A Guide to Life’s Problems

Coaching generally involves helping people solve problems, but often what we think of as “the problem” is just a starting point. A set of issues appear more pressing or pointed at first, and over time we realize that they mask other, deeper challenges which emerge only when the former are resolved, in whole or in part.

We tend to progress through these challenges in a rough sequence, although it’s by no means universal, and we may deviate from this path in any number of ways. The sequence that I see most typically in my practice is illustrated in the graphic above, which I call, only half in jest, The Onion of Fear and Regret.

It’s inspired by the Hierarchy of Needs developed by Abraham Maslow, the great 20th century psychologist who’s one of my most important influences. [1] But where Maslow envisioned us climbing up and down a metaphorical ladder (not a pyramid [2]) as various needs are fulfilled or denied, I see us “peeling the onion” as we seek to mitigate our fears and avoid regrets, a process that starts at the outermost layer, working “from the outside in.”

 

Money

This is usually the presenting problem, although it’s rarely articulated quite so bluntly and can take an endless variety of forms. But many of the issues that come to mind as sources of fear and regret are, put simply, “money problems.” Sometimes we literally lack funds for life’s necessities, although this is rare among people I work with. More common are problems related to our perceived needs for power, freedom, and safety. However we spend it, money’s eventual purpose is enabling us to meet these perceived needs.

Note my emphasis on “perception.” Most of us have sufficient power, freedom, and safety to sustain life, but that’s a low bar measured against our expectations, which derive from our upbringing, our professional background, and our sense of social comparison–the extent to which we are “ahead” or “behind” the people we perceive as peers. [3]

Money problems are real, of course–try going without sufficient power, freedom, or safety for very long. But a theme in my practice is the dawning recognition that sufficient wealth to mitigate our money problems doesn’t eliminate all sources of fear and regret. Having enough money to meet our perceived needs for power, freedom, and safety merely allows those other, deeper needs to be felt more acutely.

Here, too, note my emphasis on “sufficiency.” Our money problems may never entirely disappear, no matter how much money we have. That’s a function of hedonic adaptation, the inevitable process by which we adapt to changes in our environment and take for granted material conditions that once seemed luxurious. [4]

 

Status

But if we achieve a degree of material success, at a certain point money problems begin to recede into the background. This doesn’t mean they’ve been extinguished. One of the reasons Maslow used a ladder and not a pyramid to illustrate his framework is that we occupy multiple rungs simultaneously as we’re climbing up or down.

And when we feel sufficiently powerful, free, and safe, we become more keenly attuned to our status, and “status problems” begin to emerge. This evokes images of “status symbols,” markers of prestige that can consume much of the money that’s been earned: The house, the vacation home, long-distance travel, the private jet to get there. And there are certainly people who desire these things merely for the pleasure of their consumption.

But in my experience that’s rare. In most cases status symbols are vehicles that enable us to obtain something far more important: desirable attention from people we esteem. That definition of status applies to everyone, even those of us who don’t care that much about fancy homes or exotic trips or personal aircraft.

We all require a sufficient amount of desirable attention from people we esteem, and when our material and financial aspirations are achieved, this becomes an even more important goal, and an inability to accomplish it poses a profound dilemma. This is by no means a bad thing–in fact, it’s a deeply rooted drive in human psychology that’s beneficial for the species, albeit problematic for us as individuals. [5]

And yet status problems can be even more difficult to solve than money problems, particularly in an increasingly dynamic society in which traditional institutions and social structures that formerly met our needs for status have declined or disappeared. This is one of the main factors fueling the rise of social media–it’s an easily accessible source of attention, even if it’s not all desirable, and even if most of it comes from people we don’t know, let alone esteem. When we’re denied legitimate, authentic status, we’ll settle for the fake kind.

 

Legacy

We’re subject to occasional concerns about status, largely because we evolved to associate a loss of standing in the clan with the risk of abandonment, isolation, and death. But over time and with sustained effort most of us secure a sufficient sense of status in our families, our personal networks, and our professional lives.

And when our status feels secure, we begin to worry about our legacy. I could also use the term impact here, because what I mean is transcending our individual experience and engaging and affecting others. This may take place in the moment by having an effect on those around us. But it can also occur over time, by having a lasting effect on those same people or on others at a distance, or by affecting those who come after us, so that our impact lives on.

This needn’t be a self-aggrandizing act of hubris, like that of Shelley’s Ozymandias, the vainglorious king. [6] But we don’t just desire attention from others–we want to know that we made a real difference in their lives. And the means by which we accomplish this goal, the vehicles for solving legacy problems are what anthropologist and philosopher Ernest Becker called “heroic projects.”

As I’ve written before, describing Becker’s views, “We engage in any number of activities with the (typically unconscious) goal of achieving a symbolic victory over mortality, which offers us at least a provisional respite from this terror. These energies can be directed toward many different ends–raising a family, building a business, pursuing fame or status or wealth.” [7] These are our heroic projects.

 

Meaning

Heroic projects can take many forms, and they’re not all equally worthy. When we begin to feel that we’re capable of transcending our immediate experience and having an impact on others, whether our contemporaries or our successors, we start asking, “To what end?” Will our legacy ultimately be a meaningful one?

“Problems of meaning” are harder to assess and resolve than those that came before, in part because they’re more subjective. Money, status, and even legacy have objective elements that can be quantified and measured. Meaning is a more ephemeral construct.

This offers some advantages to those of us who’ve “peeled the onion” this far. It is up to us, and no one else, to determine whether our heroic projects are meaningful ones. But there are traps to be found here as well. Many such efforts are materially rewarding, high-status, and yield a lasting legacy, and yet we doubt whether they’re truly meaningful. It can be tempting to answer in the affirmative.

It can be equally tempting to stop asking the question. When our money problems are mainly (or entirely) solved, when we enjoy a sense of status, when our legacy is assured, it can feel superfluous (or daunting, or both) to wonder whether the life we’re living is a meaningful one. Why bother?

 

Existential Dread

This is why: At the end of this line of inquiry, at the center of the onion, we’re confronted with the starkest of realities. Whatever we believe about what precedes or follows this existence, we can surely agree that our time here, in these bodies, with these fellow creatures, is finite. A handful of species seem to demonstrate an understanding of death: elephants, ravens, whales. But it seems certain that we humans are uniquely aware of our own impending demise as individuals. It is, as Becker says, “a terrifying dilemma.” [8]

That dilemma is at the root of everything that has come before, at the core of life’s problems. Philosopher Sam Keen, in his introduction to Becker’s The Denial of Death, noted that Becker believed that “the basic motivation for human behavior is our biological need to control our basic anxiety, to deny the terror of death.” [9] All of our “problems” in some way trace back to this primal fear, and all of our “solutions” are in some sense efforts to assuage this fear.

We don’t think about this on a daily basis, of course. Becker cites the Russian psychoanalyst and historian Gregory Zilboorg, who noted that the fear of death “must be properly repressed to keep us living with any modicum of comfort… Therefore in normal times we move about actually without ever believing in our own death, as if we fully believed in our own corporeal immortality.” [10] And yet we all find ourselves here eventually, even if it’s very late in the game.

 

Conclusion (From the Inside Out)

There’s no universal solution to existential dread, but all human activity can be viewed in this light, as one or another heroic project attempting to transcend mortality. That these efforts will not indefinitely extend our time on the planet is irrelevant. It’s by making the effort that we ensure that our time here will be well-spent. Thus the importance of choosing heroic projects wisely.

The heroic projects that appear to be most useful in this regard are those that most readily evoke a sense of meaning. This is different for everyone–again, meaning is highly subjective–but the activities that my clients most reliably describe as meaningful include raising a family, religious faith or spiritual practice, membership in a community, and building a business with a mission they care about. (To be sure, this is by no means an exhaustive list.)

Experiencing a sense of meaning in life will not shield us permanently from existential dread, but it’s a bulwark that helps us keep it at bay much of the time, and a toolkit for coping when it overtakes us. And if we start here and “work inside out,” the problems we considered previously may weigh on us less heavily. And recall how many of these problems are ones of perception, of “sufficiency.”

When we experience a sense of meaning, legacy problems become easier. When we’re confident that we’re leaving a legacy, status problems become easier. When we enjoy desirable attention from people we esteem, money problems become easier. When we feel more grounded on deeper levels, the “problems” we previously perceived on higher levels may no longer be problems at all.

 

Thanks to Mary Ann Huckabay and Kevin Martin for a rich discussion of The Onion of Fear and Regret. And thanks to Holly May and her Stanford GSB classmates Helen Chen, Jackie Bello Neumann, Jason Scott, Juan Gonzalez, Ken Ettinger, Michael Glassman, Neal Watterson, Suzanne Adatto and Yubing Zhang for the inspiration to (finally) finish this essay.


Footnotes

[1] For more on Maslow’s influence on my work, see the following:

[2] Who built Maslow’s pyramid? A history of the creation of management studies’ most famous symbol and its implications for management education, page 91 (Todd Bridgman, Stephen Cummings, John Ballard, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2019). I’m precluded by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) from linking directly to a freely-available version of this paper, but you can search for it on the Victoria University of Wellington’s open access repository, which is located outside the U.S. and not subject to the DMCA.

[3] For more on social comparison

[4] For more on hedonic adaptation:

  • The Myths of Happiness: What Should Make You Happy, but Doesn’t, What Shouldn’t Make You Happy, but Does (Sonja Lyubomirsky, 2014): “Human beings have the remarkable capacity to grow habituated or inured to most life changes… What is particularly fascinating about this phenomenon, however, is that it is most pronounced with respect to positive experiences. Indeed, it turns out that we are prone to take for granted pretty much everything positive that happens to us.” [pages 18-19]
  • The Laws of Emotion, pages 353-354 (Nico Frijda, American Psychologist, 1988): “One must, I think, posit a law of hedonic asymmetry, the law of asymmetrical adaptation to pleasure or pain: Pleasure is always contingent upon change and disappears with continuous satisfaction. Pain may persist under persisting adverse conditions… The law of hedonic asymmetry is a stern and bitter law. It seems almost a necessary one, considering its roots, which, theoretically, are so obvious. Emotions exist for the sake of signaling states of the world that have to be responded to or that no longer need response and action. Once the ‘no more action needed’ signal has sounded, the signaling system can be switched off; there is no further need for it. That the net quality of life, by consequence, tends to be negative is an unfortunate result. It shows the human mind to have been made not for happiness, but for instantiating the blind biological laws of survival.”
  • We Won’t Be Happy WHEN. We Could Be Happy NOW.
  • Pain, Suffering and Hedonic Adaptation
  • Stop Trying to Be “Good Enough” by “Getting Better”

[5] Why We Crave Attention (and What We Can Do About It)

[6] “Ozymandias,” by Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1818

Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

[7] Learning from Sisyphus

[8] The Denial of Death, pages 25-26 (Ernest Becker, 1973)

[9] Ibid, Introduction.

[10] “Fear of Death” (Gregory Zilboorg, Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 12, 465–475, 1943)

 

Ask Me Anything, Anytime: The Ed Bot 2.0

Robot by Fred Seibert 5814007994

UPDATE: The Ed Bot can now be found at edbatista.ai.

Tarikh Korula, founder and coach, has trained a version of ChatGPT on the more than 1,000 essays that I've posted to this website since 2005.

We call it the Ed Bot 2.0, and you can use it to ask me anything, anytime.

(Version 1.0 was taken down when the startup that developed it was acquired.)

Privacy and Confidentiality

Here’s how your information is handled when you use this GPT:

  • I do not have access to any of your interactions with the GPT. This GPT is based on my published writings, but I am not involved in your use of this tool and cannot see what you share.
  • Tarikh Korula created this custom GPT, but he does not have access to your individual questions or responses. He doesn’t see or store your conversations. Everything you share here stays between you and the GPT, unless you choose to share it elsewhere.
  • OpenAI, the platform behind this GPT, may store conversation data for system monitoring and improvement. These logs are typically anonymized, and OpenAI does not use them to identify individual users.
  • Please avoid sharing sensitive personal details. While your input is treated respectfully, this is not a private or confidential coaching relationship, and this GPT is best suited for general leadership insights and self-reflection.

 

Photo by Fred Seibert.

