"The most effective way to do it, is to do it."

Earlier this past week (on May 20, to be exact), the world quietly celebrated the 87th anniversary of Amelia Earhart's Transatlantic solo flight.  Notably, she just the second individual to have flown solo across the Atlantic Ocean.  Charles Lindbergh was the first to perform the feat just five years earlier in 1927.  Earhart's flight would take her slightly under 15 hours to travel from Newfoundland to Derry, Northern Ireland.  What is perhaps less well known is that Earhart made the same trip in 1928.  While working as a social worker in April, 1928, she received a telephone call from a Captain Hilton Railey asking her, "Would you like to fly the Atlantic?"  She wasn't really going to fly the airplane - she would only be a passenger.  She wouldn't even get paid for her trouble.  What was her response?  She said, "Of course."

Earhart could have been (she probably was) offended at the slight and said no to the offer.  She could have demanded a larger role on the flight.  But she didn't - she seized the opportunity.  That's what the great ones do - they put their personal feelings aside and take advantage of every chance for greatness.  The actual pilot, a man named Wilmer Stultz would have had to do the majority of the flying anyway.  Visibility was terrible, and Earhart hadn't learned to fly using just instruments yet.  After landing in in South Wales, someone asked Earhart about the trip, she replied, "Stultz did all the flying - had to.  I was baggage, like a sack of potatoes."  She added, "...maybe someday I'll try it alone."

Guess what?  She did.  Undoubtedly, had she refused to fly, even as a passenger, she would have never gotten the chance to fly solo across the Atlantic.  She leveraged her newfound celebrity - the press had dubbed her "Lady Lindy" (some would argue that she and Lindbergh looked so much alike, they could have been brother and sister) - and used it to promote aviation.  She continued to fly, eventually learned how to fly using only instruments, and performed her remarkable feat on May 20, 1932. 

Amelia Earhart lived by her quote - "The most effective way to do it, is to do it."  Simple, but remarkably eloquent.  How often do we get bogged down trying to decide whether to start a new position, tackle a challenging project, or setting a "stretch goal"?  How often do we focus so much on the risks of doing something, that we never even get started?  I think it happens more often than we like to think.

I am reminded of something that happened in my own life, many, many years ago.  For two years, my friends and I on our high school swim team talked about the chance to do something really incredible.  We had a really strong team and knew that there was a chance we could win the state swimming championship.  Our coaches used to sit down with us every year before the start of the season to go over our team goals.  Our senior year, one of us spoke up and said that we should set the goal to finish in the top 3 at state.  To his credit, our coach acknowledged that he thought we certainly had a chance to do just that and wrote the goal on the chalkboard.  After a few minutes of uncomfortable silence, one of my teammates spoke up.  I don't remember exactly what he said, but it went something like this, "We've been talking about this for the past few years.  I thought we wanted to win state.  I think we should set the goal to win it all."  Very quickly, the rest of our team rallied around that goal.

We were fortunate to have someone push us.  It was even better that the one pushing us was one of us.  I am confident that our coach thought we had set the bar too low, but I also am confident that he believed that we should set the stretch goal and not him.  It was our goal.  We owned the goal. 

Fear is powerful.  There are times when it can take over and get the best of us.  But no one ever got anywhere without taking risks.  Amelia Earhart certainly did not.  Sometimes, all it takes to get started, is to do just that.  Get started.  Sometimes, "the most effective way to do it, is to do it."

"I raised a flag today"

Earlier today, about 1,000 soldiers serving in the United States Army's 3rd Infantry Regiment (more commonly known as "The Old Guard") placed small American flags on more than 228,000 graves at Arlington National Cemetery.  It took them just over four hours, and they call it "Flags In" Day.  It's a special tradition that the 3rd Infantry Regiment has been doing every year on the Thursday before Memorial Day since 1948.  The 3rd Infantry Regiment has been in active service since 1784, making it the Army's oldest serving active duty regiment.  In addition to "Flags In" Day, the Old Guard also performs full honor arrivals for visiting dignitaries, wreath ceremonies at the Tomb of the Unknowns, and full honor reviews in support of senior army leaders and retiring soldiers.

