Future Shock

I've been wanting to read Future Shock by Alvin Toffler for several years.  It's an older book (it was first published in 1970), so I wasn't sure it would be as relevant today as it was when it was first released.  After I kept reading or hearing references to the book, I finally decided a few months ago to check it out at the library and read it.  The book was an interesting read, even if at times a bit of a struggle.  Many of Toffler's predictions were off (not too surprisingly),  but some were spot on.  The book itself hasn't aged particularly well.  For example, Toffler focuses on men in the workforce, and he even talks at one point about how wives make friends with their husbands' co-workers' wives and how this could pose a problem when the man gets promoted and his colleagues are now his direct reports.  However, some of Toffler's main points still resonate and are useful to some of the problems confronting society today.

Toffler first coined the term "future shock" in an article "The future as a way of life" in Horizon magazine in 1965.  The term is used in this context "to describe the shattering stress and disorientation that we induce in individuals by subjecting them to too much change in too short a time."  That change can be technological, cultural, or social in nature.  At the time he wrote the book, the world was changing rapidly, at least in Toffler's opinion.  Whereas previous generations had experienced gradual transformation over time, the newer generations growing up in modern society were facing constant, rapid shifts in everything from family life to work to values.

For example, Toffler describes a concept that he calls the 800th lifetime.  All of human history can be divided into lifetimes, each lasting approximately 62 years (the average lifespan at the time he wrote the book).  If you start "human history" from the very beginning of Homo sapiens, we humans have been around for nearly 50,000 years, which equates to about 800 lifetimes.  Of these 800 lifetimes, about 650 lifetimes were spent in caves.  We have, in fact, only been communicating with future lifetimes during the last 70 lifetimes, following the invention of writing.  We've had the benefit of mass communication following the invention of the printing press for the last six lifetimes.  Toffler goes on to write, "Only during the last four has it been possible to measure time with any precision.  Only in the last two has anyone anywhere used an electric motor.  And the overwhelming majority of all the material goods we use in daily life today have been developed within the present, the 800th, lifetime."

Toffler suggests then that one of the main drivers of "future shock" is the rapid pace of societal change that has occurred in just the last few lifetimes.  Other scientists have expressed a similar sentiment.  Carl Sagan once dedicated part of an episode in his popular television series of 1980, Cosmos to a concept he called the cosmic calendar.  Sagan maps the entire 13.7 billion year life of our universe (give or take a few million years!) on to a single calendar year.  The so-called "Big Bang" takes place just around midnight on January 1st.  Earth is formed around September 14, while prokaryotes first appear around September 21.  Dinosaurs roamed the Earth around December 25, while our own modern times coincides with just before midnight on December 31!  In other words, when viewed on the timescale of the entire universe, our society has made remarkable progress in a very, very short period of time!

It's hard to keep up with change when it occurs at such a rapid pace.  However, Toffler would also suggest that the pace of change is accelerating, and that makes sense if you consider his 800th lifetimes concept of Sagan's cosmic calendar.  Toffler writes, ""How do we know that change is accelerating?  There is, after all, no absolute way to measure change."  Instead, he asks us to consider another analogy.  He writes, "When a fifty-year-old father tells his fifteen-year-old son that he will have to wait two years before he can have a car of his own, that interval of 730 days represents a mere 4 percent of the father's lifetime to date.  It represents over 13 percent of the boy's lifetime."

Toffler cautions that the pace of change will force all of us to adapt, but not everyone will be successful in doing so.  He quotes Lawrence Suhm, a sociologist who was at the University of Wisconsin: "We are going through a period as traumatic as the evolution of man's predecessors from sea creatures to land creatures...Those who can adapt will; those who can't will either go on surviving somehow at a lower level of development or will perish - washed up on the shores."

Overall, I was glad that I read the book.  I plan to return to Toffler's themes discussed in Future Shock in a future post.  

Our National Bird

Our family will be celebrating Thanksgiving this coming Thursday in Atlanta - it's been our family tradition (see my post "Holiday Traditions" from a few years ago) to celebrate Thanksgiving with my wife's side of the family.  I am looking forward to eating some turkey!

There's a common myth that Founding Father Benjamin Franklin once argued to have the wild turkey be named our National Bird.  Unfortunately, it's exactly that - a myth.  The myth stems from a letter that Franklin wrote to his daughter, Sarah Bache in January 1784 (nearly two full years after the Great Seal of the United States was approved by the Continental Congress - remember, all of this happened in the days of the Articles of Confederation and before the U.S. Constitution), in which he was actually criticizing the eagle emblem of the Society of the Cincinnati, a fraternal, hereditary society founded in 1783 to commemorate the American Revolutionary War.  Membership in the society was restricted to current military officers who served in the Continental Army and their descendants.

Franklin wrote:

For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen as the Representative of our Country.  He is a Bird of bad moral Character. He does not get his Living honestly. You may have seen him perch'd on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labour of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him. With all this Injustice, he is never in good Case but like those among Men who live by Sharping and Robbing he is generally poor and often very lousy. Besides he is a rank Coward: The little King Bird not bigger than a Sparrow attacks him boldly and drives him out of the District. 

He is therefore by no means a proper Emblem for the brave and honest Cincinnati of America who have driven all the King birds from our Country, tho' exactly fit for that Order of Knights which the French call Chevaliers d'Industrie. 

I am on this account not displeas'd that the Figure is not known as a Bald Eagle, but looks more like a Turkey. For in Truth the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America. Eagles have been found in all Countries, but the Turkey was peculiar to ours, the first of the Species seen in Europe being brought to France by the Jesuits from Canada, and serv'd up at the Wedding Table of Charles the ninth. He is besides, tho' a little vain and silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on.

Here is the version of the Society of Cincinnati emblem that Franklin thought looked more like a turkey:

And here is an early version of the Great Seal that was designed by Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Continental Congress, which was eventually approved and adopted (and still used today):

Apparently, the American Bald Eagle wasn't even our National Bird until December 2024!  Until then, we didn't have a National Bird.  The bison is the official National Mammal, the Oak is the official National Tree, and the Rose is the official National Flower.  And now, as of 2024, the American Bald Eagle is our National Bird.

It sounds like Benjamin Franklin at least thought that the turkey was a better symbol than the bald eagle.  And, as it turns out, at least one speaker on leadership, Coach Murphy, thinks that turkeys represent a better style of leadership!  He suggests that "eagles" are leaders who are independent, aggressive, visionary, and high-achievers.  They are the proverbial "lone wolves" who often prefer to do things themselves.  They do not work well with others, but they can potentially achieve great things when leading others. Turkeys, in contrast, are leaders who are compliant, meticulous, grounded and calm.  Turkeys are the slow perfectionists who remain calm.

So, while you are enjoying your Thanksgiving turkey, think of leadership and be a Turkey!

"Think tragically to avoid tragedy..."

I'm not sure why or how I got started, but I really like to read about foreign policy.  The author and political scientist Robert D. Kaplan who has written at least 23 books on foreign affairs and travel.  He is a frequent contributor to The Atlantic, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Republic, The National Interest, Foreign Affairs, and The Wall Street Journal.  One of his most important and influential articles, "The Coming Anarchy" appeared in The Atlantic in 1994.  The article, and the book that followed a few years later, are eerily prophetic.  Kaplan writes, "To understand the events of the next fifty years, one must understand environmental scarcity, cultural and racial clash, geographic destiny, and the transformation of war."