Why Systems Change (and Why They Don’t)

The model above was developed by educators and consultants Mary Lippitt and Delorese Ambrose [1], and I first encountered it thanks to Noah Brier and James Gross. [2] (Here’s a larger version.) I find it a useful tool in my work with clients, almost all of whom are leaders seeking to drive organizational change. This obviously includes CEOs brought in to turn around an under-performing business, but it also includes startup founders who must transform their company at regular intervals in response to technological advances, market conditions, runway, team size, and any number of other factors. So if you’re a leader in a similar situation, here are some considerations to bear in mind:

1. Vision

A vision is an idea, of course, but it’s not sufficient for a leader seeking change to merely have a vision. It must be communicated to stakeholders in a way that allows for individual integration and collective action. In this sense a vision is a story, a narrative, and as I’ve written before,

We rely upon narratives to “make sense” of ambiguous situations and pursue a plan of action in coordination with others. But our reliance on narratives means that in the absence of a coherent story we will feel lost and ungrounded. This poses a risk when we face rapid change that may overtake our existing narrative and render it out of date… When disruptive events occur in organizational life, we require a shared narrative to re-orient ourselves and restore our understanding of the world around us. [3]

So your first task as a would-be change agent is to clarify and communicate your vision, which rests upon your effectiveness as a storyteller. Many leaders are natural storytellers, but it’s an eminently learnable skill. Improving as a storyteller entails repetition, which is necessary for people to grasp and internalize your vision. I regularly advise clients, “When you’re tired of hearing yourself, it’s starting to sink in.” The key here is finding the balance between variation and consistency. Core themes and concepts must be illustrated with novel anecdotes and language that suits the situation. [4]

2. Skills

One of a leader’s primary responsibilities is assessing their team and determining whether they have the skills necessary to initiate and sustain desired change. If you’re seeking to turnaround or transform your organization, it’s likely that you’ll need to make some structural moves and invest in training to ensure that your team’s collective skillset is up to the task. But in many situations such efforts can’t be enacted immediately, and sometimes, as the saying goes, “You don’t go to war with the army you want. You go to war with the army you have.” [5]

Whether or not you intend to pursue “the army you want,” you can certainly improve “the army you have,” and one avenue is by addressing your team’s mindset–how they think about their abilities, and whether they view the challenges they face as learning opportunities or threats. This doesn’t mean that your team can overcome any gaps in fundamental competence with willpower and enthusiasm, but the cultivation of a “growth mindset” in which people believe their abilities can be developed through persistent effort has been shown to yield results. [6] As the Roman poet Virgil wrote in The Aeneid, “They can, because they think they can.” [7]

3. Incentives

It’s essential to be aware that the status quo benefits someone, and change will generate resistance on their part. It may be possible to win their support by understanding what they value and determining how those needs might be met under new circumstances or what other “currencies” could be substituted. [8] That said, merely promising rewards is unlikely to yield sustained support, in part because the most readily available ones will likely lose their efficacy and more scarce or expensive resources will be required in the future. [9]

So it’s also important to attend to how people feel about the prospect of change, and how those emotions foster or inhibit incentives to pursue change. Management theorist and longtime MIT professor Edgar Schein had a relevant theory of change that I’ve discussed previously:

A key driving force is known as “survival anxiety”: We must change in order to accomplish our goals, and failure to change will threaten our existence. A key restraining force is known as “learning anxiety”: Our identity and sense of worth are connected to our current behavior, and change will result in a new (and uncertain) identity or a loss of self-esteem... Change occurs when survival anxiety is greater than learning anxiety under conditions of psychological safety. Only when these elements come together will we be truly open to taking risks and experimenting with new behaviors, the necessary precursors to learning and growth. [10]

4. Resources

The most important resources are self-evident: talented people and the capital to retain them. And yet countless change efforts undertaken by well-compensated all-star teams have failed. So what else do you need? Psychological resources. Talent and capital are necessary but not sufficient, and a key differentiating factor is how a team feels–how they feel about the talent and capital at their disposal, how they feel about working together, how they feel about the team itself. The concept of the “emotionally intelligent group” has been explored by psychologists Vanessa Urch Druskatt and Steven Wolff:

Study after study has shown that teams are more creative and productive when they can achieve high levels of participation, cooperation, and collaboration among members. But interactive behaviors like these aren’t easy to legislate. Our work shows that three basic conditions need to be present before such behaviors can occur: mutual trust among members, a sense of group identity (a feeling among members that they belong to a unique and worthwhile group), and a sense of group efficacy (the belief that the team can perform well and that group members are more effective working together than apart)… At the heart of these three conditions are emotions. Trust, a sense of identity, and a feeling of efficacy arise in environments where emotion is well handled, so groups stand to benefit by building their emotional intelligence. [11]

A related resource is noted above: psychological safety. This concept is often misunderstood as the absence of distress, a state in which “no one’s feelings can get hurt,” which, paradoxically, leads to a less safe environment. What psychological safety really means is that people feel free to speak up and be direct without fear of punishment. [12]

5. Action Plan

The absence of a plan clearly poses a risk, making it difficult for leaders and teams to prioritize the various steps to be taken and sequence them appropriately. But in my experience the opposite problem is just as risky: Change efforts can get bogged down and fail to achieve momentum because too much time and energy are devoted to perfecting the plan rather than launching and iterating. General George Patton had a clear point of view on planning: “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week.” [13] Legendary entrepreneur Herb Kelleher felt similarly: “We have a strategic plan. It’s called doing things.” [14]

 


Footnotes

[1] The model’s precise origins are unclear, and I haven’t been able to locate its first appearance, although I can find references that date to 1987. My research has led me to conclude that Mary Lippitt and the late Delorese Ambrose should be credited as its creators. Lippitt is a consultant and educator based in Florida, as well as the niece and daughter, respectively, of Gordon and Ron Lippitt, two major figures in 20th century social psychology. Ambrose was an author and management consultant based in Pittsburgh who served as a dean at Carnegie Mellon University. Lippitt holds the copyright on the model (and has taken legal action to maintain it), but there are also references that credit Ambrose, and it’s possible that Lippitt and Ambrose were active collaborators in the 1980s. Tim Knoster, a professor of education in Pennsylvania, is sometimes given shared or even sole credit for the model, but it appears that he merely included it in a book and subsequent presentations in the 1990s that helped to popularize it. There’s no evidence that Knoster was connected to Lippitt or Ambrose, and the earliest references linking Knoster to the model appear several years after those that credit Lippitt and Ambrose.

[2] In 2019 entrepreneurs Noah Brier and James Gross, who at the time were co-founders of Variance, included this model in one of their newsletters. Noah and James recently co-founded Alephic, an AI-driven marketing consultancy.

[3] The Importance of Shared Narrative

[4] For more on storytelling:

[5] Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said this at a press conference in 2004: “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” As an astute Redditor later noted, however, “Rumsfeld’s got some great quotes, most of which were delivered in the context of explaining how the Iraq war turned into such a clusterfuck, and boy could that whole situation have used the kind of leadership Donald Rumsfeld’s quotes would lead you to believe the man could’ve provided.”

[6] Minding Our Mindset

[7] The Aeneid (Virgil, translated by Joseph Trapp, 1718). A version of this line is often mistakenly attributed to the American industrialist Henry Ford. I haven’t read Trapp’s 18th century edition of The Aeneid, but I have read Robert Fagles’ contemporary version, which I highly recommend.

[8] Currencies (On Motivating Different People)

[9] Compliance vs. Commitment (On Behavior Change)

[10] Why Change Is Hard

[11] Building the Emotional Intelligence of Groups, page 83 (Vanessa Urch Druskat and Steven Wolff, Harvard Business Review, March 2001)

[12] Safety Is a Resource, Not a Destination

[13] War As I Knew It (George S. Patton, 1947)

[14] Kelleher was co-founder and longtime CEO of Southwest Airlines, and this line is widely attributed to him. I haven’t been able to find definitive proof that he said or wrote it, but it seems consistent with his legacy.

 

Stow the Oars, Raise the Sails (On Leaving a CEO Role)

Sailboat by Alvin Trusty trustypics 9271643267 EDIT

A client is in the process of transitioning out as the CEO of the company he founded. He previously negotiated a sale to a corporate parent, which achieved his financial goals for the business while allowing it to continue operating independently and positioning him as a shareholder of the parent.

He's delegated managerial duties to his hand-picked successor, he's preparing to step into an executive chair role, and he's confident that this is the right move at the right time. He feels optimistic about the future of the business…and yet he's also had the nagging feeling that something was off, and a recent coaching session helped to illuminate the issue.

I suggested that Joseph Campbell's concept of the Hero's Journey might be useful in exploring his situation. Campbell was an American scholar who applied the insights of psychology to his study of mythology, folklore and religious traditions from around the world, and I find his ideas highly relevant to my work with leaders. [1]

In the Hero's Journey, also known as the monomyth because it appears so frequently in so many different cultures, we meet the hero in their ordinary existence, the "World of Common Day," as Campbell called it. The hero is "called to adventure," and if they heed the call they venture forth into a "Region of Supernatural Wonder," where they encounter various allies and adversaries in the course of a series of struggles in search of a "boon," a trophy or prize to be shared:

When the hero-quest has been accomplished…the adventurer still must return with their life-transmuting trophy. The full round, the norm of the monomyth, requires that the hero shall now begin the labor of bringing [their prize] back into the kingdom of humanity, where the boon may redound to the renewing of the community. [2]

This led to a discussion with my client of leadership as a journey, with a destination, a goal, and a conveyance, a means of making progress along the path. As a founder and CEO, my client was an oarsman, straining hard to propel his craft forward. It was arduous work, but it had certain advantages. The destination was far in the distance over the horizon, but the compass pointed straight to it: the survival and ultimate success of the company. The goal was by no means certain to be achieved, but it was commonly understood: financial returns sufficient to meet the needs of all stakeholders.

There was another advantage to the work of an oarsman: my client's labors were clearly visible to all. Anyone with an interest in my client or the company could see that he was constantly striving and doing his best. There was never any question about his work ethic, his commitment, or his values. And yet having completed his "hero-quest" through the sale of the company, my client now found himself in uncertain territory. Retiring to a life of leisure held little appeal for him. While this may seem surprising to some, it's a common response among my clients:

We have a number of preconceived notions about what it would be like to not have to work, and they're often some form of "life as permanent vacation." That's certainly what some people do when they realize a windfall, and if it brings them joy, then good for them. But that's not what I've observed in my practice. It turns out that many people who've worked hard their entire careers have a finite capacity for being on vacation. [3]

When people like my client have achieved a degree of financial freedom, they still need to make a contribution through some form of work. But simply continuing on as an oarsman would pose inevitable difficulties. My client's successor was ready and able to take up the oars himself. He was eager to benefit from my client's guidance as executive chair, but he also wanted a degree of autonomy and independence as CEO. My client would have to determine how to add value in this new capacity without holding on to an oar. [4]

My client also has a role to play as a shareholder in the parent, but he realized that approaching it as an oarsman would be the wrong mindset. It would occupy more time and energy than necessary and distract him from the essential project of finding a new sense of purpose, a new identity. While he won't be "retired," he may elect to remain in the "World of Common Day," sharing what he learned on his quest and stepping into the role of teacher or sage. [5] Or he may find himself called to pursue another venture in the "Region of Supernatural Wonder" and embark on a new quest.

With these and other options now available to my client, he's realized that he must change how he thinks about work, which entails a change in how he thinks about himself. He's still on a journey, but not as an oarsman. It's time to stow the oars and raise the sails. The sailor doesn't just go where the breeze takes him, of course. He is an active navigator, but he must be open to possibilities, sensing and responding to the prevailing winds. Under the right conditions he can change course rapidly. And he can travel vast distances, enabling him to pursue a wider range of destinations.

And yet while this new way of thinking offers certain benefits, it also poses challenges. The sailor can make more progress than an oarsman, but the path he takes is far less predictable. The ability to change course and travel farther requires a greater tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty. And while the sailor plays an active role with his hand on the tiller, his efforts aren't always visible. To the untrained eye it may look like he's just sitting there, which can be unnerving to the veteran oarsman.

But even these challenges play an important part in the process of bringing one Hero's Journey to a close and preparing for the possibility of another. Campbell notes that the hero's successful return is by no means an easy transition: "The first problem of the returning hero is to accept as real, after an experience of the soul-satisfying vision of fulfillment, the passing joys and sorrows, banalities and noisy obscenities of life." [6]

The oarsman struggles mightily against the current, but he enjoys the struggle, in part because it keeps the "banalities and noisy obscenities of life" at a distance. It can be tempting to keep them at bay by holding tightly to the oars, imagining that this remains duty of a hero. The new challenges posed by sailing remind the hero that they must adapt to their new circumstances.

 


Footnotes

[1] The Hero's Journey in Everyday Life

[2] The Hero with a Thousand Faces, page 167 (Joseph Campbell, New World Library, Third Edition, 2008)

[3] What Do You Need When You Don't Need the Money?

[4] The Ambiguous Role of Executive Chair

[5] The Warrior and the Sage

[6] Campbell, page 189.

 

Photo by Alvin Trusty.

You Don’t Have to Do All the Thinking Yourself

Thinker by Mike Dish mikedish  2306234071 EDIT 2

Most of my clients are CEOs, and many of them are founders, and they're almost invariably high-agency people who enjoy taking on responsibility and prefer to be in charge. This is consistent with research by psychologist Jerry Burger which showed that differences in the need for control have a significant impact on behavior and attitudes, and that people who score high on this scale are more likely to become leaders:

People with high desire for control were found to have a higher aspiration level, to respond to challenges with increased effort, to persist longer at difficult tasks, and to make attributions for task outcomes that facilitate future striving for achievement. [1]

This is also consistent with David McClelland's "motivational needs theory," which suggests that people are driven primarily by three distinct needs [2]:

  • The need for power, or concern "about having 'impact, control, or influence over another person, group, or the world at large.'" [3]
  • The need for affiliation, "or the need to be with people" and a concern with "establishing, maintaining, or restoring a positive affective relationship with another person or persons." [4]
  • The need for achievement, or "doing something better for its own sake, or to show [that one] is more capable of doing something." [5]

McClelland also studied people's capacity for "activity inhibition," or impulse control, and his research showed that the most successful senior leaders display 1) a relatively high need for power, 2) a relatively low need for affiliation, and 3) a high degree of impulse control, a distinctive pattern that he called "leadership motive syndrome." McClelland found that people who possessed this combination of traits were most likely to obtain senior leadership positions, ultimately outpacing those who merely had a high need for achievement. [6]

But another theme in my work is that our weaknesses are often overused strengths, a concept I first learned from my mentor and colleague Carole Robin. And while a high degree of agency and a desire to exert control can be "leadership superpowers," like all such traits they have "shadow sides." [7] One such shortcoming is a leader's perception that it's their responsibility to come up with the best ideas and solve problems on their own.

