Tom Brady on Leadership

I've written a lot in this blog about (1) how much I don't like the New England Patriots and (2) how impressed I've always been about their success over the years (see in particular "The Patriot Way", "The Patriot Way Redux", and "That makes it twice...").  They've certainly been helped by having a future Hall of Fame head coach (Bill Belichick) and probably the greatest quarterback of all-time (Tom Brady who won't be eligible for the NFL Hall of Fame until 2028 but will likely be a unanimous vote on the first ballot) overlap for a significant portion of the team's period of greatest success.  We will likely hear arguments about whether it was Tom Brady that made Bill Belichick so great or vice versa for a long time to come.  What's impressed me the most, though, is the team's culture, the so-called "Patriot Way".  As the old saying goes, "Culture eats strategy for breakfast, lunch, and dinner!"  I think both Bill Belichick and Tom Brady had a lot to do with the team culture within the Patriots organization, so whenever I see an article, blog post, or interview about what either the coach or the player thinks about leadership, I always pay attention.

Tom Brady and former Dean and professor at Harvard Business School Nitin Nohria co-wrote a great article on leadership in Harvard Business Review entitled "Tom Brady on the Art of Leading Teammates".  It's certainly worthwhile to read the article in its entirety, so I will only provide a bulleted list of the highlights here.  First, they emphasize that "leaders don't accomplish anything by themselves.  In fact, nothing of significance in life is achieved alone.  To do great things, we rely on teammates."  Brady and Nohria also talk about a team-focused philosophy, which is built around mutual trust, common goals and objectives, and a belief that winning is about the team.  I think that is just as true for teams outside sports (and both Brady and Nohria agree).  They go on to list seven things that great team leaders do that lead to success:

1. Put the team first, always, even when facing personal adversity.

2. Show appreciation for unsung colleagues.

3. Set the standard and create a culture of 100% effort.

4. Recognize teammates' individual psychology and the best ways to motivate them.

5. Understand and complement the style of the formal leader.

6. Recognize and counteract the external forces that can cause selfish behavior.

7. Create opportunities to connect as people outside the office.

I believe that Brady and Nohria are using the term "leader" here to describe what individuals within teams, who may not necessarily carry a title, do differently to help a team achieve success.  As I read their article, I couldn't help but think of Sam Walker's superb book The Captain Class: A New Theory of Leadership, which I've mentioned a number of times in several previous blog posts.  The tagline to the book says it all - The secret to winning is not what you think it is. It’s not the coach.  It’s not the star.  It’s not money.  It’s not a strategy.  It’s something else entirely.  Walker found that the secret key to success is often the team captain, who was the one individual, other than the head coach, who had the most to do with building a winning culture.  As I stated in my post, "How 'bout them Cowboys?", "Sports teams with good talent and excellent culture will beat teams with excellent talent and poor culture."  The same is true for organizations.

Fix the environment, not the people...

I've mentioned the leadership consultant, author, and retired U.S. Navy Captain David Marquet and his book, Turn the Ship Around, in the past (see "Classic Rookie Manager Mistakes", "The definition of power is the transfer of energy...", "The power of empowerment", "Turning around the ship...", and "Empowering employees doesn't mean leaving them alone...").  It's a great book, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in learning about leadership.  Captain Marquet had a very promising Navy career up to the point when he was selected to command the USS Olympia (SSN-717), a nuclear-powered attack submarine.  However, as sometimes happens in the military (and occasionally in the civilian world I suppose), he was unexpectedly ordered to take command of the USS Santa Fe (SSN-763) instead.  As one of my former bosses in the Navy once told me, "We don't work in a democracy, Derek, we work for one."  Unfortunately, while the USS Olympia was considered a "choice command", the USS Santa Fe was anything but that.  The USS Santa Fe ranked dead last in both operational efficiency and staff retention, and Captain Marquet felt that he had been given an impossible task and that his future career prospects for promotion were at risk.

