Happy Fourth of July!

It's Independence Day in the United States of America!  I haven't posted on the Fourth of July for a couple of years now.  I'm not really sure why, so today I wanted to revisit my post from July 4, 2018.  I think the words are just as relevant today as they were seven years ago.  I am sharing them almost verbatim, with a few modifications and updates.

Today is the day we celebrate the founding of our great country.  Independence Day has always been one of my favorite holidays.  Over the years, our family has celebrated the Fourth of July in a number of ways - watching parades in places such as Coronado Island (California), Jacksonville (North Carolina), Cincinnati (Ohio), and most recently, Highland Park (Illinois).  We have watched fireworks while laying down on a beach in Guam, from the hood of our car in downtown Indianapolis, or while sitting in a park in downtown Loveland, Ohio.  We have had cook-outs, family reunions, family baseball games, and water balloon fights.  On our first Independence Day in Highland Park, we watched and listened to the local news with sadness and fear after learning that one man with a gun shot and killed seven innocent victims and wounded dozens more during our new home's annual Fourth of July parade.  Regardless of where we have been, what we have done, or how we have celebrated the many Fourths over the years (even the one on July 4, 2022), one thing has stayed consistent - our love for this country.

We have challenges in America today.  There are those who would say that America is going through one of the most difficult periods in all of our history.  There are those who say that we are no longer great.  As I shared in a recent post a month or so ago, there's good evidence that America has some long standing challenges that need to be addressed.  There are those who claim that America's best days are behind us and not ahead of us.  Many of our citizens have been embarrassed or downright shamed by things that our current leaders have done or have said (or have posted on social media). 

To all of us who wish for more stability and hope for better days ahead, I would say one thing.  Our country - our nation - is so much more than our leaders.  We, all of us, are America.  And if we hold together, if we stay true to the ideals of our founders and the patriots of the past, we will continue to be America.  Perhaps that is why the Fourth remains one of my favorite holidays.  The Fourth of July is symbolic of these ideals.  Justice.  Duty.  Selflessness. Honor.  We are America because together, we choose to be something better and greater than we can be alone.  We are America because together, we choose to be united in these ideals. 

I love this country.  I am still proud to be an American.  I still believe that our best days lie in front of us, not in back of us.  Today, I ask God to bless each and everyone one of us, as Americans.  Happy Fourth of July!

"Who knows what's good or bad?"

While I was writing my last post ("Benjamin Franklin's 13 necessary virtues..."), I came across an online article and TEDx talk by the CNN contributor David G. Allan, who writes for "The Wisdom Project", what he calls "a thinking person's life hacking column in which we examine behavior modification, self-help, found wisdom, and applied philosophy."  The online article ("Good and bad, it's is the same: A Taoist parable to live by") caught my attention, which next led me to Allan's 2023 TEDx talk, "Who knows what's good or bad".

Allan started his TEDx talk by stating, "For 200,000 years humans have been accumulating wisdom.  It's even in our name: homo sapiens sapiens.  The word sapiens comes from the Latin sapient meaning to be wise."  Allan then goes on to say that we accumulate wisdom primarily via experience, i.e. the good and bad things that happen during our lives.  He emphasizes that we often learn from the experiences of others through storytelling.  As Former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "Learn from the mistakes of others.  You can't live long enough to make them all yourself."

Allan next proceeds by telling a story about a farmer who lost his horse.  The story is more than 2,000 years old and comes from the Taoist tradition.  The story goes something like this (there are several different versions):

Good luck and bad luck create each other and it is difficult to foresee their change.

A righteous man - a farmer - lived near the border.

For no reason, his horse ran off into barbarian territory.

Everyone felt sorry for him.  His neighbor apologized and said, "I'm so sorry about your horse."

The farmer replied, "Who knows if that's good or bad?"

Several months later, the farmer's horse returned with a 12 barbarian horses.

Everyone congratulated him.  His neighbor came back to celebrate, telling the farmer, "Congratulations on your great fortune!"

Once again, the farmer replied, "Who knows if that's good or bad?"

Now his house is rich in horses and the farmer's son loved riding horses.

He fell and broke his leg.

Everyone felt sorry again for the farmer.

His neighbor said, "I'm so sorry about your son!"

To which the farmer replied, once again, "Who knows if that's good or bad?"

A little while later, the barbarians invaded the farmer's country, looking for their lost horses.

The army comes to the farmer's village to conscript all able-bodied men to go and fight in the coming battle. The son is spared because of his broken leg.

All the able-bodied men men strung up their bows and went into battle.

Nine out of ten border residents were killed,

except for the son because of his broken leg.

The farmer and the son both survived.  

The moral of the story: Bad luck brings good luck and good luck brings bad luck.  This happens without end and nobody can estimate it.

It's difficult to label good experiences versus bad ones.  It's probably a false dichotomy.  The Taoists have a way of symbolizing the farmer's "Who knows if that's good or bad?"  It's commonly known as the yin and yang:

Here, the black area represents yin, while the white area represents yang.  The dots are representative of one within the other.  In other words, there is no clear distinction between the two.  They are complementary, interconnected, and interdependent.  In fact, they give rise to each other.  It is in fact impossible to talk about one without mentioning the other.  They are two parts of a greater whole.  

The same is true of good experiences and bad experiences.  Allan says, "Good can come from bad, and bad can come from good.  Once you move past good and bad, you become less concerned about the outcome and more accepting to how things evolve naturally."  

The yin and yang is all about balance.  We should seek to achieve balance in our lives.  And one of the best ways that we can do that is to focus on what we can directly control in our own lives.  I am reminded again of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, who said, "There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things which are beyond the power of our will."  He went on to also say, "Happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of one principle.  Some things are within your control.  And some things are not."  "Who indeed knows what's good or bad?"  Things tend to work themselves out in the end.  Balance.

Benjamin Franklin's thirteen necessary virtues...

According to The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, when he was 20 years of age, Benjamin Franklin set out to make himself morally perfect.  Franklin had received a classical education and had studied the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers and their concept of the so-called ideal man.  His journey to moral perfection, as most do, importantly started with self-reflection of his own behavior.  As the Dalai Lama said, "To be aware of a single shortcoming within oneself is more useful than to be aware of a thousand in someone else."  Franklin soon found that he often fell short of the ideal man - he ate and drank too much, he spent more money than he should, he talked too much (especially about himself) and didn't listen enough.  

Next, he listed and defined thirteen virtues that he felt were desirable and necessary for his pursuit of moral perfection.  He originally started the list with 12 virtues, but he expanded his list to thirteen when a friend suggested that he add "humility" to the list.  Thirteen virtues fit nicely (not because there were thirteen original American colonies - that would be too ironic) into a calendar, which suited his methods.  Multiply 13 by 4 and you get 52, and there are 52 weeks in a year.  Franklin would work on each virtue for a week before moving on to the next virtue on the list the next week, and so on for a period of 13 weeks.  He would track his progress on a chart and share with colleagues (see the figure below).  At the end of a 13-week period, he would go back to the start of the list and repeat.

