Cheaper by the dozen

My wife and I watched The Founder the other night, which tells the story about how Ray Kroc, a down on his luck milkshake mixer traveling salesman turned Richard and Maurice McDonald's innovative fast food restaurant, McDonald's, into the biggest restaurant business in the world.  The McDonald brothers had developed their Speedee Service System  to create a fast food business that was far different from any other restaurant around at the time (and on which most fast food restaurants are based upon to this day).  Anyone who has had some training in Lean/Six Sigma will be very impressed with their system!  

I've actually talked about this scene in a previous post, titled "You should only go to the refrigerator once...".  Incidentally, the title of that post was taken from another kitchen scene from the television series The Brady Bunch, which could have been based (but wasn't) on another popular movie released in 1968 called Yours, Mine, and Ours, starring Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball.  Apparently my wife's family used to watch this movie every year on Christmas Eve when she was growing up.  It's a great movie!

Fonda plays a Navy Chief Warrant Officer, widower, and father of ten children, while Ball plays a nurse, widow, and mother of eight children.  Imagine having to coordinate the lives of 18 children in one household!  Lucille Ball steals the show here, but as you can guess from the theme of this post, Fonda's character tries to run the house like a Navy ship.  There's a great scene from the movie that shows how Fonda's character manages who gets what bedroom, who gets to use the bathroom at what time, etc that reminds me a lot of the Speedee Service System and Lean/Six Sigma.

While Yours, Mine, and Ours was based on a real family, it wasn't the Gilbreth family, who were the subject of the 1950 movie, Cheaper by the Dozen.  Frank Gilbreth and his wife Lillian Gilbreth (along with their 12 children) are perhaps best known for the movie, but Frank and Lillian conducted a number of time and motion studies throughout their careers to eliminate waste and improve efficiency in the manufacturing industry.  Their work is often associated with that of Frederick Winslow Taylor, the so-called "Father of scientific management" - indeed, they were contemporaries and occasional collaborators and competitors.  The film talks about how they both applied their time and motion studies to improving how they ran their home.

I would encourage you to watch all three movies, though stick with the originals and not the remakes, which just aren't as good.  Pay close attention to how Lean/Six Sigma principles are used in all three!  Let's go to the movies!  

"Here lies one whose name was writ in water..."

With the last two posts ("On the nature of expertise..." and "Uncertainty can be uncomfortable..."), I described the 19th century English Romantic poet John Keats' concept of "Negative Capability" in the context of a universal definition of expertise.  Again, Keats was educated and trained as a physician and scientist.  It was only after his medical training that he became one of the greatest poets of his age.  Sadly, Keats died of tuberculosis at a very early age (25 years), even for that time period.  The epitaph on his tombstone is instructive - it read "Here lies one whose name was writ in water."  In other words, Keats believed that everything that he did during his short lifetime - all the poems he wrote - would fade into oblivion shortly after his death.

I am reminded of the Stoic concept of "Memento Mori" (Latin for "remember that you have to die"), which I discussed in a couple of posts in the past - see "Carpe diem" and "This too shall pass".  Throughout antiquity, individuals have carried or displayed artistic reminders (most commonly a human skull) of the fact that death is inevitable for all of us.

St. Paul in his first letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 6:7-12) wrote, "For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out."  In other words, "You can't take it with you" when you die.  Live for today.

The Roman Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius wrote, "Keep in mind how fast things pass by and are gone - those that are now, and those to come."  He further admonishes us to remember, "You could leave life right now. Let that determine what you do and say and think."  

Even though Keats' words were, in fact, remembered long after his death in 1821, I think he would agree with the concept of "Memento Mori".  We would all do well to remember that our time on this Earth is relatively short.  We should live for the present, not for the future.  Live your life today to the fullest.  And most importantly of all, remember that all things do pass, even us.

"Uncertainty can be uncomfortable..."

In my last post ("On the nature of expertise..."), I mentioned the English poet John Keats, who lived around the turn of the 19th century.  Keats was a Romantic era poet whose peers included Lord Byron and Percy Bysshe Shelley (whose second wife was Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein and The Last Man, two classics of literature and early examples of science fiction).  Keats was educated and trained as a physician and scientist.  It was only after his medical training that he became one of the greatest poets of his age.  Sadly, Keats died of tuberculosis at a very early age (25 years).

As I mentioned in the last post, Keats mentioned something he called "Negative Capability" in a letter to his brothers dated December 21, 1817 about an ongoing disagreement he had with his colleague, Samuel Taylor Coleridge:

...at once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement...I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.

It was to be the only time that he ever used the term, which is unfortunate.  Perhaps his early death at age 25 was the reason, though we can never know for certain.  In his letter, he referred to the capacity of the greatest writes (particularly William Shakespeare) to look to the beauty and the art of something, even if it led to confusion, uncertainty, anxiety, and discomfort.  As he wrote in his famous "Ode on a Grecian Urn", "Beauty is truth and truth beauty – That is all/ ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."  

