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

Cheering Crowd by Matt Biddulph mbiddulph 14015699676 EDIT 3

The subject of attention has been a preoccupation of mine since 2005, when I first began to appreciate its value and its power. [1] What we pay attention to matters, particularly for leaders, as I've noted before:

A leader’s most precious resource is not their time. It’s their focused attention. Time merely passes, while focused attention makes things happen. When we’re able to gather and direct our attention toward a particular task or interaction, we can have a significant impact in a minimal amount of time. But when we’re unable to bring our attention to bear on the work at hand, all the time in the world is insufficient. [2]

Attention isn't merely an individual resource--it's a social one. The collective attention of a group of people has a powerful effect, particularly when we are the object of its focus. This is a key theme in Status Anxiety by contemporary philosopher Alain de Botton, who suggests that we pursue various forms of status in order to obtain love--not romantic love, but what he calls "love from the world":

The predominant impulse behind our desire to rise in the social hierarchy may be rooted not so much in the material goods we can accrue or the power we can wield as in the amount of love we stand to receive as a consequence of high status. Money, fame and influence may be valued more as tokens of--and means to--love rather than ends in themselves. [3]

A significant influence on De Botton's line of reasoning is Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, which discusses attention explicitly:

It is chiefly from this regard to the sentiments of mankind, that we pursue riches and avoid poverty. For to what purpose is all the toil and bustle of this world? What is the end of avarice and ambition, of the pursuit of wealth, of power and preeminence? Is it to supply the necessities of nature? The wages of the meanest laborer can supply them...

What are the advantages which we propose by that great purpose of human life which we call bettering our condition? To be observed, to be attended to, to be taken notice of with sympathy, complacency and approbation, are all the advantages which we can propose to derive from it. It is the vanity, not the ease, or the pleasure, which interests us. But vanity is always founded upon the belief of our being the object of attention and approbation. The rich man glories in his riches because he feels that they naturally draw upon him the attention of the world...

The poor man, on the contrary, is ashamed of his poverty. He feels that it...places him out of the sight of mankind... To feel that we are taken no notice of, necessarily damps the most agreeable hope, and disappoints the most ardent desire, of human nature. [4]

I find Smith and De Botton's argument deeply thought-provoking: Why do we pursue wealth, power and status? Not for the material rewards alone, but for the attention. It is attention we crave, and we feel its absence acutely. This offers a compelling explanation for much behavior that otherwise seems curious or counterintuitive:

  • A theme in my coaching practice is the ambivalence many leaders feel about their engagement with social media. They want to represent their organization, build credibility, and maintain relationships, but they often find the experience stressful or distracting. And yet when they opt out they feel anxious and guilty.
  • During my 15 years at Stanford's Graduate School of Business, I taught over 1,000 MBA students, and held countless conversations with them about their career plans. A disproportionate number were drawn to high-profile opportunities with a low likelihood of success and had little interest in fields that promised a reliable path to wealth but were less socially prominent.
  • Tragically, there's a Wikipedia page tracking selfie-related accidents, which currently reports that 379 people have died in such incidents since 2008. [5] That's a minuscule number--more than 13,000 people die every hour. [6] But given the strength of our survival instinct, it's noteworthy that anyone would put themselves in jeopardy for such an ephemeral result.

There are a number of causes behind these phenomena. Leaders possess a strong sense of responsibility and perform many onerous tasks as a result. MBAs believe they should take bigger risks now and pursue a more secure path only if necessary. And some people are just heedless and foolish.

But a thread that connects them is the power of attention: Social media is the ultimate expression of the attention economy, and and the various platforms are carefully engineered to maximize engagement by manipulating attention. [7] Working in a glamorous field is an effective way to attract attention early in one's career, while growing wealthy in a steady but low-visibility industry is not. And when it may be difficult to attract attention by other means, the temptation to do so via a dangerous but eye-catching selfie can override one's good judgment. I'm sure you can think of other examples you've observed--or participated in.

What's going on here? Why does the attention of others exert so much influence over human behavior? One school of thought views this as a moral failing, chastising "attention-seekers" for their seemingly insincere efforts to attract the spotlight. But while some people may go to bizarre lengths in their pursuit of attention, they strike me as different in degree, not in kind, from the rest of us.

