders, is simply not to fall into that trap.  Don't judge a book by its cover.  It's just that simple.

"And the world will live as one..."

Almost 40 years ago tonight (38 years to be exact), one of the greatest songwriters of all time, John Lennon was shot and killed outside the Dakota, his Manhattan apartment complex near Central Park, New York City.  Together with fellow Beatles band member, Paul McCartney, Lennon rose to prominence and became one of the most successful and influential singer-songwriter partnerships of all time.  Lennon himself (as performer, writer, or co-writer) is credited with 25 number 1 singles in the US Hot 100 chart.  He was elected twice posthumously into the Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame (as a member of the Beatles in 1988 and as a solo artist in 1994).  He died far too young at the age of 40 years.

I wonder what Lennon would say about the world today?  So many of his songs were political in nature.  He sang about peace, love, and harmony.  Someone once asked him what was the best lyric he ever wrote.  He replied, "That's easy. All you need is love." 

In honor of his life, I want to post the lyrics to one of my favorite John Lennon songs.  It happens to be the top-selling single of his career outside the Beatles and was released on October 11, 1971.  It's called, simply, Imagine:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

 

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you

 

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

 

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world, you

 

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one

 

Peace.  Harmony.  Love.  As powerful today as when Lennon wrote them so long ago.  Just imagine.

"A thousand points of light..."

We've heard a lot about our 41st President, George H.W. Bush the past few days.  I already posted my own tribute to President Bush (see "Hail to the Chief"), so I will not do so again here.  However, I would to like comment on a phrase that he used during his Presidency that I was reminded of again this past week.  President Bush first used the reference to "a thousand points of life" during his acceptance speech at the 1988 Republican National Convention.  The speech was written by Peggy Noonan and Craig R. Smith and compared the growing volunteer movement in America at that time to "a brilliant diversity spread like starts, like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky."  He would repeat the phrase in his inaugural address on January 20, 1989:

I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good.  We will work hand in hand, encouraging, sometimes leading, sometimes being led, rewarding.  We will work on this in the White House, in the Cabinet agencies.  I will go to the people and the programs that are the brighter points of light, and I will ask every member of my government to become involved.  The old ideas are new again because they are not old, they are timeless: duty, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in.

President Bush's son, our 43rd President, George W. Bush referred to the phrase yet again in his eulogy yesterday at his father's State Funeral at the Washington National Cathedral:

He strongly believed that it was important to give back to the community and country in which one lived.  He recognized that serving others enriched the giver's soul.  To us, his was the brightest of a thousand points of light.

It seems so simple enough to understand.  Service to others.  Duty.  Commitment.  Sacrifice.  Patriotism.  Simple, but incredibly beautiful, poignant, and just as relevant, if not more so, today as it was when the President Bush #41 first used the phrase.  We too can be one of those thousand points of light.  We too should be one of those thousand points of light.  Now, perhaps more than ever, when others, including our current President mock the phrase - we need a thousand points of light.

America is and will always be that bright, shining "city on a hill", as long as its citizens believe in those thousand points of light.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't teach him to fish..."

When I was growing up, I used to mix a lot of metaphors - perhaps I still do.  For example, there was a time at the family dinner table when I blurted out, somewhat in exasperation, "That's the straw that broke the monkey's back!"  My parents and sister started giggling, which only exasperated me more.  I probably said, "Why are all of you laughing?" 


All they had to say in reply was "Mixing metaphors again," and I started laughing too.  It was a long-standing family joke - I had done it enough times that all they had to say was "Mixing metaphors again" and we would all laugh together (I know - "We're not laughing at you, Derek, we are laughing with you!" Right?). 


All I can say is that it must be hereditary, because my sister does it too!    So, just to clarify and get it all straight, there were two metaphors that I used at the dinner table that time long ago.  I wasn't too far off - the first metaphor is an old proverb that probably originated some time around the mid 17th century (at least, according to my source on the Internet).  "The last straw" or "the straw that broke the camel's back" (camel - NOT monkey) basically refers to "the final additional small burden that makes the entirety of one's difficulties unbearable."  It's the latest in a series of unpleasant or undesirable events that, collectively, makes an individual think or believe that he or she cannot tolerate a particular situation any longer.


The second metaphor ("Get the monkey off my back") basically occurs when an individual solves a problem that has been difficult to get rid of or address for a long time (often times the problem is a drug or alcohol addiction or similar situation).  The origin of this particular metaphor is not really known either, but it appears to have first come into use during the 1930's. 


Okay, now you know the family secret.  What's my point?  The point I would like to make has nothing to do with camels and monkeys, but it has everything to do with humility.  And I am not really focusing on the classic, Merriam-Webster's definition of humility here, where to be humble means to have a modest or low view of one's own importance.  I certainly learned this kind of humility at an early age!  Humility, at least in this context, means that you can laugh at yourself every once in a while and not take yourself so seriously.  It’s a good definition, and a good lesson too.  However, I am really referring to the definition of humility that I found in the Urban Dictionary, where to be humble means to serve others and be for their good as well as your own (maybe even more so for their good), to recognize your strengths as well as your weaknesses, and finally to recognize that there are far greater things in this world than yourself.  To be humble means that you have accepted that together, we can accomplish so much more than we could ever hope to accomplish by ourselves.


