Wednesday, May 31, 2023

"Elementary, my dear Watson"

I recently watched the movie "Enola Holmes 2" with one of our daughters (actually, she fell asleep and missed the ending).  The movie brought back a lot of childhood memories of stories I heard about the world's greatest detective, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character Sherlock Holmes.  Except here's the thing, Holmes first appeared in print in the 1887 novel A Study in Scarlet, and since that time the character has been the subject of numerous television shows, movies, cartoons, and numerous other adaptations and derived works outside the traditional Holmes canon (Doyle wrote 4 full-length novels and 56 short stories featuring the great detective).  It's no wonder that what we think we know or heard about Holmes and what actually appeared in the canon can be completely different.  For example, Holmes technically never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" in any of the stories or novels by Doyle (the quote came from one of the movies).    Is this another great example of the so-called "Mandela Effect" (see my post, "I once knew a gold robot with a silver leg").  Maybe or maybe not.

Here's another interesting point.  The Wikipedia article on Sherlock Holmes states that "Holmes was known his proficiency with observation, deduction, forensic science and logical reasoning that borders on the fantastic, which he employs when investigating cases for a wide variety of clients, including Scotland Yard."  But technically, is Holmes really using his powers of deduction here?  I always forget the difference between "induction" and "deduction", but if I am correct, Holmes was brilliant at induction, not deduction.

Deduction moves from an idea (or theory) to observation to conclusion, while induction moves in the opposite direction from observation to idea.  Deduction involves the scientific method in which we use our powers of observation to confirm or refute a hypothesis or theory.  We move from a general framework to the specific observations of what is happening in the real world.  

One common form of deduction is known as a syllogism.  Here is an example.  "A spider has eight legs."  "A black widow is a spider."  Therefore, it follows that "a black widow has eight legs."  We are using the two true statements to deduce, if you will, that a black widow has eight legs.  

Conversely, with induction, we are moving from the specific to the more general.  We make several observations, notice a pattern (hopefully), and then draw our conclusions, often forming a theory about the world around us.  As an example, if we notice that there are fireflies in our backyard every summer, we may conclude that we will see more fireflies in our backyard this summer.  

So back to our brilliant detective.  Let's look at a few of his famous quotes (which actually appear in the canon).  In the novel A Study in Scarlet, Holmes said, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.  Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."  Here he is talking about induction ("theories to suit facts") rather than deduction ("twist facts to suit theories"), right?  Similarly, in The Hound of the Baskervilles  Holmes argues that "the world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes.”  Again, observations lead to theories and not the reverse.  Sherlock Holmes, in other words, used his brilliant powers of induction!

Friday, May 26, 2023

Google Rules

Several years ago, statisticians working at Google's People Innovation Lab started a project they called "Project Oxygen" with the goal of proving once and for all that the leadership and management are critical to the success of high-performing teams (see one of my old posts "There's no team without trust" for more on "Project Aristotle" a similar study Google performed to determine the characteristics that set apart high-performing teams).  They collected data from employee engagement surveys, performance appraisals, interviews, and other sources of employee feedback, including nominations for top-manager awards.  Google actually conducts performance reviews of all employees on a quarterly basis rather than annually.  They coded this huge treasure trove of data and then analyzed it using a "Big Data" approach in a way that only a company like Google can do!

The "Project Oxygen" team found that good leadership and management really does matter.  They further identified what might be called the "Eight Habits of Highly Effective Google Managers" (I like to call them the "Google Rules"), listed below in their order of importance:

1. Be a good coach
2. Empower your team and don't micromanage
3. Express interest in team members' success and personal well-being
4. Be productive and results-oriented
5. Be a good communicator and listen to your team
6. Help your team members with career development
7. Have a clear vision and strategy for the team
8. Have key technical skills so you can help advise your team

Laszlo Bock, Google's Senior Vice President for "People Operations" and author of the book Work Rules! admitted, "In the Google context, we’d always believed that to be a manager, particularly on the engineering side, you need to be as deep or deeper a technical expert than the people who work for you.  It turns out that that’s absolutely the least important thing. It’s important, but pales in comparison. Much more important is just making that connection and being accessible."

