2021 Leadership Reverie Reading List

For the last few years, I have posted a list of some of my favorite books on leadership of the past year.  This year, I am going to do something a little different and post the books that are on my reading lists for the coming year.  Here is my 2021 Leadership Reverie reading list (in no particular order):

1.  Profiles in Courage (John F. Kennedy) - I read this book several years ago and really enjoyed it.  Kennedy profiles several Congressional leaders in history that demonstrated what he called "courage", though he is really writing about leaders who demonstrated something that seems to be lacking in many political leaders today - integrity.

2.  Caste (Isabel Wilkerson) - Wilkerson's newest book has appeared on a number of "Best Books of 2020" lists.  Wilkerson won the Pullitzer Prize in journalism, and she is the best-selling author of another book on my list (see below), The Warmth of Other Suns.

3.  "The Warmth of Other Suns" (Isabel Wilkerson) - Wilkerson's first book tells the story of the Great Migration, the movement of African Americans out of the Southern United States to the Midwest, Northeast and West from approximately 1915 to 1970.  It's been on my night-stand for several months, but I've just not had the chance to read it yet (I joined too many book clubs this past year!).

4.  "A Promised Land" (Barack Obama) - My wife gave me this book to me for Christmas this year.  I didn't always agree with President Obama when he was in office, but I've always thought he is an extraordinarily gifted writer with a lot of great things to say about leadership.  He has shown all of us about what it means to be a leader during these last four years while out of office, perhaps just as much as he did while President.  I am really looking forward to reading this one.

5. "Becoming" (Michelle Obama) - This is another one that I've wanted to read for quite some time, I just haven't been able to get to it yet.  

6.  Upstream (Dan Heath) - I've really enjoyed reading all of the books by Dan and Chip Heath.  This is the first book written by Dan Heath without his brother and comes highly recommended.

7. "The Design of Everyday Things" (Donald Norman) - Someone recommended this book to me a long time ago (it was originally published in 1988), and I have been wanting to read it for quite some time.  Norman popularized the concept of user-centered design, and one of the main premises of his book is that people are often keen to blame themselves when objects appear to malfunction.  However, it is not the fault of the user but rather the lack of intuitive guidance that should be present in the design.

8. Hymns of the Republic (S.C. Gwynne) - I have always enjoyed reading history, perhaps even moreso military history.  Several years ago, I became hooked on books about the Civil War, one of the most difficult times in our nation's history.  There is a lot that we can learn about this period of history, particularly at a time now when our nation is more polarized and divided than at any time since the Civil War.  This is another book that has been on my reading list for a while.

9. Endurance (Frank Worsley) - I have learned so much about leadership by reading about Sir Ernest Shackleton and his failed expedition to Antarctica from 1914 to 1917.  This book tells that story from the perspective of the ship's captain, Frank Worsley, who in many ways is just as responsible as Shackleton for the fact that no one died on this expedition.

10. Great Expectations (Charles Dickens) - as my family knows, this is my all-time favorite book.  I have read it several times over my lifetime, and it's been a while since I last read it.  It's a work of fiction, but there is a lot that you can learn about leadership here as well.

There are a lot more books on my list this year.  I am still participating in the Cincinnati Mercantile Library President of the United States (POTUS) book club (due to COVID-19, we are meeting virtually, so I can still participate, at least for now).  We are reading a biography of each of the U.S. Presidents from beginning to end.  We just finished Ron Chernow's biography on Ulysses Grant.  I also have several more books on my shelf that I still need to get to.  

As President Harry Truman said, "Not all readers become leaders, but all leaders must be readers.”  Happy reading in 2021!

Top Ten Posts of 2020

Today is the LAST day of 2020!  What a historically incredible year it has been - and when I say "incredible" I mean it has been an incredibly difficult year and a year like no other.  I read an article in Time magazine yesterday that reflected upon this past year.  The writer, Time's film critic, Stephanie Zacharek, wrote "This is the story of a year you'll never want to revisit.  There have been worse years in U.S. history, and certainly worse years in world history, but most of us alive today have seen nothing like this one."

Zacharek ended the article (it's definitely worth a read) with the following dose of optimism and hope, "Our optimism is our most ridiculous trait, and our greatest. It can’t always be morning in America. Sometimes we have to get through the darkest hour just before. The aurora bides its time."  Here's hoping that we are passing through the darkest hours and that it will soon be morning again.

As I have done in the past, here are the top blog posts from the past year.  I want to personally thank those of you who read my posts.  As I stated in my first blog post on January 2, 2016 ("First blog post!"), I don't claim to be an expert on leadership, so I write this blog for my own personal learning as much as anyone else's.  With today's post, Leadership Reverie will be up to 489 posts and well over 100,000 views.  It's been a great experience for me, and I have learned a lot about myself in my writing.  

Thomas J. Watson (Chairman and CEO of  IBM from 1914-1956) once said, "Nothing so conclusively proves a man's ability to lead others as what he does from day to day to lead himself."  As I wrote 488 posts ago, "Leadership has to start by looking inward at what you do with your own life."  Here's to another year of writing, learning, and sharing with all of you.  And here's hoping 2021 will be an easier year for all of us!

1.  "Tap Code" (February 9, 2020)

2.  "To protect the whole line" (June 16, 2020)

3.  "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!" (April 22, 2020)

4.  "Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics." (May 8, 2020) 

5.  "Vontae Mack no matter what"  (July 22, 2020)

6.  "Taming the Chaos" (February 23, 2020)

7.  "A brief hiatus" (July 11, 2020)

8.  "Death by meeting" (March 4, 2020)

9.  "A tale of two leaders" (February 26, 2020) 

10. "How 'bout those 'Heels?" (April 12, 2020) 

Holiday Greetings

Yesterday, December 21, 2020 was the longest, darkest night of the year.  In other words, starting today, the days will get longer and the dark nights will get shorter.  Even in prehistoric times, the Winter solstice was celebrated with festivals and rituals as the rebirth of the Sun.  It is no coincidence that both the Christian holiday of Christmas and the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah ("Season of Lights") are celebrated around the time of the winter solstice.  

This year, perhaps more than any other year in recent history, there is a special significance to the fact that the days are getting longer now.  We have symbolically passed, perhaps, from some of our nation's darkest times and are finally seeing the proverbial "light at the end of the tunnel."  The past year has been a struggle for many (perhaps most) of us.  We've experienced a global pandemic and an accompanying economic shutdown, civil unrest, and a contentious election (and we still do not fully know whether there will be a peaceful transition of power in our country).  Please make no mistake, we are still in the midst of a raging pandemic.  COVID-19 is completely out of control in several parts of our country.  And yet, there is hope.  And yet, there is hope.

Just this past week, the Food and Drug Administration authorized a second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for emergency use.  Health care workers around the country are smiling for the first time, perhaps in a long time, after receiving their vaccination.  For the first time in a long time, we can start to see the end of the pandemic.  Better days are ahead, and there is renewed hope for the future.  The days are getting longer, and the Sun will shine again.