Leaders obviously have a special role to play in any problem-solving process, particularly early-stage founders whose visions for the venture may still reside largely in their heads and whose teams may lack sufficient context or expertise to act independently. But when this state of affairs persists, the leader may become a bottleneck, an unqualified decision-maker, or an outdated expert. [8] So if you're sensing that this might be a challenge for you, what can you do?

1. Look in the Mirror (and Ask for Feedback)

A starting point is assessing the extent to which your sense of agency and preference for control might be inhibiting more effective means of problem-solving. This entails being more self-aware of your impact on the people around you. [9] And note that your self-perception almost certainly includes some blind spots, so be sure to ask those people for input. In my first leadership role after business school I was lucky to have a mentor on my Board of Directors who took me aside and gave me this precise feedback. (He also advised me to address it by working with a coach, which was my first exposure to coaching.)

2. Invite Others Into the Problem (Even When They're "the Problem")

I'm not suggesting that you simply delegate problem-solving to others. They may not be ready, and you may be unhappy with the results. But in between A) deciding in isolation and telling people what to do, and B) delegating and hoping for the best, there are a range of alternatives: sell, consult, agree, advise, and inquire, to be specific. [10] I ask clients to consider how they might use one of these methods to "invite others into the problem" as a way to test their readiness and capacity.

This is possible even when other people themselves are "the problem." Another theme in my practice is the ubiquity of interpersonal conflicts between leaders and key stakeholders, from employees to investors. In you're in such a situation it's not possible to delegate the issue, but it's also not necessary for you to do all the work on your own. You can invite others to join you by being overt about your goal of improving the working relationship [11], by giving (and requesting) more candid feedback [12], and by discussing potential differences in your work styles that are likely contributing to the conflict. [13]

3. Foster a Better Problem-Solving Culture

Leadership teams vary widely with regard to their ability to problem-solve as a group, and this is one manifestation of their culture, as defined by management expert Michael Watkins:

Culture is consistent, observable patterns of behavior in organizations… Culture is [also] a social control system. Here the focus is the role of culture in promoting and reinforcing "right" thinking and behaving, and sanctioning "wrong" thinking and behaving. Key in this definition of culture is the idea of behavioral "norms" that must be upheld, and associated social sanctions that are imposed on those who don’t "stay within the lines." [14]

As the leader you don't dictate the culture, but you have a great deal of influence over it, particularly if you're a founder. So consider the following:

  • Do you have the right people in the room or on the call? Optimally your leadership team includes the most relevant and useful voices, but sometimes junior people have vital information and need to be included, and sometimes nominally senior people are just in the way and shouldn't be there.
  • Do you have the right people on the team? If there's a persistent mismatch between the composition of your leadership team and the most relevant and useful voices, that may be a sign that it's time for a change. [15]
  • Is everyone contributing constructively? Is anyone dominating (including you)? Is anyone being repeatedly interrupted or ignored? As the leader you have to be attuned to these group dynamics, because you're the person who's best-positioned to intervene and facilitate as needed. [16]
  • Do people feel free to disagree (especially with you) and to share bad news? This is what we actually mean by "psychological safety." [17]

4. Prioritize and Upgrade Your Own Reflection Time

Involving others in problem-solving doesn't mean you'll no longer engage in solo reflection. If anything, you should be able to devote your individual problem-solving time to even more meaningful and significant issues than before. But it's common for highly responsible leaders to deprioritize this time, to push it to the far corners of their calendar, or to allow it to come at the expense of personal obligations.

Here the key is recognizing that your attention is one of your organization's most precious resources, and it's up to you to be its steward. Very few others will care (or even notice) that your attention is finite, and that any time taken from solo reflection and directed toward other activities comes at a high cost. You have to be deliberate about protecting open space for this purpose [18], and creating the conditions that allow you to do your best thinking. [19]

 


Footnotes

[1] The Effects of Desire for Control on Attributions and Task Performance (Jerry Burger, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1987)

[2] For an extensive discussion of each of these needs, see Human Motivation, Chapters 7-9 (David McClelland, 1987). Having developed his "motivational needs theory" around these three drives in the 1960s and '70s, later in his career McClelland suggested that a fourth such drive is the "avoidance motive," characterized by a fear of failure and a need to minimize anxiety and reduce distress (and discussed in Human Motivation, Chapter 10.) However, while McClelland's research on leadership identifies a relationship among the first three needs, he doesn't integrate the avoidance motive in the same way, nor is it included in most discussions of his theory, so I've omitted it here as well.

[3] Ibid, page 271. (McClelland cites a definition made by his colleague and former student David Winter: The Power Motive, 1973.)

[4] Ibid, page 347. (McClelland cites a definition made by his longtime collaborator John Atkinson with Roger Heyns and Joseph Veroff: The effect of experimental arousal of the affiliation motive on thematic apperception, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1954.)

[5] Ibid, page 229.

[6] Ibid, page 313:

"By way of contrast, those with high n Achievement peaked in their careers [earlier]. The nonlinear trend is significant. The explanation seems to lie in the fact that individuals high in n Achievement are used to doing things by themselves and for themselves… They are able to advance in the company as long as their job involves the individual contributions they make. However, at higher levels the focus on the job shifts to influencing others. The greater success of those with the leadership motive syndrome at this level can be explained on the grounds that they are interested in influencing others (the high n Power score), they are not unduly concerned about whether they are liked or not (the low n Affiliation score), and they are self controlled (the high Activity Inhibition score)."

[7] Superpowers and Shadow Sides

[8] How to Scale: Do Less, Lead More

[9] The Balcony and the Dance Floor

[10] Leadership, Decision-Making and Emotion Management

[11] Better Working Relationships

[12] How to Deliver Critical Feedback

[13] Work Style Differences

[14] What Is Organizational Culture? (Michael Watkins, Harvard Business Review, 2013)

[15] The Evolution of the Executive Team

[16] For more on group dynamics:

[17] Safety Is a Resource, Not a Destination

[18] Open Space, Deep Work, and Self-Care

[19] How to Think (More on Open Space and Deep Work)

 

Photo by Mike Dish.

On Leadership Transitions and Public Narratives

I work with clients in open-ended engagements that typically last for several years. Either the client or I can elect to conclude our work together at any time, but I’ve found that my approach is a good fit for leaders who want a long-term thought partner. As a result, although most clients enter my practice occupying a leadership role that they expect to hold for the foreseeable future, I regularly accompany clients as they transition out of that role into a new chapter of their lives.

In some cases a client’s transition occurs in parallel with or is triggered by a business event, such as the sale of the company. Many of these situations provide a sufficient explanation for my client’s decision to leave their role. The CEO of an acquired company will likely stay on for a period of time to ensure a smooth handover, and if they leave shortly after the transaction no one wonders why. The change in the business is sufficient explanation.

But in other situations a leader’s departure will invite curiosity, and this is particularly true if the transition occurs in the absence of a corresponding business event. When this happens, anyone with a reason to care will begin to ask a series of questions. If these questions aren’t raised publicly, they will certainly be raised in private:

  • Why is the leader leaving? What does it mean?
  • Did the leader initiate the transition, or was it initiated by other stakeholders?
  • If the leader initiated the transition, do they lack faith in the business? Are they disgruntled or unhappy in some way?
  • If others initiated the transition, do they lack faith in the leader? Did the leader fall short of expectations in some way?
  • What are the implications for the future? How will the leader’s departure affect the business? How will this transition affect the leader’s career?

These questions are often problematic. The situation may be sufficiently complex that the answers are unclear, or different parties may have different answers. The answers may be embarrassing to one party or another, or the fact that there are different answers may itself be embarrassing. This can result in paralysis, with the questions hanging in the air, unresolved.

If these questions go unanswered by the leader or the company, other parties will be left to draw their own conclusions. As my colleague Carole Robin says, in the absence of data we make shit up. So in these situations what’s required is a public narrative that provides an explanation for the transition that is sufficient to answer these questions (and any number of others that may arise). Note that this narrative isn’t fictional or phony, but it is reductive. It leaves out information that may be confusing or distracting in order to emphasize specific aspects of the situation that provide a coherent explanation. In this sense a narrative is a story, and as I’ve written before,

Why is storytelling such a powerful process? Because we depend upon narratives to navigate the world–they are our compass in the wilderness, our lantern in the dark. Organizational psychologist Karl Weick called this “sensemaking”: we rely upon narratives to “make sense” of ambiguous situations and pursue a plan of action in coordination with others. But our reliance on narratives means that in the absence of a coherent story we will feel lost and ungrounded. [1]

So if you’re a leader about to embark upon a transition–or if one has been imposed upon you–what should you do? First, envision the various parties who may have an interest in your transition arrayed around you in a series of concentric circles. People in the innermost circle are there because you trust their discretion and their judgment, and their interests are fully aligned with yours. This space will accommodate a great deal of complexity and nuance, and you benefit by being as candid as possible with the people who occupy it, in part because they will be able to advise you on how to communicate with others.

As you go further out, in each subsequent circle there’s a little less trust and a more divergent set of interests. There’s less capacity to handle complexity and nuance. As a result, you’ll need adjust what you share with the people in that circle by modifying the narrative. Typically this entails reduction–leaving out certain aspects of the situation in order to emphasize others. This ultimately results in a series of narratives that explain your transition to different sets of stakeholders in terms that fit their ability and willingness to comprehend the situation and are appropriate to your relationship with them.

These narratives will get more reductive the further out you go, but it’s important that they’re all mutually consistent. They shouldn’t contradict each other, nor should they contain falsehoods. I don’t make this assertion out of naive idealism, but out of pragmatism. Contradictory narratives or those that are demonstrably false risk the loss of trust and create unnecessary complications that can usually be avoided with a modest amount of forethought.

The outermost circle is the public sphere, occupied by individuals you don’t know personally, but who for some reason have an interest in your transition. The narrative for the public sphere is generally reductive to the point of simplicity. Thus the cliché, “I want to spend more time with my family.” That’s almost always true, and it’s rarely the whole truth.

I’ll add that I often see leaders make three mistakes in this process:

They wait too long.

Leadership roles are hard to obtain, but they can be even harder to leave. Leaders tend to feel a high degree of responsibility for the business and their stakeholders, and they don’t want anyone to feel let down, misled, or betrayed by their departure. They want the narrative to reflect “good timing,” so they wait for (or try to engineer) a moment when no one will fault them for leaving. But that moment may never come, and the leader may find that the situation gets worse, not better. A theme in my practice is that sometimes there are no good options, only varying degrees of bad. The goal isn’t “success,” but “avoiding catastrophe.” I don’t advise acting with undue haste, but I do encourage clients to consider the potential costs of delay. [2]

They pretend they’re invulnerable.

I’m under no illusions about the risks to a leader of being perceived as weak or incapable. [3] But leaders in transition can also err by insisting on a narrative that rejects any hint of vulnerability and represents their career as a seamless trajectory with every move “up and to the right.” This can contribute to waiting too long as the situation worsens, but it can have other negative consequences. When a leader’s desire for a transition is being driven by a sense of fatigue or burnout, the pretense of invulnerability shuts out stakeholders who may be in a position to offer support and exacerbates the leader’s sense of isolation.

They rely on unreliable intermediaries.

I began my career as a journalist, and I’ve had many friends in the media, so I empathize with the challenges faced by people tasked with explaining events in the business world to their readers and viewers. But it’s unrealistic for a leader to rely upon journalists and other intermediaries operating in the public sphere to transmit the leader’s narrative–they will have narratives of their own. It’s also no longer necessary, as communications and PR expert Lulu Cheng Meservey makes clear:

Today, most of the planet is directly reachable by social media or email. There’s no longer a need to go through traditional gatekeepers of information and brokers of reputation–especially as their own credibility has plummeted… Going direct means crafting and telling your own story, without being dependent on intermediaries. [4]

 


For Further Reading

Handing Off to a New CEO

The Ambiguous Role of Executive Chair

The Problem with Hot-Swapping (On Exec Transitions)

Footnotes

[1] The Importance of Shared Narrative

[2] Kicking the Can Down the Road (On Hard Decisions)

[3] Cautionary Tales (Authenticity at Work)

[4] Go Direct: The Manifesto (Lulu Cheng Meservey, Flack, 2024)

9,000 Coaching Sessions (The Evolution of a Practice)

9000 by Michael Whiffen 2965180339 EDIT

Last Thursday, March 13th, I conducted the 9,000th coaching session of my career, and the milestone has prompted a look back at how my practice has evolved over the past two decades. I'm not suggesting that there's one right way to run a practice, or that anything I do should be emulated. But I've always tried to be thoughtful about what will work best for me and my clients, and perhaps these reflections will prove useful to colleagues as they experiment with their approach, or to clients who are curious about what this work looks like from a coach's point of view.