Franklin wrote, "My intention being to acquire the habitude of all these virtues, I judg’d it would be well not to distract my attention by attempting the whole at once, but to fix it on one of them at a time; and, when I should be master of that, then to proceed to another, and so on, till I should have gone thro’ the thirteen; and, as the previous acquisition of some might facilitate the acquisition of certain others, I arrang’d them with that view..."

Here are Frankin's 13 virtues that he felt necessary for moral perfection, as he defined them in The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin:

1.  Temperance.  Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.

2.  Silence.  Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.

3.  Order.  Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.

4.  Resolution.  Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.

5.  Frugality.  Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.

6.  Industry.  Lose no time; be always employ’d in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.

7.  Sincerity.  Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.

8.  Justice.  Wrong none by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty.

9.  Moderation.  Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.

10. Cleanliness.  Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or habitation.

11. Tranquility.  Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.

12. Chastity.  Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dulness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.

13. Humility.  Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

Franklin admitted that his pursuit of moral perfection was a lifelong journey.  He wrote, "...on the whole, tho’ I never arrived at the perfection I had been so ambitious of obtaining, but fell far short of it, yet I was, by the endeavor, a better and a happier man than I otherwise should have been if I had not attempted it; as those who aim at perfect writing by imitating the engraved copies, tho’ they never reach the wished-for excellence of those copies, their hand is mended by the endeavor, and tolerable, while it continues fair and legible."

David G. Allan wrote an online article for CNN.com a few years ago ("Benjamin Franklin's '13 virtues' path to personal perfection"), describing his own personal journey to moral perfection by following Franklin's "life hack" (see also several other articles by Allan on "The Wisdom Project").  Importantly, while Allan started with Franklin's list of 13 virtues, he further refined and modified the list over time to in order to meet his own needs.  Like Franklin, Allan too found that the journey was never-ending.  Allan continued to chart his progress on his list of ideal virtues (Morality, Industry, Friendliness, Erudition, Frugality, Flexibility, Civic Duty, Introspection, Patience, Spirituality, Creativity, Mindfulness and Healthfulness) for over a decade.  

Franklin's list (and Allan's as well for that matter) of virtues are important for leaders too.  His method of self-reflection followed by a quest towards personal improvement is one that we all could easily adopt.  What virtues would you add or subtract to the list?  I encourage you to try Franklin's method out on your own journey of self-discovery and self-improvement.

Just-in-time training

I came across a very interesting study published in December, 2024 in the British Medical Journal ("Coaching inexperienced clinicians before a high stakes medical procedure: Randomised clinical trial").  The study was conducted in the operating rooms at Boston Children's Hospital by investigators in the Departments of Pediatrics and Anesthesia at Harvard Medical School and involved what is commonly referred to as "just-in-time training" (JIT).  Specifically, investigators wanted to test whether JIT would increase the first-attempt success rate of intraoperative tracheal intubation.  

Tracheal intubation involves placing a breathing tube into the trachea, and while it is one of the most commonly performed procedures in the operating room, it does require a certain degree of knowledge and technical skill.  Tracheal intubation can be a potentially life-saving procedure for patients who are having difficulty breathing.  However, in the operating room environment, tracheal intubation is performed in order to facilitate protection of the airway reflexes and maintenance of breathing during the administration of general anesthesia.  If not performed correctly, attempts at tracheal intubation can result in cardiac arrest.

The team of investigators in this study recognized that like physicians and nurses, many professions outside of the health care industry (e.g. musicians, athletes, pilots, etc) receive many hours of highly structured coaching and practice in order to develop expertise.  However, unlike physicians and nurses, the individuals in these professions also universally rehearse these skills right before a performance or sporting event, similar to "just-in-time training".  Given that tracheal intubation is a technical procedure that requires practice and expertise, why wouldn't physicians (tracheal intubation is usually performed by physicians or specialized nurses called nurse anesthetists) rehearse or practice right before being called upon to perform the procedure?

Just over 150 physicians in training participated in the study.  All study participants performed intraoperative tracheal intubation in infants less than 12 months of age.  They were divided into two different groups.  The first group received "just-in-time training" via a coaching session and simulated tracheal intubation (on a manikin) prior to stepping into the operating room.  The second group did not receive "just-in-time training" and instead followed routine practice, which included unstructured coaching in the operating room while being supervised by an attending anesthesiologist.

Overall, the 150 physicians performed over 500 intubations on children less than 12 months of age during the study period, which lasted approximately 2 years.  The first-attempt success rate for tracheal intubation was significantly higher in the group that received "just-in-time training" (91.4% versus 81.6%), regardless of their previous level of training.  Other factors were better in the "just-in-time training" group as well - including decreased time to intubation, fewer advancement maneuvers, and fewer technical difficulties.  

The key factor to "just-in-time training" is to bring the time between training and implementation for a procedure much closer together.  This elegant study shows that "just-in-time training" can significantly increase the success rate of one of the most commonly performed procedures in the operating room.  Based on these results, one is tempted to ask whether we should be using "just-in-time training" more commonly in medicine.  I think so.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt..."

Just call me Juror Number 67!  I was recently "invited" to serve as a juror at our local judicial district circuit court.  The minimum age to serve as a juror is 18 years, so surprisingly this was only the third time in my 40 years or so of eligibility that I've had the opportunity to be a juror.  I was excused the first time because I was serving overseas on active duty in the United States Navy.  I actually had to show up at the courthouse the second time, but there was only one jury case that was scheduled for that week and the defendant ended up changing to a guilty plea (to a lesser charge) right before they started jury selection.  I guess the third time is a charm, because on this most recent opportunity I actually ended up serving on a jury for a criminal case.

Overall, my experience serving on a jury was very interesting.  I would like to share some of my observations and perspectives here today.  First, serving on a jury is one of the duties and responsibilities we have as citizens of the United States.  Citizenship is something that many of us unfortunately take for granted.  Being a citizen is not a right per se, but rather it is a responsibility and something that we have to work towards and earn.  Serving on a jury is one of the core duties and responsibilities of being a citizen.  Our judicial system is dependent upon having citizens that are willing to serve on a jury when requested to do so.  Unfortunately, I learned from my experience that some of my fellow citizens view serving on a jury as optional (similar to voting, I guess).  There were more than a few prospective jurors who were willing to say almost anything to avoid having to serve on a jury.  The judge at our trial made every attempt to convince them otherwise, but in the end, they persisted and were excused.  In my opinion, if you are not willing to vote, serve on a jury, or fulfill any of the other duties and responsibilities of citizenship, then you forfeit the right to complain about our government!