The origin of the term is also not known.  Some have suggested that Keats came up with the term on his own, based upon his prior scientific knowledge.  Perhaps he used the concept of electrical current with both a positive and negative pole.  The negative pole receives the electrical current from the positive pole - in other words, the negative pole is passive and receptive.  By translation, the "Man of Achievement" (a term which he used to describe an expert) receives information from a world that is full of mystery and doubt.  As such, an expert has to be comfortable with uncertainty and doubt.  An expert can never hope to know all of the answers.  

As Richard Gunderman writes for The Conversation, "Negative here is not pejorative. Instead, it implies the ability to resist explaining away what we do not understand.  Rather than coming to an immediate conclusion about an event, idea or person, Keats advises resting in doubt and continuing to pay attention and probe in order to understand it more completely."

He continues, "Keats reminds us that we are most likely to gain new insights if we can stop assuming that we know everything we need to know about people by neatly shoehorning them into preconceived boxes."  I am reminded again of the Greek philosopher Socrates, who in Plato's Apology argues that the individuals who are least likely to learn anything new are usually the ones who think that they already know all there is to know.  Wisdom, according to Socrates, involves questioning our own assumptions and admitting to ourselves that we don't know it all (see my previous posts, "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing...", "Ancora Imparo!", and "Experts").

Gunderman concludes by stating, "Uncertainty can be uncomfortable. It is often quite tempting to stop pondering complex questions and jump to conclusions.  But Keats counsels otherwise." 

On the nature of expertise...

As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago in my post, "The 80 hour work week", I recently attended the 12th Annual Congress of the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive & Critical Care Societies.  It was a great meeting, and I really enjoyed seeing a lot of colleagues from around the world who I've not seen since prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.  I really enjoyed a session by Dr. Neil Spenceley, a pediatric critical care physician in Glasgow, Scotland.  His talk was entitled, "Do we need competent staff or experts in the PICU?"  During the talk, Dr. Spenceley came up with what I thought is one of the best definitions of "expertise" that I've ever heard (and of course I told him so!).  To his credit, he told me that several colleagues (Spenceley, Matt Scanlon, Keith Catchpole, and Carl Horsley) came up with the definition in a conversation over e-mail.  They defined expertise as the ability to adapt to the unique and tolerate uncertainty in a particular field.

Their definition of expertise is simple, yet elegant and generalizable to any field or discipline.  First, if you are able to adapt to a unique situation (in your chosen field - that's important) that you've never encountered previously, then you are an expert.  Second, if  you are able to tolerate uncertainty (remember our VUCAT world) without stressing out, then you are an expert.  I am reminded of Rudyard Kipling's famous poem "If", in which he says, "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you," then you are an expert (I'm paraphrasing this last part)!

The English poet (and physician) John Keats labeled this ability to tolerate uncertainty "Negative Capability" in a letter to his brothers dated December 21, 1817 about an ongoing disagreement he had with another poet, Samuel Taylor Coleridge:

...at once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement...I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.

Of interest, Keats only used the term once in all of his writings, though as a physician he would certainly appreciate our fear as humans of the unknown.  Arabella Simpkin and Richard Schwartzstein wrote a wonderful editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine called "Tolerating Uncertainty - The Next Medical Revolution?" (which begins with Keats' quote above).  They wrote that "our quest for certainty is central to human psychology...being uncertain instills a sense of vulnerability in us - a sense of fear about what lies ahead.  It is unsettling and makes us crave black-and-white zones, to escape this gray-scale space."  Drs. Simpkin and Schwartzstein further suggest that our inability - in this case referring specifically to physicians but I do think this applies more generally to all professions - to tolerate uncertainty may actually be partially responsible for the increase in burn-out today.  Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, they suggest that clinical algorithms and protocols (which may in the very near future be based upon artificial intelligence) will be used to perform the routine diagnostic and treatment tasks in medicine, saving the world of the unique and uncertain for the clinical experts.

"It's better to be a warrior in a garden..."

I've been watching the television series Shogun, based upon James Clavell's classic novel that takes place in Japan in the year 1600 during the Azuchi–Momoyama period.  Since our family trip to Japan last summer, I've been more interested in learning about the fascinating history and culture of Japan.  At least partly based on this newfound interest, I added The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi to this year's Leadership Reverie Reading List.  There's a powerful vignette from the book that I've been thinking about a lot lately: 

A student said to his master: "You teach me fighting, but you talk about peace.  How do you reconcile the two?"  The master replied: "It is better to be a warrior in a garden than to be a gardener in a war."

I've heard similar proverbs from ancient Sparta ("The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war") and ancient Rome ("If you want peace, prepare for war").  I'm also reminded of a quote I first heard during my time in the United States Navy Medical Corps: "The more we sweat in training, the less they bleed in war."