When I conducted my 8,000th coaching session in May 2024, 1:1 coaching was my only professional activity and had been since I last taught MBAs at Stanford in 2021. This was a stark contrast to my orientation when I launched my practice in 2006 under the mantle of "Executive Coaching and Change Management." At the time I envisioned that my work would be split equally between coaching individuals and various types of group engagements.

But as the years passed several factors led me to reset those expectations. My participation in Stanford's Group Facilitation Training Program that same year opened up more opportunities to work with groups at the university, including an invitation to join the first team of Leadership Coaches at the Graduate School of Business, where I'd earned my MBA in 2000. In parallel, it became more difficult to fit group engagements into the space available in my private practice.

These developments weren't accidental, but resulted from deliberate choices made in response to my evolving capabilities and skills, the fulfillment I derived from different types of work, and my growing understanding of the respective markets for these services. I was increasingly drawn toward 1:1 coaching, not only because I felt most capable and fulfilled in that work, but also because it was much more straightforward operationally. Today I regularly talk with aspiring coaches, and I encourage them to be very intentional about their business model.

Over time I concluded that I would be best served by focusing on 1:1 coaching rather than group engagements. Coaching experience compounds rapidly, given the consistency with which issues emerge in leaders' lives. The specific circumstances vary considerably, and all my clients must feel acknowledged as individuals, but I also add value simply by reassuring leaders that many of the challenges they face are quite common.

I accelerated my learning process by writing frequently, ultimately sharing more than 900 essays on coaching and related topics on this site since launching my practice. That's the equivalent of one post per week for nearly 19 years, although I usually write in productive bursts (and my pace has slowed recently, in part because I'm so busy coaching.)

My writing primarily serves two purposes: to integrate and solidify lessons distilled from multiple clients and my reading in a wide range of fields, and to create a library of content to share with current clients that augment our discussions in coaching sessions. I've never written with the expectation that anyone encountering my work would become a client, and that's proven accurate–my referrals have almost all come through word-of-mouth. Nor did I seek to monetize my writing–everything on my site has always been freely available to others under a Creative Commons license.

But this meant that I had to monetize my time, which was another reason why I focused on 1:1 coaching instead of group work in my practice. Coaching is time-efficient, particularly given my use of a flat hourly rate rather than a retainer, and less effort is required for discovery and scoping than in group work. I decided to dedicate some of that time saved to handling all of my practice's logistics, from scheduling to billing. Years ago I considered hiring an assistant as my practice grew but concluded that I preferred owning every aspect of my clients' experience. And so after a decade my practice consisted solely of 1:1 coaching engagements, and I was working with groups almost exclusively at Stanford, with occasional workshops for company founders or leadership teams.

During those initial ten years some of the most rewarding group work I did was facilitating T-groups in Interpersonal Dynamics (aka "Touchy Feely"), and I ultimately spent more than 1,500 hours in that role. One of the reasons I pursued that work so intensively was because I found it highly synergistic with 1:1 coaching. Engaging someone on a challenging topic in a T-group with 12 other people observing and joining in the interaction made the challenges in 1:1 coaching seem easier, and the coaching orientation I brought to T-groups made me a better facilitator.

My practice continued to grow during these years in part because I was honing my skills, but also because I simply said yes as often as possible. This was easier because I'm not a parent, nor did I have many obligations beyond work. My role at Stanford was sufficiently flexible that I could see clients in San Francisco in the morning or evening before or after class. I also began working virtually, holding my initial long-distance coaching sessions via phone or Skype. I assumed that this would always be a minimal part of my practice, but I found that virtual coaching was as effective as in-person, although it was a different experience.

Looking back on this period I joke that as a coach I was a "five-year overnight success," meaning that it took that amount of time to develop the critical mass of former clients who turned out to be the most fruitful source of future referrals. This became evident in 2012 when I began earning more from my private clients than from my full-time role at Stanford, seven years after I started coaching and six years after formally launching my practice.

Despite this development, I opted to stay at Stanford for a number of reasons, including my commitment to the Leadership Labs course and the Leadership Fellows program, which my colleagues and I had helped to establish in 2007. While those initiatives had proven successful, after four years the school wanted us to revamp them, and we spent 2011-12 rolling out a radically different LeadLabs course and integrating Fellows with the pre-existing Leadership Coaching & Mentoring curriculum. These efforts were daunting, but they were also highly energizing and a tremendous source of learning.

The following years also presented me with with some unique opportunities at Stanford. In 2015 I was given a chance to teach my own course, which I called The Art of Self-Coaching. In 2016 I was invited to join the Interpersonal Dynamics faculty and teach the course that I'd facilitated for a decade. And at this point I realized that the balance I'd established in my professional life was no longer tenable–I needed more time for 1:1 coaching in my practice, and that could only come by spending less time with groups at Stanford. So in 2016 I resigned from the full-time role at Stanford that kept me involved with Fellows and LeadLabs, and in 2017 I facilitated a T-group for the last time.

I enjoyed all of that work immensely, particularly the opportunity to guide Leadership Fellows as both a group facilitator and a 1:1 coach. And while each T-group is a unique entity composed of a set of unique individuals, there are a number of patterns that reliably emerge in every group. I'll always be fascinated by group dynamics, and my grounding in this topic makes me far more useful to my coaching clients, who are often seeking to help their leadership teams operate more effectively. But I felt that I had more to learn in other settings, and it was time to move on.

I settled into a new professional routine where I taught one day a week and spent the rest of my time with clients in my private practice. The Art of Self-Coaching proved sufficiently popular that I was invited to teach it in all three academic Quarters, and so in 2017 I stopped teaching Interpersonal Dynamics in order to focus on my course, but the overall balance of teaching and coaching remained the same. These years, 2016 through early 2020, were some of the most gratifying of my career, and I will always view it as a special era. The balance between coaching and teaching was very fulfilling, and although teaching consumed 20 percent of my time and provided 3 percent of my income, it still felt like a fair exchange.

What I enjoyed so much about teaching The Art of Self-Coaching was the opportunity to create the optimal environment for experiential learning, which entailed constant evolution and refinement. I'm not a brilliant lecturer, nor am I particularly gifted at the Socratic method. I am, however, a world-class experiential educator, a role whose closest analogue is perhaps circus ringmaster. The ringmaster merely entertains, of course, and while I was a lively presence in the classroom, my intent was to help my students feel at ease while inviting them to challenge themselves, to go deeper, and to learn more in the process.

I loved being in the classroom one day a week, and I loved the fact that I was able to spend the rest of my time with clients in my private practice. I gave some thought to teaching less often, just once or twice a year instead of three times, because Amy had correctly observed that I ended each Quarter feeling depleted, and my commitment to teaching required me to maintain a waitlist for my practice. So life wasn't perfect, but I was content, and I expected to spend the rest of my career in some form of that arrangement. And then the pandemic hit, and many things changed.

Because I was already conducting roughly one-third of my coaching sessions long-distance, it was relatively easy to go 100 percent virtual. I taught The Art of Self-Coaching virtually in Spring 2020, including a version that I made freely available to the public, and it was a great experience, largely because everyone was coming together to face this unprecedented threat. But I decided to drop down from teaching all three Quarters to just one, primarily because I was exhausted and overwhelmed. My clients were facing the greatest challenges of their careers, and I didn't think I could sustain my support for them while also teaching all year.

I taught virtually again in Spring 2021, and it was not a great experience, largely because I failed to adapt to the needs of students who were also exhausted and overwhelmed. So I took a year off from teaching entirely in order to assess the role I wanted it to play in my life, and in January 2023 I concluded that it was time to retire from Stanford and focus solely on my practice and 1:1 coaching. Sixteen months later I conducted my 8,000th coaching session, and at the time that orientation still seemed right. And then things changed yet again.

In addition to triggering an even sharper focus on 1:1 coaching in my practice, the pandemic led to monumental changes in my personal life. Amy and I left San Francisco, our home for 30 years, and moved to a working sheep and cattle ranch in the far northwest corner of Marin County. It was a deeply affecting experience that taught me much about the natural world, the cycle of life and death, and my evolving identity in middle age. The seclusion we enjoyed was at first simply a respite from the chaos of life under lockdown. But it also allowed me to hone my craft like never before.

I coached all day, every day. I coached more people than ever, from all over the world. I coached more sessions in a day, and more days in a year, than ever before. In 2019, teaching all year and coaching 4 days a week, I held 672 sessions with private clients. In 2020, teaching just once, I held 851 coaching sessions. In 2021, without teaching at all, I held 988 sessions. In 2022 I expanded my hours in order to work with clients in a wider range of time zones and held 1,042 sessions. In 2023 that process continued, and I held 1,132 sessions. Last year I held 1,164 sessions, and I expect to equal that figure in 2025.

In addition to opting out of teaching, working virtually, and expanding my hours, what made this increased workload feasible is that on the ranch I had very few distractions, living among a flock of sheep and a herd of cattle on 250 acres. I think coaches are well-served by living a boring life, and I practice what I preach. And for more than three-and-a-half years it was a wonderful existence, occasionally even magical.

To be sure, rural life posed many challenges, from unreliable Internet to lost sheep to downed tree limbs that trapped us on the property until I learned how to use a chainsaw. We weren't responsible for the livestock, but we were the only full-time residents, so we still had plenty of responsibilities. But Amy grew up on a farm, and I followed her lead, and with the occasional mishap we managed just fine. And yet as we approached the fourth anniversary of our time on the farm, it became clear to me that yet another season of change was upon us.

Focusing my practice on 1:1 coaching while also living on a remote ranch for four years ultimately came to feel somewhat narrow. I still loved coaching, I woke up every day eager to talk with my clients, and I knew I was doing the best work of my career. But eventually I realized that I missed the stimulation of group experiences in my personal and professional life, from walking down a busy street to leading a workshop or teaching a class.

This was one of the reasons we decided to leave the ranch in mid-2024 and move to Petaluma, the town of 60,000 people in Sonoma County that had been our primary commercial center while living in the country. And it was also why I considered expanding my practice beyond 1:1 coaching for the first time in many years and began seeking out opportunities to work with groups again.

I explored a range of options, including returning to Stanford. I reached out to a faculty member I knew for guidance, and he was decidedly ambivalent. There were reasons I might want to come back, and there were reasons I might not want to come back, and I might not be welcomed back. Amy was definitely not ambivalent–she thought it was a terrible idea.

I had to conclude that I'd been right in January 2023: "Today I'm struck by the extent to which the courses and programs that were products of the 'new curriculum' are now viewed as features of the landscape, as if they'd always been there. This is gratifying, but it also reminds me that it's time to move on before I, too, am viewed as a feature of the landscape."

I reflected on what I was trying to accomplish in working with groups again. I wanted to work with people like my coaching clients–senior leaders who feel responsible for building a culture that enables their employees to do their best work. I wanted to foster connections between individuals and to create a sense of connection among members of a group. I wanted to draw upon the Art of Self-Coaching curriculum that I'd been developing since 2009. And whatever I did had to be complementary with my existing practice.

The first initiative that came to fruition was a 6-week virtual version of my course, The Art of Self-Coaching for CEOs, which I now offer to small groups of 6 leaders. The first cohort in late 2024 was sufficiently successful that I've planned several more for this year, and Cohort #3 begins tomorrow. I'm still pursuing other efforts, including a retreat for leaders in midlife and collaborating with colleagues to coach a company's leadership team, and I'm contemplating even more, such as a program to help coaches improve how they structure engagements and manage their practices.

We're now nine months into our new lives in Petaluma, and although we miss aspects of life on the ranch–the huge sky, the endless pastures, the addle-headed flock–it's good to have neighbors again and to be able to walk downtown. I know that 1:1 coaching is my ikigai: I love it, I'm good at it, the world needs it, and, happily, I'm paid to do it. And I feel re-grounded with new forms of group work in my professional mix, although I'm increasingly mindful of the limits on my capacity and the need to preserve open space in my life.

But even as I strive to manage my boundaries, as all happy workaholics must, I find it fulfilling to be so busy and am grateful to be of service to my clients. Barring any unexpected developments, I'll conduct the 10,000th coaching session of my career in early 2026. Maybe by then I'll know what I'm doing.

 


Acknowledgments

Always: Thank you to the hundreds of clients who have entrusted me with the opportunity to play a unique role in your lives and careers. It is truly a privilege that I never take for granted. Thank you to the MBA students with whom I conducted 1,064 coaching sessions at Stanford from 2007 through 2020. I'm thankful to the GSB for bringing us together. And thank you, Amy, for your care and counsel on every step of this journey.