I think a more accurate and less judgmental explanation can be found in an understanding of evolution and its implications for our emotional life and social structures. Evolutionary psychiatrist Randolph Nesse, who's studied how biological history has shaped the human psyche, makes a telling comment:

Evolution explains the origins of our amazing capacities for love and goodness and why they carry the price of grief, guilt, and, thank goodness, caring inordinately about what others think about us. [8, emphasis mine]

We care deeply about others' opinions of us, and the most fundamental aspect of this process is whether or not they are paying attention to us. Recall Adam Smith: "To feel that we are taken no notice of, necessarily damps the most agreeable hope, and disappoints the most ardent desire, of human nature." We may think of such emotions as uniquely personal, arising out of our singular life experiences. But Nesse cites the eminent biologist Edward O. Wilson to disabuse us of this notion:

Love joins hate; aggression, fear; expansiveness, withdrawal; and so on; in blends designed not to promote the happiness of the individual, but to favor the maximum transmission of the controlling genes. [9]

So our emotional apparatus and the subjective feelings it gives rise to serve to support our evolutionary fitness and the ability to transmit our genes. Presumably, then, our craving for others' attention and the anxiety and dismay resulting from its absence offers an evolutionary advantage. To understand this, we need to consider the importance of our social nature as a species.

Like all primates, humans evolved to rely upon social structures to obtain resources and to defeat or evade threats. Work by anthropologist Robin Dunbar shows that early humans were able to establish groups of approximately 150 members, a much larger number than our evolutionary rivals. [10] This advantage allowed us to dominate the planet, but it came at a cost--we faced the greatest competition for resources (most notably mating opportunities and food) from within the group. Neuroscientist Matthew Lieberman suggests that this intra-group pressure led us to focus intensively on our social environment, giving rise to a keen sensitivity to our relative group status:

Evolution, figuratively speaking, made a big bet on the importance of developing and using our social intelligence for the overall success of our species by focusing the brain's free time on it... The repeated return of the brain to this social cognitive mode of engagement is perfectly situated to help us become experts in the enormously complex realm of social living... In essence, our brains are built to practice thinking about the social world and our place in it." [11, emphasis original]

As with so many aspects of our psychology, all of these dynamics are "features" for the species that often manifest as "bugs" in our individual experience. Our distant ancestors who were more attuned to their social standing as a consequence of the emotions generated by others' attention (and its absence) were more likely to pass on their genes. Their more oblivious contemporaries were at greater risk of losing social status, losing competitions for resources, and losing opportunities to pass on their genes.

The result, after 200,000 years and some 10,000 human generations, is that we're acutely sensitive to others' attention and the feelings that arise from its presence or absence. Being the "center of attention" can lead some people to feel flustered or self-conscious, so more attention isn't always better (although even embarrassment is socially adaptive. [12]) But a craving for attention is a potent driver of emotions and behavior.

Perhaps you're like my clients, feeling ambivalent about your relationship with social media but unable to disengage. Or you're like some of my former MBA students, forgoing financially preferable options in search of greater visibility. Or maybe you've even done something foolish while taking a selfie. If these examples of attention-seeking behavior aren't relevant to you, I suspect you can identify numerous others that are.

To be clear, there's nothing "wrong" with such behavior--my intention here is to show that these responses are the predictable result of the way our minds work, and to portray the benefits of these dynamics as well as the costs. But the benefits are spread across homo sapiens as a collective, while we bear the costs as individuals--a burden that seems to be increasing as the "attention economy" evolves.

Further, when we bear in mind the well-established psychological principle that "bad is stronger than good," [13] it's apparent that attention-seeking behavior is driven more by our anxiety and dismay at the prospect of being ignored than by any satisfaction we derive from being noticed, which at the very least renders life more stressful. So what can we do? What helps?

Self-Awareness

Understanding why we do what we do starts with acknowledging and even embracing the flaws and foibles of our psyches. It's important to remind ourselves that we can't overcome evolutionary psychology, nor would we want to, given the potential benefits of these dynamics. In practice this entails a greater degree of mindfulness, which therapist and meditation teacher Linda Graham defines simply as "nonjudgmental awareness and acceptance of experience," [14] and which I describe as follows:

Mindfulness need not be viewed as an esoteric or mystical subject, although it's often perceived that way. It's merely the process of noticing what's happening around us, observing where our attention is going as a result, and sensing our cognitive, emotional and physical responses. A heightened sense of mindfulness allows us to direct our attention toward an intended object of focus and away from undesirable distractions. [15]

Note the relationship here between our awareness of others' attention (or its absence) and the impact on our own. Our craving for others' attention evokes a host of emotions, which we invariably find captivating because "emotions are attention magnets." [16] Mere awareness of these feelings isn't sufficient to alter our emotional experience, but in its absence they will exert a powerful influence on our behavior--occasionally to our detriment.