Captain Marquet knew that the traditional leadership approach of "take control, give orders" was not going to work.  Rather than treating his crew as followers, he treated them as leaders.  As opposed to the traditional model of "pushing information to authority" where front-line managers and crew sent information up the "chain of command" and the leaders at the top of the hierarchy made all the decisions, Captain Marquet built a culture around "pushing authority to information".  In accordance with the High Reliability Organization (HRO) principle of "Deference to Expertise", Captain Marquet ceded decision-making authority to those who were the closest to the information and to the action, his front-line leaders and managers.  

Captain Marquet's unique leadership approach took the USS Santa Fe from "worst to first" (in terms of ranking the best in terms of operational efficiency and staff retention throughout the entire U.S. Navy).  The USS Santa Fe continued to win awardsm even after Captain Marquet's departure from the ship as a result of his promotion, and ten of his former officers went on to command positions of their own.  It's a great success story, and an even better example of the impact of leadership specifically high reliability leadership, on an organization's success.

Captain Marquet's book is a "must read" primer on leadership in general and high reliability leadership in particular.  I've thoroughly enjoyed reading and continuing to learn from Captain Marquet.  In today's post, I want to specifically dive into one of his quotes on engagement.  Clearly, the USS Santa Fe had an engagement problem.  They don't typically measure employee engagement or employee satisfaction in the Navy.  Instead, engagement is measured largely by the outcomes of operational efficiency, promotion to higher rank (for both enlisted sailors and officers), and retention (re-enlistment rates, or how many sailors and officers stay in the Navy).  By every measurement available then, engagement in the USS Santa Fe was terrible.  Here is what Captain Marquet said about engagement though - "A leader's job is not to fix disengaged people.  A leader's job is to fix the environment that results in disengaged people."

Employee engagement is loosely defined as an employee's involvement and enthusiasm in their work and their workplace.  Press Ganey specifically measures employee engagement in health care organizations based upon a six-item index covering someone’s intent to stay (over the short and long term), willingness to recommend (for care or work), and overall pride and satisfaction with the organization.  Employee surveys conducted by Gallup show that (1) organizations with higher engagement have better outcomes (regardless of industry), (2) engagement in organizations across the U.S. (and again, regardless of industry) is not great - only 33% of all employees in the U.S. fall into the "engaged" category (compared to 70% in high-performing organizations).  

Research (and anecdotal experience) suggest that employees need more than a happy "warm-fuzzy" feeling and a good paycheck to be fully engaged and productive.  They need a sense of purpose and meaning to their work.  And they want relationships with managers who can help them grow and develop both personally and professionally.  Again, research by Gallup suggests that the manager or team leader accounts for up to 70% of an employee's level of engagement.  As frequently stated, people don't leave organizations, they leave bad bosses.  Employees want to trust their leaders, and they also want to feel that their leaders trust them to do their jobs well (mutual trust and empowerment are two of the top drivers of employee engagement).  Just as important, they want to be recognized appropriately when they do their jobs well!  Finally, employees want to work in a hassle-free environment - they don't want to encounter barriers (either related to technology or processes) that make it difficult for them to be able to do their jobs well.  As W. Edwards Deming wrote more than 40 years ago, "Eighty-five percent of the reasons for failure are deficiencies in the systems and process rather than the employee. The role of management is to change the process rather than badgering individuals to do better."

As leaders, it is our responsibility to create a culture of mutual trust, empowerment, and support for our teams.  Leaders in highly performing organizations know and understand this, and they also know that it is also their responsibility to eliminate hassles, minimize friction, and remove the "pebbles in the shoe" that make it difficult for individuals to do their jobs well.  As Captain Marquet so eloquently states, it is our job as leaders to "fix the environment that results in disengaged people."  Fix the environment, not the people...

Things Aren't Always What They Seem...

There's a scene from the first Star Wars movie (now known as Episode IV - A New Hope) in which Jedi Master Obi-wan Kenobi tells a young Luke Skywalker, "Your eyes can deceive you; don't trust them."  While I thought it was a great scene when I first saw it in 1977, I didn't quite appreciate that the quote actually comes from Phaedrus, the Socratic dialogue by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato.  In that dialogue, Phaedrus says, "Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many."  That's pretty much the same thing that Obi-wan said, am I right?