Second, it's clear that some of my fellow U.S. citizens lack a fundamental understanding of how the judicial system is supposed to work.  I wonder if this stems from an even greater misunderstanding of how our government is supposed to function.  When I was in high school, all seniors had to take a full semester class on the U.S. government in order to graduate.  I don't think that is the case anymore, at least in certain states.  It's interesting to me that individuals who want to become a U.S. citizen through naturalization have to pass a proficiency test on U.S. history and government.  Unfortunately, a recent survey found that just 1 in 3 Americans (who have been granted citizenship at birth) would be able to pass this test!  Again, just my opinion here, but if we are mandating that naturalized citizens demonstrate a minimum proficiency on matters that are deemed important to citizenship, shouldn't we do so for natural-born citizens as well?  

Third, contrary to popular belief, there are some really, really good public defenders out there!  I don't think that it ultimately impacted the results of our case, but the defendant had an excellent attorney (who happened to be a public defender) that was clearly better than the prosecuting attorney.  After the trial was over, the judge met with all of us in the jury deliberation room to personally thank us (a nice gesture), answer questions, and listen to feedback.  He also stated that he wanted to dispel the notion that public defenders aren't good attorneys, but on the contrary, there are some really great ones out there!  I couldn't agree more.

Overall, my experience serving on a jury was very interesting, highly educational, and surprisingly enjoyable.  Serving on a jury is an important duty and responsibility that we all have as U.S. citizens.  If you are ever called to serve, please answer the call!

The next greatest generation...

I wanted to follow-up on a post from earlier this year, "The first step is to clearly state the problem...", which I started with a video clip from the premier episode of the HBO television series, The Newsroom, which aired on June 24, 2012.  The scene begins when a fictional television news anchor named Will McAvoy (played by the actor Jeff Daniels) was asked the question, "Can you say why America is the greatest country in the world?"  McAvoy replied, "America is not the greatest country in the world."  When asked to elaborate, he launches on a diatribe about all of the statistics that prove that America is not the greatest country in the world, many of which I reviewed in my post.  

I failed to mention that in the scene, McAvoy was speaking to a group of college students at Northwestern University, and the individual who originally asked him the question was a student there.  McAvoy unfortunately was mean to the student, calling her a "sorority girl" and saying that she was clueless and a member of the "Worst. Period. Generation. Period. Ever. Period."  

At some point in the second season of The Newsroom, the college student, named Jenna Johnson, applies for an internship, which sets McAvoy off once again.  Here's a video clip of the scene, appropriately entitled "Sorority Girl No More".  When McAvoy asks Jenna why she is applying for an internship, she tells him that she read an article about him that talked about the "greater fool".  She tells McAvoy, "I want to be one."

Remember that I have never actually watched this television show.  I didn't understand the context or the reference to the "greater fool", which is actually an economic theory which suggests that one can sometimes make money through speculation on overvalued assets — items with a purchase price drastically exceeding the intrinsic value — if those assets can later be resold at an even higher price.  The hope here is that if you are foolish enough to purchase the overvalued asset, you can find an even "greater fool" to sell it to at a higher price, making you a nice profit.

The tenth and final episode of the first season is called "The Greater Fool", which is actually the title of a cover story written about McAvoy in a fictional edition of New York Magazine (which the character Jennifer claims to have read in the scene from season 2 above).  In this episode, McAvoy's fellow news anchor, Sloan Sabbith, tries to console him about the article, explaining "The greater fool is actually an economic term: it’s a patsy...For the rest of us to profit, we need a greater fool, someone who will buy long and sell short. Most people spend their lives trying not to be the greater fool: we toss him the hot potato, we dive for his seat when the music stops. The greater fool is someone with the perfect blend of self-delusion and ego to think that he can succeed where others have failed. This whole country [the United States] was made by greater fools."

I have to mention one last pop culture reference to fully set up the scene, "Sorority Girl No More".  After Jenna says that she wants to be a "greater fool", McAvoy points to his colleague and says, "Camelot, she's the kid at the end of Camelot."  Here, he's referring to the musical Camelot about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.  At the end of the musical, the Round Table has disbanded and the kingdom is falling apart.  Arthur becomes disillusioned - all of his lofty ideals for a Golden Age of moralistic men has come to ruin.  When all seems lost, Arthur encounters a boy named Tom of Warwick, who has come to join the Round Table.  Tom declares his fealty to King Arthur and all of the ideals that he once stood for.  Once again inspired, Arthur tells Tom to run and tell everyone about Camelot.  His hope for Camelot to live on in the hearts and lives of all is revived.  In other words, McAvoy's hope for America is once again revived.

McAvoy asks Jenna to ask him the question ("What makes America the greatest country in the world?").  When she reluctantly asks him, McAvoy answers, "You do."  He then proceeds to hire her on the spot.  

There's a lot of talk and concern about what we are leaving for future generations in this country.  There's just as much talk and perhaps even greater concern about whether the next generation will be able to respond.  From what I've seen, we are in good hands.  I was once again reminded of this fact when I saw this scene.  America may not be the greatest country in the world, at least based on all of the statistics.  But what makes us great is the "can do" attitude of the next generation.  

I want to finish today's post with a passage from Sea Stories: My Life in Special Operations by Admiral (retired) William McRaven.  Admiral McRaven is talking about a time when he visited all of the wounded soldiers and sailors that were in a military hospital in Germany.  He talked about how all of the soldiers and sailors, some of whom lost eyes, arms, or legs, always asked when they would be able to go back to their units.  They never once complained about their situation, and they always told Admiral McRaven that they would be "just fine."  In response, Admiral McRaven wrote the following passage in his memoir:

If a nation is to survive and thrive it must pass on the ideals that made it great and imbue in its citizens an indomitable spirit, a will to continue on regardless of how difficult the path, how long the journey, or how uncertain the outcome.  People must have a true belief that tomorrow will be a better day - if only they fight for it and never give up.  I saw this indomitable spirit in my parents and those who lived through the Great Depression and World War II - and I saw it again in the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines whom I served with in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And later when I was the chancellor of the University of Texas system, I saw it in equal amounts in the young students who sat in school-houses across Texas.  