Emotion Regulation

At the most basic level, emotions alert us to perceived opportunities and threats, and we move toward the former with excitement and away from the latter with apprehension. As evolutionary psychiatrist Nesse notes, this typically helps us achieve our social goals more effectively--but not always:

The utility of an emotion depends entirely on the situation. In the face of threats or losses, anxiety and sadness are useful, but happy relaxation is worse than useless. When opportunities emerge, desire and enthusiasm are useful, but worry and sadness are harmful... If only all situations were so simple. For humans trying to navigate inordinately complex social networks, almost every situation involves conflicting opportunities, risks, gains, and losses, with vast complexity and uncertainty. [17]

The anxiety evoked by an insufficiency of others' attention and the pleasure that accompanies a surfeit can certainly be helpful sources of data in guiding behavior--this is a key lesson of evolutionary psychology. The dilemma is that emotions are a "quick and dirty signal," in the words of neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux, which can sometimes lead us off course. [18] Compounding the problem is our immersion in the increasingly subtle machinery of the "attention economy," which is designed to stoke our emotions--sometimes for better, often for worse, always for the benefit of the platform.

While we can't control the emotions evoked by others' attention (or its absence), once we're more aware of those feelings we can intervene to regulate them. It's essential to bear in mind that emotion regulation does not mean suppressing our feelings. Suppression is an act of make-believe--we pretend we're not feeling what we're feeling and hope to distract ourselves until the feeling passes. We can do this for short periods, but not for an extended length of time, and the effort may even be counter-productive. In contrast, emotion regulation involves improving our ability to sense, comprehend, articulate and express what we're feeling, and we develop those skills by getting closer to our emotions, not by distancing ourselves from them. [19]

Intentional Action

Neuroscience research going back several decades makes clear that emotions are vitally important inputs to the reasoning process, the occasional "noisy signal" notwithstanding. [20] But with a greater capacity to influence--as opposed to control--our emotional experience, we can allow those feelings to inform our behavioral choices with greater forethought. We can act more intentionally.

I'm not suggesting that our every move should be planned out in advance. As I learned many years ago, at times we're best served by acting instinctively, with a high degree of spontaneity and in the absence of self-consciousness. [21] But even the decision to adopt that stance can be an intentional one, rather than a reflexive response triggered by anxiety or apprehension.

So perhaps you do stay active on social media--but you do so intentionally, sharing what truly interests you rather than inflammatory content that drives engagement, without obsessing over likes or follower counts, and logging off without anxiety. And perhaps you do pursue that risky venture--but you do so intentionally, driven by a search for meaning and purpose in your work, rather than a desire to impress others or a fear of missing out. And perhaps you even take that eye-catching selfie--but maybe you just fake it. [22]

 

This is a companion piece to the following:


Footnotes

[1] In 2005 I was so inspired by Seth Goldstein's analysis of the potential value of metadata that I spent a year working with him and numerous others on an effort to empower people to gather and make use of their own "attention data." I left that role to launch my coaching practice in 2006, but my immersion in that world impressed upon me the importance of attention, a perspective that has heavily informed my work with clients and students in the years since. A compilation of my writing on attention through 2019 can be found at the conclusion of A Better Information Diet.

[2] To Stay Focused, Manage Your Emotions

[3] Status Anxiety, page 6 (Alain de Botton, 2005)

[4] The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Section III, Chapter II (Adam Smith, 1759, pages 62-63 in the 2010 edition. An abridged version is cited on page 5 of Status Anxiety.)