I was reminded of this renewed sense of hope by a post written by the author, Lindsay Chervinsky.  Her latest book, The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution has been sitting on my nightstand waiting to be read.  I may finally have an opportunity over the next couple of weeks to sit down and read it!  Anyway, Chervinsky talked about another American President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who used to deliver a series of evening radio addresses to the American public called his "Fireside Chats".  

On Christmas Eve, December 24, 1943, FDR sat down at his desk at his home in Hyde Park to deliver Fireside Chat 27.  He talked about his recent trip through the Mediterranean and Middle East and of his meetings with Winston Churchill, Josef Stalin, and General Chiang Kai-Shek.  He announced that General Dwight Eisenhower would be the new Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and he hinted of the coming invasion at Normandy.  About half way through his address, he paused to reflect on what the nation - really, what the world - had been through during the past year.  He spoke of hope, a feeling of optimisim that maybe the world was turning a corner.

“And even this year, we still have much to face in the way of further suffering, and sacrifice, and personal tragedy…But, on Christmas Eve this year, I can say to you that at last we may look forward into the future with real, substantial confidence that, however great the cost, "peace on Earth, goodwill toward men" can be and will be realized and ensured. This year, I can say that. Last year, I could not do more than express a hope. Today, I express a certainty, though the cost may be high and the time may be long.

Within the past year, within the past few weeks, history has been made, and it is far better history for the whole human race than any that we have known, or even dared to hope for, in these tragic times through which we pass.”

I am sort of feeling the same way this holiday season.  "...at last we may look forward into the future with real, substantial confidence" that better days are ahead.  We see the light, and we hope for the coming end to the pandemic.

I can't imagine a better message to send during this holiday season.  

May the blessings and peace of this season be with all of you.

Derek

"Leaders eat last"

Doesn't it seem like we've turned the corner?  The FDA has now approved the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for emergency use.  Many health care workers around the country have already received the first dose of one of these vaccines.  I have seen a number of pictures posted on social media of these same health care workers smiling for the first time in a long time after receiving their vaccine.  It does seem like better days are ahead, even if the COVID-19 pandemic is still raging out of control in the U.S.A. and several other countries around the world.

Many hospitals have prioritized those health care workers who are at the highest risk of COVID-19, either because of their specific job requirements or due to the presence of certain medical risk factors.  Other hospitals have not done as well.  For example, I've heard reports of at least one hospital that either forgot or chose to deprioritize the medical residents working there.  Other hospitals have used a lottery system to prioritize which individuals will receive the vaccination first.  These are not simple, easy decisions, and given all of the emotions around this issue, hospitals will not get it perfectly right.  

I can't wait to receive my vaccine.  As a pediatric critical care physician, I was placed in one of the highest priority groups at my own hospital.  I was working in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) just two weeks ago and took care of a number of children with COVID-19.  But here's the thing - I'm not going to be working in the PICU again until April.  I will be working on the hospital wards after the first of the year, but I should be able to protect myself with the infection prevention and control measures our hospital has in place.  There are a number of colleagues who deserve to be vaccinated before me, so I am going to wait my turn a little longer.

It's hard to wait.  But I've always believed in the concept described in Simon Sinek's book, "Leaders Eat Last".  As Sinek writes, "Great leaders sacrifice their own comfort–even their own survival–for the good of those in their care."  It's a concept well-known in the United States military.  The team matters more than the leader.

For now, I will continue to wear my mask everywhere (including when I run outside, by the way), wash my hands frequently, and socially distance to protect myself, my family, and the other individuals who I work with at the hospital.  When the time is right, I will be ready, willing, and eager to receive the vaccine.  For now though, I'm going to wait my turn.

"It's DoctorJill Biden!"

I thought a lot about writing this post today.  First, earlier in the year (see "A brief hiatus") I made a decision to try to avoid, if at all possible, making any significant political statements to avoid giving offense.  Second, I believe in the right to free speech, though at times I personally question how far I am willing to go to support that right.  Third, I fully recognize that at times it's difficult to take someone else's statement out of context.  After thinking about it further though, I asked myself how could I not comment on what has gone on in the past few days?  I have written posts on this issue in the past (see my three part blog post on "A life of privilege"here, here, and here, as well as "Word choice matters" and "What's in a name?")- and until something changes, I will continue to do so.

A few days ago, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial piece with the title "Is There a Doctor in the White House?", written by someone named Joseph Epstein that starts out with the following opening paragraph:

Madame First Lady—Mrs. Biden—Jill—kiddo: a bit of advice on what may seem like a small but I think is a not unimportant matter. Any chance you might drop the “Dr.” before your name? “Dr. Jill Biden ” sounds and feels fraudulent, not to say a touch comic. Your degree is, I believe, an Ed.D., a doctor of education, earned at the University of Delaware through a dissertation with the unpromising title “Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students’ Needs.” A wise man once said that no one should call himself “Dr.” unless he has delivered a child. Think about it, Dr. Jill, and forthwith drop the doc.

I won't repeat the rest.  As you can imagine (and rightly so), there was a huge backlash against Mr. Epstein (not "doctor" by the way) all over social media, as well as the regular media.  The article was appropriately called "highly offensive," and a number of individuals asked whether the article would have been written about a man who used the title "Doctor."  Several individuals said that the Wall Street Journal should have never published the piece, calling on the publishers to retract it (the publishers declined, by the way).  

It's disappointing that, as far as we have come, we still have a long way to go.  A recent survey by the American College of Healthcare Executives suggested that women healthcare executives with 5 to 20 years of healthcare experience were significantly less likely than their male counterparts to perceive their employes as gender-neutral, when it comes to hiring, promotion, evaluation, and compensation.  More worrisome is the fact that these perceptions have changed little in the past decade.  And of course, it's not just healthcare.  It's a sad fact that women have to work harder in today's business world to get the same opportunities, the same positions of leadership, and the same pay as men (and technically, the data suggests that they don't even get the same pay for the same position as men).  

Perhaps it would help to explain the origin of the word doctor.  According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the word comes from the Latin docēre, which means to teach.  The original doctors were not physicians - they were teachers.  The title was conferred on theologians by the Roman Catholic Church when individuals were deemed to be qualified to explain church theological doctrine to laypersons.  It was only later, during the Renaissance, that the title started to be used more broadly to those individuals who were qualified in some academic discipline, including medicine.  About the same time, the term physician came into use to describe one who was skilled in the the art of healing.  In other words, physicians started to be called "Doctor" only after they became noted experts in the art of practicing medicine.  Based on the origin of the term then, not only is our soon to be First Lady deserving of the title doctor, one could argue that she is perhaps more qualified to be called doctor than I am (her doctorate degree is in Education).  