I recently picked up and read Kaplan's book, The Tragic Mind, published in 2024.  Kaplan begins the book writing about the ancient Greek tragedies, written primarily by three of the four greatest playwrights (in his opinion and in no particular order) - Euripides, Sophocles, and Aeschylus (the fourth playwright is William Shakespeare).  He uses the Greek tragedies as a framework for his concept of "tragic thinking", which he defines as accepting limits, uncertainty, and the inevitability of suffering (which contrasts sharply with the modern viewpoint of rationalist optimism).  Whereas the rationalist optimist believes that things will get better, but not without experiencing hardships and difficulties in the short-term, the tragic thinker recognizes that even well-intended actions can have unintended and often undesirable consequences.  The rationalist optimist believes that human reason can solve even the most complex problems, while the tragic thinker assumes that the human tendency to hubris, aggression, pride, and the desire for power will limit progress.  Where the rationalist optimist suggests that human progress is real, measurable, and cumulative, the tragic thinker knows that progress is neither permanent nor irreversible.   The tragic thinker understands that every solution can create new problems or dilemmas to solve.  

While it's tempting to discount Kaplan's concept of "tragic thinking" as overly pessimistic, dark, and somber, I think he does make some good points in his argument.  I am reminded of the "Stockdale Paradox" first proposed by management consultant and leadership expert Jim Collins and named after Vice Admiral James B. Stockdale, former Vietnam prisoner-of-war and winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor (see my two posts, "Tap Code" and "Abandon all hope ye who enter here...").  The "Stockdale Paradox" can be stated simply with one of Vice Admiral Stockdale's responses to a question posed by Jim Collins, "You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."

I also can't help thinking about the High Reliability Organization (HRO) characteristic of "Preoccupation with Failure".  HROs do not look at failures as things to avoid at all cost, but as opportunities to learn and improve their systems.  In addition, HROs think creatively about all the little (and big) things that can contribute to failure and train accordingly (see my posts, "Imagine the worst" and "The failure of foresight").  HROs too "think tragically" to avoid tragedy.

Kaplan argues that by embracing "tragic thinking", leaders will approach the decisions that they make with greater humility and caution.  I also believe that proactively preparing for the worst (see my post, "Imagine the worst"), often times helps us achieve the most (read about Gary Klein's concept of the premortem in my post, "Going to Abilene").  One legitimate concern is that "tragic thinking" can be too pessimistic, and this is probably true if it is taken to the extreme.  While pessimism is defeatist ("Bad things happen regardless of what we do, so why even try"), "tragic thinking" is both realistic and pragmatic.  Through "tragic thinking" we acknowledge that life is difficult, while still leaving room for agency and hope.  Not all outcomes are preordained, yet we have to be realistic about the possibility that things won't always go our way.  

"Tragic thinking" can help leaders prepare for and even avoid disaster.  We can and should prepare for the worst-case scenario.  At the same time, however, we can also acknowledge that the worst-case scenario is not a guarantee.

"Victory is won through many advisors..."

I came across a reference to a verse from Proverbs 11:14, which states, "For a lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisors.  I don't know the context of this particular statement, but I do know that the Book of Proverbs in the Bible is traditionally ascribed to King Solomon, who was known to be very wise.  I think this particular proverb makes two important points for leadership.

First, without wise guidance, an organization is like a ship without a helm or a car without a steering wheel.  An organization that operates without a strategy will operate aimlessly and ultimately fail.  Organizations need a mission, vision, and set of core values.  Based on that mission and vision, they develop a set of goals that will help the organization to achieve that mission and vision.  The core values provides the guardrails for how they get there.  The strategy outlines the steps needed to achieve those goals.  Without a clear strategy, the people within the organization will lack clear goals and priorities.  Time, money, and effort will get wasted.  And the organization will be slow to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.

The second half of this proverb suggests that having many advisors provides safety, security, and success.  We know that there is strength in diversity of opinions (see also my post "Chemistry Magic", "Napoleon's Corporal", and "Going to Abilene").  Leaders need to have a "team" of trusted advisors that they can rely upon for guidance and counsel.  Importantly, this team needs to be comprised of people with different interests (perhaps even competing interests) and a diversity of opinion.  I am reminded of President Abraham Lincoln, who put together a "team of rivals" (see Doris Kearns Goodwin's superb book by the same name, as well as my posts, "Rivals" and "In the tent...").  It's just as important that the leader actually listens and considers these different opinions, as President Lincoln absolutely did throughout his presidency.  

King Solomon was very wise.  An organization needs a strategy.  And the leader of that organization needs a team of trusted advisors.  The result is victory (or in this context, success of the organization).

Ten seconds

I've mentioned Admiral Arleigh Burke a few times in the past (see my posts, "You know what to do..." and "We rely upon your ability...you know what to do").  Admiral Burke had a distinguished career in the United States Navy, retiring in 1961 after nearly 40 years on active duty.  He served as the Chief of Naval Operations under both Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, and an Aegis-guided missile destroyer DDG-51 (USS Arleigh Burke) was , commissioned in his honor in 1991only the fourth time a US Navy vessel was named after a living person.  

Admiral Burke famously once said, "The difference between a good officer and a poor one is about ten seconds."  He first uttered those profound words shortly after taking over command of Destroyer Squadron 23 (the "Little Beavers") in October 1943, while fighting in the Pacific Theater of World War II.  He came to the conclusion of his "10 second rule" while studying the Battle of Tassafaronga, a battle that took place on November 30, 1942 between the U.S. Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy during the Guadalcanal Campaign.  A U.S. Navy force of five cruisers and four destroyers under the command of Rear Admiral Carleton H. Wright intercepted eight Japanese destroyers attempting to deliver food to their military forces on the island of Guadalcanal.  However, the tactical advantage due to the element of surprise was quickly lost when the U.S. destroyers were forced to wait for four minutes after radar contact for permission to launch their torpedoes from the commanding officer.  After obtaining permission to fire, the U.S. destroyers did sink one Japanese destroyer, but the delay caused most of the torpedoes to miss and the muzzle flashes exposed their position.  The element of surprise was lost.  The Japanese destroyers, commanded by Rear Admiral Raizō Tanaka, quickly launched their Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedoes, sinking one US cruiser and heavily damaging three others. The Japanese forces escaped undamaged, but they were unable to complete their supply mission.  The battle is often considered one of the worst defeats in the history of the U.S. Navy (behind only the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Salvo Island, which also occurred during the Guadalcanal Campaign).

The Japanese "Long Lance" torpedo could (and did) outperform any weapon that the U.S. Navy had in their possession.  They were faster, deadlier, and had a longer range than the U.S. Navy's own Mark XV torpedo.  However, the U.S. Navy's radar systems were more advanced, giving them the ability to detect enemy ships at a range of just over 15 miles.  But this would only be an advantage if the front-line commanders were empowered to act without having to obtain permission from their superior officers (as was the case in the Battle of Tassafaronga).  Admiral Burke fully believed in and embraced the concept of mission command, a concept that is similar to that of the High Reliability Organization (HRO) concept of deference to expertise.  I have posted about mission command a number of times in the past (see, most recently, "Autonomy and Alignment", "Do not command more than necessary..." and "Improvise, Overcome, and Adapt").  Admiral Burke told his superior officer at the time, Rear Admiral Aaron Merrill, "I want you to have enough faith to let me get going on doctrine the moment I make enemy contact, and without first getting permission from you."  Admiral Merrill gave his consent, and Admiral Burke trained his team to the "10 second" standard.  The rest, they say is history.