In the Beginning: As a student and early in my career I was blessed with some of the most gifted and caring teachers and mentors a young person could want:

Lloyd Schaefer, Millicent Rinehart, Naomi Duprat, Selby Doughty (Cumberland Valley High School), Tim Dayton (Duke), Richard Lerman (School of the Museum of Fine Arts/Boston), Chris Mauriello, Dagmar Herzog, Tom Simons, Mary Gluck (Brown), the late Don Flaxman, James Van Horne, Joel Peterson, Mary Ann Huckabay, Roberto Fernandez (Stanford), Jerry Fuchs, Kathy Taylor Gaubatz, Vince Stehle, Lynn Labieniec

Getting Started: A number of people played essential roles as I began exploring coaching as a potential path in 2005 and launched my practice in 2006, and I've done my best to pay it forward:

Andrea Corney, Barbara Brewer, Carole Robin, David Bradford, Dietmar Brinkmann, Erica Kisch, Evelyn Williams, Joe Murphy, Justin Sherman, Karin Scholz Grace, Kevin Martin, Lynn Labieniec, Mary Ann Huckabay, Rebecca Zucker, Ricki Frankel, Seth Goldstein, Scott Bristol, Tim Dorman, Vince Stehle

At Stanford: A host of colleagues contributed to my growth and made my work possible at the Graduate School of Business from 2007 to 2021:

Allison Rouse, Amy Kraus, Anamaria Nino-Murcia, Andrea Corney, Agnes Le, Anthony Ramsey, Barbara Brewer, Barbara Firpo, Bob Joss, Bob Sutton, Bonnie Wentworth, Bri' Godfrey, Brian Lowery, Bryan McCann, Carrie Lee, Carole Robin, Chevalisa Bruzzone, Chris McCanna, Chris Sadlak, Christopher Williams, Collins Dobbs, Courtney Payne, David Bradford, Delilah Gallardo, Dietmar Brinkmann, Dikla Carmel-Hurwitz, Domenico Anatrone, Don Hejna, Erica Peng, Evelyn Williams, Garth Saloner, Gary Dexter, Grace Yokoi, Graham Veth, Graham Weaver, Hugh Keelan, Inbal Demri Shaham, Ingrid McGovert, James VanHorne, Jamila Rufaro, Jana Basili, Jed Emerson, Jeff Pfeffer, Jimena Galfaso, Joe Murphy, Joel Peterson, John Cronkite, John Johnson, Johnnie Walton, Joy Hsu, Karin Scholz Grace, Ken Chan, Kevin Martin, Kirstin Moss, Kris Becker, Lara Tiedens, Lela Djakovic, Leslie Chin, Lily Kimbal, Ling Lam, Lisa Kay Solomon, Lisa Radloff, Lisa Schwallie, Lisa Simpson, Lisa Stefanac, Liselotte Zvacek, Lynn Santopietro, Margee Hayes, Marie Mookini, Mark Voorsanger, Mary Ann Huckaby, Melinda Tuan, Michael Terrell, Mike Hochleutner, Mindy Williams, Nancy Dam, Nirit Hazan, Nonna Kocharyan, Nora Richardson, Paul Abad, Paul Mattish, Paul Roberts, Rebecca Taylor, Rebecca Zucker, Rich Kass, Richard Francisco, Richard Haukom, Ricki Frankel, Roberto Fernandez, Sara Stone, Saraswathi Ram Mohan, Scott Bristol, Sharon Richmond, Stephanie Stevens, Sunny Sabbini, Sue Neville, Suzan Jensen, Tony Levitan, Tuquynh Tran, Ursula Kaiser, Vince Stehle, Yifat Sharabi-Levine, Zoe Dunning

My Community Today: I'm privileged to call these people colleagues and friends, and I'm deeply grateful for their encouragement and support:

Agnes Le, Anamaria Nino-Murcia, Andy Sparks, Andrea Corney, Anita Grantham, Annie Riley, Bonnie Wentworth, Brad Stulberg, Brooks Barron, Carole Robin, Cameron Yarbrough, Celine Teoh, Chip Conley, Chris Douglas, Collins Dobbs, Dan Oestreich, Dana Bilsky Asher, Doug Sundheim, Eduardo Andere, Glenn Terrell, Gwen Mellor Romans, Harry Max, Heather Corcoran, Jennifer Ouyang Altman, Jennifer Porter, Joe Dunn, John Baldoni, José Hernandez, Julia Markish, Justin Doyle, Kevin Martin, Khalid Halim, Lauren Weinstein, Lela Djakovic, Lisa Stefanac, Madelyn Sierra, Mario Fraioli, Mary Ann Huckabay, Meredith Whipple Callahan, Michael Chang Wenderoth, Michael Melcher, Michael Terrell, Moshe Ovadia, Natalie Guillen, Nikki Turner, Pam Fox Rollin, Priya Nalkur, Rebecca Zucker, Richard Hughes-Jones, Rick Winters, Rodrigo Lopez, Ronni Hendel-Giller, Scott Eblin, Stephanie Soler, Stephanie Stevens, Steve Magness, Steve Schlafman, Terra Winston, Tim Dorman, Tim Sullivan, Whitney Birdwell, Vineet Rajan

 

In memory of Roanak Desai and Erik Bengtsson, two people I was honored to know and to coach. RIP

 

Photo by Michael Whiffen.

Looking Under the Lamppost (On Problem-Solving)

Lamppost Streetlight by Abeeha Batool capturemoments-notjustphotos 9357021396 EDIT

A guy walking home one evening sees his neighbor staring at the street under a lamppost. "What are you looking for?" he asks.

"My house keys," the neighbor says. "I dropped them in the yard."

"Then why are you looking here?"

"The light's better."

That's a very old joke that comes up in my practice on a regular basis. [1] Why? Because it's how we often approach problem-solving. Rather than solve the problem that needs to be solved, we solve a problem that we want to solve.

Sometimes the problem that needs to be solved is outside our area of expertise. So we find another problem to solve, one that's under the lamppost, where the light's better.

Sometimes the problem that needs to be solved will take a long time to solve, and we want to feel "productive." So we find a whole bunch of little problems to solve that we can check off our to-do list.

Sometimes the problem that needs to be solved may truly be insoluble, and we're scared of trying and failing and looking foolish. So we find an easier problem to solve, one that will burnish our image and our ego.

These are all very understandable responses. Solving hard problems isn't merely an intellectual exercise, and sometimes we simply don't have what it takes to grope around in the dark, flailing endlessly, and occasionally having to admit defeat. But when we routinely limit ourselves to simple, small and solvable problems, we never develop the capacity to do anything else. Our comfort zones only grow when we get outside them.

This doesn't mean we should view ourselves harshly, without compassion. The fortitude to confront the problems that need to be solved can be derived from many sources, but it's more readily accessible when we invest in self-care practices that put us in the right state of mind and body. [2] Even then, we may lack confidence in our ability to solve these problems, but as I've noted before, "Confidence is a calculation of the odds of success. Courage is a calculation that the cost of not trying is higher than the cost of failing." [3]

And that latter calculation is far easier to make when we accept that our efforts to solve hard problems will often fail. This doesn't mean that we should be blasé or cavalier about failure. But when we view such failures as learning opportunities–"the ruling out of possibilities," in Peter Attia's phrase [4]–we realize that it's actually riskier to keep looking under the lamppost, where the light is, and the solutions to meaningful problems will only be found out there, in the dark.

 


Footnote

[1] Apparently this joke was a staple of American newspapers starting in the 1920s.

[2] Investments, Not Indulgences

[3] Courage Isn't Confidence

[4] The Ruling Out of Possibilities

For Further Reading

The Traps We Set for Ourselves

The Obstacle Is the Way

Learning from Sisyphus

 

Photo by Abeeha Batool.

A Reading List for Leaders in a Crisis

Danger by AppleDave 2668423965 EDIT

1. Responding to the Crisis

How Leaders Overcome Adversity

Engage others in shared meaning. Find your distinct and compelling voice. Put your integrity and values into practice. Grasp the context of the crisis. Tap into your hardiness.

From Peacetime to Wartime

Determination. Persistence. Calm. We need these qualities in our wartime leaders because they must act decisively and with conviction, mobilizing those around them to work together under conditions of great uncertainty while avoiding panic.

When Leaders Break Glass

The leader who never breaks glass runs the risk of missing out on narrow windows of opportunity and being overtaken by fast-moving threats. Sensing when to break glass and learning how to do so with the right amount of force are essential leadership skills.

Compasses and Weathervanes (30 Questions for Leaders)

The question isn't "What kind of leader should I be?" but rather "What kind of leadership is called for at this moment–and am I capable of summoning it?"

2. Supporting Others

Talking with Colleagues About Suffering

A theme in my practice is the leader who's aware or senses that a colleague is suffering and would like to offer support but is unsure how to broach the topic. If you're in this situation, here are some suggestions.

Viktor Frankl on the Meaning of Suffering

Frankl is not denying the grief and rage that spring from suffering and tragedy. He's not "making the best of things." He's not blithely suggesting that "everything happens for a reason." He is encouraging us to acknowledge our grief and rage, and also to see our suffering as an experience in which it is possible to find meaning.

Mourning Ends, Grief Need Not

There's a difference between mourning and grief. Mourning ends, because we have to return to the world, but grief need not, and we can return to our grieving to honor our feeling and our memories of the person we lost at any time.

3. Managing Yourself

How to Fight a Fire (Self-Coaching in a Crisis)

Some situations truly test a leader’s ability to self-coach, to manage themselves effectively while also guiding others. Here are four factors that have helped clients who’ve had to surmount a crisis.

Taking the Leap (Dealing with Risk and Uncertainty)

Rather than minimizing risk and avoiding uncertainty, we’re better served by more effectively managing the emotions that these qualities trigger. To be clear, managing emotions doesn’t mean suppressing them. Efforts to ignore our feelings or pretend that they don’t exist aren’t sustainable over time (and may even exacerbate the very emotions that are causing us difficulty).

The Importance of Slowing Down

The impulse to hurry should often be interpreted as a signal to slow down.

4. On Coping

Pockets of Agency

Even–and especially–as we feel a loss of control in the world at large, we can strive to create "pockets of agency," smaller settings within our lives in which we can "cause or control the movement."

Aggression, Panic, Paralysis, Denial

Some people are moving assertively to win competitions or bolster their status. Some people are overwhelmed by fear. Some people are unable to take necessary action. Some people are acting as though everything will be "back to normal" soon.

Tumbling Down Maslow's Hierarchy

Why does this matter? Because many people aren't moving up the ladder, they're moving down.

The Legitimacy of Loss

People are failing to grieve their losses. In some cases this may simply be a form of denial, but in many others I suspect that people believe that their losses are somehow illegitimate because they are lesser, and that grieving their losses would be unseemly or inappropriate when so many have suffered far worse.

5. Learning from a Crisis

Some Crises Build Character. Others Reveal It.

Something bad happened, and there was a crisis. There are still many risks, and the situation could yet turn worse, but at the moment, catastrophe has been averted. If approached correctly, this can be a fruitful learning experience for you and the people around you. It may seem too early to learn from the crisis, but don't wait too long.

Double-Loop Learning

Double-loop learning occurs when we expand the analytical frame to explicitly identify and then challenge any underlying assumptions that support our stated goals, values and strategies.

6. Other Resources I Recommend

Ten Things To Keep In Mind During A Crisis (Anamaria Nino-Murcia, 2022)

Trauma Stewardship: An Everyday Guide to Caring for Self While Caring for Others (Laura van Dernoot Lipsky with Connie Burk, 2009)

Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma (Peter Levine with Ann Frederick, 1997)

In An Unspoken Voice: How the Body Releases Trauma and Restores Goodness (Peter Levine, 2010)

 

Photo by AppleDave.

When Leaders Break Glass

Break Glass by Nancy McClure aperte 948080386 EDIT

We've seen it countless times on fire alarms and panic buttons: Break glass in case of emergency. (The example above is from a San Francisco BART station.) It's a fitting figure of speech for a theme in my practice: When a client feels that their company's established processes are too slow or that employees are addressing a situation with insufficient urgency, they "break glass" and intervene to bypass those processes, generate the requisite urgency, and ensure that the issue is resolved now.

The leader who never breaks glass runs the risk of missing out on narrow windows of opportunity and being overtaken by fast-moving threats. Sensing when to break glass and learning how to do so with the right amount of force are essential leadership skills. But the leader who breaks glass incessantly at the first sign of delay causes other problems.

Such knee-jerk reactivity can affect the company's culture and infrastructure. As I've noted before, "[Leaders] generally have a bias for action, and when they’re faced with a system that seems to be slowing things down, they simply ignore it. This can be a great strength–but it can also be a crucial weakness, particularly when a leader’s reflexive disregard for systems prevents their healthy evolution in the organization at large." [1]

It can also affect employees' sense of responsibility and motivation: "When a leader repeatedly continues to intervene…as an organization grows…people are taught that this is the leader’s job, not theirs, and they fail to develop their own crisis-management and problem-solving abilities… Ultimately even the most intrepid employees can feel demotivated when the leader is always there to 'rescue' them." [2]

So if you're a leader facing this dilemma, what can you do? How do you know when to break glass and when to let a scenario play out? There's no single solution, but there are some practices that can help you find the right balance.

Know Your Tendencies

Most leaders I've worked with tend toward one end of the spectrum or the other. Founders and other early-stage leaders often break glass without a moment's hesitation. Many new ventures are essentially ongoing exercises in glass-breaking, and that attracts a certain personality type.