If you've done the work and earned the degree, you deserve the title.  The title signifies a certain level of expertise and signifies that an individual has enough knowledge that she or he can pass that knowledge down to others as a teacher.  "Doctor" is a title, not a profession.  It is an important distinction that gets lost all too frequently.

I am truly sorry that Dr. Jill Biden had to put up with this kind of malarky.  She certainly didn't deserve it.  How did she respond?  Here is what Dr. Biden said on Twitter:

"Together, we will build a world where the accomplishments of our daughters will be celebrated, rather than diminished."

I couldn't agree more.

Don't be a crab!

 There's a famous story - probably apocryphal - that goes something like this.  A young girl was walking along the beach and came upon a fisherman who was casting his line at the end of the pier.  As she came closer, she noticed that the fisherman had left his bait bucket uncovered.  When she looked inside, the bucket was full of live crabs.

The little girl asked, "Mister, why don't you cover your bucket so the crabs don't get away?" 

 
The fisherman responded that he didn't need to cover the bucket.  "The crabs won't get out.  You see, if there was only one crab in the bucket, it would use its claws to grab the edge of the bucket and crawl out.  But with all of these crabs in the same bucket, anytime one crab tries to grab the edge of the bucket and escape, the others pull it back down.  They will all share the same fate."

I don't know if that's what crabs really do - but it's a great story.  The crabs could work together, and they would probably all get away.  They could even work alone, and they would still escape if they would just leave each other alone.  How often do we see examples of this so-called "crab mentality" in the real world?

Pre-medical students are known to be fairly cutthroat.  That was certainly my experience.  Getting accepted to medical school was extremely competitive.  More than half of the individuals that apply for medical school every year don't get in.  In other words, several students are competing directly for a single spot in medical school.  It's definitely a "crab mentality" - student A has a better chance of getting accepted if student B gets lower grades.  Or at least that's the way most pre-medical students understand how the system works.  

It's probably time to re-evaluate the entire medical school application process.  Once a physician graduates from medical school and completes residency training, he or she will learn very quickly that excellent clinical care is performed by teams, not individuals.  In other words, there is no place for the crab mentality in the hospital or clinic setting!  If that's the case, wouldn't we be better off if medical schools prioritized pre-medical applicants who worked well in teams? 

We can achieve so much more together than we can achieve on our own.  It's probably time that medical schools changed their approach.  Work as a team - don't be a crab!

"The strength of the wolf is the pack..."

 The legendary basketball coach, Phil Jackson once said, "The strength of the team is each individual member.  The strength of each member is the team."  That sounds a lot like a line from Rudyard Kipling's poem, "The law for the wolves" from his book, The Second Jungle Book.  Kipling writes, "For the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack."  Maybe Coach Jackson "The Zen Master" was thinking of that passage from Kipling (he is an avid reader who often gave books that he found inspirational to his players) when he talked about the strength of the team.  We can forgive him if he did, after all he won two NBA championships as a player, and coached the Chicago Bulls and Los Angeles Lakers to a combined 11 NBA championships as a head coach.

Both Jackson and Kipling are making an important statement about teamwork.  As the old metaphor goes, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.  A team depends upon all of its members to achieve their collective goals.  Similarly, sometimes just being a member of a great team brings out the best in us - team success leads to individual success.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there's been a lot written in the management literature on teamwork.  I recently came across an article that really peaked my interest.  The article was written by a group of investigators from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management.  It was the title that caught my attention - "Establishing high performance teams: Lessons from health care."  Please forgive me for being honest, but I wouldn't necessarily look to the health care industry for examples of great teamwork.  So, I couldn't help myself but to take a closer look.

The MIT investigators, Michael Anne Kyle, Emma-Louise Aveling, and Sara J. Singer, studied 12 primary care clinics trying to focus on improvement and become high-performing, multidisciplinary teams.  High-performing teams are foundational to organizations as they become high reliability organizations (HROs).  These investigators identified three different approaches to establishing team-based care as part of a journey towards high reliability: pursuing functional change, pursuing cultural change, and pursuing both functional change and cultural change together at the same time.  

Teams that focused on functional change only trained team members in quality improvement skills, such as PDSA cycles (plan-do-study-act), Lean/Six Sigma, and process improvement.  By teaching everyone on the team the new skills of improvement, everyone would have the right set of tools to not only help with an improvement project, but also to lead an improvement project.  Conversely, teams that pursued cultural change focused on improving communication, developing shared mental models, flattening the hierarchy, and being willing to accept failure and learn from it without fear of reprisal.  Finally, some of the clinics pursued a dual approach, focusing on both functional change as well as cultural change.

Which approach was the most successful?  It probably won't surprise you to learn that focusing on both functional change and cultural change together created the highest performing teams.  When you think about it, we really shouldn't be surprised by these results.  Functional change and cultural change, at least as described in the current study, are mutually reinforcing.  You really can't have one without the other.  

A few of the teams provided feedback.  One of the nurses in a high-performing clinic said, "We have become data fanatics."  Conversely, a social worker from one of the low-performing clinics said, "We have these projects and a lot of energy goes into them, and then they get dropped."

Cultural change created the favorable conditions in which everyone on the team felt comfortable speaking up to share their concerns, ask questions in order to learn, and challenge others on the team to do better.  Functional change gave the teams the skills to drive improvement, but the culture change created the atmosphere and team climate where it was possible to do so.  In other words, culture change and functional change together created an atmosphere where the strength of the wolf is the pack, and the strength of the pack is the wolf."

The Bridge Over the River Kwai Syndrome

I recently watched the classic war movie, "The Bridge Over the River Kwai", starring Sir Alec Guinness and William Holden.  It was the highest grossing film during the year it was released (1957) and won 7 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director (David Lean), Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Actor (Sir Alec Guinness).  The movie tells the story of a group of British Prisoners of War (POWs) who build a railroad bridge over the River Kwai in Burma, during World War II.  It is based on the novel of the same name by the French writer, Pierre Boulle, and is loosely based on the real-life construction of the Burma Railway (nicknamed the "Death Railway"because of the large number of POWs and conscripts who died during its construction).  It's a fabulous movie, and I'm not really sure why it took so long for me to sit down and watch it in full (I've seen bits and pieces of the movie over the years).

As it turns out, the movie ends up being all about leadership ("What can we learn about leadership from a movie?").  Guiness stars as Lieutenant Colonel Nicholson, the senior British officer at the POW camp, who provides a very interesting case study in leadership.  At the beginning of the movie, the commandant of the camp, Colonel Saito (played by the actor Sessie Hayakawa, who received an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor for the role) tells Nicholson that all of the POWs, including the officers, must work on the construction of the bridge.  Nicholson refuses, telling Saito that according to the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1929, officers are exempted from manual labor.  Saito, of course, insists that the officers still work.  When the officers still refuse, Saito forces all of them to stand at attention during the intense heat, while the rest of the POWs march off to work on the bridge.