The key lesson here is one of preparedness (The Boy Scout motto "Be Prepared" was something I learned from an early age).  The United States began building up its military long before December 7, 1941, which is why the U.S. was able to mobilize its military much faster when it entered World War II compared to when it entered World War I.  The point is to begin preparing for any kind of adverse event, disaster, or even war (see "Imagine the Worst") when you don't think it's necessary to do so!

When it comes to leadership, one size doesn't fit all...

Several years ago, the author and leadership expert Daniel Goleman discussed six different leadership styles in his article, "Leadership That Gets Results" that was published in the March/April 2000 issue of the Harvard Business Review.  These six leadership styles included coercive leadership, authoritative leadership, pacesetting leadership, affiliative leadership, democratic leadership, and coaching leadership.  Importantly, Goleman concluded that "being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances may call for different approaches."  In other words, the best leaders will view these different styles as they would different tools in a tool box.  As certain jobs require a certain set of tools, certain circumstances require a certain leadership style.

The question then becomes, which leadership style fits best with what specific kind of situation?  Thankfully, Rebecca Knight answered this exact question in another Harvard Business Review article titled "6 common leadership styles - and how to decide which to use when".  Here is a quick summary:

Knight suggests that the "Coercive Leadership Style" should be used rarely, if at all, while the "Authoritative Leadership Style" should be used most frequently.  Importantly, Goleman says "A leader's success depends on the productivity and effectiveness of the people who work for them.  You're shooting yourself in the foot if you use a style of leadership that's counterproductive to their performance."  

Making Pizza

My wife bought me a pizza oven on my last birthday.  We usually eat pizza at least one night a week, so it was a reasonable investment!  Besides, I've been wanting to make my own pizzas in a wood-fired oven for a long time.  I've learned (actually, we've learned - the hard way) that making pizza by hand takes a little practice.  Here is how the first pizza turned out:

As you can see, the edges were burnt, the middle was still a little doughy, and the whole thing is rather a mess!  It wasn't the worst pizza that we've ever tasted, but it was far from what we had envisioned!  

Rather than giving up, we reviewed everything that we did, identified some things that we could do better in the future, and changed our approach on the next round.  We used a little more flour on the pizza dough, placed a little flour on the pizza peeler (the device we use to place the pizza in the oven and then turn it), decreased the heat inside the oven, and turned the pizza constantly while it cooked.  The next version turned out much better.

We've certainly improved our technique over the last several iterations.  We've even tried some different variations of pizza!  Finally, we were brave enough to serve pizza to our extended family members, and we are now at the stage where we may try serving our pizza to friends!

Making pizza, as it turns out, is all about continuous improvement!  Making pizza then (i.e. "continuous improvement") is the ongoing process of analyzing performance (what worked well and what didn't work well), identifying opportunities to do better, and making incremental changes to processes, products, and personnel.

Incidentally, author and blogger Seth Godin came up with what he calls "The Pizza Principle": "Good pizza is rare, even though the method to create it is well known.  Any efforts to make it more convenient, cheaper or easier will almost always make it worse.  If you think this post is about pizza, I’m afraid that we’re already stuck."  Indeed.

"We need leaders..."

Back in 2019, former U.S. Surgeon General and past Meharry Medical College President David Satcher, MD, PhD discussed leadership at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine as part of the Flexner Dean's Lecture Series.  He said, "We need leaders who first care enough.  We need leaders who learn enough.  We need leaders who do enough.  We need leaders who will persevere until the job is done."

Dr. Satcher makes an incredibly profound statement on leadership here, and I want to spend a few moments unpacking each of his points in a little more detail.

"We need leaders who first care enough."

Dr. Tracy Brower wrote in Forbes magazine a few years ago that "empathy is the most important leadership skill", citing a study by Catalyst of nearly 900 employees that showed that empathetic leaders foster innovation and creativity, increase engagement and productivity, lower burn-out, foster inclusivity, and increase retention.  She writes, "Leaders don’t have to be experts in mental health in order to demonstrate they care and are paying attention. It’s enough to check in, ask questions and take cues from the employee about how much they want to share."  Olga Valadon writing for Harvard Business Review suggests that leaders can be more empathetic by:

1. Actively listening (be curious)

2. Know and acknowledge that they don't have all the answers

3. Always making time for their employees

4. Avoiding "one-size-fits-all" responses

Valadon writes, "As a leader, you need to understand that the workplace is made up of people, and you’re in the privileged role of guiding and supporting them. A part of that work involves understanding what it means to be human. Everyone has a life outside of work that they need to deal with while still fulfilling their professional obligations. You may not have a solution to every problem or challenge that is brought to your attention, but what matters is that you genuinely care for people, validate their feelings, and are willing to offer support."  

We need empathetic leaders.  We need leaders who care.

"We need leaders who learn enough."

