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."