There are also many leaders who resist breaking glass or find it very difficult. Their training, formative experiences and past successes have taught them to build and rely upon orderly systems. This approach lends itself well to any number of enterprises–often large-scale or highly regulated–which also attract a certain personality type.

The challenge is that companies are dynamic entities, and leaders must be able to adapt their style to suit changing circumstances. As I've written before, "the fluidity and ambiguity that foster creative problem-solving in an early stage startup will feel like chaotic dysfunction at a later point in the company’s development." [3] And the smooth-running corporate machine will run itself right into a ditch if leadership is unable to interrupt established procedures and change course when necessary.

Knowing your tendencies is insufficient on its own, but in the absence of that self-awareness you'll likely stay in your comfort zone, do what's familiar,  and miss opportunities to adapt.

Regulate Your Emotions

Despite the popular conception of emotion as an impediment to rational thought, decades of neuroscience research has made it clear that it's a vital input to the reasoning process. [4] Even so, as the eminent neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has written, and as we all know from personal experience, "uncontrolled or misdirected emotion can be a major source of irrational behavior [and] seemingly normal reason can be disturbed by subtle biases rooted in emotion." [5]

The most relevant emotion in this context is anxiety. It's typically some form of anxiety that either drives a leader to break glass too often or prevents them from doing so when it would be useful. I'm not suggesting that you should discount or ignore your anxiety. Emotion's primary function is to alert us to potential opportunities and threats, and if we lacked the capacity for anxiety we would be in grave danger. [6]

But emotions are data, and like all data they're comprised of both signal and noise. Emotion regulation isn't suppression–that's just pretending that you're not feeling what you're feeling. In contrast, regulation involves assessing what you're feeling and putting it in perspective in order to discern the meaningful signal in the midst of all the distracting noise. In this context, this requires you to sense, comprehend, articulate and express your anxiety in ways that enable you to make a deliberate decision about whether–and how–to break glass. [7]

Learn From Every Situation

Becoming more effective at breaking glass–and knowing when not to–isn't just a matter of advance preparation. It also entails looking back at each situation in order to learn from it. You observed a potentially troubling delay, and you either intervened and disrupted established processes, or you refrained from taking action and let things play out. What happened?

You have to assess not only the benefits of your choice, but also the costs, and here it's important to take others' perspective into account. A theme in my practice is the leader who breaks glass repeatedly and achieves the desired result in a given situation, but over time their employees become demotivated or disaffected. I'm not suggesting that you should feel obligated to tread lightly and avoid giving offense. That will cause you to hesitate at moments when you should act decisively. But there are inevitably costs to breaking glass, and they're not always obvious.

Key factors in this process are a degree of rigor in your analysis, feedback from other stakeholders, and an ongoing effort to hone your intuition. Rigor isn't rigidity, and it may be sufficient to simply ensure that you have regular time for reflection in your calendar. [8] To provide a little more structure, consider keeping a decision journal to track your results. [9]

Soliciting feedback from stakeholders doesn't mean that they get to determine whether your choice was the right one. But in the absence of input from others, you're left with your own perceptions of success or failure, and we reliably deceive ourselves under certain circumstances. [10]

Any given decision to break glass or not will be an intuitive one, made on the basis of imperfect information and dependent on subtle cues, both internal and environmental. If the choice is obvious, it will usually be made by someone more junior than you who's closer to the problem. Intuition isn't some mystical quality–it's merely pattern recognition occurring on the margins of consciousness, as noted by economist and psychologist Herbert Simon:

The situation has provided a cue; this cue has given the expert access to information stored in memory, and the information provides the answer. Intuition is nothing more and nothing less than recognition. [11]

Your task is to ensure that the accuracy of your intuitive judgments improve over time, resulting in fewer false positives–when you broke glass and the costs outweighed the benefits–as well as fewer false negatives–when you failed to break glass but should have.

 


Footnotes

[1] How to Scale: Do Less, Lead More

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Antonio Damasio on Emotion and Reason

[5] Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain, page 52 (Antonio Damasio, 1994)

[6] "It is clear that emotion should not be very susceptible to willful control. If we could turn off all our emotions, feel no pain, never laugh, not be gripped by fear or despair, stop being excited, and so on, we could easily end up dead… The priority of emotions over will is important for our survival because it allows our plans to be interrupted by the immediate pressures of reality." (White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts: Suppression, Obsession, and the Psychology of Mental Control, page 123, Daniel Wegner, 2nd edition, 1994)

[7] The Tyranny of Feelings

[8] How to Think (More on Open Space and Deep Work)

[9] Shane Parrish of Farnam Street offers a useful set of decision-making resources:

[10] When Heuristics Go Bad (On Cognitive Biases)

[11] What is an "Explanation" of Behavior? (Herbert Simon, Psychological Science, 1992)

 

Photo by Nancy McClure.

Everyone’s the Hero in the Movie of Their Life

Joker and Batman by Brecht Bug 14365592824 EDIT

Much of my work as a coach involves helping clients deal with "people problems." The CEO with an overbearing investor who's full of unhelpful advice. The investor with an egotistical CEO who never listens. The CEO with a defensive executive who calls any oversight "micromanagement." The executive with a distrustful CEO who can't give up control.

In any situation like this it's important to bear in mind that everyone's the hero in the movie of their life. This is true for my clients, and it's true for the people who are causing their problems. It's true for me, and I'm willing to bet that it's true for you. It's true for almost every single person we encounter.

When we're frustrated with someone and unhappy with their behavior, or when we feel thwarted by someone and view them as an obstacle, it's remarkably easy to characterize them as a villain. We imagine that they're intentionally working at cross-purposes to us, and that their primary aim is to prevent us from achieving ours. They're not trying to build anything–they just want to tear us down. There may be some truth to such perceptions, but they rarely encompass the full truth.

Sociopaths exist, but the lifetime prevalence of antisocial personality disorder is estimated at 1 to 4 percent, and most of those people are in prison. [1] It's extraordinarily unlikely that we'll ever interact with an actual villain in day-to-day business life. I've been a coach since 2006, and I've conducted over 9,000 coaching sessions [2], and in all that time only a single client had an antagonist whose behavior was sufficiently irrational and destructive to raise the possibility of sociopathy.

It's true that there are countless zero-sum scenarios in life where there will be few winners and many losers, and the resulting pressure causes people to act selfishly and aggressively. But when we find ourselves in such a contest, it's useful to remember that our rivals and and competitors aren't villains, at least not in their own minds. From their perspective they're the heroes, fighting the good fight, and we may be their villainous adversaries.

So what's happening here, why does it matter, and what can we do about it? Humans are reliably subject to an illusion described by theologian Eric Springsted, drawing upon the work of philosopher Simone Weil: "The illusion is that it appears to us as if we were at the center of the world. We thus appear as terrifically important, and what else is of value can be ranked by its proximity to us." [3]

And as I've written before, "We can readily grasp why evolution has selected for the center of the world illusion–viewing ourselves from this perspective, we typically put our subjective needs and desires above those of others, making our own biological success more likely." [4] It's a short step from there to villainizing others while valorizing ourselves, and thus we are all the heroes in the movie of our life.

This mental model confers some benefits in a competitive environment, but it also carries a number of costs. When we view others' intentions as malevolent and their behavior as hostile, we protect ourselves against potential villains, but we also make it less likely that a mutually beneficial outcome will be achieved. We turn every contest into a zero-sum scenario, often needlessly. We forego the possibility of collegial relationships, even with rivals. And we keep ourselves in a perpetual state of hyper-vigilance and distrust, undermining our own quality of life.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we naively assume good intentions or leave ourselves vulnerable to bad actors. My former Stanford colleague Jeff Pfeffer describes a student of his who did just that and came to regret it:

"Why did you do that?" I inquire. "Because," she responds, "I have been taught to build relationships of authenticity and trust at work." When I ask how her efforts went, she comments that of course they didn’t work at all, because her peer was not interested in "repairing a relationship" or behaving with trust and authenticity; he was interested in taking over her team for his own advantage–a not uncommon situation. [5]

But there's a world of difference between allowing ourselves to be taken advantage of and viewing all competitors and rivals as villains. We can protect our interests and work toward our goals in a competitive environment while viewing other parties realistically and dispassionately. Some of them will turn out to be untrustworthy, overly aggressive, even predatory, and we'll need to respond appropriately. But almost all of them will believe that they're the hero, and it will serve us well to bear this in mind.

We craft stories to explain others' behavior, and there's always some missing data left out of our narratives. Further, we take action on the basis of theories and beliefs which rest upon our interpretations of a selective data set, and at each stage of this "ladder of inference" errors may creep into our thinking. Slowing down to consider what data we might be missing or misinterpreting allows us to take a broader view of the situation and act with deliberation, not reflexively. None of this precludes the possibility that we may find ourselves in a hostile conflict. As I've written before,

Sometimes fights have a way of finding us, and sometimes angry people show up uninvited and refuse to leave, and sometimes the circumstances simply dictate a zero-sum struggle. And if we're unable to de-escalate the conflict, unable to find a win-win solution, and unable to turn adversaries into allies, then a successful outcome may depend on our ability to step into the conflict and make effective use of our anger. [6]

 


Footnotes

[1] Despite the rarity of antisocial personality disorder among the general population, it's estimated that 60 percent of male prisoners have this condition. For more on this topic, see the following:

[2] See 9,000 Coaching Sessions (The Evolution of a Practice) from March 2025 or 8,000 Coaching Sessions from May 2024.

[3] "Will and Order: The Moral Self in Augustine's De Libero Arbitrio," page 92 (Eric Springsted, Augustinian Studies, Volume 29, Issue 2, 1998). This essay is also available as a chapter in Springsted's The Act of Faith: Christian Faith and the Moral Self (2015).

[4] We're Not the Center of the World (But We Think We Are)

[5] Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time, pages 42-43 (Jeff Pfeffer, 2015)

[6] The Value of a Good Fight

For Further Reading

The Importance of Missing Data

Racing Up the Ladder of Inference

The Importance of Slowing Down

 

Photo by Brecht Bug.

Guidelines for Better Virtual Events

Virtual Events by David Fulmer daveynin 49818982567 EDIT

We've optimized our space and equipment for virtual work.

We're on time, ready to go, in the right frame of mind. This may entail leaving a prior event early to take a break and avoid going back-to-back.

We keep our cameras on and ensure that we're well-lit. Facial expressions convey meaningful data that's important to share.

We keep our microphone on and don't mute ourselves. Laughter, murmurs, sighs, gasps and other sounds are also meaningful data worth sharing.

We wear headphones or ensure that we're in a private space where the conversation won't be overheard by others.

We turn off all other applications and notifications to ensure that we're not interrupted and our attention remains focused on the conversation.

We don't multi-task. Our phones are out of sight for the duration of the conversation.

We don't use chat or text to hold sidebar conversations with other participants. With the exception of breakout rooms, all communication is equally available to all participants.

We strive to find the balance between leaving space for others to complete a thought, and interrupting to express ourselves in the moment.

 

Thanks to Lisa Stefanac for her insights derived from teaching Interpersonal Dynamics virtually at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

Photo by David Fulmer.

The Antidote to “Manager Mode” is Actual Management

Steering Wheels

This is not the solution.

Management as a concept seems to have fallen into disrepute. In a recent essay Paul Graham described "manager mode" as the unpalatable alternative to "founder mode." But what is Graham really criticizing? He recounts a talk given by Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky:

The theme of Brian's talk was that the conventional wisdom about how to run larger companies is mistaken. As Airbnb grew, well-meaning people advised him that he had to run the company in a certain way for it to scale. Their advice could be optimistically summarized as "hire good people and give them room to do their jobs." He followed this advice and the results were disastrous…

The way managers are taught to run companies seems to be like modular design in the sense that you treat subtrees of the org chart as black boxes. You tell your direct reports what to do, and it's up to them to figure out how. But you don't get involved in the details of what they do. That would be micromanaging them, which is bad.

Hire good people and give them room to do their jobs. Sounds great when it's described that way, doesn't it? Except in practice, judging from the report of founder after founder, what this often turns out to mean is: hire professional fakers and let them drive the company into the ground. [1]

So Graham isn't criticizing actual management. He's criticizing the absence of management, which is an issue I've observed in my practice for years and wrote about in 2022:

It's possible for a less-experienced CEO to get in the way of their senior leaders–but more typically I see the opposite problem. The CEO gives their executives a great deal of space, only to find several months or quarters later that they backed off too far, and some important objectives were neglected and fell into the gap. [2]

Why does this happen? Why do otherwise capable CEOs fail to provide sufficient oversight to senior leaders? And why is Graham's critique of "manager mode" resonating with so many people? In large part because the historic critique of management practices–a decades-old phenomenon, not a recent one–has been so badly misunderstood and so poorly implemented that many leaders are now so fearful of being called a "micromanager" that they fail to provide sufficient management at all.

The concept of "micromanagement" is associated with the work of MIT professor Douglas McGregor, a mid-20th century pioneer in the application of behavioral science to the challenges of organizational life. [3] McGregor offered a compelling critique of the conventional approach to management, which he dubbed "Theory X." He noted that Theory X manifests in both a "hard" version that extracts employee compliance through coercion and threats, and a "soft" version that renders employees pliable by catering to their desires for comfort and security.