The "Project Oxygen" team also identified three management pitfalls, or behaviors that leaders and managers should avoid at all costs:

1. Have trouble making a transition to the team
2. Lack a consistent approach to performance management and career development
3. Spend too little time managing and communicating

Once Google had their list, they started using it in their leadership education and training programs.  Even though most of the items on the list seem intuitive and would likely be found in any management 101 textbook, simply focusing on the behaviors on the list improved even their lowest performing managers by 75 percent!  And just as important, Laszlo Bock will be the first to admit that these 8 simple rules aren't chiseled in stone.  Google's "People Operations" team will continue to monitor and test these rules and continue to reinforce them as long as they are shown to be effective.

Bock admits that these rules are fairly simple, and perhaps that is why they are so effective.  However, just as with any skill, good leadership requires hard work and practice.  Bock would also say that "if I'm a manager and I want to get better, and I want more out of my people and I want them to be happier, two of the most important things I can do is just make sure I have some time for them and be consistent." Simple, but elegant.

Wednesday, May 24, 2023

Player, Manager, Coach

Last time ("Why Ted Lasso is the perfect HRO leader") I briefly introduced the concept of players and coaches as it pertains to leadership.  In the sports world, there are coaches and players that serve distinct roles on the team.  The coaches are the individuals that stand on the sidelines in close proximity to the players and give instructions to the players on what to do in order to accomplish the goal.  They help motivate and train the players to perform at their best, and they usually develop the team's strategy and tactics so that they will be successful on the field (or the court).  The players are the individuals who are on the field (or the court) executing the plays, which they must do together as a team.  

Occasionally, we hear of individuals who formally serve both roles.  For example, Tris Speaker was the manager of the Cleveland Indians in the 1920's, but he also played centerfield for the team.  Pete Rose was another player-manager for the Cincinnati Reds in the 1980's and broke Ty Cobb's all-time hits record as a player-manager on September 11, 1985 with his 4,192nd hit.  Incidentally, Rose was the last person to serve as both a player and manager in major league baseball.  These days, we think of the player-coach role more informally - for example, people say that whenever Peyton Manning was playing quarterback that it was like having a coach on the field.  Sports writers say the same thing about NBA player LeBron James today.  But how does this work in organizations outside of sports?

As Mark Murphy, writing for Forbes said, "If you're an individual contributor who also manages the work of other employees, you're what is called a Player-Coach."  Murphy cites three famous examples of the Player-Coach in Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, and Thomas Edison.  All three of these legendary figures created and led organizations that have stood the test of time (Apple and Pixar, The Ford Motor Company, and General Electric, respectively) while remaining very much "hands on" tinkerers in the day-to-day operations.  For example, Jobs played a major role in the design of a number of highly innovative products while CEO at Apple, including the iPad, the iPod, the iPhone, and Apple Music.

We generally think of CEOs as playing more of a Coach role than a Player-Coach role, though Raja Jamalamadaka argues in "The 3 leadership pillars: Captain, Player, and Coach" that "A leader is one who effectively plays the role of a captain, player, and coach - and knows when and how to effortlessly shift roles."  I would emphasize the second half of his sentence - the ideal leader "knows when and how to effortlessly shift roles."  In other words, the best leaders know when and how best to play each role.  As Jamalamadaka admits, "Even the best leaders can't successfully lead every single initiative that shows up in their lives."

I am reminded here of one of my favorite scenes in the HBO series, "Band of Brothers", when Major Dick Winters once to step in take control for one of his under-performing direct reports, company commander "Foxhole Norman".  Major Winters' own boss tells him immediately to stop, at which point Winters relieves Norman of command and delegates responsibility to Lt Speirs.  This particular example is probably an extreme one, but rather than taking over as "Player-Coach", Winters stays focused on "Coach" and tells Speirs to lead the attack (with very few instructions, I might add).