While leaders today likely aren't in the position of having to fight in combat, the "10 second rule" and the concept of "mission command" are just as applicable to leadership in today's VUCA world.  Not every decision has to be made under critical time constraints, but many decisions do have to be made quickly.  I do think that Admiral Burke's "10 second rule" is an important leadership skill and is essential to high performance.  And just as Admiral Burke said, the difference between good leaders and great leaders is about 10 seconds!

"Change happens at the speed of trust..."

The late Stephen R. Covey is perhaps most famous for his book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.  His son, Stephen M.R. Covey, is the former CEO of the Covey Leadership Center and author of The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything.  Covey's main argument is that building trust is a key leadership competency.  Trust is also a strategic advantage, not just in business, but in life as well.  It's an incredible book based on the theme that "change happens at the speed of trust."  I've often said that change is the law of life and leadership.  Covey would definitely agree, but he would also emphatically add that without trust, change is impossible.

Covey suggests, "Trust always affects two outcomes - speed and cost.  When trust goes down, speed will also go down and costs will go up.  When trust goes up, speed will also go up and costs will go down."  He simplifies the importance of trust with a basic formula: (S × E) × T = R, where S = Strategy, E = Execution, T = Trust, and R = Results.  With high-trust teams, decisions are made faster and with less bureaucracy (see my post "You centralize so that you can decentralize...").  Conversely, with low-trust teams, the need for legal agreements, audits, and the degree of micromanagement across the organization all increase.

Covey explains further, "As one eminent consultant on this topic, Robert Shaw, has said, Above all, success in business requires two things: a winning competitive strategy, and superb organizational execution. Distrust is the enemy of both. I submit that while high trust won't necessarily rescue a poor strategy, low trust will almost always derail a good one."

Trust is critical to an organization's success.  Covey talks about the fact that organizations can have either a "trust tax" or a "trust dividend".  The American political scientist Francis Fukuyama said, "Widespread distrust in a society...imposes a kind of tax on all forms of economic activity, a tax that high-trust societies do not have to pay."  Covey applies this same logic to organizations.  Organizations with high-trust earn a dividend, in terms of their ability to generate positive results when they execute their strategy.  However, organizations with low-trust pay a tax, where the results that they actually generate are significantly less than what they could have (or should have) generated with their strategy.  

I've mentioned the Harvard Business Review article "Begin with Trust" by Frances X. Frei and Anne Morriss once in the past (see my post "How groups can make better decisions...").  Frei and Morriss mention a concept that they call the "Trust Triangle" (see their figure below).  They state that trust has three drivers - authenticity, logic, and empathy.  They go on to suggest that "when trust is lost, it can almost always be traced back to a breakdown in one of these three drivers."

  

Similarly, Covey suggests that there is more than one driver of trust.  He writes, "Trust is equal parts character and competence... You can look at any leadership failure, and it's always a failure of one or the other."  He goes on to say, "Character includes your integrity, your motive, your intent with people.  Competence includes your capabilities, your skills, your results, your track record.  And both are vital...Character is a constant; it's necessary for trust in any circumstance.  Competence is situational; it depends on what the circumstances requires."

Covey uses a great analogy.  One time in the past, his wife was scheduled to undergo a minor surgical procedure at the hospital.  Covey says that while she trusted him completely, there's no way that she would trust him to perform the surgery that she required.  So in this particular context (surgery), Covey's wife did not "trust" him to be able to competently perform the procedure.  

Covey goes on to suggest that trust is also confidence.  "Simply put, trust means confidence.  The opposite of trust - distrust - is suspicion.  When you trust people, you have confidence in them - in their integrity and in their abilities.  When you distrust people, you are suspicious of them - of their integrity, their agenda, their capabilities, or their track record.  It's that simple."  Again, trust requires both character and competence.

Coming back full circle to the concept of the "speed of trust", Covey states, "Low trust causes friction, whether it is caused by unethical behavior or by ethical but incompetent behavior (because even good intentions can never take the place of bad judgment). Low trust is the greatest cost in life and in organizations, including families. Low trust creates hidden agendas, politics, interpersonal conflict, interdepartmental rivalries, win-lose thinking, defensive and protective communication—all of which reduce the speed of trust. Low trust slows everything—every decision, every communication, and every relationship."

The Speed of Trust is a great book.  Given the widespread (and growing even more so) lack of trust in society today, I think we can learn a lot from Covey's book.  I will return to some of the concepts that he discusses in the book in future posts.

Broken banjos and guitars...

I was talking to our Chief of Cardiology earlier this week who apparently just returned from the American Heart Association meeting in New Orleans.  He is a jazz trumpet player, so I asked him if he took his trumpet with him.  He did, of course, but then he told me that he wasn't sure that the street musicians would welcome him to join in and play with them.  He only played the trumpet in his hotel. Too bad!  

He then told me a story that on a similar trip to New Orleans several years earlier, he and one of his friends, who happened to be a pediatric heart surgeon, had brought their musical instruments (a trumpet and banjo, respectively) to play on the streets of New Orleans.  Unfortunately, his friend's banjo was damaged beyond repair during the flight.  I asked our Chief of Cardiology if he had heard of the story, "United Breaks Guitars", which I first learned in business school.  He hadn't heard of it, so I sent him a link to the story.

I last posted about "United Breaks Guitars" in 2017.  The story is the subject of a famous Harvard Business School case study (called simply enough "United Breaks Guitars").  Basically, a professional musician named Dave Carroll was traveling with his band on a United flight from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Omaha, Nebraska.  The flight had stopped briefly at O'Hare airport in Chicago, and Carroll overheard another passenger on his plane claim that the baggage handlers were tossing around a bunch of guitars.  Carroll's guitar was damaged, and he later filed a claim against United to pay for the repairs.  United refused (several times over the course of 15 months), so Carroll wrote a song about his experience that went viral on YouTube.  Within four weeks of the video going viral, the United stock price dropped over 10% at a loss in shareholder value of nearly $180 million.  The whole point of the case study is to address issues such as (1) communication with customers, (2) handling negative complaints and facilitating service recovery, (3) dealing with and minimizing the impact of negative press.

It's a great story with a happy ending.  When I first posted about it, I mentioned another unfortunate situation that United was trying to address.  There had been several social media posts about an incident that occurred on a United airlines flight from Chicago to Louisville.  Apparently, United overbooked the flight (as many airlines do) and had been offering vouchers for passengers to volunteer to take a later flight instead.  None of the passengers volunteered, and they were then told that the airline would be randomly selecting passengers to step off the plane and take a later flight.  According to some reports, there was another flight crew that needed to get to Louisville to fly another plane.  One of the passengers refused to comply, security was called, and several videos (taken by other passengers on their smart phones) showed airport security and one man in plain clothes (reportedly an airport police officer) forcibly removing the man from his seat and dragging him (semi-conscious) off the airplane. 