Obi-wan (or Phaedrus, depending on who you like better) actually makes a really valid point.  Things aren't always what they seem.  Take a look at the following video which shows the underwater waterfall off the coast of Mauritius Island.  While the waterfall is more impressive when viewed in real-time, here's a still image that is really interesting as well:

Mauritius (officially known as the Republic of Mauritius) is a small island nation located in the middle of the Indian Ocean, approximately 560 kilometers to the east of Madagascar.  It's perhaps best known now as an idyllic tourist destination, but it's also famous for being home to the now extinct Dodo Bird.  The island is also known for its famous "underwater waterfall", which is located near a UNESCO World Heritage Site, Le Morne Brabant Mountain (a 556 meter mountain near the tip of the Le Morne Peninsula, which can be seen in the photograph above).  Le Morne Brabant Mountain was a refuge for escaped slaves during the 18th and early 19th centuries.  The "underwater waterfall" is actually an optical illusion.  The island itself sits on a submarine plateau, or ocean shelf, that is no deeper than 150 meters below sea level.  However, the shelf quickly drops off to depths of over 4,000 meters below sea level.  What you are seeing is not water falling off the shelf, but rather sand and silt.  It's not really a waterfall, as much as it is an underwater "sandfall".  It's absolutely stunning to look at, even on a computer monitor screen!

So again, things aren't always what they seem.  The famous "underwater waterfall" is really just a bunch of sand and silt.  Mauritius Island's famous "underwater waterfall" is a great metaphor for the High Reliability Organization (HRO) principle of "Reluctance to Simplify".  The simplest explanation (often the easiest explanation) is rarely the correct one.  Dig deeper for the truth and do not simplify.  Don't be fooled by an optical illusion.  If it seems too good to be true, it probably isn't true.  Or as Obi-wan admonishes Luke, ""Your eyes can deceive you; don't trust them." 

Friction and Leadership

The 19th century Prussian general and military strategist Carl von Clausewitz is perhaps best known for his book On War, a primer on military strategy that has been (and continues to be) widely read by military leaders around the world.  Even business leaders have read On War to gain powerful insights on strategy.  As one book reviewer stated, "Clausewitz speaks the mind of the executive, revealing logic that those interested in strategic thinking and practice will find invaluable."  

While Clausewitz discusses many important concepts that I believe are relevant to leadership in general, I want to focus in this post on a concept that he calls friction, which he describes as the difference between what happens in plans versus what happens in reality.  He wrote, "Friction is the concept that differentiates actual war from war on paper."  Friction are those things that all leaders encounter that make "even the simplest thing difficult."

During a recent post (see "Improvise, Overcome, Adapt"), I mentioned an article by Dr. Martin Samuels ("Understanding Command Approaches") that I found online in the Journal of Military Operations.  Dr. Samuels expands upon Clausewitz's concept of friction by describing it as "the gap between the action and the desired outcomes."  He suggests that there are three potential kinds of gaps that lead to friction (based on a model developed by Stephen Bungay, see The Art of Action), all of which generate a response from a leader and his or her subordinate team:

1.  Knowledge Gap - a gap between what leaders would like to know about a particular situation versus what they actually know.  As Clausewitz noted, "This difficult of accurate recognition constitutes one of the most serious sources of friction in war, by making things appear entirely different from what one had expected."  In response, leaders can know either more or less than their subordinate teams known and may seek to close the gap by either demanding more information or by adapting their leadership approach to cope with less information.

2.  Alignment Gap - a gap between what leaders want their teams to do versus what they actually do.  Subordinate teams may implement their leaders' instructions to a greater or lesser extent, and leaders may seek to address this gap, specifically when their instructions are not implemented, either by specifying their general intent and leaving the rest to their subordinate teams' initiative or requiring their subordinate teams to follow a detailed set of instructions or protocol.

3.  Effects Gap - a gap between what is intended versus what is desired, in terms of outcomes, that frequently arise due to chance.  Leaders may address this gap either by intervening or by allowing their subordinate teams to react to the changes in real time.