I would offer an additional caveat.  As I've often mentioned in a number of posts, one of the five defining characteristics of High Reliability Organizations is what is called "Deference to Expertise".  The most important role that leaders can play is to create the vision and help their teams understand what needs (i.e. the strategy) to be done in order to achieve that vision.  Leaders within High Reliability Organizations provide the framework and guardrails in which their teams operate.  These leaders push decision making, especially in times of crisis, as much as possible to the frontline leaders and managers who almost always have the most up-to-date and most accurate information, as well as the expertise needed to make the right decisions.  However, there is a difference between "Deference to Expertise" and being completely "hands-off" as a leader (taken to the extreme, this is often called "Laissez-Faire Leadership").  In other words, if you were to place being "too hands on" as a leader (i.e. a Micromanager) on one extreme and being "too hands off" ("Laissez-Faire Leadership") on the other extreme, "Deference to Expertise" lies somewhere between the two.

The Forbes Coaches Council provided what I thought were some useful tips or recommendations on how to strike the right balance between being "too hands off" versus being "too hands on" (and micromanaging) (see the article "The Danger of Blind Trust Vs. Micromanagement in a CEO"):

1. Create expectations and accountability

Leaders should set clear expectations, roles, and responsibilities at the very outset.  They may want to be more involved when someone on their team is taking on a new role, in order to build up mutual trust and confidence.  In other words, early on the leader may be playing more of a "Player-Coach" role.  Once mutual trust and confidence has been established though, it's probably time to step back and watch the team thrive.  Here, the leader should shift to the "Coach" role.  Leaders should also hold their front-line leaders and teams accountable for their performance, again through a "Coach" role as opposed to a "Player-Coach" role.  

2. Trust and validate

"Trust but verify", a phrase once used by President Ronald Reagan to describe how he was handling nuclear arms negotiations with the Soviet Union, is probably a bit too extreme and in my opinion isn't really consistent with the concept of "Deference to Expertise".  Leaders who trust their direct reports can always "validate" if they have concerns about performance.

3. Be present as a leader

There's no better way for a leader to establish and build trust and confidence in his or her team than to simply be present.  Just showing up to see how the team is performing can go a long way.  I remember a time several years ago when I was leading our hospital's Incident Command during an electrical fire in one of our buildings.  The fire department had to shut off power to the entire hospital in order to contain the fire.  As our team was working to keep our patients, families, and staff safe, I remember our hospital CEO showing up and checking in with me.  I gave him a very high-level brief of the situation and what we were doing, and he responded, "Sounds good - let me know if you need anything" and walked away.  I knew that (1) he was confident that I was handling the situation to his satisfaction, (2) he trusted me to do the right thing, and (3) I had his full support and backing.  There's nothing like being present to build mutual trust and confidence.

4. Give away power while ensuring clear vision and goals

The problem isn't really about giving away too much power, it's about not providing support and clarity.  A leader's job is to make sure that people are set up to succeed, and the best way to do that is to be absolutely crystal clear about the his or her vision for where the organization needs to go, as well as the goals for the team that will help facilitate attaining that vision.  

Monday, May 22, 2023

Why Ted Lasso is the perfect HRO Leader

I've been a huge fan of the Apple TV+ show Ted Lasso.  Even if Season 3 hasn't been my favorite (and I thought that the most reason episode this past week was awful), there are still a lot of lessons on leadership that I think are important.  I've talked about a number of these lessons in previous posts (see for example, "I think I literally have a better understanding of who killed Kennedy than what is offside", "Be a goldfish", "Simplify your offense", and "Believe", among others).

If you haven't seen the show, the character Ted Lasso (played by the American actor Jason Sudeikis) is an American collegiate football coach who is unexpectedly recruited (and even more unexpectedly, agrees) to coach the fictional English Premier League football soccer team, AFC Richmond.  It's all unexpected because Lasso has absolutely no experience (or knowledge) of soccer (which is called football everywhere else in the world).  AFC Richmond's owner, Rebecca Welton (played by the English actress Hannah Waddingham) wants Lasso to fail so that she can exact revenge on her ex-husband, who is the former owner of the team.  However, Lasso's unique charm, personality, and humor win her over, and everyone else for that matter, including the players on the team.