Walt Disney reportedly once said, "We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths."  Curiosity fuels innovation, creates a culture of continuous improvement, and as stated above, helps foster empathy.  We need leaders who are humble enough to recognize that they don't know all the answers, but curious enough to go look for them.  Colleen Bashar writing for Forbes magazine defined curiosity as the ability to let go of being right.  Curiosity means "going into every discussion, strategy meeting or tough conversation actively curious and open. It means listening and understanding before responding."  

Great leaders recognize that they don't know everything, and more importantly, they are willing to learn from others (even those who report to them).  Direct, hands-on experience is a great way to learn, but it doesn't have to be your own personal experience.  You can learn a lot from the experience of others.  Personally, I've learned a lot about leadership by reading about how leaders throughout history have approached different problems or crises in their lives.  

We need leaders who are willing to learn.  We need leaders who are curious.

"We need leaders who do enough."

Vince Lombardi once said, "Leaders are made, they are not born. They are made by hard effort, which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that is worthwhile."  There's no question that leadership is hard work.  More importantly, leaders need to work hard at being good leaders!  Knowing what to do is not the same as doing it.  To that end, Norman Schwarzkopf said, "The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it."  Leaders often have to make difficult, and at times unpopular, decisions.  Making hard decisions is hard work and requires courage, commitment, and compassion.  

I came across a Medium blog post entitled "Traits of successful leaders" by the Center for Junior Officers that applies.  They write, "Working hard is a simple concept to understand and intuitive for leaders. It is only the application where a leader usually trips up. After all, hard work is just that… hard. Peter Daland, former USC and Olympic swimming coach once said, The secret to swimming is not how far you swim, and it’s not how hard you swim. The secret to swimming is how far you are willing to swim hard. This same idea is true for leadership. A secret to leadership is about how long you are willing to work hard. Will you be the one to give up and quit or will you keep going? Will you be the leader who will find a way or will you say it was impossible?"

We need leaders who will work hard and make the tough decisions.  We need leaders to do.

"We need leaders who will persevere until this job is done."

As a leader, you will encounter obstacles to progress on a daily basis.  The author James Michener said, "Character consists of what you do on the third and fourth tries." It's not about the first or second attempt - it's about what happens after.  The greatest leaders are the ones who never give up and keep working hard until the job is done.  Where others see barriers and obstacles, leaders see opportunities and a path forward.  

Calvin Coolidge famously said, "Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

We need leaders who will stick with it, even when times are tough.  We need leaders who will resist the temptation to quit.  We need leaders who will persevere until the job is done.

Being a leader in today's world isn't easy.  We are living in turbulent times.  And today's turbulent world requires leaders who care enough, learn enough, do enough, and stick with it until the very end.

Fortress of Solitude

One of my favorite scenes from the 1978 Superman movie is when Clark Kent / Kal-El / Superman (starring the late actor Christopher Reeve) builds his "Fortress of Solitude" and speaks with a hologram of his father, Jor-El (played by legendary actor Marlon Brando).  Superman's "Fortress of Solitude" first appeared in DC Comics in Superman #17 as his "Secret Citadel", a secret hide-out built on the outskirts of the city of Metropolis.  By Superman #58, Superman's headquarters was known as the "Fortress of Solitude" and was a secret hide-out built far away from civilization in the frozen tundra of the Arctic.  It is a place where Superman can go and find peace and solace, and both in the comics and the movie, it's where he first learned about his true identity, heritage, and purpose on Earth.

Leaders today could certainly use their own "Fortress of Solitude"!  Here's the interesting question though.  Why do so many leadership experts (and leaders I personally know for that matter) talk about the "loneliness of leadership"?  For example, I've often mentioned that leadership can feel lonely at times (see "It's lonely at the top", "12 O'Clock High", and "Reflections on leadership").  Based on these observations, one could certainly argue that leaders have all the solitude they want and more!  But that's missing the point - the so-called "loneliness of leadership" refers to the fact that when individuals become leaders, they are no longer really part of the group.  Mandy Gilbert, writing for Inc. magazine said, "As the person in charge, it's inevitable that you'll be treated with a different regard than when you were a regular member of the team...You're no longer one of the gang.  You're one of them."

When I talk about the need for a "Fortress of Solitude", I am referring to the fact that in today's world of constant communication and information overload, leaders need time and space to reflect and think.  The American author and essayist William Deresiewicz often talks about the need for solitude.  Deresiewicz delivered a speech in October 2009 to the first year (plebe) class at the United States Military Academy at West Point titled "Solitude and Leadership" in which he argues that solitude is essential to become a successful leader (he also wrote an essay on this topic entitled "The End of Solitude").  Deresiewicz would argue that if you want others to follow, you should learn to be alone with your thoughts!  