Dr. Samuels developed a 2x2x2 table (considering knowledge, alignment, effects as either/or axes) to produce eight different permutations of leadership that can be used in a specific situation or context.  The table of his 8 different leadership approaches is shown below:

The resulting 8 "command approaches" are shown in the Table below:

I want to wait on talking about each of these different "command approaches" and their implications for non-military leadership for an upcoming post.  However, I will say that the "Enthusiastic Amateur" and "Neglected Control" are two approaches that are best avoided.  It's also important to remember that there is likely not a "universal command approach" that works in every situation, and as I've stated in the past, the best leaders are the ones who can flex between several different leadership and command approaches given the specific contextual factors of the situation at hand.  I do think that Dr. Samuels breakdown to friction and leadership is unique and will be of interest, and I look forward to additional discussions on this topic!

The Swoosh

Legendary New York Yankees manager, Casey Stengel (Stengel was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame largely due to his managerial stint with the Yankees during the 1950's when the team the American League pennant ten times and the World Series seven times), once said, "Gettin' good players is easy.  Gettin' 'em to play together is the hard part."  Similarly, NBA Hall of Famer (and one of the greatest basketball players of all-time) Michael Jordan once said, "Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."  As I've previously discussed (see "There's no 'I' in Team"), there have been a number of sports teams throughout history who have performed far below expectations despite having a number of so-called "All Stars" on the team.  But what then are the key ingredients in the "secret sauce" for building a high-performing team?  Certainly having a so-called "glue guy" (or "glue gal") is important, as I've also previously discussed (see "He's the glue..." and "In search of David Ross"), the one individual who is perfectly comfortable and capable of playing a supporting cast kind of role (hence the term, "role player").  Team "chemistry" is important too.  As I've stated in the past ("Chemistry is culture"), team chemistry is just another word for culture.  Having the right organizational culture, where individual members of the team hold each other accountable (as just one example) can make a difference between winning and losing.  Collaboration with each other and a commitment to a standard of excellence with a clearly defined goal is also important (see "Team Chicken McNugget").  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the individual members of the team have to trust each other.  As Simon Sinek said, "A team is not a group of people who work together. A team is a group of people who trust each other."

Charles Duhigg (author of The Power of Habit and Supercommunicators) would add one more essential ingredient for high performing teams.  He said, "Teams need to believe that their work is important. Teams need to feel their work is personally meaningful. Teams need clear goals and defined roles. Team members need to know they can depend on one another. But, most important, teams need psychological safety."  The Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson has written extensively about psychological safety, including The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth and most recently, Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well (both are superb and highly recommended, by the way).  "Psychological safety" means that individuals can openly admit their mistakes and learn from them.  Leaders have to create the kind of environment where members of the team, regardless of their role or place in the hierarchy, are free to speak up about their concerns without fear of retribution or ridicule.

Some of Dr. Edmondson's latest research findings on psychological safety are of interest here, particularly since it involves health care teams and it examines the change in psychological safety that occur over time from the time with tenure.   Dr. Edmondson and her colleagues, Derrick Bransby and Michaela Kerrissey found in a study of more than 10,000 employees at a large health care system that (1) new members of the team have higher psychological safety compared to their longer tenured colleagues and (2) psychological safety decreases fairly rapidly and takes years to recover.  They called this drop in psychological safety a "swoosh" (see their Figure below) and noted that it could take up to 20 years for team members to get back to the levels of psychological safety they had when they first started.

Why does the "swoosh" occur?  Think about it.  When individuals first join a new team or organization, they are usually filled with excitement and enthusiasm.  These individuals are eager to get started and feel confident that they have been hired for a reason.  Things may even go well initially, but soon the new members of the team may find (hopefully not, but it can happen) that the proverbial grass is not always greener on the other side.  They may encounter friction or in some cases experience a problematic interaction with another member of the team (MIT investigators John Van Maanen and Ed Schein call these experiences "reality shocks").  Unfortunately, it only takes one bad interaction to kill psychological safety.  Just one instance of public humiliation or dismissal of a concern will make it less likely that an individual will raise a concern in the future.  Even more concerning, it often takes years to recover from that one experience!  