These flags standing watch over the graves of our fallen heroes of the United States military are truly a sight to behold.  It is a small tribute for the ultimate sacrifice - to die for love of country.







I am reminded of a poem called simply "The Flag" whose author is not known.

I raised a flag today
A flag with fifty stars
I raised a flag today
A flag with thirteen bars.

I raised a flag today
To honor those who died
I raised a flag today
And then I stood and cried.

I wept and cursed and prayed
And had to wonder "why?"
Angst and anger welled inside me
And then I saw it fly.

The flag snapped briskly in the wind
It unfurled in the sky
Its glory rose above my fears
Its freedom was not denied.

The symbol of our country
The banner of our pride
The flag of these United States
Flew boldly at my side.

I raised a flag today
But the flag, it lifted me.
I raised a flag today
For all the world to see.

I raised a flag today
And upon seeing it, I knew:
Above the ashen gray would rise
The red, the white, and the blue.

Wherever you are and whatever you are doing this coming Monday, I hope you pause to remember and honor all those who have died to keep our country safe and free.  As it was once said, almost 160 years at the dedication ceremony for another military cemetery, It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

"That which does not kill us, makes us stronger!"

It's a popular misconception that the singer/songwriter and former American Idol, Kelly Clarkson, came up with the saying "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger".  Surprise!  It was actually the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, whose original line (in German, of course) was "Was mich nicht umbringt macht mich starker."  The line translates to "What does not kill me makes me stronger" and comes from the "Maxims and Arrows" section of Nietzsche's book, Twilight of the Idols, or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer, written in 1888.  Clarkson or Nietzsche - they are both basically saying the same thing.  We grow through adversity.  We learn and improve from our mistakes. 

For the first 10 years of my professional career, I researched something that is commonly called the heat shock response.  Basically, the heat shock response is a form of stress adaptation or tolerance that has been described in almost every organism examined to date, including humans.  In essence, expose something living to a little bit of stress and that same living thing develops a resistance to an even greater level of stress with the next exposure.  The heat shock response was originally described with heat stress - expose a cell or organism to higher than normal temperatures for a brief time and the cell or organism develops a resistance to an even higher, and often lethal, temperature exposure the next time.  These cells or organisms increase production of a specific family of proteins, known as heat shock proteins, that appear to be critical to the subsequent resistance to a lethal heat stress.  What is really cool is that these heat shock proteins protect the cell or organism from a variety of stressors, not just heat stress.  In other words, whatever doesn't kill the cell or organism makes them stronger the next time.

I received a comment on one of my previous posts a few weeks ago ("Dad is hangry again!") that I believe is relevant to the present discussion.  Basically, the individual asked a really good question to my comment that one should "Never make an important decision when you are tired or mentally drained."  I will fully admit, during my career working in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, I have made important decisions while dealing with lack of sleep, hunger, and stress.  But here is my point.  I didn't start out that way.  During my training over the course of my medical school education and subsequent residency and fellowship training, I learned to work for long hours, often without getting enough sleep or taking time to eat.  There was always a safety net of supervising physicians and nurses who made sure that I made the right decisions.  I learned to deal with the kind of stress that goes with working in a busy intensive care unit.  I was gradually given more and more responsibility, until I eventually found that I was the one supervising the younger physicians.

Please don't misunderstand me.  I do not have a hero complex.  I am sure that I have made some mistakes at the end of a long shift overnight in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.  I am not perfect.  I am not superhuman.  What I am saying is that I learned to work within the system.  I learned to work with the other members of the team.  I learned to trust and rely upon these same individuals.  I learned how to make decisions, some times under less than ideal conditions.  I don't think I could have made these decisions or done the job as well when I first came out of medical school.  Lack of sleep, hunger, and stress had a much greater impact on my ability to make decisions early on in my career.  In other words, I, like all of my colleagues who work in the hospital, developed a kind of heat shock response or stress tolerance over time.