The problem, according to Deresiewicz, is technology.  He writes, "Technology is taking away our privacy and our concentration, but it is also taking away our ability to be alone."  Deresiewicz further builds on this theme in the speech he gave to the West Point plebe class, "Here's the other problem with Facebook and Twitter and even The New York Times.  When you expose yourself to those things, especially in the constant way that people do now - older people as well as younger people - you are continuously bombarding yourself with a stream of other people's thoughts.  You are marinating yourself in the conventional wisdom.  In other people's reality: for others, not yourself.  You are creating a cacophony in which it is impossible to hear your own voice, whether it's yourself you're thinking about or anything else."

Ralph Waldo Emerson said that "he who should inspire and lead his race must be defended from travelling with the souls of other men, from living, breathing, and writing in the daily, time-worn yoke of their opinions."  Leading demands that we put ourselves at the front of the herd.  It requires that we think for ourselves.  How do we accomplish that?  By seeking solitude.  Using time and space for ourselves, reading, thinking, and reflecting.  

I once knew a Surgeon-in-Chief at a large academic children's hospital who used to schedule every single morning (usually the first hour of a long day) to read, think, and reflect.  While I was certainly impressed, I was somewhat in disbelief that he would take a full hour out of every morning for just himself and instead of getting on with the demands of his busy job.  As I've grown older and maybe a little wiser, I've realized what an investment that Surgeon-in-Chief was making in not only his professional growth and development as a leader, but also in the overall success of the organization.  

Deresiewicz concluded his talk with the following passage, "I started by noting that solitude and leadership would seem to be contradictory things.  But it seems to me that solitude is the very essence of leadership.  The position of the leader is ultimately an intensely solitary, even intensely lonely one.  However many people you may consult, you are the one who has to make the hard decisions.  And at such moments, all you really have is yourself."

So take time for yourself.  Find your own "Fortress of Solitude" and read, think, and reflect about what it means to be a leader and how you can become a better one.  It will do you good.

Turn and face the storm...

I came across another one of those inspirational stories on social media the other day.  As I've stated in the past (see my post "The Leader of the Pack"), many of these stories are more legend than fact.  However, I thought this one was worth sharing.  It is said that the American Bison, the largest terrestrial animal in North America, is the only animal that turns and heads directly into the wind during a storm (see the picture below as well as a video here).  These majestic creatures know that by turning and facing the storm, they will actually get out of the storm quicker.  Other animals apparently turn the other direction to walk away from the prevailing winds.  The social media post used this "fact" (again, I don't know whether it's true that the bison is the only animal that turns and faces the wind) to instruct the reader to "embrace your inner bison and run toward the storm!"  If true, it's a beautiful analogy.  And even if it's not completely true, it's still a beautiful story.  Whenever we encounter difficult challenges in our lives - and we will - rather than turning away from them, we should face them head on.  When faced with a storm, don't run away.  Don't avoid it.  Don't hope it goes away.  Take it head on.  Be strong and face your challenges.  Be like the mighty bison!

Engaged and burned out?

We've all heard the statistics about burnout in the workplace.  Just over fifty percent of all workers (including those of us in the health care industry) meet at least one of the three criteria (emotional exhaustion, cynicism, or reduced professional efficacy) for burnout, as defined by the Maslach Burnout Inventory.  Burnout is frequently discussed in conjunction with engagement (more on engagement below), and to some extent, burnout can be thought of as the opposite of engagement.  In other words, the employees who are most engaged are generally not the ones who suffer from burnout.  Is that really a true statement, though?

I recently came across a great article by Emma Seppälä and Julia Moeller in Harvard Business Review that stated that 1 in 5 employees is highly engaged and at risk of burnout.  They led a study conducted at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence that surveyed over 1,000 U.S. employees on both engagement and burnout.  What they found may surprise you.  Two out of every five employees surveyed reported high engagement and low burnout, which is what we would generally expect.  Consistent with both the engagement and the burnout literature, these employees generally reported feeling positive emotions (motivation, happiness, etc) and low negative outcomes (a   desire to leave their current job).  Seppälä and Moeller labeled this group the optimally engaged group.  However, one out of every five employees reported both high engagement and high burnout!  These employees reported high levels of interest and motivation to succeed coupled with high degrees of stress, frustration, and a desire to leave their current job.  Seppälä and Moeller labeled this group the engaged-exhausted group.

Importantly, half of the optimally engaged group (remember - high engagement and low burnout) reported having high resources, such as supervisor support, receiving recognition and/or rewards for doing a good job, and self-efficacy (confidence in their ability to do their job well).  In addition, this subgroup also reported low demands, including low workload, not having to deal with a cumbersome bureaucracy, and jobs that didn't require high concentration or attention.  In contrast, employees in the engaged-exhausted group rarely reported having either high resources or low demands.