We are led to believe that Lasso coaches AFC Richmond exactly how he coached his college football team, which won a national championship.  Coach Lasso plays the role of mentor, advisor, and ultimate decisionmaker, leaving the tactical execution of the strategy to the rest of his coaching staff.  One could argue, that at least early on, Coach Lasso has more to do with creating a vision than developing the strategy.  During the very first episode, we see his best friend and long-time assistant, Coach Beard (played by the American actor Brendan Hunt) reading the classic Inverting the Pyramid: The History of Soccer Tactics on the flight over to London.  In other words, Coach Lasso leaves all of the details on strategy and execution to Coach Beard while he focuses on how best to lead and motivate his players to achieve their fullest potential.

I'm not sure how realistic this last point is though, as I see the leader's role as both creating a vision and developing the strategy needed to achieve that vision.  Regardless, my point is that Ted Lasso's style of leadership is consistent with at least one of the five characteristics of a High Reliability Organization, specifically that of "Deference to Expertise".  During Season 3, there is a particularly poignant episode that makes this case perfectly.  The team is struggling to find wins, and no one is sure what they should do next.  Coach Lasso comes up with a strategy that he soon learns is called "Total Football".  "Total Football" was developed in the 1970's by the Dutch football club Ajax and the Netherlands national football team.  Here, there are no specified positions - aside from the goalkeeper, every player can play any of the different positions.  The players have the freedom to move around all over the field, depending upon the specific situation that occurs during the game.  Everyone - his assistant coaches included - thinks that Coach Lasso is crazy for completely changing the strategy and style of play during the middle of the season.  But, as we find out, it was exactly the right decision to make.  He makes that decision to change the strategy, but he leaves the execution of that strategy to his assistants and to his players.  "Deference to Expertise"

Next time we will take a closer look at this concept.  I will use another sports metaphor (sorry) of the player and the coach to further illustrate the concept of "Deference to Expertise", specifically in regards to the principles of high reliability leadership.

Sunday, May 21, 2023

The next ten all-time...

Building upon the last post, here are the next ten all-time top posts for Leadership Reverie:

11. "You salute the rank, not the man..." - originally posted on January 31, 2017

12. "Those who honor me, I will honor" - originally posted on May 24, 2017

13. "Charlie Golf One" - originally posted on July 2, 2017

14. "Diabolical dictators or capable commanders?" - originally posted on August 5, 2020

15. "Sometimes, sorry is the best thing to say" - originally posted on October 6, 2016

16. "He had no shoes!" - originally posted on January 31, 2019

17. "A life of privilege - part I" - originally posted on August 14, 2017

18. "The doer alone learneth" - originally posted on September 16, 2018

19. "First blog post" - originally posted on January 2, 2016

20. "Health care's chicken or egg problem" - originally posted on July 11, 2017

Thanks for indulging me in this little trip down memory lane.  The next post will be an original!

Friday, May 19, 2023

The All-Time Top Ten (so far...)

It doesn't seem like it's been that long, but I wrote my first post to this blog on January 2, 2016!  I was curious about which posts had the most "hits", so I did some additional research.  Here are the All-time Top 10 Leadership Reverie blog posts since the very first one:

1.  "Amateurs talk strategy.  Professionals talk logistics." - originally posted May 8, 2020

2.  "Hatred corrodes the container it's carried in..." - originally posted on December 30, 2018

3.  "Do we need a National Women Physician's Day?" - originally posted on February 3, 2018

4.  "The legs feed the wolf..." - originally posted on September 13, 2017

5.  "What you permit, you promote..." - originally posted on February 15, 2021

6.  "Two sisters and an orange" - originally posted on February 27, 2019

7.  "Vontae Mack No Matter What" - originally posted on July 22, 2020

8.  "Napoleon's Corporal" - originally posted on October 22, 2017

9.  "No words" - originally posted on January 24, 2022

10. "Patients come second..." - originally posted on March 4, 2018

Wednesday, May 17, 2023

"Is it really a surprise if there are plenty of warnings?"