Well, when I mentioned the "United Breaks Guitars" story to our Chief of Cardiology, I went back to see what had happened with this other story involving the passenger being forcibly removed from the plane.  We all make mistakes, and thankfully we often get a second chance to do things better in the future.  United clearly learned something from their "broken guitar" mistake, as the airline quickly paid for the pediatric heart surgeon's broken banjo.  Hopefully United has learned from this incident too.

As discussed by John Deighton in a Harvard Business Review article (see "Companies like United need to cultivate good judgement, and free their employees to use it"), United made several mistakes in how they handled the passenger security incident.  For example, it took more than two days for the company's CEO to issue a public apology.  Though the lessons of this case go beyond merely how to respond quickly to a public relations nightmare.  Deighton suggests that companies such as United need to empower their employees to make decisions beyond rigid policies, fostering a culture that values critical thinking and listening and ensuring leaders have the experience and awareness to make sound judgments in complex situations. I can't help but think of the famous "Tire Story" in which a Nordstrom employee accepted a return from a customer who brought in a car tire!  Nordstrom has a notoriously simple and incredibly lenient return policy.

Organizations have to find the right balance here.  There are always some policies and rules that organizations (and their employees) will have to follow.  However, we shouldn't force employees to rely solely on heavy-handed policies that can stifle them and slow down organizations.  As I have discussed several times in the past, there should be "guard rails" between which employees have relative freedom to move and make decisions.  Similarly, organizations should give employees the authority and training to use their judgment to solve problems and prioritize the customer experience.  Good judgement can often be better than rule-based decision making, especially in "predictably difficult situations" where automated rules are insufficient.  Lastly, organizations need to acknowledge that some policies, though intended to create consistency, can lead to negative consequences when followed blindly.  They should be prepared to offer alternatives or exceptions to prevent a crisis.  In retrospect, calling security to forcibly remove a passenger from an overbooked flight was a horrible decision.  

Deighton's final paragraph was eerily prophetic given the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence today.  He acknowledged that a computer algorithm had likely overbooked the United flight and likely also selected which passengers needed to get off the plane.  He suggested that in most circumstances, this is probably justified and indeed better than if a human had to process all of the data and make a decision.  However, the computer's decision should be considered a suggestion, not a command backed up by a threat to call security!  He concluded, "Machines follow orders.  People use discretion.  Learning the importance of that truism is the lesson of this awful situation, and it will be a lesson of growing relevance and application as algorithms and machines play ever larger roles in service delivery."

Fear the Blob

Beware the Blob!  No, I'm not talking about the B-movie sci-fi monster movie from the late 1950's starring Steve McQueen (nor the 1988 remake).  The movie's plot involves a carnivorous amoeba-like alien life form that crashes to Earth from outer space inside a meteorite that gradually envelops (and eats) any living thing, growing larger and larger and becoming more aggressive at each stage.  The heroes eventually freeze the Blob and transport it to the Arctic, with the prophetic realization that the cold will stop the Blob "as long as the Arctic stays cold."  Hmmm...The Arctic is getting warmer and warmer.

Ironically enough, the Blob that I am referring has a lot to do with global weather patterns.  It's completely different than either "El Niño" (Spanish for "the little boy") or "La Niña" (Spanish for "the little girl").  Basically, the "Blob" refers to a massive patch of unusually warm ocean water that occurs in the northeastern Pacific Ocean, near Alaska and the western coastal regions of North America.  It's caused when (1) weak winds over the Pacific Ocean reduce ocean mixing, so that less cool water from the depths makes it up to the surface and (2) persistent high-pressure systems trap heat in the ocean.  The Blob changes the direction of the prevailing jet stream, leading to warmer, drier winters in the Western United States and colder, snowier conditions in the Eastern and Midwestern United States.

The Blob is not the same as "El Niño" or "La Niña", but it can interact with both of these weather patterns.  Recall that "El Niño" refers to a weather pattern that occurs every 2-7 years when the surface ocean water temperature is warmer in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean, producing wetter weather in the Americas and drier weather in Australia.  It's caused by weakening or reversal of the prevailing trade winds.  In contrast, "La Niña" refers to a weather pattern that often follows "El Niño" when the surface ocean water temperature is cooler in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean, creating drier conditions in the Americas and wetter weather in Australia and Southeast Asia.  It's caused by stronger than normal prevailing trade winds.  Whereas "El Niño" can strengthen or prolong the Blob, "La Niña" tends to weaken the Blob.

I don't pretend to be a climate scientist, nor do I fully understand meteorology.  What I do understand is that the Blob is supposed to make the upcoming Chicago winter one of the coldest and snowiest winters we've had for a long time!  We last experienced a Blob like the current one during the winter of 2013-2014, when Chicago experienced 23 days with temperatures below zero and several consecutive days of falling snow.

It's likely that our changing climate (dare I say "global warming") is creating the kinds of global weather patterns and conditions that favor the Blob.  I predict that when Chicago is unusually cold and snowy, at least someone in our national government will say something like, "Global warming?  Just look how cold Chicago is today!"  Oh well.  Bundle up Chicago - it's going to get cold!

They too deserve our thanks...

We just celebrated Veterans Day this past Tuesday.  During my morning train commute that day, I just so happened to be reading a new book by the author and historian John Ferling called Shots Heard Round the World.  It's interesting so far, but I am only in the first 100 pages or so.

Ferling makes what I thought is an important point very early on in the book (specifically, page XXIII of the Preface).  He writes:

"Regardless of the army, soldiers led a harsh existence.  Theirs was a life of lonely tool, deprivation, discipline, draconian punishments, and episodic danger.  A great many did not live to see the end of this war."

He was of course writing about the American Revolution, and he was talking about both the British Army as well as the Continental Army.  There's no question that soldiers and sailors even today experience many of these same hardships, even during peacetime.

But Ferling's next sentence was the one that really resonated with me during my train ride in to work.  He writes:

"The war also touched every American on the home front and most in Great Britain.  For a great many who never soldiered, the war meant abundant sacrifices, including the loss of income or a job, doing without familiar commodities, and long, lonely stretches of anxious waiting for the return of a loved one on the front lines."

Ferling is absolutely correct.  Behind every soldier, sailor, airman, or marine there is a husband, wife, significant other, parent, child, or friend.  They have sacrificed for our country too.  They too deserve our gratitude and respect.  During our hospital's Veterans Day breakfast, I challenged all of our veterans to go home that night and thank that individual or group of individuals who had their back during their time in the military.  And I followed my own advice and went home and thanked my wife for all of her support.

November is actually Military Families Month.  It is very appropriate that we honor their contributions to our freedom too.  Thanks to all of you for supporting both your military family members and veterans!

Happy Veterans Day 2025

Today we celebrate all of our military veterans, both past and present.  Veterans Day is celebrated every year on November 11th, and it's a day in which we honor all military veterans for their service and patriotism.  Importantly, Veterans Day honors all those who have served in our nation's armed forces, both living and deceased and during peacetime or wartime.  Memorial Day, celebrated on the last Monday in May every year, specifically honors those men and women who have died while serving their country.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "Any nation that does not honor its heroes will not long endure."  The American writer Joseph Campbell said, "A hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself."  Even if they did not pay the ultimate sacrifice, our veterans freely gave their time and energy to a greater cause, to protect the rest of us and to protect our freedom.  We owe our veterans our gratitude and our respect.  