I know what you are thinking.  But here's the thing.  The military has figured this out too.  If you look closely at the kind of training that special forces in the military go through, there's a lot that you will find in common.  The Army, Air Force, Marines, and Navy each have their special forces units.  All of the soldiers and sailors go through a period of training before they become part of these same units, and the training is remarkably similar.  Soldiers and sailors are exposed to incredibly difficult and stressful work conditions.  For example, the U.S. Navy SEALs go through something called "Hell Week" during BUD/S training during which time they may have a total of four hours of sleep the entire week!  Part of this is a test - if you want to become a Navy SEAL, you have to last through "Hell Week."  But it's more than just a test, it's also training.  Navy SEALs begin to learn how to handle the tough conditions that they are likely to encounter (lack of sleep, lack of food, incredible stress) on the combat missions they will go on during their careers.  Sound familiar?  The Navy SEALs first develop stress tolerance during "Hell Week."

The military has developed specific training programs that focus on making decisions under stressful conditions.  For example, there is an entire program called TADMUS ("Tactical Decisionmaking Under Stress") with an accompanying textbook that is really quite interesting that was co-edited by the cognitive psychologists, Janis Cannon-Bowers and Eduardo Salas.  I read the book several years ago and was left to ponder whether there was something here that we could apply in health care.  If we can train soldiers and sailors to make critical, high impact decisions under the stressful conditions of combat, then surely we can train clinicians to make those same kind decisions under the stressful conditions that occur on any given day in the hospital.  What exactly did the TADMUS program involve?  Repetitive training under incrementally increasing stressful conditions.  In other words, stress tolerance, or the heat shock response.

I would be interested in hearing from others here.  I could be wrong, but I do believe that we can train clinicians to work effectively and make important decisions under stressful conditions.  We can't expect individuals who have never been exposed to these situations to make important decisions.  But with training and progressive exposure, perhaps we can.  The current approach, which has emphasized restricting the length of shifts in the hospital or the number of hours worked (so-called "duty hour restrictions") hasn't necessarily resulted in the expected improvements in patient safety and quality of care (there are many studies that show this, see one study here).  We clearly need a different approach.  Perhaps stress tolerance is that approach.

Maybe Kelly Clarkson was right.  Or was it Nietzsche?

“Come back with your shield or on it”

The 2006 movie, 300 was a fictionalized portrayal of the ancient Battle of Thermopylae that was fought between an alliance of Greek city-states led by King Leonidas of Sparta and the Persian Empire led by Xerxes I.  The battle took place in 480 BC at the narrow coastal pass of Thermopylae.  In the film, 300 Spartans defend the pass against a much larger Persian army, numbering in the 100,000 to 150,000 range (though ancient sources suggested that the Persians had more than 1 million soldiers).  The movie is not completely accurate from a historical standpoint, as the 300 Spartans were likely accompanied by 700 Thespians and a number of Helots and Thebans.  However, the battle was famous throughout antiquity and provides a great example of how a committed and patriotic army, motivated by the need to defend their homeland, can be a force multiplier.  The Greeks lost the battle, but their heroic stand is the stuff of legend.  Victor Hanson had this to say in his review of the movie:

"So almost immediately, contemporary Greeks saw Thermopylae as a critical moral and culture lesson. In universal terms, a small, free people had willingly outfought huge numbers of imperial subjects who advanced under the lash. More specifically, the Western idea that soldiers themselves decide where, how, and against whom they will fight was contrasted against the Eastern notion of despotism and monarchy—freedom proving the stronger idea as the more courageous fighting of the Greeks at Thermopylae, and their later victories at Salamis and Plataea attested."