From the battlefields to the classrooms, I have seen the young men and women of this generation, the oft-maligned millennials.  They are supposed to be pampered, entitled, and soft.  I found them anything but.  They are as courageous, heroic, and patriotic as their parents and grandparents before them.  Those who fought and died or were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan are the same young Americans who are building our bridges, finding the cures, and teaching our youth.  They are the men and women who are volunteering to wear the uniform, fight the fires, and protect the people.  They are not like my generation.  They are better.  They are more inclusive.  They don't see color, or ethnicity, or orientation.  They value people for their friendship and their talents.  They are more engaged.  They will not stand by and watch bad things happen to good people.  They are more questioning.  They want to know why.  Why are we going to war. why are we increasing our debt, why can't we do something new and different?  They are risk takers, entrepreneurs, givers of their time and energy.  Above all, they are optimists - and as challenging as the times may seem right now, this generation believes that tomorrow will be a better day.  

I am convinced that history will someday record that these young Americans were the greatest generation of this century, and I know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that we will all be just fine.

To the next greatest generation, when I am asked, "What makes America the greatest country in the world?"  I answer, "You do."

"The truth about connection"

I was listening to an interview of the author Jefferson Fisher on the radio a few weeks ago.  Fisher was promoting his new book, The Next Conversation: Argue Less, Talk More.  I was interested enough to order the book from our local public library.  The book finally arrived, and I started to read it a few days ago.  So far, it's very good.

While the book isn't necessarily about making personal connections (as opposed to connecting with people via social media), there is a chapter entitled "The Truth About Connection" that I found particularly interesting.  Fisher mentions a brief "conversation" that he had with his mother via text.  Near the end of the conversation, his mother told him, "I don't like your attitude."  She was picking up emotions (wrongly, as it turns out) via text and responding accordingly.

Fisher says throughout the book, "It's not necessarily what you say, it's how you say it."  By communicating via text messaging or social media, we've lost the ability to transmit important nonverbal cues.  As Fisher asks the question, "Why is it that despite all this technology to make communication easier, it seems harder than ever?"

He responds, "The answer is that you're not connecting at a level that conveys emotional nuance.  You're simply transmitting pixels arranged to display as words and expecting the same result.  You're living in a world of transmission, non connection."

Transmission, whether it's via text messaging, email, or social media, is cold (emotionless) and transactional.  Successful communication in the digital realm is defined purely by transmission of data.  It's efficient, but it lacks authenticity and it's indifferent to understanding.  We miss out the nonverbal cues and other contextual factors that are important to communication.  As such, the digital form of communication can be easily misinterpreted.  Fisher's mother, for example, had no reason to be angry.

Fisher emphasizes that transmission is NOT a replacement for connection.  He argues, "That's like thinking reading sheet music is going to give you the same feeling as hearing a symphony perform it, or that a description of a sunset will feel the same way as seeing it with your own eyes.  Transmission conveys information, but connection breathes life into it.  You're meant to feel the warmth of a smile, not read it in an emoji."

"That's what she said..."

As I mentioned in a post a few weeks ago (see "Ready for the World"), it's commencement season here in the United States!  As I stated in that post, "I can't wait to see what Graduation Season 2025 has in store.  I am confident that the themes from at least a few commencement speeches from this season will find their way into this blog!"  

Well, the American actor and comedian Steve Carrell (perhaps most famous for playing the part of Michael Scott in one of my favorite television shows, The Office) recently delivered a highly entertaining (and important) commencement speech at Northwestern University.  Carrell focused on important leadership characteristics such as kindness and respect.  

Towards the end of the speech, Carrell became serious, for just a brief moment.  He said, "I'm a dad.  My kids are right around your age and it’s difficult for me to process just how much you’ve all experienced in your young lives.  I feel your anxiety and your fears about the world around you. It’s heartbreaking to me. You’ve already had to overcome a lifetime’s worth of turmoil and uncertainty, and it doesn’t seem fair."

He next emphasized the importance of taking care of yourself, and he told the graduates what he and his wife, actress Nancy Carrell tell their children, "Remember the little things, like being kind, and that you're not alone.  Take care of one another.  Remember to laugh when you have the opportunity, and cry when necessary."

He then pivoted seamlessly into another joke and said, "As badly as you feel about the state of the world, your parents probably feel worse.  Use that. Take advantage of that. Now is the perfect time to exploit your parents’ guilt, to emotionally blackmail them. They might even let you live in their basement for an extra six months."

The speech is only about 15 minutes or so, but it's well worth a quick listen!  Enjoy!

Change in the middle...

Harvard Business School professor, sociologist, and author Rosabeth Moss Kanter once proposed something that she called "Kanter's Law" which states that "everything can look like a failure in the middle".  You've probably experienced "Kanter's Law" in some shape or form - I know that I have.  Somewhere in the middle of a change initiative or project, after the inspiring beginnings and long before the happy ending and successful conclusion comes the so-called "miserable middles."

With any major initiative, there are always going to be unexpected obstacles and hidden delays.  The excitement from the initial project launch has long gone, and the harsh reality sets in that "this is harder to do than anyone thought."  If the change leader gives up at this point, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy - the change initiative will undoubtedly fail.  However, if the change leader persists, pivots, and perseveres, there's hope for a successful transformation.

There are a couple of important points to remember.  First, change is hard (I've said that more than a few times in the past - see, for example, my post "Nothing good comes easy").  Change rarely occurs in a linear fashion.  Instead, change usually involves taking two steps forward and one step back (ideally).  Kanter herself once said that change occurs "not with bold strokes, but long marches".    

Second, failure is a necessary part of change.  Failure is inevitable, but more importantly it is necessary for growth.  Leaders should resist the temptation to abandon their efforts when they encounter failure.  Instead, they should embrace failure and focus on learning.  

Third, change doesn't happen overnight - it takes time.  Just as importantly, change often occurs in small increments (see my post, "Small changes can lead to big impacts").  Once again, Kanter said, "Those who master change persist and persevere."  

Some organizations are better at change than others.  In her research, Kanter has found that these change-adept organizations shared three key attributes - an imagination to innovate, the professionalism to perform, and the openness to collaborate (what she refers to as "concepts, competence, and connections").  Kanter says, "The most important things a leader can bring to a changing organization are passion, conviction, and confidence in others."

Kanter recommended six keys to leading positive change in a TED talk around a decade or so ago.  I've found that they are just as relevant today.  

"Show Up" - Leaders who want to make a positive change in their organizations need to be present.  It helps if they listen to the experts on the frontlines, provide support, and share their vision for why the organization needs to change.

"Speak Up" - Leaders need to be honest, open, and transparent regarding how decisions were made around the changes necessary to move the organization.  They need to ask for different perspectives and be open to feedback.  Ideally, all of this happens in the beginning, the middle, and the end of the change initiative.

"Look Up" - Leaders need to step back and get a big-picture view of their organization.  They need to have a higher vision of what their organization can achieve, but they also need to communicate and share that vision with the rest of the organization.  

"Team Up" - As stated above, leaders need to collaborate both within and outside the organization to help achieve their vision.  You've probably heard the phrase "thinking outside the box", a popular metaphor for creativity and innovation.  In today's turbulent and at times chaotic world, Kanter suggests that successful change leaders require "thinking outside a whole building full of boxes" (she calls this "thinking outside the building").