I've been reading about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, that killed over 2,400 Americans, wounded 1,000 more, and damaged hundreds of warplanes and ships.  I've been particularly interested in how the concept of "groupthink" caused our military to be taken by surprise.  I was even more interested to read the definition of the word "surprise" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.  "Surprise" means "an attack without warning."  Based on what I've read, I can't help but ask myself, "Is it really a surprise if there are plenty of warnings?"

The American psychologist Irving Janis studied the "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor when he first developed his theory of "groupthink"  (see the chapter in his book, Groupthink for an in-depth analysis).  The signals were there, but unfortunately the U.S. military on Hawaii ignored them.  There have been a number of great books on this specific issue that I won't catalog here, though aside from the aforementioned Janis book, I would recommend Roberta Wohlstetter's book Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision for its depth of analysis of this unfortunate incident in American military history.

So, what were the missed warnings?  Before I catalog them, it's important to provide some historical context.  First, it's important to remember that Japan and the United States were allies during World War I, and by the conclusion of that war Japan's military had taken control of German bases in China and the Pacific.  With the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, Japan was given a League of Nations mandate ("South Seas Mandate") over the German colonial possessions north of the equator, with Australia getting those south of the equator.  With that mandate, Japan had officially become a Great Power (see also Paul Kennedy's book, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers).  

Shortly after the war, the world's largest naval powers gathered in Washington, D.C. for a conference (called, appropriately enough, the Washington Naval Conference of 1921-1922) to discuss naval disarmament.  The Five-Power Treaty was signed by the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, and Italy which called for each of the countries to maintain a set ratio of capital warship tonnage at a 5:5:3 ratio (the U.S. was allowed 500,000 tons, the United Kingdom was allowed 500,000 tons, Japan was allowed 300,000 tons, and France and Italy were each allowed 175,000 tons).  In reality, in order to meet these limits, the U.S. had to reduce its number of capital ships and cease further building of new ones, while Japan was able to significantly increase the size of its Navy.  The United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Japan further agreed to consult with each other in the event of any future crisis in East Asia, and additional countries (Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, and China) agreed that to respect the territorial integrity of China, consistent with the U.S. Open Door Policy.

For a time, the status quo in the Pacific remained peaceful.  However, Japan continued to build up its military and slowly expand into China, which led to the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937 and the infamous "Rape of Nanking", both of which were universally condemned by the U.S. and several members of the League of Nations.  The USS Panay Incident that same year, in which the Japanese bombed  U.S. Navy river gunboat and three Standard Oil Company tankers who were attempting to rescue U.S. and Chinese civilians fleeing Nanking, further escalated tensions between the U.S. and Japan. 

Several countries were focused on Adolf Hitler's aggressive actions in Europe, and Japan took full advantage of this loss of attention in the Pacific.  Japan invaded French Indochina, continued its war in China, and signed the Tripartite Pact with Italy and Germany in 1940.  The U.S. responded by initiating an iron, steel, and oil embargo on Japan, and the Japanese military started making plans to go to war with the U.S. in the Pacific.   

Marshal Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Fleet of Japan came up with the strategy calling for simultaneous attacks on British, Dutch, and U.S. territories in the Pacific.  His plan included a surprise attack on the U.S. Navy's base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, with the goal of disabling the U.S. Pacific Fleet for a period of six months, giving time for Japan to negotiate a peace settlement in their favor (and keeping all of their acquisitions).

With all of that historical context, we can go back and review all of the missed warning signals.  Most importantly, the U.S. military had been preparing for a potential war with Japan for several years, and with Japan's increasingly aggressive posture and military actions in the Pacific, the likelihood of that war had increased significantly.  As early as 1924, legendary Army hero Billy Mitchell, widely regarded as the "Father of the U.S. Air Force" had predicted a war with Japan, even providing specific details on how that war would begin.  He stated that Japan would carry out a surprise attack on Hawaii, predicting that 100 bombers would attack the naval base there.  The Army and Navy conducted a series of war games in 1932, in which Pearl Harbor was successfully "attacked" by 152 planes a half-hour before dawn on a Sunday.  Later, in 1938, Colonel (then) George Patton wrote a report titled "Surprise" which outlined how the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor before officially declaring war.  That same year, Admiral Ernest King led a carrier-born air strike from the USS Saratoga against Pearl Harbor in war games, achieving complete surprise and total victory.  Finally, earlier in 1941, the U.S. Secretary of the Navy listed the three dangers to Hawaii "in order of importance and probability... (1) air bombing attack, (2) air torpedo plane attack, and (3) sabotage."  In other words, some of the leading military experts at the time had all but predicted that war with Japan was likely inevitable and further how that war would begin - with a surprise air attack.