All of this calls to mind the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model, developed by Arnold Bakker and Evangelia Demerouti in the early 2000's (see "The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of the Art" published in the Journal of Managerial Psychology for a nice review):

The JD-R model is essentially a 2x2 table with "Resources" on the horizontal axis and "Demands" on the vertical axis.  "Resources" are the physical, social, or organizational factors that help us to achieve our goals and reduce stress and include things such as strong co-worker relationships, autonomy, role clarity, opportunities for advancement, learning and professional development, and coaching/mentoring.  "Demands" are the physical and emotional stressors that we experience at work and include things such as time pressures, a heavy workload, a stressful work environment, role ambiguity, poor leadership, and poor co-worker relationships.  

According to the JD-R model then, if "Demands" are high and "Resources" are low, then employees experience burnout.  In contrast, if "Resources" are high and "Demands" are low, then employees experience boredom.  The "sweet spot" if you will is when both "Resources" and "Demands" are high.  Based on Seppälä's and Moeller's research findings, there is an important caveat.  Sixty-four percent of the employees in their engaged-exhausted group reported experiencing both high demands and high resources!

So what are we to conclude then?  First, consistent with the JD-R model, we have to provide employees with the resources they need to do their jobs well, feel good about what they are doing, and recover from the normal everyday stresses that they will inevitably experience at work.  Second, there is a cost to high work demands, even when the appropriate resources are provided.  Seppälä and Moeller suggest ensuring that employee goals are realistic.  It's important to realize that so-called "stretch goals" (the "moon shot" or what Jim Collins refers to as a "BHAG") can come with a cost.  While chasing an ambitious goal or confronting a unique challenge can be incredibly motivating, employees tend to just simply give up if goals are too far out of reach.  I personally like using SMART goals for this reason - ones that are specific, measurable, attainable (actionable), realistic, and time-limited.  In addition, leaders should be mindful not to overload a particularly skilled or motivated employee who often get asked to do a lot of different projects because they are good at their jobs and usually successful in completing the work.  Finally, intangible resources are just as important as tangible ones, like time and money.  Building a culture of psychological safety, clarifying roles and responsibilities, developing cohesive teams, providing opportunities for professional growth and development (and career advancement) are equally important. 

Seppälä and Moeller conclude, "The data is clear: engagement is key, it's what we should strive for as leaders and employees.  But what we want is smart engagement - the kind that leads to enthusiasm, motivation, and productivity, without the burnout."

"Who would Plutarch write about today?"

The Greek historian and philosopher Plutarch lived from around AD 46 to AD 119.  He is perhaps most famous for his Parallel Lives, a series of 48 biographies of famous men written in pairs - one Greek and one Roman.  These men were the exemplars of Greek and Roman society, and throughout history, the rationale for reading Plutarch has been to read, study, learn, and model our lives on these men so that we too can be exemplars in society.  While the book is a must read for anyone interested in ancient Greece or Rome, Plutarch's Parallel Lives also has a lot to tell us about leadership and character, even in today's society.  

I recently started reading Leaders: Myth and Reality by retired General Stanley McChrystal.  In the prologue, General McChrystal references Plutarch and a lecture by The New York Times columnist and writer David Brooks delivered at a Jackson Institute Senior Fellows Lecture at Yale in 2013 entitled "Who would Plutarch write about today?"  I was very curious and recently listened to the lecture.  While he does provide some brief highlights on who he believes are today's exemplars, he certainly describes each individual in less detail than he does in his book, The Road to Character.  He mentions the following leaders in the book (I've bolded the ones that he talked about in the lecture), all of which were leaders from the 20th Century: Dwight Eisenhower and his mother, Ida Stover Eisenhower; Frances Perkins; Franklin Roosevelt; Viktor Frankl; Dorothy Day; George Marshall; A. Philip Randolph; Bayard Rustin; Martin Luther King, Jr; Mary Anne Evans / George Eliot and her mate George Lewes; Augustine and his mother Monica; Samuel Johnson and Michael de Montaigne; Johnny Unitas; Joe Namath. Brooks provides a character sketch and describes the personal weaknesses that each of his exemplars overcame.

During the lecture and throughout The Road to Character, Brooks focuses upon the shift in moral culture that has taken place since the 1940's.  He begins by talking about the popular beliefs that determined culture in the 1940's (notably many of the exemplars mentioned come from this era), when humility was a prime virtue.  Brooks actually taught a an undergraduate course at Yale in the 2010's on humility.  In a review published in The Guardian, Brooks says that he wrote the book "to save my own soul."  He goes on to say that he discovered that he was spending "too much time cultivating what he calls 'the résumé virtues' – racking up impressive accomplishments – and too little on 'the eulogy virtues', the character strengths for which we’d like to be remembered."