[5] List of selfie-related injuries and deaths (Wikipedia)

[6] How Many People Die Each Day in 2023? (World Population Review)

[7] A Better Information Diet

[8] Good Reasons for Bad Feelings: Insights from the Frontier of Evolutionary Psychiatry, page xv (Randolph Nesse, 2020)

[9] Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, page 4 (Edward O. Wilson, 1975/2000, and cited on pages 48-49 of Good Reasons for Bad Feelings)

[10] Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates (Robin Dunbar, Journal of Human Evolution, 1992)

[11] Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect, pages 19-22 (Matthew Lieberman, 2013)

[12] The Value of Embarrassment

[13] Bad Is Stronger Than Good (Roy Bauermeister, Catrin Finkenauer, Ellen Bratslavsky, and Kathleen Vohs, Review of General Psychology, 2001)

[14] Bouncing Back: Rewiring Your Brain for Maximum Resilience and Well-Being, page 51 (Linda Graham, 2013)

[15] Don't Just Do Something, Sit There! (Mindfulness for Busy People)

[16] Why You Can't Stop Thinking About Something

[17] Good Reasons for Bad Feelings: Insights from the Frontier of Evolutionary Psychiatry, pages 55-56

[18] The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life, page 163 (Joseph LeDoux, 1998)

[19] Adapted from The Tyranny of Feelings.

[20] Antonio Damasio on Emotion and Reason

[21] Awareness and Spontaneity

[22] Two favorite examples: Photograph of Cliff Hanger Isn't Quite What It Seems (Dan Evon, Snopes, 2015) and Pilot says he Photoshops his selfies, and yet somehow people still think they're real (Gianluca Mezzofiore, Mashable, 2017)

 

Photo of The National by Matt Biddulph.

Three Painful Truths (On Change, Leadership & Mortality)

Three-Traps

I believe three things to be true:

  • We're entering an era of heightened uncertainty and instability.
  • Leadership roles will be increasingly stressful as a result.
  • This existence is finite, and we are mortal creatures.

(You may wonder why two predictions are followed by such a self-evident proposition--I'll address that below.)

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, and if you'd rather ignore these painful truths I wouldn't blame you in the least. Some leaders will do just that, and they'll be happier as a result--for a while. They'll turn a blind eye to the increasing volatility that has characterized our world--until change imposes itself upon them. They'll continue to lead as they've led in the past, and they'll get by--until they're depleted and burned out. They'll do all the things we do when we imagine we're immortal--until that illusion is no longer sustainable.

I'm not suggesting that we're incapable of rising to meet these challenges. A dynamic world is full of opportunities as well as risks. Tough times make great leaders and give them occasions to shine. And the finite nature of this existence is what makes it meaningful. At my best, I embrace all of this, and my hopeful nature picks me up when I'm daunted. But my pragmatism makes it very clear that faith alone will not see us through. We need to accept reality. We need to develop our resilience. And we'll need support along the way. First, though, it's worth exploring why these truths are so painful and how they're related.

 


On Change

Edith-Macefield-House-EDIT

We all have different orientations toward change, and our personal attitude can vary tremendously over the course of our lives. Some of us embrace it more willingly than others, and we're all more or less open at different times, depending on our circumstances. But we also possess a powerful drive to exert control in our lives. We may embrace change willingly, even eagerly, and yet it's vital that we experience agency in the process.

As I've written before, "pioneering psychotherapist Alfred Adler theorized that a 'will to conquer' the cosmos is the fundamental human motivation [1], and work by psychologists over the past century indicates that a desire to exert influence and determine outcomes is widespread and pervasive. [2] Recent research by a team from Columbia and Rutgers suggests that this need for control is inherently biological, not merely a socialized preference." [3] [4]

But data from a number of disciplines suggests that the pace of change is increasing, rendering our world less certain and more unstable, making it more difficult to exert control. We see this as a result of developments in artificial intelligence [5], the likelihood of future pandemics [6], concerns about the banking system and financial markets [7], long-term cycles of social discord [8], and even the weather. [9]

Our inherent "will to conquer" and our evolved desire for control are in direct tension with these trends, all of which seem to be accelerating, albeit at varying rates. It will grow more difficult to exert control and experience agency in a world subject to larger and less predictable dislocations. And while these changes will present us with endless opportunities for innovation and growth (as individuals, as societies, as a species), it will be painful to recognize the inevitable limits on our control and agency, to submit to forces beyond our influence (or comprehension), to accept disruption as an ongoing state of affairs, rather than a brief jolt.