I've mentioned the HBO television mini-series "Band of Brothers" several times in the past.  It's one of my absolute favorites!  The 10-episode mini-series tells the story about Easy Company, a paratrooper company of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division, and their journey through World War II in Europe. The series follows the soldiers from their training at Camp Toccoa, Georgia, in 1942 through major campaigns like D-Day, Operation Market Garden, and the Battle of the Bulge, until the war's end. It is based on the book of the same name by the historian and author Stephen Ambrose and focuses on the real-life experiences, struggles, and camaraderie of the men, with each episode often spotlighting a different character.   

There are a couple of scenes that I've always found to symbolize what it means to serve in the military.  Both scenes are in later episodes and occur towards the end of the war.  In the first scene (here's the video clip), most of the German Army has surrendered.  One of their high ranking Generals asks permission to address his soldiers and comrades following their surrender.  He gives the following speech:  

"Men, it's been a long war. It's been a tough war. You've fought bravely, proudly for your country. You're a special group. You've found in one another a bond that exists only in combat, among brothers. You've shared foxholes, held each other in dire moments. You've seen death and suffered together. I'm proud to have served with each and every one of you. You all deserve long and happy lives in peace."

As one of the U.S. soldiers translates the speech, the men of Easy Company reflect on what they have been through as a unit and what their service has meant to them.  It's a powerful scene that reminds us of what it means to serve and the bond that is shared among those who have served.

The second scene (here's the video clip) is at the very end of the mini-series.  The actual men of Easy Company are talking about their experiences during the war, and how much they meant to each other.  Dick Winters, who led Easy Company for most of the episodes (he actually ends up getting promoted to a battalion leadership position later in the mini-series) talks about a letter he had received from one of his men.  He quotes the letter, "I cherish the memories of a question my grandson asked me the other day when he said, 'Grandpa, were you a hero in the war?' Grandpa said, 'No, but I served in a company of heroes."

All of our veterans are heroes.  And today, we honor our heroes.  No matter our differences, and despite all of our challenges, our nation still honors and respects the men and women who have served.  And that is why we, as a nation, will endure.

Happy Veterans Day.

How to be a genius...

I vividly remember two episodes from my childhood that I didn't fully understand until much later in life.  The first episode occurred during sixth grade during our music class.  There were about ten of us that had signed up for orchestra that year (the other two options were band and choir), and the middle school music teachers would come teach us every week.  That's when I started to play the violin (unfortunately, I stopped playing a long, long time ago).  During one of our classes, our orchestra teacher was sitting at the piano and playing notes one at a time.  She would turn to us individually and ask us what note she was playing.  We were supposed to say tell her the exact note - like "B flat" or "G sharp".  I completely guessed and got a few right at first.  She kept asking me what notes she would play, and eventually she figured out that I was just guessing and didn't really know.

What I now realize was that she was testing to see if any of us had what is known as perfect pitch or absolute pitch (not to be confused with the 2012 film Pitch Perfect).  Perfect pitch describes the ability to identify or re-create a given musical pitch without the benefit of a reference tone.  While the frequency of perfect pitch in the general population is not known, it is believed to be rare (perhaps as high as 1 individual in 10,000 people).  Some would say that individuals with perfect pitch are musical geniuses.  Our orchestra teacher couldn't have been too disappointed in us, and clearly we weren't musical geniuses!

The second episode occurred in middle school as well.  I guess my memory wasn't as good as it used to be when I was younger!  We had a substitute teacher who either (1) wasn't given the lesson plan by our regular teacher or (2) simply didn't want to follow the lesson plan.  I remember that he showed us a "parlor trick" in which he was able to recall with almost 100% accuracy a very long list of numbers that my fellow classmates and I came up with and shouted out.  Next, he showed us how to perform the same trick!  He showed us a table that he had in front of him that was divided into rows and columns.  Each square in the table had a picture of some object (tree, frog, baseball, etc).  He told us that he would mentally "place" or "visualize" each number in the object as we called out the numbers to him.  Once we had finished with our list, he would go back and look at each object in order, which would help him to recall each number in the exact same sequence and order that we gave him.  As a final proof, he let us all try the same technique.  I was surprised on how successful I was at recalling the long list of numbers!

What I didn't know then (and what I know now) is that our substitute teacher was using a technique called the Method of loci.  The Method of loci uses visualizations of familiar spatial environments or objects in order to enhance the recall of information.  Surprisingly, the method has been known since the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans!  Many memory contest champions report using this technique to recall faces, digits, and lists of words.

I am not a genius.  And there's a good chance that most of you aren't geniuses either.  While definitions vary, it's still uncommon to be a genius.  Psychologists typically define whether or not someone is a genius based on their intelligence quotient (IQ), based on a standardized test such as the Stanford-Binet test.  If we set the threshold IQ at 140 and above, about 1 in every 250 people would be classified as a genius.  However, if we use a much higher threshold, say an IQ of 180 or above, only about one in every two million people would be classified as a genius.  

I think my two anecdotes make two different, yet important, points.  The perfect pitch story tells us that true genius is rare, but I would also say that unless you are a professional musician, being able to name an exact note purely by sound is not a skill that is going to be transferable to a lot of other situations.  Admittedly, I haven't kept up with the scientific literature enough to know whether perfect pitch is a sign of general intelligence or not.  Regardless, I would rather focus on developing a wide range of skills and knowledge in a lot of different disciplines as opposed to just one (see my recent post "Da Vinci's Seven Principles").  The Method of loci story is important to me because it suggests that there are many tools out there to help us learn and be successful.  We don't need to be a genius to do incredible things!  We should leverage all of the tools at our disposal in order to maximize our chances of success.

Home Alone

Every once in a while, I come across a book that has something positive or (more frequently) negative to say about the current state of the American health care system.  These kinds of books are probably required reading for those of us in positions of leadership within the health care profession.  They aren't always enjoyable to read, but they are important to read nevertheless.  I recently came across an example of this kind of book by pure happenstance.  

The holiday season is approaching, and there's a good chance that our family will be watching the 1990 film Home Alone again this coming December.  It's a very entertaining movie that was filmed in a suburb of Chicago called Winnetka.  You can actually drive by the house where the movie was filmed (and we have more than once).  The house was recently sold, but it was owned by the John Abendshien family in 1989.  John recently wrote a book that was published earlier this year, Home But Alone No More: A Memoir from the Owner of the House That Made Movie History.  I've already placed a hold for the book at our local public library.

When I read more about the author, John Abendshien, I was surprised to learn that he had been working as a health care consultant for over 40 years and had written a book on the U.S. health care system.  I checked that book out too - it's called Health Care in the Next Curve: Transforming a Dysfunctional Industry.  It's a quick read and probably worth checking out.