Humility is one of the foundational elements of leadership.  In fact, a recent multinational study on leadership traits by the Catalyst Research Center (see Jeanine Prime and Elizaneth R. Salib, Inclusive Leadership: The View from Six Countries, (Catalyst, 2014) on the Catalyst website) found that humility was one of the four key leadership attributes that link to inclusion and diversity (the other three attributes were empowerment, courage, and accountability).  A recent Harvard Business Review blog post was titled, "The Best Leaders are Humble Leaders".  I couldn't agree more.  As Dr. Robert Hogan, founder and President of Hogan Assessments, recently said, "Substantial research shows that humility predicts effective leadership.  Humility is associated with minimizing status differences, listening to subordinates, soliciting input, admitting mistakes and being willing to change course when a plan seems not to work."


Jim Collins, author of one of the best-selling leadership books of all time, Good to Great, has consistently found in his research that humility is the "X factor" of great leadership.  Collins studied over 1,500 Fortune 500 companies over a 30-year period to find out which companies consistently performed above the market average.  In other words, he was looking for companies that not only achieved greatness, but consistently stayed great over the long haul.  One of the most consistent themes that his research team found, over and over again, among the leaders of these "good to great" companies was humility. 


Finally, Dr. Amy Ou and her team published a study in the Journal of Management of over 100 small-to-medium-sized Information Technology (IT) firms and found a strong and statistically significant correlation between CEO humility and firm performance.  The executive management teams of those organizations with humble CEO's were more likely to collaborate, share information, and work closely together, all of which translated to better overall performance.  CEO humility was measured using a previously validated scale (did you know there was such a "humility scale"?), while firm performance was determined by its profitability.


As it turns out, humility, like leadership, can be a learned behavior or skill!  Here are some sure-fire tips to become more humble from an article in Forbes magazine entitled "The Value of Humility in Leadership":


1.  Be curious; never stop being a learner.


2.  Seek feedback regularly; treat it as a gift and act on it.


3.  Be authentic; own up to mistakes and apologize when your behavior or decision-making falls  below standard.


4.  Give up the need to have all the right answers' focus on asking the right questions.


5.  Be a servant leader; model the kind of followership you want from others by following the lead of others at times.


These are all great recommendations, but I would also add that to be humble means, at times, that you can laugh at yourself.  I would also add the following recommendation, taken from a quote by the ancient Roman Stoic philosopher, Epictetus:


If anyone tells you that a certain person speaks ill of you, do not make excuses about what is said of you but answer, "He was ignorant of my other faults, else he would not have mentioned these alone."

Hail to the Chief

George H.W. Bush, the 41st President of the United States, died last night, November 30, 2018 at the age of 94 years.  President Bush was the last of the so-called "Greatest Generation" to serve as President, and I will always remember him as a fellow United States Naval Officer (he joined the Navy as an eighteen year-old and became the youngest Naval aviator in history) and my first Commander in Chief (he was President when I first received my commission and took my oath as an officer). 


While I didn't always agree with his political views, I greatly respected and admired him for the person that he was throughout his life.  After being shot down in the South Pacific theater during World War II, he was rescued by a submarine and eventually made it back to his squadron after several days.  He was one of the lucky ones that survived without being captured by the Japanese, and he once asked himself, "Why had I been spared and what did God have for me?"  His experiences during the WWII further shaped him and had a profound impact on the kind of leader that he eventually became.


President Bush lived a life of privilege.  He was born to wealthy parents and attended Yale University after serving in the Navy.  After graduating from Yale, he joined the oil business and became a millionaire by the age of 40 years.  He eventually entered politics, and he served as a member of Congress in the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Director of Central Intelligence, Vice-President to President Ronald Reagan, and eventually as the 41st President of the United States.  Undoubtedly, he used the advantages in life that he enjoyed and leveraged them into a successful career.  A reporter from the BBC once asked him whether he was an elitist.


He replied, "What's wrong with excellence?  What's wrong with having a good education?  What's wrong with having excelled in my life and business or being a good ambassador to China or the United Nations, or having done an excellent job at the CIA?  I know that sounds a little immodest, but that's my record."


But there was always more to him than that.  I remember talking to one of the Navy physicians who worked with the presidential medical team during President Bush's time in office.  He told me that President Bush was one of the nicest, most down to Earth individuals he had ever met.  "The President always seemed to know everyone's name - more importantly, he also knew them as individuals.  He would ask about their children and families, and he had this unbelievable memory that allowed him to remember every personal detail of the lives of the individuals who worked for him."


President Bush became the kind of leader that we so desperately need today.  He was a man of integrity.  He lived the core values of his Navy - Courage, Honor, and Commitment.  Even if he did not agree with you, he would listen to you.  And perhaps most importantly, he cared.


Last year on December 7th, I posted about a speech that President Bush gave on the 50th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor.  As he finished his speech, fighting back tears and voice cracking, he said,


"Look at the water here, clear and quiet, bidding us to sum up and remember. One day, in what now seems another lifetime, it wrapped its arms around the finest sons any nation could ever have, and it carried them to a better world.  May God bless them. And may God bless America, the most wondrous land on Earth."


Fair winds and following seas, sir.  We have the watch.

The public doesn't have the right to know...

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...

"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.

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.

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!

"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."

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?"