Brooks argues we've shifted from a culture of self-effacement, humility, and dedication to others to one of self-advancement, conceit, and expression.  Importantly, he does not suggest that we should go back to the 1940's (which had its own share of problems), but rather that perhaps the pendulum has swung too far to one side of the continuum from self-effacement to self-expression.  He mentions a book that I've not read by Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik entitled The Lonely Man of Faith, a philosophical text based upon the biblical story of Adam and Eve, in which Soloveitchik describes two contradictory sides of human nature that he calls Adam I and Adam II.  Adam I is the external, career-driven, ambitious side (which Brooks calls the "résumé self"), while Adam II  is internal and humble (which Brooks calls the "eulogy self").  Building upon the themes he discussed in both the lecture and the book, Brooks would argue that leaders today spend more time as Adam I and not enough time as Adam II.

I thoroughly enjoyed both the lecture as well as the book.  Brooks makes some great points in both. I have been reflecting more about his question ("Who would Plutarch write about today?"), which is a topic that I would like to explore in more depth in future posts.

Logistics wins wars!

I've been listening to an online series of lectures called "The History of the United States Navy", one of the "Great Courses" sponsored by The Teaching Company (which I believe is now called Wondrium).  The course is narrated by Dr. Craig Symonds, author and former professor at both the United States Naval Academy and the U.S. Naval War College.  I am really enjoying it.  I never made the connection that the pivotal Battle of Midway, which Symonds called "one of the most consequential naval engagements in world history...as both tactically decisive and strategically influential" and the D-Day landings at Normandy both took place in the first week of June, albeit two years apart (the Battle of Midway took place from June 4-7, 1942, while D-Day was June 6, 1944).  I've previously posted about both events in naval history in the past, so I won't go into great detail on either battle.  I am once again struck by the fact that the winning side in both battles had the right strategy as well as the tactical execution of that strategy (combined with a little luck, of course).  However, I am even more impressed by the fact that the winning side in both battles had excellent logistics.  

I've talked about the importance of logistics in the past - see "Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics."  Here is a passage from that post that I think bears repeating:

While "strategy" defines the long-term goals, "tactics" are much more concrete, specific, and detailed (in our context, the initiatives that will be completed to reach the objective).  The ancient Chinese military strategist, Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War, "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory.  Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."  But Sun Tzu also had an important comment to make about logistics.  He said, "The line between disorder and order lies in logistics."

Strategy, tactics, and logistics truly represent the sine qua non of leadership.  Management guru Tom Peters said, "Leaders win through logistics.  Vision, sure.  Strategy, yes.  But when you go to war, you need to have both toilet paper and bullets at the right place at the right time.  In other words, you must win through superior logistics."

Alexander the Great once quipped, "My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay."  That's how much importance one of history's greatest military leaders placed on logistics.  

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who led the Allied invasion at Normandy on D-Day said, "You won't find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics."  According to the website Investopedia, "In simple terms, the goal of logistics management is to have the right amount of a resource or input at the right time, getting it to the appropriate location in proper condition, and delivering it to the correct internal or external customer."  In other words, logistics is all about making sure that the right people and the right equipment and supplies are in the right place at exactly the right time. 

What is true in war is equally true when it comes to organizations - the success (here defined as whether an organization fulfills its mission, achieves its vision, and completes its core objectives) of any organization is dependent upon the three-legged stool of strategy, tactics, and logistics. 

"The good old days?"

I watched several episodes of the television show The Office over Memorial Day Weekend, because Comedy Central was running a marathon event of all the episodes.  As a result, I've already posted a couple of times in the last week using themes from the show.  During the final episode, the character Andy Bernard (played by the actor Ed Helms) says, "I wish there was a way to know you're in the good old days before you've actually left them" (here's a video clip from the episode).  It's an amazing quote from a troubled character, who actually had left his job as office manager to go try to fulfill his dream of being a television star.  

While I am sure everyone would interpret the meaning of this quote in their own way, to me it says that we should absolutely focus on the present.  We should try to find happiness today, instead of waiting for the happiness to come tomorrow.  I am reminded of a quote by the author Ernest Hemingway (I think it comes from his novel, For Whom The Bell Tolls), "Today is only one day in all the days that will ever be.  But what will happen in all the other days that ever come can depend on what you do today."  

Or the Dalai Lama, who said, "There are only two days in the year that nothing can be done.  One is called yesterday and the other is called tomorrow, so today is the right day to love, believe, do, and mostly live."  

Or the following quote, which former Cubs player Carlos Pena posted on the wall of the team's clubhouse during a particularly difficult stretch a few years ago, "You can't see the rising sun if your eyes are fixed on the setting one.  Yesterday is history.  Tomorrow is a mystery.  Today is a gift.  That's why it's called the present.  Conquer the now."

Conquer the now.  Live for the present moment.  What you do today - how you live today - matters.  Above all else, today is the right day to love, believe, do, and mostly live...