There is a line in the movie, where Queen Gorgo (played by Lena Headey, of Game of Thrones fame) tells her husband, King Leonidas (played by Gerard Butler), "Come back with your shield, or on it!".  According to Plutarch, this was the parting cry of mothers and wives of their loved ones as they departed for battle.  It was a honor to die in battle for the defense of the city-state of Sparta.  It was an honor to be so committed to the greater good of Sparta, that one would willingly give his life in this cause.

There is a certain similarity to another tale from history.  Jump ahead a few years to 1519, when the Spanish General Hernán Cortés landed in Veracruz to begin his conquest of the Aztec Empire and gave the order for his men to burn the ships that had carried them there.  With this order, Cortés signaled to his men that there was no turning back.  They would have to be fully committed to their cause or die.  The story has been offered as a leadership lesson, though I am not sure I would completely agree.  I am more impressed by the level of commitment shown by the Spartans than I am by Cortés and his men.  The key distinction between the two is choice.  The Spartans had one, the Spaniards did not.

I am reminded, once again, of a response I often hear when I talk about lessons that health care organizations can learn from High Reliability Organizations such as flight operations on United States Navy aircraft carriers.  Whenever I talk about the leadership lessons that we can learn from the military, invariably someone will respond with a statement such as, "People in the military have to follow orders, otherwise they get in trouble."  That sounds a lot like the level of commitment shown by Cortés and his men, but it's not.  Individuals in the military follow orders because they are trained to do so - they learn, very early on, that they are part of a team.  Rather than disappointing the other members on their team, soldiers and sailors will do almost anything in the heat of battle, even if it means giving up their lives.  They are indoctrinated in a high reliability culture at the very moment they start boot camp.  In other words, these soldiers and sailors are much more in common with the Spartans than they do the Spaniards.

Choice matters.  You can choose to be committed, or you can choose not to be committed.  I get it, Cortés and his Spaniards were certainly successful in their conquest of the Aztecs, and the Spartans did, in fact, lose to the Persians (in fact, legend has it that King Leonidas was killed, and Xerxes ordered his body to be decapitated and crucified anyway).  But the choice to be fully committed is incredibly empowering.  And it can be incredibly successful too.  We have years of experience with other High Reliability Organizations to prove it.

Row the Boat

I realize that I may have offended some really good folks with my post earlier this week ("The Caducean Ceiling"), and that was not my intention.  Health care is incredibly complex, and in order for us to solve some of health care's biggest problems, everyone in health care has to be working together.  Clinicians (physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals) and administrative staff have to work collaboratively to deliver the best outcomes to patients.  We all bring something unique to the team, whether it is a different expertise, skill set, or even a different perspective.  No single individual can do it all, and we rely upon each other to bring our best to work every day, so that our patients can benefit - because that's why we are all here, or at least it should be why we are all here.  I have always believed that if patients are to come before profits, then clinicians need to have a seat in the board room. 

I don't claim to be an expert in the non-clinical aspects of the business of health care.  I don't even want to be an expert - there are individuals with the education, training, and experience who can do a much better job at that than I will ever be able to do.  My point in the previous post is that clinicians can and should be able to learn enough of the business aspects to be able to work closely with their colleagues on the administrative side in partnership.  There are many great organizations that have come to appreciate this point, developing a model called dyad leadership, in which clinicians and non-clinicians are paired together to lead a specific service line, department, or organization.  It's an incredibly effective model that takes advantage of the different skill sets of clinicians and administrators.

Which brings me to another one of my recommended books for this year.  A few years ago, our CEO recommended a book by the author Daniel James Brown called The Boys in the Boat.  The book tells the story of nine Americans who overcame incredible odds to win the Gold Medal in Men's Rowing at the 1936 Berlin Olympics.  Brown's website describes the book as follows:

Against the grim backdrop of the Great Depression, they reaffirmed the American notion that merit, in the end, outweighs birthright. They reminded the country of what can be done when everyone quite literally pulls together. And they provided hope that in the titanic struggle that lay just ahead, the ruthless might of the Nazis would not prevail over American grit, determination, and optimism.