Nicholson and the rest of the officers are placed in solitary confinement (Nicholson's punishment is particular harsh, as he is placed in an iron box) for several days without food or water.  Saito eventually gives up, and Nicholson and the other officers proudly return back to the men.  While all of this is happening, three officers escape, including an American naval officer, Lieutenant Commander Shears, played by William Holden.  Two of the officers are shot, and only Shears successfully escapes.

Meanwhile, as Nicholson slowly regains his strength, he is shocked and disappointed to learn that the British enlisted POWs were sabotaging the construction of the bridge.  Over the protest of a few of his officers, he orders the POWs to be professionals and take pride in their work, for that is what British soldiers and gentlemen should do.  Nicholson drives his men to build and finish the bridge in time, and they even hold a celebration once the job is done.  For Nicholson, it is not only a matter of professionalism, but also a characteristic of the hard work, dedication, ingenuity, and integrity of the British soldier.  When someone challenges him whay he is helping the enemy, he emphatically states that what he is doing is in fact boosting the morale, discipline, and order of his men and upholding the reputation of the British Army.

Again, while all of this is happening, William Holden volunteers for a commando mission to destroy the bridge.  He leads a team back to the POW camp, and later that night, under the cover of darkness, the team places several charges on the bridge.  Unfortunately, overnight the river waters receded to uncover the detonation wires, which are spotted by both Saito and Nicholson.  Nicholson actually tries to prevent the bridge from being destroyed!  Shears and the members of his team are shot, and Nicholson finally realizes what he is doing.  He is shot as he exclaims, "What have I done?"  As he falls, he detonates the bridge just as a train is starting to cross it.  The bridge falls, and the train is destroyed.  

Leadership experts are quick to point out the dichotomy in Nicholson's leadership.  He starts off leading by example, risking his own life to stand up for his principles and for his fellow officers.  His leadership is further on display as he leads the POWs to build the bridge in record time.  However, he seems to lose sight of the fact of the long-term goal of winning the war!  It's a great lesson about goal obsession that has been called the "Bridge Over the River Kwai syndrome".  

As Samuel Bacharach writes in Inc. magazine, "Leadership can be an intoxicating, distracting force that blurs common sense and straight thinking.  The Bridge Over the River Kwai reminds all leaders that they must never forget their bigger mission."  Indeed.

The bicycle shed effect

Today I want to talk about the British naval historian and author, C. Northcote Parkinson.  During his career, Parkinson wrote over 60 books, but his most famous was the best-seller Parkinson's Law, which he wrote in 1957.  The book describes what has come to be called, Parkinson's Law which states simply, "Work expands to fill the time available for its completion."  The book was partially based upon an essay that he wrote for The Economist magazine in 1955 (see link here).    

Perhaps less well known is Parkinson's Law of Triviality, his argument that the people within an organization typically give disproportionate weight to trivial issues.  You know what I am talking about if you've ever sat in a meeting discussing critically important topics such as the kind of cake to order for one of the executive's upcoming retirement party.  

The law is also known as the "bicycle shed effect" or "bikeshedding."  Parkinson would explain his "Law of Triviality" with an apocryphal story of a financial committee meeting with a three-point agenda to discuss:

1. A proposal for a $10 million nuclear power plant

2. A proposal for a $350 bike shed

3. A proposal for a $21 annual coffee budget

The committee spends very little time discussing the nuclear power plant - most of the members really don't understand all of the nuances in what is necessary to safely build a nuclear power plant, so they simply accept the proposal at face value.  

The committee moves to the next item on the agenda - the bike shed.  They all know what a bike shed looks like, and perhaps the majority have a bike shed at their house.  Several members join in a very animated discussion on what material to use for the bike shed, what color they should paint it, and on what design the architects should use to build the shed.  The committee spends a longer amount of time discussing the bike shed compared to the nuclear power plant.

Finally, the committee moves on to the third item on the agenda.  By this time, they are all warmed up and ready to get down to serious business.  Now, everyone on the committee has their own opinion on coffee.  "21 dollars seems like too much," says one committee member.  "21 dollars will never be enough," says another.  Before they know it, the meeting runs slightly past its ending time, and the committee agrees to table the discussion for next week.  They end up spending more time on the coffee budget than the nuclear power plant and bike shed combined!

Bikeshedding occurs because the simple topic is often the one that everyone understands and has an opinion to share.  When something as complicated as a nuclear power plant is discussed, the vast majority of us are way out past our comfort zone and will defer to the experts in the room (which usually are the ones making the presentation).  

The problem is that we probably should take more time discussing whether or not to invest in a $10 million nuclear power plant!  It's the decisions around trivial items such as the coffee budget or the bicycle shed that probably should be left to frontline leaders (think the HRO principle of "deference to expertise").  Alternatively, information on these trivial matters can be shared ahead of the meeting as pre-work and discussed only briefly before a decision vote.  Here, the meeting moderator should limit discussion on these items, so that more important decisions can be given the time that they are due.

It's a great story.  And we all have experienced it.  The lesson here is that we shouldn't.

Dirigibles, the Windy City, and the Goldilocks Principle

It's been about nine months since we moved to our new home in the city of Chicago.  Despite the COVID-19 pandemic and global economic shutdown, we've been able to enjoy at least some of what the downtown area has to offer.  For example, earlier this summer we took one of the city's famous architectural boat tours along the Chicago River and the lakefront.  We learned several interesting facts about the history of the city, but a few immediately come to mind.

The city's nickname ("the Windy City") actually has nothing to do with the fact that it can get really windy at times, especially along the lakefront.  Rather, at least according to popular legend, the New York Sun newspaper editor Charles Dana coined the phrase in an 1890 newspaper article (though the article has never been found) when he was referring to the local politicians who were full of a lot of "hot air."  Well there you go.

One of the buildings that makes up the famous "Windy City" skyline looks quite strange, even by architectural standards.  The building is the InterContinental Hotel on the so-called "Magnificent Mile".  The South Tower of the hotel was built in 1929, and it was the original site of the Medinah Athletic Club.  The Medinah Athletic Club was commissioned by the Shriners Organization.  The building contains several friezes depicting scenes from ancient Assyria, Sumeria, Egypt, and Greece, as well as other architectural elements with similar influences, including a gold-painted dome at the top.  The club was home to over 400 guest rooms, an elegant Grand Ballroom, a shooting range, an indoor miniature golf course complete with water hazards and a wandering brook, an archery range, a gymnasium, an indoor running track, and an Olympic sized swimming pool known as the Johnny Weismuller Pool, because the Olympic swimming champion Johhny Weismuller (who later played Tarzan) trained there.  

The Medinah Athletic Club filed for bankruptcy in 1934, and over the course of the next 10 years at a cost of $1 million, it was converted into a hotel.  The gold-painted dome and a small tower immediately adjacent to it are quite unusual in appearance.  I first learned on the architectural boat tour that the tower was originally designed to serve as a mooring site for dirigible airships.  I wasn't quite sure if I believed that or not, but when I looked into it further, I found out that it was true (for a great story, see the link here)!  Perhaps that's one of the reasons why the Medinah Athletic Club had to file for bankruptcy.  They built a facility that would never be used.  As a matter of fact, there has never been a dirigible dock on a skyscraper in the United States.  The architects completely misjudged where the commerical aviation industry was going.