"Never Give Up" - Persistence and perseverance are absolutely vital to the success of any change initiative, particularly during the "miserable middles".

"Lift Others Up" - Particularly during the "miserable middles", leaders need to be the cheerleader to keep the team moving forward.

The most important lesson, however, is to keep pushing beyond the "miserable middles".  Don't succumb to Kanter's Law.  When you encounter (and it's inevitable that you will) change resistance, it's important to re-assess the situation, make sure that you are still on the right track, and push forward.  Keep moving and you will keep changing!

Zconomy

I just finished reading Zconomy: How Gen Z Will Change the Future of Business - and What to Do About It by Jason Dorsey and Denise Villa, which Amazon describes as "The most complete and authoritative guide to Gen Z, describing how leaders must adapt their employment, sales and marketing, product, and growth strategies to attract and keep this important new generation of customers, employees and trendsetters."  I heard Dorsey speak at the annual meeting of the Children's Hospital Association meeting this past November.  He reported the findings of a number of workforce studies, including one specifically focused upon the different generations currently working in children's hospitals.  The meeting organizers were kind of enough to hand out free copies of his book, which he co-authored with his wife, Denise Villa, who is the Founder and current CEO of The Center for Generational Kinetics.  

Dorsey defines "generation" as "a group of people born about the same time and raised in about the same place."  As of 2023, there are five generations in the workforce - Traditionalists (also known as the "Silent Generation"), Baby Boomers, Generation X (Gen X), Millennials (also known as Generation Y), and Generation Z (Gen Z).  I've always found it difficult to compare and contrast the supposed differences in beliefs, attitudes, and motivations between the different generations.  I've even questioned whether researchers are making more of these supposed differences than truly exist.  However, after listening to Dorsey's talk and reading Zconomy, I have a new appreciation for the so-called 5 Generation workforce!

First, it's important to recognize that every generation has something unique to offer the workplace environment.  Second, as I mentioned in my post "Talkin' 'bout My Generation" last year, we should try to avoid using stereotypes to describe every individual who was born in a certain era.  Dorsey emphasizes that "generations are not a box."  Instead, he views generations as "powerful clues on where to start to faster understand, connect with, build trust, and drive influence with people of different ages."  Third, and perhaps most importantly, we are all affected by what was happening in the world around us during our formative years.  For example, individuals from my generation (Generation X) can remember watching television in black and white on just three channels, "hanging out" at the local shopping mall, using a handheld calculator for the first time, playing Pong, or listening to music on their Sony Walkman.  Contrast our experience with that of GenZers, i.e. those individuals born between 1997 and 2012.  These individuals have never known a world without smartphones, social media, and instant communication being a part of everyday life.  While the Challenger disaster, the end of the Cold War and fall of communism, Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and the Columbine shooting were defining moments for my generation, GenZers can't remember a world when the U.S. war on terror didn't exist, when same-sex marriages were not legal, or when the U.S. economy was not struggling.  The defining moment of their generation was the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dorsey also defines what he calls "cuspers" as those individuals who are born within three years of any generation's beginning or ending birth year.  "Cuspers" often (but not always) exhibit characteristics of the generation before or after.  Importantly, "cuspers" are "bridging generations" because they are more empathetic to the generations immediately before or after their own.  

While Millennials are currently the largest generation, Gen Z is the fastest growing generation in the U.S. workforce (the same is true for the children's hospital workforce).  That's important for several reasons.  First, Gen Z believes that a leader can most positively impact their professional lives by (1) believing in them (and trusting them), (2) inspiring them to grow, and (3) providing them with good advice.  In other words, Gen Z is motivated more by the intangibles than they are by fancy titles or trinkets.  Second, Gen Z is committed to social justice and diversity, equity, and inclusion.  More importantly, they expect their organizations and leaders to be committed to social justice and diversity, equity, and inclusion.  Gen Zers will demand that leaders treat everyone equally and fairly by providing them with equal access to opportunities and applying rules clearly and consistently across the board.  Third, Gen Z wants to work in organizations with a culture of respect, as demonstrated by flexibility (i.e. more control over their work schedule, the ability to work remotely, etc), work-life balance, and mutual respect and trust in leaders and co-workers.  Fourth, Gen Z wants stability.  As a group, they actually save their money for the future.

Overall, I thought Zconomy was a great read.  I do feel like I have a better understanding of Gen Z than before.  One of the last things that stuck with me from the lecture and the book was one of Dorsey's closing comments.  He said, "Every generation is equally important and equally valuable, but only if we give them the space to be themselves."

Happy Father's Day to All!

I wanted to wish all the fathers out there a Happy Father's Day with a post from the past:

A few years ago, I wrote down some of the leadership lessons that I have learned from my father (see Fatherly Leadership).  This year, in honor of Father's Day, I'd like to add to that list some of the leadership lessons that I have learned while being a father as well.

1. Silly (and corny) dad jokes are a thing. 

There's nothing like a corny dad joke to get a laugh at just the right time, even if it is just a sympathy laugh ("Oh, Dad...").  The fact that all four of adult children still laugh at my silly dad jokes tells me one thing - a child's love is unconditional and forever.  And that is one of the greatest gifts of being a father.  We should all repay that unconditional love right back to our children.

2.  No matter what you think of the next generation, they won't let you down.

I can't tell you how many times that I have heard an older adult tell someone from the next generation on down, "When I was your age..." (fill in the blank - it's usually something like "we had to walk to school through ankle-deep snow, up hill both ways" or something like that).  I've said it myself.  It's easy for older adults from Generation X to look at Millennials or Generation Z, shake their heads, and question whether the future is in good hands or not.  Preceding generations said the same thing about us!  I look at our children and have nothing but hope for the future.  I know we are in good hands.  I am proud of the individuals that each of our children have become.  They have never let me down, and I don't think their generation will ever let us down.

3.  Pride is forever.

As I look back over the years, some of the best moments as a father were sharing in the triumphs and successes of our children.  I vividly remember the day that each of them rode a bike for the first time without training wheels just as clearly as I remember the times that they graduated from pre-school, middle school, high school, and college.  But I also remember, with just as much pride and joy, how they each handled the failures and disappointments that came along the way as well.  Failure is a part of life - we can either dwell on our failures or move on and learn from them.  They used their failures as a learning moment, and they never let failure stop them from moving forward.  In a sense, I've learned and grown just as much from sharing in our children's experiences with success and failure as they have learned.

4.  Never stop learning.

As it turns out, you can teach an old dog new tricks.  Our children have taught me that there's no time like the present to learn something new.  I've watched them take up new hobbies or re-invigorate old ones.  You are never too old to learn something new.  Never stop learning.