Row the boat together.  It's an incredible appropriate metaphor for what needs to happen in hospitals today.  Everyone pulls their weight.  Everyone pulls together.  Everyone rows the boat.

"The Caducean Ceiling"

Several years ago, an article appeared in the journal, Physician Executive, with the title, "Caducean Ceiling" Blocks Docs from CEO Posts.  The article suggested that, like the more commonly described (and real) "glass ceiling" that female executives face, there are unseen organizational barriers and biases that prevent physicians from being hired or even considered as candidates for top executive positions in hospitals.  The article goes on to cite statistics showing that the number of physicians in hospital CEO positions has declined by more than 70% between 1972 and 2002, when the article was written.  Juxtaposed with the statistics that show that hospitals that are led by physicians or nurses tend to perform better, both from a quality of care standpoint as well as a financial standpoint, one has to ask why there is such a thing as a "Caducean Ceiling." 

There is a common perception that physicians and hospital administrators just don't get along - and there is a certain amount of truth to this perception.  Almost every health care administration book that I have read (and I've read a number of them) has a chapter on how administrators can get along with physicians.  There's a countless number of journal articles on how to "bridge the gap" between a hospital's leadership and medical staff, and this particular topic is almost always covered at health care administration conferences.  But why is there such a disconnect between physicians and administrators?  Why can't the "white coats" get along with the "blue suits" and vice versa?  Bias, both implicit and explicit, plays a major role here.

Larry Mathis, former CEO of the Methodist Healthcare System in Houston, Texas, wrote a book about health care leadership following his retirement in 1997 - the book is called "The Mathis Maxims: Lessons in Leadership."  One of his maxims states simply the following: "Physician executive: an oxymoron."  Wow.  If that's not bad enough, his rationale is even more offensive. 

"There's nothing in a physician's education and training that qualifies him to become a leader.  And that's what executives are - leaders, persuaders, team builders, communicators, and organizers."

Mathis goes on to explain, "The physician is challenged throughout his education and training to be an outstanding individual performer.  But leadership is not an individual action.  It's a participatory process."

While continuing to discount the fact that women can be physicians too, Mathis finishes, "I respect and admire physicians.  They are consummate professionals, the best and the brightest of the best and brightest.  But when they leave the confines of medicine, they can be a danger to themselves and others."

"A danger to themselves and others..."  Larry, Larry, Larry.  Unfortunately, this kind of thinking is not uncommon.  Physicians - even those who have gone on to pursue additional education and training in business - continue to be pushed aside and have their opinions discounted when it comes to the non-clinical aspects of our modern health care industry, such as marketing, finance, and strategy.  I wish that I could say that my experience has been different, but I can't.

During my professional career, I have been told that there's no way that I, as a physician, could write up a legitimate business plan (just for the record, there's very little difference between a formalized business plan and a research grant proposal).  I have been told, more than once, that there's no reason that I need to attend certain meetings because they were "all about finance."  I have even been told that physicians just don't understand the business aspects of health care.  While it may be true that I don't have the level of experience that my administrative counterparts have when it comes to finance, strategy, and marketing, I could argue that I have a much greater understanding for taking care of patients than they will ever have.  The simple fact is that they will never take care of a patient.  While I can learn finance, marketing, strategy, and operations, they can’t learn to take care of patients at the bedside (not to say that they aren’t capable of learning to be able to do so, it’s a simple matter of being legally prohibited from doing so).