Okay, I know what you are thinking ("Where's he going with all of this?").  There are so many examples of organizations throughout history that have made similar errors in predicting where a particular industry was going.  Whether entering an emerging market or creating a new one altogether, an organization's timing has to be almost perfect.  There is such a thing as a "first mover advantage" where businesses that are the first to bring a new product or innovation to market have a distinct advantage over their competitors.  For example, "first movers" can:

1. Establish their product or service as the industry gold standard

2. Reach customers before their competitors, which can establish brand recognition and brand loyalty

3. Control resources (raw materials, talent, etc)

However, it's not quite that straightforward.  There can be disadvantages to being among the first to enter a market with a new product or service too:

1. The first mover frequently has to invest heavily to try to persuade customers to try their new product or service for the first time.  Later entrants benefit by the fact that customers have already informed about and tried a new product or service.

2. The first mover will inevitably make mistakes - later entrants can learn from these mistakes. 

3. Later entrants can "reverse engineer" new products or make them better or cheaper.

Case in point - the Medinah Athletic Club tried to capitalize on the commercial aviation industry by being one of the first buildings in downtown Chicago to have a mooring station for the dirigible airships that were popular at the time.  However, in their case, they entered too early.  The concept never took off, and they were left with a novelty of history.

Perhaps the so-called Goldilocks Principle applies here.  Just as in the "Three Bears" fairy tale, a "not too early, not too late" approach may be the safest approach.  Rather, timing should be "just right."  Some organizations seem to always get it right.  Most, like the Medinah Athletic Club, do not.  An organization's strategy matters to a great extent here, which is why there are so many business books on strategy out there today.   

I'm really looking forward to learning more about the histroy of this great city.  There's a lot more to learn, and there are a lot more lessons on leadership to be found.

Masks are kind of like marshmallows...

 And once again, the famous Stanford marshmallow study (see also the great New Yorker cartoon here) explains everything!  The Stanford neurobiologist, Robert Sapolsky  reported wrote an opinion piece this past week for CNN's website entitled, "Wearing a mask is like turning down a marshmallow", in which he referred to the famous study on delayed gratification from the the early 1970's.  The study was conducted by the investigators Walter Mischel, Ebbe Ebbesen, and Antonette Zeiss and involved (over time) about 600 preschool-aged children.  Basically the children were placed in a room and told to sit in a chair at a table.  The investigators placed a plate on the table with a special treat - a marshmallow (hence, the name of the experiment), Oreo cookie, or pretzel.  Each child was told that he or she could eat the treat now or wait 15 minutes and get a second treat as well.  A surprisingly small number of children chose to eat the marshmallows immediately, thereby foregoing a chance at a second treat.  Approximately one-third of those children were able to resist the temptation to eat the marshmallow and wait the required time to earn a second treat.  

The results of the follow-up studies showed some really interesting findings that are relevant to the whole mask argument today.  Those children who were able to wait the full 15 minutes for the second treat had higher SAT scores, higher educational attainment, lower body-mass index (BMI) as adults, lower rates of substance abuse and addiction, and greater overall success.  Delayed gratification appears to be an important cognitive skill.

Here is Sapolsky's point.  We are being asked to wear our masks, wash our hands, and socially distance ourselves from each other.  The Thanksgiving holiday is coming up this Thursday (at least in the United States), and the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control is asking us to forego our normal holiday travel and gatherings.  All of this is designed to buy time.  Wearing masks and socially distancing doesn't eliminate the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.  Rather, wearing masks and socially distancing keeps us from getting sick until the day that a vaccine is available.  In other words, wear the mask now and the "reward" will come later - another case of delayed gratification.

I am tempted to make a statement about how some of our leaders in government have made wearing a mask a political issue, but I won't.  I just wonder how these same leaders would have done in the marshmallow experiment as children.  Hmm.  I just wonder.  Check out the New Yorker cartoon again.

The tale of the phantom reference

 I came across a really interesting article on the Internet last week ("The mystery of the phantom reference" by Anne-Wil Harzing).  The article is about a scientific reference to an article that appears on the publisher, Elsevier's website under the author guidelines:

Van der Geer, J., Hanraads, J.A.J., Lupton, R.A., 2000.  The art of writing a scientific article.  J Sci Commun. 163 (2) 51-59.

Just to check out the article, I looked up the reference on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed website.  Nothing.  Occasionally, I've found that references cited in textbook chapters or research articles aren't always correct.  So, I did what I always do in these cases, I looked up the first author.  Nothing.  There are six articles under the author "Van der Geer J" - not one of them refers to anything remotely close to an article on "scientific writing." 

The reason is fairly simple.  The article does not exist.  The kind folks at Elsevier were merely providing an example of how they wanted prospective authors submitting manuscripts to their journals to format their bibliographies.  

Here's the interesting part.  There are apparently almost 400 articles that cite this article in the Web of Science catalog!  Even more citing articles are found in Google Scholar!  The problem here seems clear.  There are authors who are citing this article without necessarily looking at what it says - if they had done so, they would have been unable to find the article itself.  The lesson here - always check your references!

If I were to be completely honest, I haven't alway read through all of the articles I've cited in a manuscript or textbook chapter, but I have at least looked at the abstract.  I have always tried to be careful to be inclusive when citing others' works, while at the same time trying to avoid creating a reference list that is too long.  The physical act of going through each abstract has certainly helped in this regard.

I would also wonder what checks there are for the editorial staffs of journals.  As Anne-Wil Harzing found out upon further investigation, a number of the articles that cited the "phantom reference" were either conference proceedings or articles in low-quality journals.  That certainly begs the question - do we have too many journals now?  Perhaps this would also be a good time to revisit the academic credo of "publish or perish"?  Surely there are better ways of looking at academic productivity in the new Information Age?  

The tale of the phantom reference is an interesting anecdote, a cautious reminder to "always check your references", and perhaps an admonition for academia to revisit the "publish or perish" mindset.  

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

The Gettysburg Address.  If you went to middle school in the United States, there's a really good chance that you had to recite President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in either your civics or social studies class.  It isn't that long, but I remember working hard to memorize it the night before I had to recite it to my teacher (thankfully, he didn't make us recite it in front of the class).  If you want to hear a really great version of someone reciting the Gettysburg Address, check out the actor Jeff Daniel's version here.

The Battle of Gettysburg was a major turning point in the American Civil War.  It was also the deadliest battle in that war.  Most historians estimate that both sides combined suffered between 46,000 to 51,000 casualties during the three days of the battle, July 1-3, 1863 (nearly one-third of all of the soldiers fighting those three days).  The death and destruction that accompanied the battle were still evident on November 19, 1863, when President Lincoln delivered his famous address to commemorate the battle and dedicate the new Soldier's National Cemetery there.  