The good news is that leaders can create an environment of psychological safety.  Edmondson and her colleagues noted that the "swoosh" was less severe in departments with high psychological safety at baseline.  They emphasize that "Psychological safety is note the default in any workplace, and those who need it most - newcomers - are also most vulnerable to losing it.  Cultivating and reinforcing a climate favorable to learning requires deliberate leadership."

Interesting Times

Last week was the 23rd Anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which forever changed our world.  I know it changed me forever.  To this day, I vividly remember the events of that fateful morning and how I first learned of the planes crashing into the two towers of the World Trade Center.  For several years, I've written a blog post to commemorate the tragic events of that horrible day and to honor those that died.  This year, I'm writing that post one week late.

I've frequently talked about crisis leadership - it's one of my favorite topics to read and write about.  Regardless of what you think about them now, there is no question that then President George W. Bush and New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani were the right leaders at the right time on September 11, 2001 and in the days after.  I would highly recommend watching the 2021 television documentary (available on Apple TV) on the 9/11 attacks, 9/11: Inside the President's War Room for a minute-by-minute perspective of that day through the eyes of President Bush and his closest advisors.  I learned some things that I didn't know, and the documentary itself is a Master Class in crisis leadership.

Given everything that is going on in our world today, the ability to lead with calm resolve during a crisis is almost a prerequisite for leaders.  Ian Mitroff, author of Crisis Leadership: Planning for the Unthinkable, wrote, "Crises, catastrophes, and calamities are an unfortunate but inevitable fact of life. They have been with us since the beginning of time. It can be argued that they will be with us until the end of human history itself. In short, they are an integral part of the human condition. They are the human condition."  Like it or not, as leaders, whether we will experience a crisis is not a question of "if" but "when."

There's an ancient Chinese proverb that says, "May you live in interesting times."  Legend has it that this was actually an ancient Chinese curse, which is probably not entirely true.  Robert F. Kennedy used the phrase in his "Day of Affirmation Address" in Cape Town, South Africa on June 6, 1966:

There is a Chinese curse which says, “May he live in interesting times.” Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind.

Perhaps there is no better way to cherish the memory of those who died on 9/11 and to honor the leaders who helped us make it through those dark days by becoming better leaders ourselves.  As I've said before, leaders were made for times like the present.  Where others see danger and uncertainty, the extraordinary leaders see opportunity.  May we all live and lead in interesting times...

"Football is Life!"

I am somewhat conflicted about the result of at least one college football game this past weekend.  Our family can legitimately claim ties to at least six Division I FBS college football teams - Purdue, Indiana, Notre Dame, Alabama, Boston College, and the University of Cincinnati.  I root for them all, except when two of these teams happen to play each other, which happens at least once every season.  This past weekend, Notre Dame absolutely trounced Purdue by a score of 66-7.  The game (and score) was so lopsided, that Notre Dame actually played four quarterbacks - three of whom scored touchdowns!  I was happy for the Fighting Irish, particularly after their embarrassing loss to Northern Illinois the prior week.  But I was just as disappointed for Purdue.

If you are Coach Marcus Freeman (Notre Dame's head football coach) one week ago, what do you say after your team, which was ranked #5 in the country, lost to an unranked Northern Illinois team?  How do you move on from a loss which likely has greatly decreased your chances of playing in the college football play-offs at the end of the year?  On the other hand, if you are Coach Ryan Walters (Purdue's head football coach), what can you say to your team after they just lost by almost sixty points?  The game was so lopsided, many of the fans (and almost the entire student section) left at half time.  How do you go on from that?

Borrowing a phrase ("Football is life!") from one of the characters (Dani Rojas) in one of my favorite television shows (Ted Lasso), what is true in sports is often true in life in general.  If you are Coach Freeman last week or Coach Walters this week, you tell your team that the only thing that they can do is learn from their experience and move on.  As the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius said, "Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall."  We are, after all, human, and as humans, we make mistakes.  And we aren't going to win every single time.  There will be times when we lose, and sometimes we will lose very badly.  What separates the champs from the chumps is that the champions pick themselves up after a loss, learn from their experience, continue to work hard, and move forward so that they can do better next time.