It's frustrating, but my experience tells me that the so-called "Caducean Ceiling" is still prevalent.  Health care administrators are missing out on an incredible opportunity here.  Clinicians (I use that word instead of "physician" as I firmly believe that nurses and allied health professionals should be strongly considered for executive-level leadership positions in hospitals too) have a unique perspective on the business of health care - it is a business, but the fundamental purpose of health care should be (and is) taking care of patients.  At the very least, clinicians should be involved in leading any health care organization whose mission is truly focused on patient care.

I am reading a book right now by Carson Dye and Jacque Sokolov called, "Developing Physician Leaders for Successful Clinical Integration", which is published by the American College of Healthcare Executives.  Dye and Sokolov specifically call out the difference between "physician involvement" and "physician input" - it's an important distinction:

Physician involvement means:

1. Physicians are always at decision-making meetings.
2. Physicians are viewed as partners.
3. Executive leadership sees physicians as aligned.
4. Physician involvement is ongoing.
5. Physicians remain in the process.
6. Seeing physicians at the table is common.

Physician input, on the other hand, means:

1. Physicians are always invited.
2. Physicians are viewed as tokens.
3. Executive leadership seeks alignment from physicians.
4. Physician input is sporadic.
5. Physicians are occasional players.
6. Seeing physicians at the table is rare.

Far too many health care organizations focus on seeking clinician (again, physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals) input, when what really matters (and what will transform health care) is clinician involvement.  There is no place in today's health care for the opinions and beliefs that Larry Mathis shared.  The relationship between clinicians and health care administrators needs to be collaborative, and it needs to be based on trust, mutual respect, and a shared understanding of what it means to be in the business of patient care.  We can do better.  We have to do better.  Our patients deserve it.

"God does not play dice with the universe"

Albert Einstein reportedly once said that "God does not play dice with the universe."  While that may be true, I came across an article published in 2006 in the journal Personality and Psychology Bulletin entitled "Playing Dice with Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts' Judicial Decion Making" that suggests Einstein's statement doesn't apply to humans.  Basically, the investigators in the study used a roll of the dice to influence sentencing decisions by experienced legal professionals.  The so-called anchoring bias has been well described in a variety of settings - it is a type of bias in which an individual relies upon an initial piece of information (i.e., the anchor) to make decisions.  For example, in this particular study, experienced legal professionals (criminal defense attorneys, judges, and prosecutors) were asked to review several cases of petty theft and then subsequently decide on the sentence (in this case, length of probation in months).  However, before deciding on the length of the probation sentence, the participants rolled a pair of dice.  In half of the cases, the dice were loaded and would only roll either a 1 or 2, while in the other half the dice always rolled a 3 or 6.  The sentencing decisions were significantly longer in the group with the dice that rolled a 3 or 6.  In other words, exposure to the higher dice roll "anchored" these experienced legal professionals to invoke longer sentences for the identical crime scenarios. 

If we are subject to the influence of a completely irrelevant anchoring bias (the roll of a dice), imagine how much we are prone to other, more specific biases.  There have been a number of very high profile shootings of black men by police officers in the last few years.  According to statistics compiled on the website, https://killedbypolice.net/, police officers shot and killed 1,147 civilians in 2017.  Black people were 25% of the victims despite representing only 13% of the U.S. population.  This particular issue has been extensively studied.  Racial bias, even unconscious bias, may be playing a role here as well.  For example, college students enrolled in a general psychology course volunteered to participate in a videogame study.  Subjects were forced to make a split second decision on whether to shoot or not shoot an armed or unarmed alleged perpetrator.  White subjects were more likely to make the correct decision and shoot an armed perpetrator when he (all the perpetrators were males) was Black versus White.  Conversely, White subjects were more likely to "not shoot" an unarmed perpetrator when he was White compared to when he was Black.  Importantly, these results appeared to reflect cultural and racial stereotypes ("Blacks commit more crimes than Whites") than any personal racial prejudice (although, to be fair, what's the difference?).