5. Being a father is the best job I've ever had.

I am so thankful and lucky to be a father to these four adults.  Their words and actions continue to amaze and inspire me, and more importantly, they remind me that being a father is the best job that I've ever had.

Thank you to our four children - I am lucky to be your father.  And to my own father, you were the first man I ever met and the greatest man that I have ever known.  Thank you for being my Dad and showing me the way.

Happy Father's Day to all!

The keys to life...

If you've been paying close attention, you will have noticed that I've been making a lot of references to Admiral (retired) William McRaven lately.  Within the last few months, I've finished reading Admiral McRaven's books, all of which were fantastic!  All of his books discuss various topics on leadership, most of which Admiral McRaven learned while on active duty as a Navy SEAL and during his time as Chancellor at the University of Texas in Austin.  The book, Sea Stories: My Life in Special Operations is part memoir and part leadership handbook, making it slightly different from his other books.  I came across one particular passage in this book, which I felt perfectly encapsulates the keys to living a good and successful life.  Admiral McRaven wrote, "I realized that life is actually pretty simple.  Help as many people as you can.  Make as many friends as you can. Work as hard as you can.  And, no matter what happens, never quit!"  It's great advice, and I can't think of a better way of stating it.

Here are Admiral McRaven's keys to a successful life:

1. Help as many people as you can.

2. Make as many friends as you can.

3. Work as hard as you can.

4. No matter what happens, never quit!

His is a simple, yet elegant, formula!

Clutch

I recently came across a great article in USA Today by Staff Writer Josh Peter on Indiana Pacer's star player Tyrese Haliburton ("Tyrese Haliburton NBA Postseason heroics renew debate: Does 'clutch' play exist?").  The Pacers (my favorite professional basketball team growing up) are currently playing the Oklahoma City Thunder for the NBA championship.  The Thunder are the clear favorites to win, making the Pacers the underdogs (see my recent post "There's no need to fear..." for what it means to be an underdog).  They are playing much better than anyone expected, and most experts didn't think that they would actually be playing in the NBA Finals.    And now, they are leading the series two games to one!  With just a few exceptions, Haliburton has been outstanding throughout the play-offs, and his "clutch" shooting has been a big reason why they are playing for the championships.

Peter asked the question, "Does 'clutch' play even exist?"  It's an age-old debate that has actually been studied extensively.  The quick answer is that there is probably no such thing as "clutch performance", where athletes excel under pressure.  The cognitive psychologist and author Dan Ariely wrote an article for Huffington Post several years ago ("The irrational side of corporate bonuses"), in which his team conducted a series of experiments (covered in greater detail in his 2011 book, The Upside of Irrationality) to answer this question.  Ariely collaborated with Racheli Barkan and former Duke University men's basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski ("Coach K").  They asked a group of professional basketball coaches to identify "clutch players" in the NBA (most of the coaches agreed about who was and who was not a "clutch player").  They next watched and analyzed game footage from twenty of the most crucial games in an actual NBA season ("most crucial" was defined as a game that ended with a point difference of 3 points or less).  They analyzed how many points the "clutch player" scored in the last 5 minutes of the first half of each game, when the pressure to perform was relatively low.  They compared each player's points in the last 5 minutes of the first half with the number of points scored in the final 5 minutes of the game, when the pressure to perform was much higher.  They also analyzed "non-clutch" players as a control.

Non-clutch players scored more or less the same number of points in the final 5 minutes of each half.  However, the clutch players scored a lot more points in the final 5 minutes of the game versus the last 5 minutes of the first half.  On the surface, those results seem consistent with "clutch play".  However, when they looked further, they found that these clutch players took a lot more shots during the final 5 minutes of the game compared to the last 5 minutes of the first half.  In other words, they didn't actually improve their ability to score, they simply had more opportunities to do so!

One study doesn't prove anything, particularly one that hasn't been published and subject to the peer review process.  However, Ariely's and Barkan's findings are consistent with other published studies in both professional basketball (see "Home certus in professional basketball?" and "Performance when it counts?"), FIFA World Cup football (soccer) (see "Nerves of steel? Stress, work performance and elite athletes"), and major league baseball (see "Clutch hitting revisited").  The next logical question is whether these findings translate to business and medicine.  "Clutch performance" in sports is one thing, but how do leaders outside of sports work under pressure?  Is there such a thing as "clutch performance" in the business world?

I suspect that what's true for professional athletes is true for the rest of us.  There's probably no such thing as "clutch performance" for leaders, at least on a consistent basis.  For a related topic ("choking under pressure"), please see two of my posts in the past on the inverted U hypothesis and one of my all-time favorite Ted Lasso quotes, "Be a gold fish!"

I'd love to hear your opinion on this, so feel free to leave a comment!

Solitude

Last year around this time, I talked about the need for leaders to take time for themselves and read, think, and reflect about what it means to be a leader and what they need to further grow and develop as a leader.  I named the post "Fortress of Solitude", which referred to my childhood hero, Superman's place to relax, recharge, and reflect (see this great video clip from the 1978 Superman movie starring the late Christopher Reeve, Marlon Brando, and Gene Hackman).

Thomas Edison once said that "the best thinking has been done in solitude."  The Brazilian writer Paulo Coelho (who wrote, The Alchemist) said, "If you are never alone, you cannot know yourself."  Finally, the Belgian writer May Sarton contrasted solitude with loneliness (which I also posted about in "The Loneliness Epidemic" and "Ubuntu") and said, "Loneliness is the poverty of self; solitude is the richness of self."  In other words, solitude is not loneliness and is probably a necessity for all of us at least periodically.

I suspect that Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins knew a thing or two about solitude.  Recall that Collins flew the Apollo 11 command module Columbia around the moon thirty times in 1969 while his two crewmates Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon.  During each orbit around the moon, Collins would lose radio contact with Earth for approximately 48 minutes, while he traveled on the dark side of the moon.  Collins never felt lonely though.  He wrote in the mission log, "not since Adam has any human known such solitude."  Rather than loneliness, he described his feelings during these 48 minutes as "awareness, anticipation, satisfaction, confidence, almost exultation."  

Collins admitted to himself, "I am alone now, truly alone, and absolutely isolated from any known life."  During his time on the far side of the moon, he famously wrote down, "If a count were taken, the score would be three-billion-plus-two over on the other side of the moon, and one-plus-God-knows-what on this side."

Astronaut Michael Collins took this photo of fellow Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin returning from the surface of the moon in the lunar module, Eagle.  With the Earth behind the Eagle, Collins is the only human in the world not in this image!