Lincoln wasn't even the principal speaker that day.  Edward Everett, the politician, educator, and diplomat from Massachusetts was widely known to be one of the finest orators in America at the time, and it was his speech that was to be the actual "Gettysburg Address" on that day.  Everett's address was over 13,000 words and began with:

Standing beneath this serene sky, overlooking these broad fields now reposing from the labors of the waning year, the mighty Alleghenies dimly towering before us, the graves of our brethren beneath our feet, it is with hesitation that I raise my poor voice to break the eloquent silence of God and Nature. But the duty to which you have called me must be performed;—grant me, I pray you, your indulgence and your sympathy.

The speech ended almost two hours later with the following:

But they, I am sure, will join us in saying, as we bid farewell to the dust of these martyr-heroes, that wheresoever throughout the civilized world the accounts of this great warfare are read, and down to the latest period of recorded time, in the glorious annals of our common country, there will be no brighter page than that which relates the Battles of Gettysburg.

President Lincoln then stepped up to deliver his address.  He was a little weak, as he had developed a mild case of smallpox the week before his speech.  He spoke for just a few minutes, summarizing the entire war in just ten sentences.  Lincoln's Gettysburg Address has gone down in history as perhaps one of the greatest speeches ever made.  

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. 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 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.

When he finished, he returned to his seat.  Everett reportedly told him, "I should be glad if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes."

Today, we celebrate Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  I hope that the teachers still make their students memorize it.  But more importantly, we would do well to live by it.

"There's no team without trust"

Paul Santagata, Head of Industry at Google, said, "There's no team without trust."  Google conducted a study in which they interviewed over 200 Googlers (as Google employees are commonly known) and examined more than 250 attributes of nearly 200 different Google teams over a 2 year study period.  They wanted to find out what makes a Google team effective?  What they found may surprise you.

As it turns out, "who is on a team" matters a whole lot less than you think.  What's really important is how the different team members interact.  One of the most important variables was something called psychological safety.  Timothy Clark (not at Google) defines four stages of psychological safety, in which humans feel (1) included, (2) safe to learn, (3) safe to contribute, and (4) safe to challenge the status quo.  

Let's break those four stages down.  First, everyone wants to have a sense of belonging or to be part of a group.  As Clark states, "The need to be accepted often precedes the need to be heard."  We want to be included.  Recall one of my old posts about the "Jeep Wave" ("Why didn't you tell me about the Jeep Wave?").  I felt really great the first time a fellow Jeep Wrangler driver passed me and gave me a wave - it's great to share a group identity with others.  Similarly, when we bring others into our group, we in turn give them a sense of identity and belonging.  That builds respect and trust.  And psychological safety depends upon mutual respect and trust.

Second, we are all lifelong learners.  Learning new knowledge and skills sometimes means that we will fail.  We can't have learning without failing at least once or twice.  When we learn that failing is okay, especially when we are part of a group, we become more comfortable with taking risks.  We stretch our limits a little, and we push others in the group to do as well.  Taking risks means that we will fail at times, and when we realize that failing is perfectly acceptable, we further build a psychologically safe environment.

Third, we all want to contribute.  We need to contribute.  Sharing our knowledge with the other members in our group, and in turn recognizing the knowledge and skills of those members is the essence of teamwork.  Again, if we aren't willing to take some risks - in other words, if we are stuck in the previous stage of psychological safety - we won't be comfortable stepping up to contribute to the group.  Google conducted another study, which they called Project Oxygen in which they found that the most effective team leaders are the ones who empower the team and don't try to micromanage.  We don't like to be micromanaged, because we want to contribute.  

The last stage of psychological safety occurs when we are willing to challenge the status quo.  When we reach this particular stage, we feel empowered to speak up, to dissent, and to respectfully disagree.  Speaking up or speaking out takes a great deal of courage, and if we don't feel like we are in a psychologically safe environment, we just won't do so.  If members of the group don't feel comfortable challenging the status quo or disagreeing with the leader, we end up with groupthink. 

Psychological safety is incredibly important, and it may be one of the most important characteristics found in so-called high reliability organizations.  Given all of what we know about high-performing teams, it may be one of the most important determinants of team chemistry and team culture.  Google was absolutely right - "who is on a team matters less than how the team members interact, structure their work, and view their contributions."  

Happy Veteran's Day 2020

 It's been an incredible year - and I don't necessarily use the word "incredible" in a good way!  I don’t want to get political, but I think all of you would agree that we are at a unique time in our nation’s history.  I don’t think that there has ever been a time in my lifetime that we’ve been so fractured as a society.  COVID-19 has both highlighted that fact and magnified it.  

I remain optimistic that we will get through this though.  I heard Chicago's Mayor give a speech today, and she said that veterans have always placed country over self.  As I thought about it more, I realized she is exactly right.  Unfortunately, with all that is going on, it seems like that willingness to place country over self is a rare thing in today’s world.

I can't help but think of the famous song "This Land is Your Land" by the late folk singer, Woody Guthrie.  He apparently wrote the song in response to Irving Berlin's song, "God Bless America."  Bruce Springsteen called it one of the greatest songs ever written.  

This land is your land, this land is my land

From California to the New York Island

From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters

This land was made for you and me.

As I was walking that ribbon of highway

I saw above me that endless skyway

I saw below me that golden valley

This land was made for you and me.

I roamed and I rambled and I followed my footsteps

To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts

While all around me a voice was sounding

This land was made for you and me.

When the sun came shining, and I was strolling

And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling

A voice was chanting, As the fog was lifting,

This land was made for you and me.

This land is your land, this land is my land

From California to the New York Island

From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters

This land was made for you and me.

It's a beautiful song that says that the land belongs to all of us.  Not just Republicans, not just Democrats.  Our country should be a country for everyone.  We will always have our differences, but we should never let those differences forget that we are stronger, together.  We will go farther, together.  We will be greater, together.

Country over self.  I am reassured that there are individuals still in this world who are willing to do so.  That, more than anything, gives me great hope for the future.  It only took Veteran’s Day to remind me.

Another marshmallow challenge

Here is your list of supplies:

20 sticks of spaghetti (uncooked)

1 yard of string

1 roll of tape

1 marshmallow

Here is your task.  Use the supplies above to build a free-standing structure that will support the weight of the marshmallow on top.  You have 18 minutes to finish.  Any questions?  Ready?  Go.

How did you do?  If you want some background information, check out the TED talk by Tom Wujec.  Also check out the Harvard Business Review article by Scott Anthony.  Don't feel too bad if your structure wasn't very tall or even if it failed to hold up the weight of the marshmallow.  You are in good company - most business school students do quite poorly.  As a matter of fact, most business school students do worse than students in kindergarten!