These are important issues that we, as a society, must address.  Perhaps part of the reason Whites believe that "Blacks commit more crimes than Whites" is the fact that Blacks are much more likely to be incarcerated for the same crime committed by someone White.  In fact, Black individuals are imprisoned at more than 5 times the rate as Whites.  Furthermore, Blacks serve longer sentences in jail than Whites for the same crime.  More than half of people in federal prisons are serving time for a drug offense as a result of the "3 Strikes" policy formulated during the so-called "War on Drugs" at the height of the crack cocaine epidemic during the 1980's and 1990's.  Congress passed mandatory sentencing lawsmandatory sentencing laws that created a 100 to 1 sentencing disparity for crack cocaine (which was more commonly used by Blacks) compared to powder cocaine (which was more commonly used by Whites) - there was a minimum 5-year jail sentence in federal prison for the possession or distribution of 5 grams of crack cocaine or 500 grams of powder cocaine (this remained the case until President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 into law). 

If you want to understand the racial inequities in drug crime, just compare the rhetoric used during the crack cocaine epidemic ("War on Drugs", "3 strikes rule", "Crack moms") with the current opioid epidemic (which has been called a "Public Health Crisis").  Whites are much more likely to be addicted to opioids and heroin compared to Non-whites - ironically, this stark difference probably occurred as a result of the disparities in prescription of pain medications by physicians (Blacks were prescribed pain medications at half the rate of Whites).  All of these issues are discussed in a really great (but disturbing) book called The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by the author and civil rights lawyer, Michelle Alexander. 

Unconscious bias is common - we are all guilty of it.  That is why it is so crucial that we recognize that these are important issues that need to be discussed.  It is not acceptable that more Blacks are put in jail - this only perpetuates the myth that "Blacks commit more crimes than Whites."  As Alexander discusses in her book, the statistics actually show that Blacks do not actually commit more crimes compared to Whites - Whites just get off with lighter sentences or, in many cases, no criminal sentence.

As leaders, we need to educate ourselves on the facts.  We cannot continue to perpetuate myth.  "God does not play dice with the universe" - and neither should we.

"Turn slow, exit fast"

Well, there is certainly a lot I could talk about tonight.  Yesterday was May 4th, known as International Star Wars Day, "May the fourth be with you!"  Today is Cinco de Mayo (literally, "the fifth of May"), which celebrates the victory of the Mexican Army over the French at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862 (note that Cinco de Mayo does NOT coincide with the date on which Mexico gained its independence from Spain, contrary to popular belief).  This past weekend, our family celebrated another graduation from college (Roll Tide!).  And, I am frantically trying to finish off the day's "Move Log" on my Apple Watch (for the 44th day in a row - if you have to ask, check out "A Big Red X").  But I want to focus on an article I read this morning that appeared in yesterday's edition of the Wall Street Journal.  It's by the author, Sam Walker (who wrote an excellent book called "The Captain Class") and is called "Sometimes 'genius' is just great management".  The article is about the Brazilian Formula One racing car driver (and three-time World Champion), Ayrton Senna, who died 25 years ago this past Wednesday (May 1, 1994). 

Senna wrote a book called "Principles of Race Driving" that purports to be about racing, but it is really about leadership and management.  Unfortunately, my local library does not have a copy.  Amazon has an old paperback copy available for a little under $1,650 (I don't think I could justify that purchase).  One of the things that Senna said frequently really resonated with me.  Apparently, there are three ways that race car drivers can approach a turn (remember - the goal is to get through the turn as quickly as possible).  First, the driver can wait until the last possible instant to brake.  Second, the driver can slow down at the entrance to the turn and choose the shortest, most direct line through the turn.  The third method was the one that Senna used - he didn't worry about his entry speed or finding the best line.  Rather, he focused on the exit and used to say, "Turn slow, exit fast."  In other words, he focused on getting out of the turn as quickly as possible by focusing on the exit.  Accelerate through the turn.  Exit faster than you enter the turn.