Abendshien provides a nice overview of the current state of U.S. health care and doesn't pull any punches.  We have major problems for sure, and he definitely covers all of the most important ones that we often hear about.  One of his comments that most resonated with me though was a comment that I don't hear a lot being made by health care policy experts.   Abendshien makes the true statement that Americans spend more on health care than any other country, which is true.  And he also goes on to say that the U.S. health care system does worse than almost every other country in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) when it comes to commonly cited health care statistics, such as life expectancy, maternal mortality, and infant mortality, which is also true.  None of this is new information, and I've posted about these statistics in the past (see, for example, my posts "The first step is to clearly state the problem...", "Measure What Matters", and "Invest Your Money Wisely").  But Abendshien takes the discussion in a direction that most do not when he acknowledges, "The less-than-stellar outcome measures of health care in the U.S. are not due so much to poor health care as they are due to poor health."

Bingo!  As I have stated many times in the past (see the posts that I mentioned above), our health care delivery system is designed first and foremost to provide acute care for life-threatening diseases and medical conditions.  We are getting better at re-designing the system to provide care for chronic diseases too, but we still have a long way to go.  But there is a BIG difference between health and health care, as Abendshien points out.  Americans aren't very healthy, that is true.  Our flawed health care system certainly deserves part of the blame, but it definitely doesn't deserve all of the blame.  Our health care system was never designed to address the social determinants of health (also called social influencers of health), which account for between 30-50% of all health care outcomes (see also my posts, "You give to get to give!" and "Our National Embarrassment").  It's nice to hear someone else calling these outcome statistics for what they are truly measuring - health.  

Overall, Abendshien makes some good points, but I don't agree with him on every point.  I want to "fact check" some of his comments and review some of his references before I comment further.  What is clear - and where I do agree with Abendshien - is that the status quo is not acceptable.  We need to do better.  A lot better.  The costs of health care are no longer sustainable for our economic future.  Our problems are not easy, and it's going to take all of us to fix them.

The 2025 Trust Barometer

I've been doing a lot of reading on the concept of trust lately.  For the last twenty-five years or so, the global communication firm Edelman has published an annual "trust barometer" that is freely available on their website.  The 2025 version is entitled "Trust and the Crisis of Grievance".  Richard Edelman, CEO of the company summarized this year's "trust barometer" as a "descent into grievance."  Over the years, Edelman and his team have witnessed "a progression from fears to polarization and now into grievance."  They believe that "grievance stems from a conviction that the system is unfair, business and government make things worse, not better, and the rich keep getting richer."

For the last 25 years, world events have put trust under significant pressure.  The widespread protests in Seattle, Washington against globalization in general and more specifically against the World Trade Organization in 1999 (the "Battle of Seattle") actually inspired Edelman to publish their first "trust barometer".  At that time, non-government organizations (NGOs) were found to be the most trusted institution.  Trust in government declined significantly in 2003, largely in response to the U.S. war in Iraq.  The wave of populism that powered Brexit and the election of several populist leaders around the world led to a significant decline in trust in media in the 2016 trust barometer.  Certainly the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to a greater declines in trust in government and NGOs.  More concerning, the COVID-19 pandemic created mistrust in science and medicine.  Greater polarization led to further declines in trust, which directly resulted in the "descent into grievance" that characterizes our world today.

The 2025 Trust Barometer reported survey findings from more than 33,000 respondents from 28 countries around the world.  Key findings from the survey include:

1. Nearly 2/3 of respondents have a moderate or high sense of grievance, which is defined by a belief that government and business serve a narrow interest (principally the wealthy) and make their lives harder.  Those individuals with a high sense of grievance do not trust any of the four institutions (business, government, media, and NGOs).

2. Fear of discrimination is widespread, with nearly 2/3 of respondents expressing concern about experiencing prejudice, discrimination, or racism in the last year (up by 10 percentage points compared to last year's survey).

3.  Fear that leaders lie is at an all-time high, with a majority of respondents agreeing with the statement that leaders in government, business, and the media purposely mislead people by saying things that they know are false or gross exaggerations.

4. Only 36% of respondents expressed optimism for the next generation, believing that things will be better for the next generation than the current one.  For example, many feel that their job security is threatened by globalization, a looming recession, and automation or artificial intelligence.  

5. Those respondents in the bottom income quartile trust business, government, media, and NGOs the least.  While this is not necessarily surprising, nearly 4 in 10 of the respondents in this quartile would approve of one or more of the following actions: attacking people online, intentionally spreading disinformation, threatening or even committing violence, or damaging public or private property.

These findings should be concerning to all of us, not just those in positions of leadership.  What is clear is that the solution to this problem (dare I say, wicked problem?) is going to take a united effort from all of us, not just our leaders in government.  The report concludes with the statement, "When institutions can't be trusted to do what is right, grievances fester and outlooks darken.  To dissipate grievance and increase optimism, prioritize and rebuild trust across your organization and local communities."  How to do that exactly remains far from clear...

"Eight Marines - not a single one detected..."

Chip Cutter wrote an article that appeared in The Wall Street Journal this past week ("More Big Companies Bet They Can Still Grow Without Hiring") that caught my attention, particularly in light of some of my recent posts (see, for example, "Will we get replaced by AI?", as well as an older post, "Fewer jobs, more machines").  The "quick summary" of the article states, "Companies are increasingly aiming to maintain or reduce workforce size, anticipating AI will automate tasks and boost productivity."  It seems that not a day goes by when I don't read an article or blog post or hear a conversation about how artificial intelligence (AI) is going to replace white collar workers in the not too distant future.  For example, just this morning in the WSJ "10-Point" daily news feed, I saw an article ("Tens of Thousands of White-Collar Jobs Are Disappearing as AI Starts to Bite") that started with the ominous sentence, "The nation's largest employers have a new message for office workers: help not wanted."

Artificial intelligence has even recently passed the Turing test, a test first posed by the English mathematician Alan Turing in the late 1940's that tests a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to that of a human.  Notably, Turing originally called his test the imitation game (see the original manuscript, "Computing machinery and intelligence" that was published in the journal, Mind in 1950).  The 2014 film "The Imitation Game" starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Keira Knightley is a biographical drama about Turing, his famous test, and how a team of mathematicians helped crack the German Enigma code during World War II.

There's no question that AI is a game-changer.  I've barely scratched the surface on using AI tools such as Microsoft Copilot or ChatGPT, and I've already noticed significant benefits in productivity.  However, just like any tool, we should be cautious about how much we rely upon AI to do our work.  I've posted in the past about the potential dangers of automation and technology in general (see "Are smart phones making us dumb?", "The Glass Cage").  And I've also posted about how AI at times may not be as good as a real human (see "Artificial Intelligence?").  So, of course a recent post I saw on LinkedIn caught my attention.  I wasn't sure whether it was true or not at first.  However, after some more research, I came to the conclusion that the story was, indeed, legitimate.

Apparently the story first gained prominence after it appeared in Paul Scharre's 2023 book, Four Battlegrounds: Power in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.  The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the U.S. Department of Defense's central research and development organization, was first established in 1958 to help fund cutting-edge research that has often lead to transformative technologies, such as stealth technology, GPS, night vision, and the precursor to today's Internet (ARPANET).  The Economist magazine called DARPA "the agency that shaped the modern world."

DARPA conducted a set of field tests in 2019 to determine if a squad of eight U.S. Marines could outwit an AI security robot.  The robot was "trained" for several days to recognize humans moving in a standard fashion, such as walking or running.  By the end of the training period, the robot performed flawlessly in a series of preliminary tests.  For the actual test, Marines were instructed to use any means possible to avoid detection and touch the AI robot.