The Art of Improversation

There's a classic scene from the television sitcom, The Office.  Dunder Mifflin Chief Financial Officer David Wallace asks the Scranton Branch Manager Michael Scott how his branch is so successful, particuarly at a time when sales are down at the other Dunder Mifflin branches.  He wants to know Michael's secret.  Michael answers with:

"David here it is. My, philosophy is, basically this. And this is something that I live by. And I always have. And I always will. Don’t, ever, for any reason, do anything, to anyone, for any reason, ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who or who you are with, or or where you are going, or, or where you’ve been. Ever. For any reason. Whatsoever."

Of course, Michael was making something up (his term for, "improversation" is a portmanteau of "improvisation" and "conversation"), as he really didn't know how to respond.  If you watch his facial expressions carefully, he was clearly worried that David was going to fire him for subpar performance.  Instead, David praised him (sort of)!

I've often referred to the fact that most organizations today exist in a VUCA world, i.e. one characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity.  As Alvin Toffler presciently wrote in 1984 in his book Future Shock today's world is characterized by "too much change in too short a time."  Leadership in today's world requires agility, flexibility, creativity, and adaptability.  As Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella says, "The role of leadership today is to bring clarity in uncertain times.  The more uncertain things are, the more leadership is required.  There is no job description for what you are facing, no rule book...Today's leaders need to thrive in the face of this uncertainty."

The leaders who successfully navigate through today's VUCA world are the ones who can shift and pivot quickly in order to adapt to changes in the business environment.  VUCA leadership at times has been compared to improvisation (see also Frank Barrett's wonderful article, "Creativity and Improvisation in Jazz and Organizations"), whether jazz, comedy, or theatrical improvisation.  If you've never attended a theatrical improv performance, it basically occurs as follows.  There is no script to follow.  There are no set characters. Actors are generally told about the scene immediately beforehand (often based upon suggestions from the audience).  They have to follow each other's lead, paying close attention to what the other actors are doing and responding appropriately.  The story develops, often unexpectedly, in real time.  Similarly, with jazz improvisation, the musicians do not use a musical score, but rather play along and follow each other's lead.  They allow the music to develop in real time.  Jazz great Wynton Marsalis says, "In Jazz, improvisation isn’t a matter of just making any ol’ thing up. Jazz, like any language, has its own grammar and vocabulary. There’s no right or wrong, just some choices that are better than others."

Marsalis makes a great point.  Leadership improvisation is not a matter of "making any 'ol thing up."  Rather, leadership improvisation requires, just like jazz or theatrical improvisation, collaboration, coordination, listening, and teamwork.  It also requires creativity - what many refer to as "thinking outside the box".  Doug Sundheim, writing for Forbes magazine, offers four leadership lessons from improv.  Sundheim actually worked with a theatrical coach named Scotty Watson and tried his hand at theatrical improv.  Watson told him, "Most people don’t see what’s going on around them.  Stuck in their own heads, they miss the moment. In improv, we call this missing the 'offer.' When you miss offers, things break down. Consider your airplane scene [referring to one of Sundheim's attempts at improv]. Your desire to play baseball was the offer. Another actor took it and built on it, which is what made the scene work. That actor said yes. If he had rejected your offer, it would have stopped the scene dead in its tracks. Improv is about taking the situation that’s handed to you and saying yes and then building on it. This is exactly what leaders need to do in the current moment. Denying reality never works."

Sundheim's first lesson: "Live in observation...Observe everything.  Keep your eyes open for new data and information...The advice is to see and accept everything.  It may not be something you would have chosen, but it's here and it's reality.  Being firmly grounded in the reality of the moment. gives you power."

His second lesson is to "Accept and build" and embrace the improv concept of "Yes, and..."  The "Yes...and" allows for both creativity and flexibility.  As Sundheim writes, "You’re saying, 'Yes I see that…and here is a thought to build on it.'  The kiss of death in improv is the word no because it stops action. It’s the same thing on a leadership team. Every offer, even if you disagree with it, has the potential to forward action. When you disagree, you have two options. You can say, 'No, you’re wrong and here’s why,' or 'Yes, I see where you’re coming from and here’s a suggestion to build on it.' The former is a battle of ideas which stops action and saps energy. The latter builds ideas that generate movement and create energy."

Sundheim's third lesson is to "Make active and positive choices", and in my way of thinking his fourth lesson is very similar: "Don't be afraid to mess up".  Both of these concepts mandate a culture of psychological safety.  A culture of psychological safety is defined as one in which individuals feel safe to take interpersonal risks, to speak up and/or openly disagree (even with their leaders) and to escalate their concerns without fear of retribution, punishment, or pressure to hide bad news.  Improve is action-oriented.  As Sundheim writes, "When you’re moving with positive intent, even if it’s in the wrong direction, you can course correct. When you’re not moving, you can’t course correct because you’re not on a course. In leadership, like improv, the key is to get into action."

As the late actor Robin Williams said, "The improv, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but when it does, it's like open-field running."  Leadership in today's VUCA world requires improvisation - dare I say "improversation"?