Just simply being aware of these predictions should have raised situational awareness in the military leaders on the island of Hawaii in 1941, but apparently it did not, at least not to the degree required.  But there were other signals too.  Joseph Grew, the U.S. Ambassador to Japan, learned of Japan's plans to bomb Pearl Harbor from contacts at the Peruvian Embassy as early as January, 1941.  Britain's Lord Louis Mountbatten had also predicted a surprise attack by Japan and visited Pearl Harbor in October, 1941.  He was reportedly shocked at the lack of preparations there.  Finally, American cryptographers (Operation Code Name Magic) intercepted and decoded a message between the Japanese government and its diplomats who were negotiating for peace with the U.S. government in Washington, D.C. on November 22, 1941 that stated, "...after November 29, things are automatically going to happen".  Another message from Japan was intercepted and decoded, informing Germany of imminent war "through some clash of arms" on November 30, 1941.

Approximately one week before the fateful day of December 7, 1941, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet was asked about the odds of Japan attacking Hawaii and replied, "I should say none."  On December 2, 1941, U.S. Naval Intelligence lost contact with the Japanese fleet and suggested that they had potentially returned to home waters.  Kimmel famously responded, "For all you know, they could be coming around Diamond Head, and you wouldn't know it?"  Finally, Kimmel hosted a dinner party the night before the attack, at which Fanny Halsey, wife of Admiral William "Bull" Halsey who was out to sea at the time stated that she was certain that the Japanese were going to attack.  One of the dinner guests famously replied, "We all thought she was crazy."  Again, the U.S. military leadership continued to ignore a number of signals pointing to an imminent attack.  

Finally, on the actual day of the attack, there were a number of warning signs that could have (and probably should have) prompted a different response.  Early in the morning (3:20 AM) on December 7, 1941, the minesweeper USS Condor reported a periscope sighting at the entrance to Pearl Harbor to the destroyer USS Ward.  There were no additional sightings despite an active search.  Later that morning at 6:30 AM, the stores ship USS Antares reported another submarine sighting to the USS Ward, which actually fired upon the submarine (later revealed to be a Japanese mini-submarine).  They sent a report to the Pacific Fleet headquarters, "We have attacked, fired upon, and dropped depth charges on a submarine operating in the defensive area." The duty officer at headquarters chose to wait until further verification before sounding the alarm.

There were five radar locations on the island of Oahu, and only the Opana site was still operational by 7 AM on December 7, 1941 (radar was still a relatively new technology and these stations only operated at certain hours of the day).  Army privates Joseph Lockard and George Elliot tracked the incoming first wave of Japanese aircraft from 7:02 AM to 7:40 AM.  They notified their duty officer, LT Kermit Tyler at nearby Fort Schafter, who assumed that the radar signal was an expected incoming flight of B-17 bombers that were due to arrive from the West Coast.  

The first attack wave commenced at 7:55 AM and found the U.S. Pacific Fleet to be completely unprepared.  As a matter of fact, despite all the aforementioned predictions, the Army was more concerned about sabotage and had parked all of its planes close together to prevent that kind of attack.  In retrospect, this only made the air attack more successful.

The lessons here are to (1) Always be prepared for any and all continencies through a preoccupation with failure and a commitment to resilience; (2) Do not be a victim of "groupthink" and whenever possible, defer to expertise; (3) Look for the small warning signals through a sensitivity to operations; (4) Never accept the simple explanation for a chain of events.  Of course, all of these points are the five characteristics that define a High Reliability Organization (HRO).