As leaders, we may never experience the degree of solitude that Michael Collins experienced during the Apollo 11 mission.  However, what's important to recognize is that despite being the only human on the dark side of the moon, Collins didn't feel lonely.  Again, he described his feeling as "awareness, anticipation, satisfaction, confidence, almost exultation."  Just imagine what even a small amount of solitude can do for us!  

The Enlightenment era poet Alexander Pope wrote in his Ode on Solitude, "Happy the man and blest, who can unconcernedly find hours, days, and years slide soft away, in health of body, peace of mind, quiet by day, sound sleep by night; study and ease, together mixed; sweet recreation; and innocence, which most does please, with meditation."

Nurses are once again the most trusted profession in America...

Gallup released the results of their annual Honesty and Ethics of Professions survey this past January, and once again nursing ranked as the most trusted profession in America.  The poll was conducted December 2-18, 2024 and asked U.S. adults which professions that they thought were the most honest and ethical.  Three out of four Americans consider nurses highly honest and ethical (76%), making nurses once again the most trusted profession.  As I've mentioned in previous posts (see "Annual Gallup survey on honesty and ethics among professionals" and "Nurses are first...again!"), nurses have earned the highest rating every year since Gallup added them to their annual survey in 1999, except for one year, when firefighters were rated highest in the 2001 survey in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.  

Grade-school teachers ranked second (61% of U.S. adults rated them high or very high on honesty and ethics), while military officers, pharmacists, and medical doctors also earned high or very high trust from the majority of Americans.  It's important to note that the Gallup organization has measured honesty and ethics among the different professions since 1976.  While the list of professions included in the survey has changed over the years, the list has remained fairly consistent since 1999, which was the year that the nursing profession was first added to the list.

What's concerning is that the overall average of very high/high honest and ethics ratings among the most consistently surveyed group of professions has declined over the years, from a high of around 43% in 2001 to a low of 30% in 2024.  Even trust in the nursing profession has decreased by approximately 6 percentage points during this same period of time.  The trust decline in the professions mirrors that of the long-term decline in the general public's confidence and trust in U.S. institutions.  We are becoming a less trusting society as a whole (see a new report from earlier this month by the Pew Research Center on "American's Trust in One Another").

I want to save a discussion on the decline in trust, both for professions and for society in general, for another post.  Instead, to finish off today's post, I want to offer an explanation for why I think nursing remains the most trusted profession overall.  Perhaps most importantly, nurses spend a lot of time with patients and family members.  Because they spend so much of their day at the bedside, they have the opportunity to get to know their patients.  They are true advocates for their patients, and they are always there to answer questions or help interpret a doctor's instructions or care plans.  They also educate their patients and families about how to manage health conditions and promote health.  Nurses are often the first point of contact for patients (either in the hospital or clinic setting) and the face of healthcare in any health care setting.  Nurses' unwavering commitment to patient care, coupled with their compassionate nature and high ethical standards, makes them the most trusted profession every year! 

"There's no need to fear..."

"There's no need to fear, Underdog is here!"  Underdog was a cartoon superhero who appeared on Saturday morning television during the 1960's and 1970's.  Underdog was to Shoeshine Boy like Superman was to Clark Kent.  He used to appear whenever his love interest Sweet Polly Purebred was being victimized by such villains as Simon Bar Sinister or Riff Raff.  It was a great show that I remember watching when I was young.  

"Underdog" was probably a good name for a cartoon canine superhero.  The word "underdog" came into common use long before the cartoon first appeared.  The word actually started being used in the 19th century and referred to an actual dog who lost in a dogfight (dogfighting was hugely popular back then).  Since that time, it's been adopted in a broader sense to refer to any person or group who is expected to lose or fail in a competition.  Similarly, the phrase "dark horse" comes from the sport of horse racing and refers to a previously lesser-known person or team that emerges to prominence in a competition.  We now use the words "underdog", "dark horse", and "Cinderella Story" interchangeably.

Every year (except for maybe this past one), there seems to be an unheralded, low-seeded team (a "Cinderella") who surprises everyone by making a deep run during "March Madness", the annual NCAA Division I Basketball Tournament.  Television ratings for the tournament always increase when there's a "Cinderella Story" still playing.  America loves to root for the underdog or dark horse.  We love the rags to riches story.  We always root for David to beat Goliath.  We want to see Rocky Balboa knock-out Apollo Creed.  We cheer on Sea Biscuit to beat out War Admiral.  We love movies like "The Karate Kid" or "Cinderella Man" or "Miracle".  We can't help but smile (or even cry happy tears) whenever people like Susan Boyle or Jourdan Blue blow the judges away on shows like Britain's Got Talent or America's Got Talent. 

As Joseph Vandello, Nadav Goldschmied, and David Richards write in their research article "The Appeal of the Underdog", "Some of the most enduring figures in history, literature, mythology, religion, cinema, and sports are those who have faced daunting odds, were given little hope, or were expected to fail.  These figures have a great appeal, largely because of their status as underdogs."  But why?  If anything, research in the field of social psychology would predict that we would favor the expected winners versus the losers, the "top dogs" if you will.  Vandello, Goldschmied, and Richards found that support for a sports team or group does indeed increase when it is perceived to be the underdog.  Further, they found that our intrinsic desire to root for the underdog stems from our need for justice and fairness in competition.

I recently came across another blog post ("Why We Love Underdogs - And  What It Means for Leadership") which talked about how leaders can leverage this love affair with the underdog.  First, we need to remember that talent isn't always obvious at first.  We should look beyond traditional markers of success.  Second, rules should serve people, not control them.  As leaders, we should encourage risk-taking and challenge the status quo.  Third, consistent with the aforementioned study, people rally around fairness.  We should strive to foster a culture of trust, not fear.

"The more we sweat in training..."

When I was on active duty in the U.S. Navy Medical Corps, my Department Head used to tell me, "The more we sweat in training, the less they bleed in war."  We used to run through various mass casualty and emergency scenarios at the Navy Hospital.  We were encouraged to take these training simulations as seriously as possible, and I always found them to be very realistic.  Practice may not always make perfect, but it certainly goes a long way towards preparedness.  

I was reminded of this phrase after watching a video that went viral on social media.  The video shows a Chinese police officer taking down an alleged perpetrator using what can only be described as a martial arts move.  It's very impressive!  The caption that went along with the video states that it was a training simulation for an active shooter or terrorist scenario.  What's just as impressive to me is how serious everyone in the video is taking the simulation.  I can't imagine what the "active shooter" was thinking when he was aggressively taken down.  Even if staged, it's clear that the Chinese police were adhering to the principle, "The more we sweat in training, the less they bleed in war."

If you are leading a training simulation or drill, make it as realistic as possible.  Similarly, if you are a participant in a training simulation or drill, take it very seriously.  "The more we sweat in training, the less they bleed in war."