Most business school students spend the first few minutes trying to figure out who is going to be in charge - who's going to lead the rest of the team.  After the students identify the leader, the group typically will spend the next few minutes on planning.  Everyone contributes their opinion on how best to accomplish the task.  Finally, after a little over 10 minutes, the group starts to build.  Someone waits until about a minute is left on the clock to place the marshmallow on the top of the structure.  On average, the business students build a structure that is about 10 inches tall.  Most of the time, the structure collapses once the marshmallow is placed on top.

What happens in the kindergarten class?  The kindergarten students don't waste any time trying to figure out who is the leader, nor do they plan ahead.  They just do it.  If they fail, they try something else.  Not only is the structure usually taller - several inches taller in fact (on average, about 25 inches) - but the marshmallow usually stays on top of the structure!

Okay - it would be really poetic if I told you something like, "We are all born with creativity, but as we go through school and/or start to work, our creativity gets drummed out of us."  That's probably not what happens.  As it turns out, architects and engineers do better than the kindergarten students (that makes sense).  CEO's tend to do better than the kindergarten students too.  Perhaps individuals who are destined to become CEO's are naturally creative. 

Here is the really cool point.  CEO's and their executive administrators usually do the best of all.  They even perform better than the architects and engineers.  These results are consistent with nearly every other similar research study.  Diverse teams outperform everyone else!  Perhaps that's why the kindergarten students perform well too.

Here's a short video of students participating in the marshmallow challenge.  It's amazing to me that we are reminded, over and over again, that everything we learned in kindergarten is still relevant when we are old and gray!

  

"Make America Again"

 Nope - not what you think.  Not even close.  

A good friend of mine tagged the following poem by the American poet Langston Hughes.  It's a good one.  And I think it fairly well describes what I am feeling right now.  I am encouraged, and I am hopeful.  I am ready to roll my sleeves up and get to work, because we have a lot of work to do to heal as a nation.  Some of our wounds run very deep.  Healing will take time.  Langston Hughes says all of that much better than I ever could.  Read and enjoy.  It's called "Let America be America Again":

Let America be America again.

Let it be the dream it used to be.

Let it be the pioneer on the plain

Seeking a home where he himself is free.

 

(America never was America to me.)

 

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed—

Let it be that great strong land of love

Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme

That any man be crushed by one above.

 

(It never was America to me.)

 

O, let my land be a land where Liberty

Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,

But opportunity is real, and life is free,

Equality is in the air we breathe.

 

(There's never been equality for me,

Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")

 

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?

And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

 

I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,

I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.

I am the red man driven from the land,

I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek—

And finding only the same old stupid plan

Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

 

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,

Tangled in that ancient endless chain

Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!

Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!

Of work the men! Of take the pay!

Of owning everything for one's own greed!

 

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.

I am the worker sold to the machine.

I am the Negro, servant to you all.

I am the people, humble, hungry, mean—

Hungry yet today despite the dream.

Beaten yet today—O, Pioneers!

I am the man who never got ahead,

The poorest worker bartered through the years.

 

Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream

In the Old World while still a serf of kings,

Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,

That even yet its mighty daring sings

In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned

That's made America the land it has become.

O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas

In search of what I meant to be my home—

For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,

And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,

And torn from Black Africa's strand I came

To build a "homeland of the free."

 

The free?

 

Who said the free?  Not me?

Surely not me?  The millions on relief today?

The millions shot down when we strike?

The millions who have nothing for our pay?

For all the dreams we've dreamed

And all the songs we've sung

And all the hopes we've held

And all the flags we've hung,

The millions who have nothing for our pay—

Except the dream that's almost dead today.

 

O, let America be America again—

The land that never has been yet—

And yet must be—the land where every man is free.

The land that's mine—the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME—

Who made America,

Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,

Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,

Must bring back our mighty dream again.

 

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose—

The steel of freedom does not stain.

From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,

We must take back our land again,

America!

 

O, yes,

I say it plain,

America never was America to me,

And yet I swear this oath—

America will be!

 

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,

The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,

We, the people, must redeem

The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.

The mountains and the endless plain—

All, all the stretch of these great green states—

And make America again!

Are trick-or-treaters honest?

 I wish I had found this article over the weekend!  My wife and I were trying to decide whether we would offer Halloween candy to the neighborhood trick-or-treaters this year.  She suggested that we put out a bowl of candy with a sign that said, "Be nice - take just one!" and not make the trick-or-treaters come to the door.  I thought that would be okay, but my counter went something like, "Do you really think they will take just one?"

I assumed that we would find an empty bowl after the first group of trick-or-treaters.  I should have read the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal!  The columnist and psychological guru, Dan Ariely was asked this very question and referenced a study that was performed in the 1970's.  

The study was published by Edward Diener and colleagues in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 1976.  It's kind of a sneaky study performed in a real-world environment.  Basically, "concealed raters" (think secret shoppers) monitored over 1,300 trick-or-treating children on Halloween.  The study was conducted in only 27 homes - trick-or-treaters came to the home to find a bowl of candy bars and a bowl of pennies and nickels (devious!).  The women answering the door would tell the children to take ONE candy bar (never mentioning the bowl of money) and would then leave the kids alone.  There were a few experimental conditions to manipulate the situation even further.  Some of the children were asked who they were, where they lived, etc (non-anonymous condition), whereas others remained anonymous (anonymous condition).  Some of the children came to the bowls alone, while others came in groups.  

The study investigators reported that 416 out of the 1,300 children took either more candy (65%), money (14%), or both (20%)!  As anticipated, the percentage of children committing a transgression (stealing candy, money, or both) was significantly lower when a parent was present (But still not zero!  Come on parents!).  Children in groups or who remained anonymous were also less likely to commit a transgression.  So, as it turns out, when trick-or-treaters are given the opportunity to take extra candy, they will do so!

I know - I am shocked as you are right now.  But here's the surprise at the end of the blog post.  The trick-or-treaters coming to the Wheeler household actually didn't take extra candy!  Now, granted, we only had a few trick-or-treaters this year, but still.  Right?  Maybe there's hope for the future!!

(Mis)fortune

The ancient Stoic philosopher Seneca tells us, "I judge you unfortunate because you have never lived through misfortune.  You have passed through life without an opponent - no one can ever know what you are capable of, not even you."  

I've been thinking a lot about this quote today.  I tend to be a fairly optimistic person, so I will start with the light-hearted anecdote first!  Exactly four years ago yesterday evening (November 2nd), I was sitting in a hotel room in Washington, D.C. (due to an ill-timed business trip) watching Game 7 of the 2016 World Series.  My favorite team, the Chicago Cubs, were playing in the World Series for the first time since 1945 - and as any baseball fan or Chicago native knows, they hadn't won the World Series in over 100 years (since 1908).  They were playing the Cleveland Indians, another team with a famous amount of bad luck.  