As Marines often do ("Improvise, Overcome, Adapt"), the eight Marines went off script and avoided detection.  Two Marines somersaulted for 300 meters across open ground.  Another pair hid beneath a cardboard box and simply walked up to the robot.  One Marine removed a branch from a nearby fir tree and held it in front of himself.  The AI robot saw absolutely nothing.  When asked to detect an intruder, it failed miserably!

As then DARPA Deputy Director Phil Root said, "Eight Marines - not a single one got detected.  You could hear them giggling the whole time."  The system was trained to detect predictable human movements, but it failed to detect unconventional human movements.  The Marines completely fooled the AI robot!  Max Hauptman reported on this story in 2023 (see "Marines outwitted an AI security camera by hiding in a cardboard box and pretending to be trees") and stated, "While an AI can outperform human beings in a specific task, people, as Scharre writes, have a tendency for 'mistaking performance for competence.' In other words, an AI can be very good at what it knows how to do. But the AI doesn’t know what it doesn’t know, and it also doesn’t know that it should know what it doesn’t know."

I'm not saying that this is definitive proof that we won't all get replaced by AI in the future.  I actually think that AI will continue to be a game-changer.  And the AI that was available in 2023 is very different than today's AI - and the technology is getting better every day.  But I'm also not ready to give up on us humans.  As Scharre himself wrote, "Humans tend to have a much richer understanding of the world."  So, even if a group of U.S. Air Force pilots can't beat an AI flown F-16 in a dogfight, the Marines remain undefeated against AI!  At least for now...

Da Vinci's Seven Principles

Leonardo da Vinci was the textbook definition of a polymath.  A polymath is an individual whose knowledge, skills, and expertise span many different subjects.  These individuals draw upon their extensive knowledge and expertise to solve complex and difficult problems.  Leonardo da Vinci lived during the so-called High Renaissance period.  For this reason, we often use the terms polymath and Renaissance man interchangeably.  

We could certainly learn a lot from Leonardo da Vinci.  The author and management consultant Michael J. Gelb wrote a book in 1998 entitled, How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci: Seven Steps to Genius Every Day.  While da Vinci himself never wrote down a set of "seven principles", Gelb and other modern thinkers have listed seven principles needed to understand his genius, based largely upon da Vinci's own notebooks, writings, and life.  They are:

Curiosità

The Italian word curiosità is translated directly to the English word curiosity.   Leonardo da Vinci possessed an insatiable and lifelong curiosity for all things, asked questions to explore life's wonders, and sought new experiences and knowledge.  His notebooks are filled with his observations and ideas, and he famously sketched out his ideas for an early version of the airplane, the helicopter, the parachute, and an armored tank.  If we wish to be like da Vinci, we should start by asking questions and continuously learning.  As Ted Lasso famously said, "Be curious" (see my post "Barbecue Sauce").  

Dimostrazione 

The Italian word dimostrazione is translated directly to the English word demonstration. Leonardo da Vinci was committed to learning through direct, hands-on experience.  He believed that we learn best when we learn from our own mistakes.  It is often said that experience is the best teacher, and I am sure that Leonardo da Vinci would agree with that sentiment.  I am reminded (see one of my old posts) of a quote by former major league baseball player, Vern Law (who won the Cy Young Award in 1960 while pitching for the Pittsburgh Pirates), who said, "Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards." 

Sensazione 

The Italian word sensazione is translated directly to the English word sensation.  Leonardo da Vinci believed that in order to maximize our experiences (see above), we needed to use each of our five senses, particularly the sense of sight.  We learn by our experience, for sure, but we experience our world around us through our five senses (see my post "All life is an experiment" for more).  

Sfumato 

The Italian word sfumato refers to one of da Vinci's painting techniques that uses subtle, soft blending to create a hazy or "smoky" transition between colors and tones, effectively blurring harsh lines (his masterpiece Mona Lisa is an excellent example of this technique).  However, in this context, the term is used to suggest that not everything has a clear answer.  We live in a world characterized by uncertainty. In order to be thrive in this world, we need to be willing to embrace ambiguity, paradox, and uncertainty (see my posts "Welcome to the age of chaos..." and "What if this isn't the storm?").

Arte/Scienza 

These two Italian words translate directly to the English words art and science.  In order to thrive in a world of chaos and uncertainty (see above), we need to strike a balance between logic and imagination, between science and art.  We need to leverage our "whole brain" in order to merge our analytical powers with our creative ones (see my posts, "What do Robert Frost, Hippocrates, and Daniel Drake have in common?", "Ipsa scientia potestas est", and "A night at the theatre").

Corporalità 

The Italian word corporalità translates directly to the English word corporality or corporeality.  The concept refers to the cultivation of grace, ambidexterity, fitness, and poise.  Leonardo da Vinci, as a scientist, was fascinated by the human body and, more importantly, by the connections between physical health and mental well-being (see my post, "The Five Pillars of Happiness").  True wisdom can only come when we are thriving from a physical, mental, and spiritual standpoint.  

Connessione 

The Italian word connessione translates directly into the English word connection.  Leonardo da Vinci thought about the interconnectedness of all things and applied "systems thinking" in order to see and understand patterns and links between seemingly unrelated ideas.  Just as important, I believe (and the evidence strongly supports) that in order to thrive in today's world, we need to stay connected with our friends, family, and peers (see my post "The truth about connection", "Ubuntu", "It's a small world after all...", and most recently, "Connections").  

So there you have it!  Follow these seven principles and you will be well on your way to becoming a person of the Renaissance!  More importantly, they will help you to become a better person and a better leader.

Happy Halloween!

Today is October 31st - that means it is Halloween!  Today I'm going to re-post a favorite from the past (the year 2018 in fact).

One of the many great things about working in a children's hospital is that you get to wear your Halloween costume to work - and it's completely acceptable!  In the spirit of Halloween, I want to talk about one of my all-time favorite television shows growing up - the cartoon series, "Scooby Doo, Where Are You!", which was produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions from 1969 to 1970 (surprisingly, this now iconic series aired for only two seasons before going into syndication and generating a number of spin-offs).  The show featured the adventures of Scooby Doo and Mystery, Inc., a group of four teenagers who solved mysteries which frequently involved ghosts, monsters, and the supernatural.  

Shaggy Rogers (I bet you didn't know his last name was Rogers!) and his best pal, Scooby Doo, once gave some really great advice:

Hold on, man.  We don't go anywhere with 'scary,' 'spooky', 'haunted,' or 'forbidden' in the title.

It seems fairly intuitive and simple, but the advice is really great.  Unfortunately, most of the mysteries that Scooby Doo and his friends were trying to solve involved going to places with the words 'scary,' 'spooky,' 'haunted,' and 'forbidden' in the title!  That happens a lot of times in the real world too.   Despite our best intentions, the world can be a dangerous place.  And no matter how hard we try, there are times when we are going to have to choose to take risks.

I like to read and write a lot about so-called High Reliability Organizations.  HROs are usually defined as organizations that have succeeded in avoiding serious accidents or catastrophes in dangerous environments - the kind of environments where accidents are not only likely to occur, they are expected to occur.  The important point to realize, however, is that these same HROs don't seek to avoid risk - indeed, they could not exist if they did.  Rather, these organizations manage that risk in such a way that when (because it's always a matter of "when" and not "if") accidents occur, the adverse impact on the organization is significantly attenuated.  