While we associate "hard Theory X" with the early industrial era, and it remains common in certain sectors and parts of the world, today we encounter "soft Theory X" almost everywhere in the information economy. But both hard and soft Theory X are rooted in a shared view of human nature: that people are "indolent…lack ambition, dislike responsibility [and] prefer to be led" and therefore must be "persuaded, rewarded, punished [and] controlled" in order to give best effort in pursuit of organizational goals. [4]

McGregor's alternative, Theory Y, takes as its starting point an entirely different set of assumptions about people and their capabilities:

People are not by nature passive or resistant to organizational needs. They have become so as a result of experience in organizations.

The motivation, the potential for development, the capacity for assuming responsibility, the readiness to direct behavior toward organizational goals are all present in people. Management does not put them there. It is a responsibility of management to make it possible for people to recognize and develop these human characteristics for themselves.

The essential task of management is to arrange organizational conditions and methods of operation so that people can achieve their own goals best by directing their own efforts toward organizational objectives.

This is a process primarily of creating opportunities, releasing potential, removing obstacles, encouraging growth, providing guidance. It is what Peter Drucker has called "management by objectives" in contrast to "management by control."

And I hasten to add that it does not involve the abdication of management, the absence of leadership, the lowering of standards, or the other characteristics usually associated with the "soft" approach under Theory X. [5, my emphasis]

It should be obvious that putting these Theory Y principles into practice isn't easy. Finding ways to confront and overcome this difficulty is one of the central themes in my work with clients and in my writing on this site. But compounding the problem is that McGregor's complex and nuanced ideas have been dumbed down to mean "Hire good people and give them room to do their jobs," which often results in "the abdication of management [and] the absence of leadership"–precisely the outcomes that McGregor sought to avoid.

There's a noteworthy and relevant parallel here with the work of Amy Edmondson, whose research has highlighted the importance of psychological safety in organizational life. Sadly, this concept has been misinterpreted to mean, "No one's feelings can get hurt," when it really means "No one should be punished for speaking up and sharing bad news." What has resulted are organizational cultures in which leaders are fearful of being direct and walk on eggshells to avoid giving offense, which are actually psychologically unsafe environments. [6]

So what can we do? First, let's rehabilitate the concept of management. While excessive direction and control on the part of leadership is unlikely to yield the best results from highly-skilled knowledge workers, those workers still need to be managed. They need leaders who are actively involved in the process of determining 1) who will do what by when, 2) to a certain standard of quality, 3) with regular check-ins to assess progress, 4) and the ability to intervene and change course when necessary. That's not "micromanagement"–that's just management.

And yet let's not over-correct in the process. Graham doesn't offer much detail in his definition of "founder mode," other than endorsing engagement with a wide range of employees beyond the leader's direct reports. But he does offer a warning, in his final footnote:

I also have another less optimistic prediction: as soon as the concept of founder mode becomes established, people will start misusing it. Founders who are unable to delegate even things they should will use founder mode as the excuse. [7]

At certain stages in a company's life, the leader must be intensely involved in the most minute details of every aspect of its operations. Some issues will remain under the leader's close scrutiny indefinitely, while others will come and go depending on the context, and the cultivation of the ability to know the difference is an essential leadership skill.

But just as McGregor and Edmondson's ideas have been misunderstood and misconstrued, I fear that Graham's concept of "founder mode" will be misinterpreted as both an excuse and an obligation for leaders to operate this way well beyond the point of diminishing returns, contributing not to excellence, but to under-performance and personal overwhelm. I want to free leaders from the fear of being called a "micromanager" when they're simply providing the necessary elements of management. But I also want leadership to be a sustainable calling, not a ticket to burnout. [8]

 

This is a companion piece to the following:


Footnotes

[1] Founder Mode (Paul Graham, 2024)

[2] Mind the Gap (On Leading Senior Executives)

[3] In The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure (Public Personnel Management, 2010), Richard White makes a connection between McGregor's work on Theory X and the subsequent emergence of the term "micromanagement." White cites the Oxford English Dictionary's attribution of the first usage of "micromanagement" to a 1975 article in The Economist, but I haven't been able to verify this.

[4] "The Human Side of Enterprise," page 6 (Douglas McGregor, Leadership and Motivation, 1966). This essay is McGregor's best-known and most influential work–it originated as a speech on the Fifth Anniversary of the School of Industrial Management at MIT (later known as the Sloan School) in 1957, and was published in the American Management Association's Management Review in November of that year. It subsequently formed the basis of his 1960 book The Human Side of Enterprise. My citations here are from a posthumous collection of McGregor's work issued by MIT two years after his death to commemorate his contributions.

[5] Ibid, pages 15-16.

[6] Safety Is a Resource, Not a Destination

[7] Graham, 2024.

[8] For more on leadership and sustained excellence:

 

Photo via TomEatonSA.

Why Your Bonus Plan Isn’t Working

Hundreds by pictures-of-money 17121925920 EDIT

A major theme in my practice is executive compensation. Like all other professionals, my clients are seeking to obtain a fair return in exchange for their services, and they’re also leaders who must offer competitive compensation to attract and retain top talent. In some conversations, we’ll focus on a client’s own financial requirements, and in others we’ll address the needs of one or more employees, or the company’s overall approach to compensation

I don’t provide comparable datasets or detailed guidelines for compensation plans, although I can refer my clients to people who do. [1] Instead, when working with clients on their individual compensation I’m generally helping them think about their overarching goals as well as their immediate negotiation strategy. [2] And when working with clients on employee compensation, my role is to help them consider the organizational implications of any particular choices they might make.

In the latter case, we often wrestle with the issue of bonuses. Economic sociologist Viviana Zelizer describes the various forms bonuses can take:

Advance inducements to make some major commitments (e.g. enlistment in the army), after-the-fact lump-sum rewards (e.g. veteran’s bonuses, retirement bonuses), discretionary rewards by employers (e.g. Christmas bonuses), payments tied to extraordinary individual achievements (e.g. overfulfilling sales quotas, landing a big account, inventions that become company property), payments tied to collective performance (e.g. shares of company profits, group productivity rewards), and more. [3]

Typically my clients hope to use a bonus to motivate and reward behavior that will lead to “extraordinary individual achievement” or yield improved “collective performance,” although for a bonus to achieve these goals a set of conditions must be met. And a problem I often see in my practice is a bonus that’s offered in the absence of one or more of these conditions, which renders it far less effective as a motivator and yields frustration on the part of employees, management, or both. Why does this happen, and if you’re a leader in this situation, what can you do about it?

A Lack of Clarity or Control

The desired behavior must be sufficiently distinct from ordinary activity, and employees must have a degree of control over the intended outcome. The desired behavior need not be novel or innovative–it may simply entail “do more of what’s already working.” It’s also not necessarily the case that management must provide explicit guidelines or instructions–that’s rarely feasible with highly-skilled knowledge workers. But employees must grasp that something different is being asked of them, even if it’s up to them to determine how to proceed.

Should employees accept that challenge, they must also feel a sense of agency in the process. There has to be a connection between their expenditure of effort and the achievement of the goal. This doesn’t mean that employees need to have total control over the outcome or that exogenous factors can’t ever get in the way. But the more control they enjoy, the more effective the bonus as a source of motivation. And below a certain level of control, any bonus plan will likely be viewed as unfair and demotivating.

The Wrong Risk Profile

Employees must be comfortable with the concept of variable compensation, and optimally they prefer this to a fixed salary. Everyone’s comfort level with risk varies, and this risk profile can play a significant role in our career choices. People with a relatively high tolerance for risk gravitate toward fields that offer variable payouts, largely because they’re attracted by the potential upside, but in some cases because they find the uncertainty itself stimulating. They’re gamblers, in a sense, and they like to bet on themselves.

This risk profile is common among the entrepreneurs and investors who comprise the majority of my clients, but it can be found in most market-facing fields, particularly sales. (And most of my clients must sell in one way or another, from closing deals to raising funds.) But many people are uncomfortable with risk, and their caution may be heightened when it comes to financial matters. They’re less interested in upside potential and more intent on downside protection.

A bonus is of interest to this latter group to the extent that it’s merely additive on top of already sufficient compensation–so it may not really serve leadership’s goals at all. This isn’t to say that bonuses never work outside of sales or similar roles. But the overall organizational culture must foster an appetite for risk, even in conventionally risk-averse functions.

Hedonic Adaptation and Loss Aversion

The bonus must be viewed as a quid pro quo for the desired behavior, not an expected function of employment. But a challenge is that we readily adapt to improved conditions and soon come to take them for granted, a process known as “hedonic adaptation.” [4] Even if the above conditions are satisfied, when a bonus is paid out repeatedly it may well come to be expected by employees.

It can help to maintain a clear delineation between base and variable compensation, although even then it’s likely that at least some employees will come to view the bonus as a given. When that occurs, the absence of a bonus in the future will cause even greater unhappiness, the result of “loss aversion,” our propensity to weight perceived losses more heavily than equal gains. [5]

There isn’t really a “solution” to these states, which are deeply rooted in human psychology. But it’s important to be aware that they generate continuous upward pressure on ambitious employees’ financial expectations, and leaders who fail to prepare for this eventuality are engaged in magical thinking. [6]

On Currencies

Even as I work with clients to help them optimize their compensation plans, I believe it’s essential to bear in mind the work of the great 20th century psychologist Frederick Herzberg, who provided a sharp critique of conventional approaches to motivating employees, which he referred to as “kicks in the ass” or KITA. These kicks aren’t only negative, in the form of criticism or threats–they can also be positive, in the form of desirable rewards:

Let us consider motivation. If I say to you, “Do this for me or the company, and in return I will give you a reward, an incentive, more status, a promotion, all the quid pro quos that exist in the industrial organization,” am I motivating you? The overwhelming opinion I receive from management people is, “Yes, this is motivation.” I have a year-old schnauzer. When it was a small puppy and I wanted it to move, I kicked it in the rear and it moved. Now that I have finished its obedience training, I hold up a dog biscuit when I want the schnauzer to move. In this instance, who is motivated–I or the dog? The dog wants the biscuit, but it is I who want it to move. Again, I am the one who is motivated, and the dog is the one who moves. In this instance all I did was apply KITA frontally; I exerted a pull instead of a push. When industry wishes to use such positive KITAs, it has available an incredible number and variety of dog biscuits (jelly beans for humans) to wave in front of employees to get them to jump. [7]

As I’ve written before,

Herzberg is exaggerating for comic effect here–I don’t think he ever kicked his dog. But his larger point holds: rewards like dog biscuits and jelly beans may result in movement, but that’s not the same thing as motivation. This doesn’t mean rewards are irrelevant as incentives, but a key in deploying them effectively is understanding that there are two different types of motivation, intrinsic (deriving from the work itself) and extrinsic (deriving from by-products of the work or aspects of the environment in which work occurs). [8]

Bonuses and other forms of compensation are extrinsic motivators, which Herzberg called “hygiene factors.” His research indicates that inadequate compensation causes tremendous job dissatisfaction, but above a certain amount (which varies for everyone), additional compensation doesn’t yield greater satisfaction. I’m not suggesting that bonuses never work–that’s obviously not the case. But should you find that your bonus plan is failing to deliver the desired results even in the presence of the conditions described above, it may be worth considering what other “currencies” your employees value that you may be failing to provide. [9]

 


Footnotes

[1] For more detailed guidance, I recommend these experts on executive compensation:

[2] Culture, Compensation and Negotiation

[3] A Humbler Bonus (Viviana Zelizer, The Huffington Post, 2009)

[4] For more on hedonic adaptation:

[5] For more on loss aversion:

[6] The Traps We Set for Ourselves

[7] One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? (Frederick Herzberg, Harvard Business Review, originally published 1968, republished 2003)

[8] Currencies (On Motivating Different People)

[9] Ibid.

 

Photo by pictures-of-money.

The Ambiguous Role of Executive Chair

Direction Signs by Kyle Taylor kyletaylor 2399310532 EDIT

According to Spencer Stuart, the outgoing CEO becomes the Board's Executive Chair in over 40 percent of S&P 500 CEO transitions, and I've worked with several clients who followed this path. [1] In these cases everyone agreed in principle that the company would benefit from the continuity afforded by having the former CEO take on this special role, but what this meant in practice was often highly ambiguous.

A degree of ambiguity is inevitable. Any standardized "job description" for such a specialized role will fail to meet a given company's unique needs. (This is also often true for Chief Operating Officers, another role that varies widely from one organization to another. [2]) But too much ambiguity makes it difficult for the parties involved to understand what it will take for this new arrangement to work.

This can pose a particular challenge for the Executive Chair and the incoming CEO. The Chair may have played a large role in recruiting and selecting their successor, and if so it's likely that both parties said the right things about their future working relationship and were reluctant to jeopardize the deal by asking too many inconvenient questions. As a result sometimes very little is spelled out with any specificity before the Chair and CEO must begin working together, which can easily lead to misunderstandings.