"A shepherd should smell like his sheep"

I've always liked the 2006 movie "300", a fictionalized retelling of the ancient Battle of Thermopylae in the Greco-Persian Wars that lasted from around 499 BC to 449 BC.  The Battle of Thermopylae was fought in 480 BC between the Persian Empire led by King Xerxes I and an alliance of Greek city-states led by Sparta under King Leonidas I.  At least according to the movie, King Leonidas I leads 300 Spartans into battle against  Xerxes I and his army of more than 300,000 soldiers.  Actually, Leonidas led the a Greek army of approximately 7,000 soldiers.

Thermopylae was (and still is) a narrow pass near the modern day town of Lamia in central Greece.  The narrow pass allowed the Greek army to block the only road by which the massive Persian army could traverse the narrow pass.  The Greeks successfully kept the Persians bottled up in the narrow pass for about two days, before a local resident named Ephialtes betrayed his homeland and revealed to the Persians an alternative route that would allow them to flank the Greek army.  Leonidas ordered the bulk of his army to retreat, save for 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans, and close to 1,000 helots (Spartan slaves).  In one of history's most famous last stands, Leonidas and the rest of the Greek rear-guard fought to the last man (with the notable exception of the Thebans, who reportedly surrendered).  

Steven Pressfield wrote a bestselling novel about the Battle of Thermopylae called Gates of Fire.  He tells the story slightly differently than the movie, "300".  In his novel, the Persians leave one last Spartan alive and bring him to Xerxes.  Xerxes asked the sole survivor why the rest of the 300 Spartans had sacrificed everything for their king.  He asked what it was about Leonidas that made him such a great leader, so great in fact, that his men were willing to die for him.  The last Spartan replied, "A king does not abide within his tent while his men bleed and die upon the field.  A king does not dine while his men go hungry, nor sleep when they stand at watch upon the wall.  A king does not command his men's loyalty through fear nor purchase it with gold; he earns their love by the sweat of his own back and the pains he endures for their sake. That which comprises the harshest burden, a king lifts first and sets down last.  A king does not require service of those he leads but provides it to them..."

As I have shared in the past, one of my former mentors used to say that he would never ask us to do something that he wasn't willing to do himself.  We talk about leaders "walking the walk" and "talking the talk" all the time, but the concept here is very different.  What I am talking about is more than just "managing by walking around" (MBWA).  Good leaders are clearly visible to their front-line teams.  Great leaders do even more - they experience what their front-line teams experience.  Leonidas didn't just ask his Spartans to give up their lives for the greater good.  He actually died fighting alongside them.

The late Pope Francis said, "A shepherd should smell like his sheep."  Admiral (retired) William McRaven, writing in his book, The Wisdom of the Bullfrog: Leadership Made Simple (But Not Easy) calls it "trooping the line" - leaders at all levels (even those in the C suite) need to step out of their offices and engage with their teams in their day-to-day tasks.  He tells the story of a time that he participated in PT (in this case, a hard, long run with the rest of the team) as a Navy SEAL after he had promoted to Admiral.  A young officer ran up to him and told him that he didn't have to run with the rest of the team - he had already proven himself during a long and distinguished career.  He refused to stop, writing, "The day you no longer believe you have something to prove, the day you no longer believe you must give it your all, the day you think you are entitled to special treatment, the day you think all your hard days are behind you, is the day you are no longer the right leader for the job." 

By refusing special treatment, Admiral McRaven showed the rest of the team that he was not above doing himself whatever he would ask them to do, at that moment in time or any moment in the future.  He showed his team that he cared, and as a result, they trusted him.  As I reflect on the last few years as a leader, I recognize that I have an opportunity to be a better leader by experiencing firsthand, what the rest of our physicians, nurses, and staff get to experience every day.  Leonidas I of Sparta, Pope Francis, and Admiral McRaven, as it turns out, have a lot in common.  And they have even more to teach us.

Slow means fast...

Last year I posted about one of the phrases commonly used by the U.S. Navy's elite special warfare units, the Navy SEALs, "Slow is smooth and smooth is fast".  My wife was teaching about the transitive property of equality to some of her mathematics students the other day, and I was reminded of this phrase (don't ask me why - my brain acts strangely at times).  Even if the term "transitive property" doesn't mean anything to you right now, I guarantee that you will remember it if I tell you: If a=b  and b=c, then a=c.  In other words, if slow is smooth, and smooth is fast, then slow means fast!  By deliberately taking your time, being careful, minimizing mistakes, and doing the job right the first time, you save time in the long run.  It's all about deliberate action and precise execution!

I came across a post by the American author Daniel Pink that made a slightly different point, although it's equally as important.  Pink called it the "Pottery Class Paradox", but I've also heard the story as "The Parable of the Pottery Class".  Either way, the story goes like this.  A pottery class teacher split his large class into two groups.  The first group was told to make a single perfect pot by the end of the semester.  The second group was told to make as many pots as possible - quality didn't necessarily matter.  The pottery class teacher called the first group, "Quality" and the second group "Quantity".  

At the end of the semester, the pottery class teacher graded all of the pots that were made by the two groups.  Which group do you think made the better pots?  Would you be surprised if I told you that the best pots, in terms of creativity, beauty, and actual quality were made by the "Quantity" group?  What happened?

The "Quality" group obsessed over building the perfect pot, while the "Quantity" group learned to build a better pot through trial-and-error.  They made many mistakes along the way, but each time they made a mistake, they learned.  They changed their approach, ever so slightly, to refine their technique.  By the end of the semester, their pots were exquisitely crafted.  In other words, they learned from their mistakes and became experts at their craft.  Meanwhile the "Quality" group obsessed over every detail in their design.  They planned and planned and planned.  Rather than learning by doing, they tried to learn and practice by drawing up the perfect design.  They never perfected their craft, and so their pot was inferior to the "Quantity" group.

It's an interesting paradox and perhaps a little difficult to reconcile with the first part of today's post, which emphasizes that "slow means fast".  I think the key is that we are already dealing with experts in the first half of the post - certainly the U.S. Navy SEALs are an elite group of experts at their jobs.  In this situation, careful planning and preparation, followed by deliberate action and precise execution leads to a superior result.  Admiral (retired) William McRaven, whom I've mentioned a number of times in recent posts, apparently wrote his Master's thesis at the U.S. Navy Postgraduate School ("The Theory of Special Operations") and found that the key to success for any special operations mission involved extensive preparation and practice.  In other words, rehearsing the mission over and over, learning from any mistakes, and honing and refining the plan until the special forces unit is ready.  That sounds a lot like the "Quantity" group in the "Pottery Class Paradox" to me.  However, once the mission begins for real, slow and deliberate execution is the order of the day - "slow means fast..."