The game started off exactly the way I wanted it to do - the Cubs were playing well and their starting pitcher, Kyle Hendricks was dealing!  By the bottom of the 5th inning, the Cubs were winning 5-1 and Hendricks was down to the last out of the inning.  Hendricks walked the next batter, and Joe Maddon, the Cubs manager, made a decision (second-guessed by many still to this day) to bring in pitcher Jon Lester in relief.  Lester came in a bit shaky, and after a throwing error by catcher David Ross and a wild pitch by Lester, the Cubs lead was down to 5-3.

David Ross hit a home run in the sixth inning (in what would turn out to be the final at bat of his career) to give the Cubs a 6-3 lead.  Lester pitched brilliantly through the first two outs of the eighth inning, and Maddon made the decision to bring in his closer, Aroldis Chapman, after Lester gave up a hit.  Chapman had pitched for more innings than he usually does in the previous game, and his fatigue showed.  He gave up a double to make the score 6-4, and then a two-run home run to tie the game up.  Cubs fans everywhere (this one included) couldn't believe it - would the Cubs blow it again?

Chapman came back to pitch in the ninth inning with the score still tied 6-6.  He pitched great, and the game went into extra innings!  And then it happened.  The heavens opened up, and the rain came down (it wasn't actually as dramatic as that - it had been raining for a couple of innings by that point).  A 17 minute rain delay.  The Cubs came back to play and scored two runs in the top of the 10th inning to take the lead, 8-6. 

Carl Edwards, Jr pitched in relief in the bottom of the 10th and retired the first two runners.  The Indians scored a run to close it to 8-7.  Maddon changed pitchers again, this time bringing in Mike Montgomery.  Cubs third baseman, Kris Bryant made a great play to throw out the runner on first, and the world changed for the better.  "Cubs Win!  Cubs Win!  Cubs Win!"  I watched it all over again last night!  What a great memory.

There was a lot that went wrong for the Cubs then, but they persevered and came through on top.  I guess that's what Seneca meant.  If you have never been faced with adversity, how can you truly know what you are capable of accomplishing?  If you have never failed, how can you learn how to succeed?

Seneca would argue that we are truly fortunate when we experience misfortune.  Therein lies one of the key paradoxes of Stoic philosophy.  Misfortune is our fortune.  

We are living through some difficult times.  We are still dealing with a worldwide pandemic, and today is perhaps the most important presidential election in our lifetimes.  I do think that, in the end, we will come out okay.  We will be fortunate to have experienced the misfortunes of 2020.  And we will truly know what we are capable of accomplishing.  

LeeeeeeeeRoy Jenkins!

I've posted in the past about planning and preparation (for example, see "...plans are useless but planning is indispensable" or "Fools go aimlessly hither and thither...").  Over the years, a number of famous individuals have talked about the importance of planning and preparation too:

"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."  J.R.R. Tolkien 

"By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail."  Benjamin Franklin

"Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe."  Abraham Lincoln

"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up somewhere else."  Yogi Berra

However, one of the most famous exampls of a failed plan comes from a video of a group of friends who were playing (I think) The World of Warcraft, a popular online fantasy role-playing computer game.  The video was first posted on the fan site Warcraft Movies on May 11, 2005 and was later posted on YouTube the following November.  The video has been copied and re-posted countless times (the most recent version with my link has over 16 million hits).

The video features a group of friends who meticulously plan a detailed battle for their next encounter.  The character, Leeroy is away from his computer at the beginning of the video, and the plan is intended to help Leeroy obtain a piece of armor which everyone else seems to possess (so, the friends seem a little miffed with Leeroy anyway).  At one point, the leader asks for a calculation on their chance of survival.  However the survival probability is calculated, the answer is "32.33 repeating of course percent chance of survival."  Once Leeroy returns, he rushes headlong into the battle, disrupting the whole plan.  His friends follow him into the battle, and in the end, everyone dies!

It's a really funny video that illustrates what former President Dwight Eisenhower once said about combat, "Plans are useless but planning is indispensable."  In other words, it's good to have a plan, but in the heat of the moment, some times those plans need to be changed.  

I hate to disappoint you too much, but the video was apparently staged.  Oh well - it's still quite amusing and it still makes a great point.

"Remember, Orville Wright flew an airplane without a pilot's license."

 Retired U.S. Marine Corps General and former Secretary of Defense, James Mattis reportedly onced told his troops, "Remember, Orville Wright flew an airplane without a pilot's license."  I am not aware of the context in which he said this, so I can't say exactly what he meant.  However, if you interpret General Mattis to mean that breaking rules and regulations is okay or that doing something that you aren't necessarily trained to do is perfectly acceptable, you would be wrong.  Just read his superb book, Call Sign Chaos or spend 5 minutes with any Marine and you will quickly learn that this wasn't his meaning at all.  What I believe General Mattis meant is that it is okay to stretch your boundaries and capabilities.  In other words, innovation and progress ultimately necessitate taking a few risks.  And we shouldn't be afraid to fail when we do take those risks.

The motivational speaker and author, Denis Waitley said it perhaps best when he said, "Life is inherently risky.  There is only one big risk you should avoid at all costs, and that is the risk of doing nothing."  The artist Pablo Picasso said, "I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it."  Finally, former First Lady and politician, Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "Do one thing every day that scares you."

All of these quotes are great - and they all have one thing in common.  We have to be able to dare to learn.  And we can only innovate and discover if we do learn.  It's really a simple point to make, even if it is difficult to practice in real life.  

There's a great story from Robert Iger's latest book, The Ride of a Lifetime: Lessons Learned from 15 years as CEO of the Walt Disney Company (it is awesome, by the way) about a meeting that Iger had with Pixar CEO Steve Jobs.  The famous Disney Animation Studio was no longer making blockbuster hit animated movies - in many ways, they had stopped taking risks and were no longer seen as an innovative studio.  In contrast, Pixar Studios seemed to have the magic touch, releasing hit after hit after hit.  Disney wanted to buy Pixar, and Iger was meeting with Jobs in order to negotiate the purchase.  Jobs was intrigued by the idea, but he wasn't exactly enamored with it either.

Iger met with Jobs at Pixar's corporate headquarters.  They met in the boardroom, and Jobs had started the meeting off by listing the pros and cons of Disney purchasing Pixar (how many times have you made a similar list when making an important decision?).  Iger writes, "Two hours later, the pros were meager and the cons were abundant, even if a few of them, in my estimation, were quite petty."

Iger told Jobs, "Well, it was a nice idea.  But I don't see how we do this."

Jobs replied, "A few solid pros are more powerful than dozens of cons."  In other words, don't be afraid to take a risk on something if there are strong reasons to do so - even if, as in this case, the cons appear on the surface to outnumber the pros!

We should not be afraid to sail in uncharted waters.  As the American author, John A. Shedd said, "A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."  That's not what we are for either - leave the harbor!  Don't be afraid to take risks.  Don't be afraid of failing - don't be afraid of learning.