Shaggy and Scooby Doo tried hard every episode to avoid taking a risk.  However, the whole purpose of Mystery, Inc. was to solve the mystery, and solving the mystery required taking a risk.  Scooby and his friends usually did a good job of managing risk - I wouldn't say that Mystery, Inc. was a great example of a High Reliability Organization, but they usually did pretty well in the end.  There was always the line from the villain at the conclusion of every episode, "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids."

So, in the spirit of Halloween, take a leadership cue from the gang at Mystery, Inc.  Manage your risks.  Solve the mystery.  And have fun.

Connections

I recently posted about Dr. Vivek Murthy's (Dr. Murthy was the 19th and 21st Surgeon General of the Untied States) report, "The Healing Effects of Social Connection" (see my two posts "The Loneliness Epidemic" and "Ubuntu") and his "Parting Prescription for America".  Apparently his "Parting Prescription" is no longer available on the Department of Health and Human Services website.  I've also posted a lot about the role that television (see "Amusing Ourselves to Death"), technology (see "The Walkman Effect", "The Quiet Commute", and "Take a Break...") and social media (see "Familiarity breeds contempt...",  "Liberation", and "The truth about connection") have played in this epidemic of loneliness.  I think we can easily make the argument that the more time we spend on technology (e.g. smart phone, Internet) or social media, the less time we are connecting with others (friends, family, etc).  

Other people a lot smarter than I have also made the observation that we are less connected now than ever before.  I have referenced the author and journalist Nicholas Carr a number of times in the past.  His books are very interesting (see in particular his most recent book, Superbloom: How Technologies of Connection Tear Us Apart), but his blog posts are even more compelling in my opinion.  Carr published a collection of his articles and blog posts in Utopia Is Creepy: And Other Provocations.  Jonathan Haidt's book The Anxious Generation is also an important book that has received a lot of attention recently.  Several books by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam with a similar theme are also on my reading list (Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Better Together: Restoring the American Community, and The Upswing: How America Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do It Again) and come highly recommended.

With all of this in mind, I recently came across a great online article by the social entrepreneur Aaron Hurst, who recently co-founded the U.S. Chamber of Connection, a movement to reverse the decline in connection and trust in society today.  They've called the connection gap the greatest challenge of our time, stating that "We are divided and disconnected.  It is destroying lives, communities, and our country."  The article "How '6 points of connection' can repair our shared trust" appeared on bigthink.com this past August.  Hurst stated the key takeaways of the article:

1. "Workplace loneliness is a growing issue fueled by the erosion of everyday connection."

2. "The decline in connection and trust is the result of more than a century of technological and social change." (see my points above!)

3. "In divided times, shared action often builds more unity than shared opinions."

While many have blamed this decline in connection and trust on social media and COVID-19, the truth of the matter is that this decline has been a long-standing trend over the past century or so.  Hurst blames social media (of course), but he also suggests that automobiles, television, the Internet, smartphones, and even artificial intelligence are just as guilty.  The U.S. Chamber of Connection offers six points of connection that we can establish and foster, which will help reverse this slow decline and restore our trust in society today.

Point #1: Know Your Neighbors

When I grew up, we knew all of our neighbors.  All of the adults (most, but not all had children around my age) watched out for us kids.  We used to have neighborhood block parties, and all of the neighborhood kids would play together.  As I've grown older, I've started to truly know my neighbors less and less over the years.  Today, according to a 2023 survey by Pew Research, only 26% of Americans know most of their neighbors and just 44% say they trust them.  Times have definitely changed!  Hurst states (and I agree), "To rebuild a connected life, one of the most powerful actions is also one of the simplest: get to know the people who live near you."  Stopping to say hello, offering to help with a small task, organizing a block part, inviting a neighbor to dinner - all of these small acts of kindness help build trust, belonging, and a shared sense of responsibility and community.  

Point #2: Community of Identity

Robert Putnam writes about the decline in participation in clubs, civic groups, sports leagues, and religious groups and how this has directly led to a decline in trust and connection in American society today in the books I listed above.  We all need to feel seen and heard, and one of the best ways to make that happen is through forming a community of identity, a group of individuals who share similar beliefs and experiences with our own.  According to the American Survey Center, almost fifty percent of adults under the age of 30 years say that they don't feel part of any community.  Hurst writes, "A community of identity provides a sense of home beyond geography...These groups offer something rare: shared language, shared understanding, and fewer barriers to being your full self...When you are deeply connected to at least one group that reflects who you are, you're more equipped to bridge divides and contribute meaningfully across society."

Point #3: One-on-one Connection

I've always said that everyone should have at least one true friend that they can count on for support.  It truly takes just one friend.  One study ("How many hours does it take to make a friend?") suggests that it takes about 200 hours of interaction to form a true friendship.  Unfortunately, many of us don't spend anywhere close to that amount of time.  According to the American Time Use Survey, nearly 40% of adults in the U.S. spend no time with friends during a typical day.  But it's important to have at least one friend who we can trust and rely upon to anchor us emotionally.  We all need someone who will celebrate our successes and who we can lean upon when we fail.  

Point #4: Third Places

Howard Schultz, founder and former CEO of Starbucks, had a vision to design a place where people could go and hang out and enjoy a great cup of coffee (see my post "It's not about the coffee...").  He described his vision, saying, "The idea was to create a chain of coffeehouses that would become America's third place.  At the time, most Americans had two places in their lives - home and work.  But I believed that people needed another place, a place where they could go to relax and enjoy others, or just be by themselves.  I envisioned a place that would be separate from home or work, a place that would mean different things to different people."  Unfortunately, at least one survey showed that nearly half of U.S. adults can't name a single place where they regularly connect with others outside of home or work.  Hurst writes, "Third places matter because they invite spontaneous connection - between generations, across cultures, and beyond our usual social circles.  They're where we bump into each other, strike up conversations, and build trust without needing an invitation."

All we have to do is show up.  Visit a third place such as the public library.  Introduce yourself to the people who work there.  Say yes to the community event.  Become an advocate for third spaces, such as public parks, plazas, or gathering spots.  Be present in your community!

Point #5: Activity-based Community

Again, referring back to Robert Putnam.  One of the best ways that we can get involved with our local community is by participating in regular group activities, such as book clubs, sports leagues, civic or religious groups, or even neighborhood homeowners' associations.  Again, according to a recent survey, only one in four U.S. adults belongs to a local club, team, or hobby group that meets on a routine basis.  Joining and participating in an activity-based group of like-interested individuals can help increase life satisfaction and lower stress.  These groups can also support the third places and other community groups, creating what Hurst calls a "virtuous cycle of local connection."

Point #6: Community Service

Hurst writes, "Helping others is one of the most reliable paths to connection, meaning, and joy."  Spending time helping others and helping our community is a great way to form connections and build mutual trust and shared ownership.  Hurst goes on to write, "Volunteering at its best isn't about checking a box - it's about showing up for each other."

The "Six Points of Connection" aren't going to address all of our society's problems right away.  They are designed to be iterative, and I do believe that they are a great place to start.  We need to re-establish deep connections with each other, which will go a long way to re-building trust and harmony.