What's the translation to leadership and management?  Make decisions quickly by focusing on the execution of the decision.  A leader will never have completely perfect information needed to make a perfect decision.  The important lesson is that the leader shouldn't have to do so - get as much information as you need to make a decision quickly, and then execute.  Avoid "paralysis by analysis" - don't over-analyze the decision.  Just make one.

There's a lot to unpack there.  Making decisions is not easy - it's probably one of the hardest things that a leader has to do well.  But I like the concept here. 

Unfortunately, things didn't work out so well for Senna in the end.  He died - doing what he loved best (racing) - on May 1, 1994 while leading at the San Marino Grand Prix, his car crashed straight into a concrete retaining wall at speeds well over 145 mph, killing him almost instantly.  Subsequent investigations indicated (though the exact cause is still disputed) that the crash occurred as a result of a catastrophic mechanical failure.  Senna died living on the edge.  He died while living his mantra.  He died as one of the greatest Formula One drivers to ever live.  "Turn slow, exit fast."

Peter Brady and the Benedict Arnold Episode

Last week I was fortunate to combine two of my personal hobbies - reading about history and sitting on the beach!  It was a very restful, relaxing, enjoyable vacation with great weather.  My wife and I had an absolutely wonderful time.

One of the books that I finished was a biography (of sorts) by the author, historian, and lawyer, Joyce Lee Malcolm, called The Tragedy of Benedict Arnold: An American Life.  It's a fascinating account of how one of America's greatest generals during the Revolutionary War turned into one of America's most famous (and dare I say, "hated") traitors.  Arnold was considered a hero for his daring, bravery, and leadership at the capture of Fort Ticonderoga in 1775 (the cannons were removed from the fort and hauled over 300 miles to fortify Dorchester Heights, which forced the British to leave the city of Boston), the  Battle of Quebec in 1775 (during which he was shot in the leg), the Battle of Valcour Island on Lake Champlain in 1776 (a naval battle in which he commanded several smaller ships), and the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 (when he was again shot in the leg, which nearly crippled him for life).  The book actually focuses on his early life and his heroism and bravery during the early part of the war, dedicating just over 100 pages or so to episode for which he was accused of treason (he escaped and actually fought for the British for the remainder of the war, eventually moving to England after the Battle of Yorktown).  It's a fascinating account of an incredible fall from grace - he was one of General George Washington's most beloved generals.  There were a number of events that eventually led him to change sides and betray his country, and by the time I finished the book, I found myself actually feeling sorry for him.  Maybe that was the author's point. 

I have been fascinated with Benedict Arnold's story since my early childhood, when I first learned of how he became a traitor by watching an episode of the American television show, The Brady Bunch.  Chances are, you've probably seen the episode too.  It's the one where Peter Brady tries out for a part in the school play.  He doesn't get the part he wanted (George Washington), but instead gets to play Benedict Arnold.  It's a classic.  And shocker of all shockers, it's surprisingly historically accurate (or at least close)!  The final scene of the play has Benedict Arnold close to death and asking to put on his dusty old uniform - not the uniform that he wore in the British Army, but the one he wore in the Continental Army.  As the legend goes, Arnold told his wife, "Let me die in my old American uniform, the uniform in which I fought my battles.  God forgive me for ever putting on any other."

We are reminded, once again, that history is written by the victors and not the defeated.  While Benedict Arnold was indeed a traitor, perhaps history hasn't necessarily told the complete story.  Nothing could ever justify treason, but reading this book shows Arnold in a slightly different light.  He did not immediately resort to treason, as many of us were taught in school.  Rather, it took a long series of events to turn him.  It's a sad tale, but an important one in our history.  And maybe the lesson for us here is this - nothing can ever justify committing a crime, such as treason.  Nothing can ever justify betraying someone's trust, even if it doesn't involve an act of treason.  However, we should always seek to understand the person's perspective.  And we should always forgive, even if we can't necessarily forget.