I don't believe there are best practices that an Executive Chair must follow in order to succeed, but here are a set of questions that a new Chair and an incoming CEO can explore to arrive at a shared definition of success:

The Executive Chair and the CEO

  • What expectations do you both have for this relationship?
  • How clearly have those expectations been articulated?
  • How often will you communicate, and on what issues?
  • What decisions does the Chair expect to be consulted on?
  • How does the CEO (really) feel about this?
  • What decisions does the CEO expect to make autonomously?
  • How does the Chair (really) feel about this?
  • What will happen when you disagree?
  • How will any disagreements be resolved?
  • What role will the Chair play in assessing the CEO's performance?
  • If necessary, how open are you to working jointly with a coach?

The Executive Chair and the Board

  • What role will the Chair play during Board meetings?
  • Will they facilitate or have any other special responsibilities?
  • How does the CEO (really) feel about this?
  • What role will the Chair play in between meetings?
  • Will they hold one-on-ones with other Directors?
  • If so, is this an option or an obligation?
  • And how does the CEO (really) feel about this?

The Executive Chair and the Business

  • What ongoing responsibilities (if any) will the Chair have?
  • How much autonomy will they have to conduct these duties?
  • How accessible will the Chair be to other parties, such as investors, analysts, or the media?
  • What role will they play in those settings?
  • To what extent will they be empowered to speak for the company?
  • And how does the CEO (really) feel about this?

 


Footnotes

[1] 2023 CEO Transitions (Spencer Stuart, 2024)

[2] The Mythical COO

 

Photo by Kyle Taylor.

My Appearance with Ryan Hawk on the Learning Leader

Learning-Leader-Podcast

On May 1st I conducted the 8,000th coaching session of my career, and my post on lessons learned came to the attention of Ryan Hawk, who’s been hosting the Learning Leader podcast for over 9 years. Ryan invited me to join him for Episode 592, and we discussed topics ranging from coaching and leadership to the elements of effective feedback.

Recorded June 6, 2024. Published July 21, 2024.

Your Toughest Critic & Biggest Fan (CEO Self-Assessment)

Selfie by Slim via Pixahive

A theme in my work with CEOs is the necessity of seeing yourself clearly and cultivating the capacity to rigorously assess your weaknesses and your strengths. You have to be both your toughest critic and your biggest fan. This is good advice for executives at any level, but it's particularly important for CEOs because the nature of the role makes it difficult to get candid feedback from people in a position to offer relevant and trustworthy guidance. [1]

The people who have your best interests at heart and who you trust to be candid, such as family and friends, may not be in a position to offer a meaningful critique of your performance. The people who are in such a position, such as Board members, investors and senior employees, may not be candid, or they may have obligations that at some point diverge from your personal interests. And the mentors you relied upon to fill this gap earlier in your career may no longer be available to you. So what can you do?

1. Clarify How You Add Value

You're undoubtedly busy with a great deal to do. And yet in my experience CEOs add the most value and have the greatest impact on the business by leading, not simply by doing. Seeking to add value by merely doing more may actually be counterproductive in your efforts to lead at scale. [2] The goal here is to ensure that any self-assessment is focused on your most meaningful activities.

It's no longer the case (if it ever was) that you can assess your impact by the number of hours you put in or how many items you've crossed off your to-do list. As Andy Grove once wrote, "My day always ends when I am tired and ready to go home, not when I'm done… A manager's work is never done. There is always more to be done, more that should be done, always more than can be done." [3]

Instead, if you're like most of my clients, at any given moment you have a relatively small number of responsibilities that are both important and urgent–perhaps three to five. [4] It's tempting to add to that list, but rigor matters here–if too many things are important and urgent, than nothing really is. If you succeed at these key tasks but others slip, you've still succeeded. And if you fail at these key tasks, then success elsewhere won't matter.

2. Make Reflection a Practice

Early in their careers many people imagine they'll finally have a more spacious work life when they obtain a more senior role and have greater control over their calendars. They often fail to realize that the more senior the role, the more people want your time and attention. You likely face some version of this challenge, and it can feel difficult or even irresponsible to dedicate time to yourself. But reflection is like a good night's sleep or regular physical activity–it's not an indulgence, but an investment in your capacity to add value. [5]

It's also not the type of activity that fits neatly into brief segments of free time between other activities. While there's no single best approach, I do recommend making reflection a regularly occurring item on your calendar. Every individual's needs differ, and you will have to experiment to find the routine that's most productive for you. Consider the length of time and the setting that are most conducive to meaningful reflection, as well as the frequency with which you can reliably block off and protect such activities on your calendar. [6]

I know CEOs who do their best thinking on solo retreats over a long weekend, although that may only be feasible several times a year. I've also known a CEO who did his best thinking at the driving range, and he made that a weekly routine. The idea isn't that reflection must occur on a rigid schedule, but like all important-but-not-urgent activities, it won't happen with any consistency if you don't make it a practice.

3. Find the Signal in the Noise

As noted above, it can be challenging to obtain useful feedback as a CEO, but I'm not suggesting that you should ignore others' feedback or fail to solicit it. And yet feedback from others isn't necessarily "the truth" about your performance. As I've written before, "feedback always says as much about the giver as the recipient. It's filtered through their reality-distortion fields, reflecting their personal values and priorities." [7]  Many organizations try to correct for that distortion via a 360 assessment, and if that's available to you I recommend taking advantage of it. At the same time such processes can be time-consuming, occur only at periodic intervals, and are subject to some predictable biases of their own. [8]

There's also feedback available to you in the form of organizational results, which likely matter much more than anything else. But here, too, is plenty of noise in the form of what psychologists call the "fundamental attribution error"–we routinely assign leaders more credit for success (and more blame for failure) than they deserve. [9] Further, the feedback loops for a CEO are extremely long, as Jeff Bezos has noted: "When somebody congratulates Amazon on a good quarter, I say 'Thank you,' but what I'm thinking to myself is, 'Those quarterly results were fully baked about three years ago.'" [10]

Ultimately, all of the feedback you might obtain, including but not limited to direct input from others, 360 reports, and organizational results–are forms of data, which is comprised of signal and noise. It's your job to determine which is which.

4. Tolerate the Dissonance

Self-assessment isn't merely an intellectual task–it's also an emotional one. This is true for all executives, but, again, it's particularly true for CEOs because of the obligation to be your toughest critic and your biggest fan. If you're like my clients, there are any number of parties who are watching to see if you stumble, and when you do they'll be quick to find fault. If you shrink from a candid assessment of your weaknesses and missteps, your critics won't hesitate to do so, and you may find yourself unpleasantly surprised by how they leverage that information.

But senior leadership also entails maintaining a high degree of confidence in your capabilities and an optimistic view of what you and others can achieve. As I've written before, "There's a positive correlation between optimism and effective leadership, in part because the optimistic leader has a contagious effect on others, attracting talent and resources and making success more likely." [11] And as you've no doubt experienced as a CEO, there are moments when you can't look to anyone else for encouragement, because everyone is looking at you.

Putting this into practice and acting as your toughest critic and your biggest fan is likely to evoke what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance," a form of stress deriving from the difficulty of holding in mind seemingly incompatible realities. Most people have a low tolerance for such dissonance, to the extent that they may dramatically alter their beliefs and behavior in order to reduce the stress. But as a CEO you can't afford to do that. I've previously discussed how to better manage the dissonance that inevitably accompanies this job, and my guidance is consistent with what we know about emotion regulation more generally: Expect it. Get comfortable with it. And talk about it with people you trust. [12]

 


Footnotes

[1] Two Sides of Trust

[2] How to Scale: Do Less, Lead More

[3] High Output Management, page 47 (Andy Grove, 1983)

[4] Importance vs. Urgency

[5] Investments, Not Indulgences

[6] How to Think (More on Open Space and Deep Work)

[7] Feedback Is Not a Gift

[8] Your 360 Report Is Ready

[9] I first learned about the fundamental attribution error as an MBA student from Roberto Fernandez, who described it as "ascribing causality to personal characteristics when causality actually lies with the situation." The original research was done by Stanford psychologist Lee Ross: The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process (Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1977).

[10] Jeff Bezos interviewed by Michael Beckerman (Internet Association Gala, 2017). The passage above begins at the 7:07 mark in this video.

[11] This line is from The Ruling Out of Possibilities (On Failure). For more on the research on leadership and optimism, see Dispositional Affect and Leadership Effectiveness: A Comparison of Self-Esteem, Optimism, and Efficacy (Martin Chemers, Carl Watson, and Stephen May, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2000), and Impact of Leadership Style and Emotion on Subordinate Performance (Janet McColl-Kennedy and Ronald Anderson, The Leadership Quarterly, 2002).

[12] The Cognitive Dissonance of the CEO. For more on emotion regulation, see The Tyranny of Feelings.

 

Photo by Slim via Pixahive.

Snark, Not Sarcasm (On Leader Communication)

Knife by Rich Bowen rbowen 4121913093 EDIT

An occasional theme in my work with leaders on communication is the verbal or written comment that was intended by the leader to be witty but instead falls flat, creates distance, or even leaves people feeling offended or hurt. One reason for this gap between intent and impact [1] is that the leader was perceived as going beyond what we might call snark and crossing a line into sarcasm.

Many definitions use these terms almost interchangeably, but we can distinguish between them to illustrate a subtle yet important point when you're communicating as a leader. Both snark and sarcasm are forms of irony that involve delivering a message employing language that usually means the opposite. This creates a moment of dissonance as people figure out what you really mean.

With snark that dissonance resolves in a moment of shared humor. The seeming incongruity of your message poses a riddle, and you're inviting others to join you and get in on the joke by solving it. But sarcasm is sharper, and it cuts deeper. There is no shared resolution, or if there is it comes at someone else's expense. The incongruity of the message is evident, and others are not invited to get in on the joke–they are the joke.

This is a subjective distinction that's contingent on the context, among other factors. A comment that evokes knowing laughter in one setting will yield stony silence in another. This is a function of the culture and its norms, a topic I've addressed before by comparing organizational life to three common settings:

Many of the situations we encounter in contemporary professional life take one of three cultural forms: A classroom, a church, or a cocktail party… So some meetings are like a classroom, others are like church, and still others are like a cocktail party. And some companies are like a classroom, others are like church, and still others are like a cocktail party… The problem, however, is that schools, places of worship, and celebratory gatherings identify themselves very clearly through obvious signifiers. We know where we are, we readily grasp the norms, and we act accordingly. But meetings and companies are much harder to interpret… So the signs and signals are opaque and confusing, and it's easy to misread them. [2]

Many cocktail parties run on snark, and it's welcome in some classrooms, but it's rarely tolerated in church. So a first step is to assess the setting, although our ability to "read the room" can vary widely. Neuroscientist Richard Davidson calls this "context-sensitivity," and people who score low on this dimension "are oblivious to the implicit rules that govern social interactions" and fail to appreciate that "a behavior that would be perfectly acceptable in one context [is] offensive in another." [3] But this capability is by no means fixed, and if you find yourself repeatedly misjudging the setting, Davidson recommends meditation and other approaches to mindfulness to heighten context-sensitivity. [4]

Another key factor is your relationship with the other parties, which is particularly salient for leaders, given what social psychologist Adam Galinsky calls the "power amplification effect." A leader's comments often have a greater impact than the leader intended, and ambiguous comments by a leader–such as ironic humor–tend to be interpreted negatively by others. [5] Here it's important to assess the extent to which others perceive you as a distant or intimidating authority figure. Note that you may not be the best judge of that perception, so it can be useful to solicit feedback, even–and especially–if you have any concerns about what you might hear. [6]

Also, note that while sarcasm tends to be cutting and cold, snark can be warm, even inviting. It's still ironic, but it can be delivered with a knowing twinkle in the eye that encourages others to join you in the fun, a point made (in a snarky way) by author Robert Dimmick: "If sarcasm is the ability to insult idiots without them realizing it, snark is the ability to insult others who will realize it and will A) appreciate the effort made and/or B) respond in kind." [7]

The timely use of humor is an essential leadership tool, particularly in helping people maintain hope and optimism in the face of adversity. In such circumstances ironic humor can be risky, as people under stress are less effective at processing nuanced information, and alternatives may be safer. [8] But rather than banishing irony from your repertoire, I think it's far preferable to learn to use it skillfully, as you would any sharp implement.

 


Footnotes

[1] Intent vs. Impact (When Communication Goes Awry)

[2] Classrooms, Churches, Cocktail Parties (On Norms)

[3] The Emotional Life of Your Brain: How Its Unique Patterns Affect the Way You Think, Feel and Live–and How You Can Change Them (Richard Davidson and Sharon Begley). Davidson's "Dimensions of Emotional Style" model includes an assessment that can be completed to approximate the results he sees in the lab.

[4] Ibid, Chapter 11, which includes a number of tips for adjusting your "emotional style" to enable you to better achieve your goals, largely focused on meditation. Also see Don't Just Do Something, Sit There! (Mindfulness for Busy People).

[5] When You're in Charge, Your Whisper May Feel Like a Shout (Adam Galinsky, The New York Times, 2015). Discussed further in The Blue Problem (Power and Communication).

[6] For more on soliciting feedback, see the following:

[7] Snark vs. Sarcasm (Robert Dimmick, The Etiquetteer, 2018)

[8] Joe Montana & John Candy (Leadership & Group Mood)

 

Photo by Rich Bowen.