 


On Leadership

Jesus Wept by Jerry Worster 4525179809 EDIT

In this unsettling environment we will increasingly look to leaders for guidance and reassurance, placing more pressure on them to shield us from the forces of change--and to help us find courage when change overtakes us. This is a function of the symbolic role that leaders fill--leadership isn't just about making strategic decisions and allocating resources. It is also--and I would suggest first and foremost--about storytelling, a topic I've addressed at length:

Storytelling [is] 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. This poses a risk when we face rapid change that may overtake our existing narrative and render it out of date, as Weick noted: "People...act as if events cohere in time and space and that change unfolds in an orderly manner. These everyday cosmologies are subject to disruption." [10]... Through the act of storytelling the leader provides the group with an explanatory narrative that is invested with their authority and informed by their expertise, and thus more influential and credible. [11]

At the best of times this is hard work, both cognitively complex and emotionally taxing, and it will only grow more challenging in the era to come. What are the explanatory narratives that will reconstruct our "everyday cosmologies"? How will our ability to understand the world around us keep up with the accelerating pace of change? Leaders will be hard-pressed to answer these questions--and one way of interpreting the leadership failures we see everywhere today is as a failure of imagination, an inability to identify and communicate a compelling story that enables people to "make sense of ambiguous situations and pursue a plan of action in coordination with others."

Compounding this difficulty is the dual burden we place upon leaders. We expect them to serve as avatars, embodying the community they serve, scrupulously adhering to cultural norms and values, and scrutinizing their behavior for any deviations. [12] But even as we impose these demands upon them, we simultaneously fail to "empathize up." As I've noted before, "Even if we have a good relationship with someone in a superior position, the relative nature of our respective positions can create a sense of 'otherness' that makes it psychologically difficult for us to empathize with that person’s perspective and emotions." [13] We will ask more of leaders and offer them less in return.

But aren't leaders well-compensated for these pains? It's inarguable that executive compensation has risen dramatically since the 1970s. [14] And yet, as I wrote recently, "The status, compensation and other perks [of leadership roles] are pleasurable, to be sure, but their power as sources of motivation inevitably diminishes or even disappears. A process psychologists call 'hedonic adaptation' ensures that we adjust to our circumstances and eventually take them for granted. [15] I see this constantly in my practice--leaders may strive mightily for years to obtain a certain position or achieve a given financial goal, and when they do the feeling of accomplishment is frequently less fulfilling and more ephemeral than they expected." [16]

I've witnessed all of this in my work with leaders over the past two decades as the trends described above gained strength. As they accelerate in the era to come, leaders will be insulated from some of the painful consequences of change, but the experience of leadership itself will grow more stressful and demanding.

 


On Mortality

San Francisco National Cemetery Presidio by Hitchster 16054987504 EDIT

This existence is finite, and we are mortal creatures. Why make such an obvious statement--and how is it relevant to my points above? First, what may appear obvious in principle is anything but in practice. It is painful to acknowledge our mortality, and we strenuously resist doing so. Anthropologist and philosopher Ernest Becker located this at the heart of the human condition:

The essence of man is really his paradoxical nature, the fact that he is half animal and half symbolic... He is a symbolic self, a creature with a name, a life history, [but] his body aches and bleeds and will decay and die. It is a terrifying dilemma. [17]

Our terror serves an essential purpose, Becker argues--the fear of death is "an expression of the instinct of self-preservation, which functions as a constant drive to maintain life and to master the dangers that threaten life." [18] But to function on a day-to-day basis we have to keep our fear of death on the margins of consciousness, a point Becker makes by citing the psychoanalyst and historian Gregory Zilboorg--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." [19]

And why does this matter? Because the definition of "normal times" is changing, and in the tumultuous era now underway many of us will be reminded of our mortality much more frequently. For billions of people mortality is already an everyday affair, of course, but Becker and Zilboorg are writing for anyone not yet familiar with death. (They were--Becker liberated a Nazi concentration camp at age 20, and Zilboorg witnessed the Russian Revolution at age 27.)

The trying circumstances to come will be painful, but we will undoubtedly survive. I'm a realist, not an alarmist, and humanity has endured far worse. But I suspect that in this new era one of our most reliable tools for "terror management" [20] will be less effective. I'm referring to what we might call "heroic projects," a concept derived from Becker's work that has had a significant influence on my own:

As described by Sam Keen in his introduction to Becker's The Denial of Death, Becker believed that "the basic motivation for human behavior is our biological need to control our basic anxiety, to deny the terror of death," and over the course of our lives 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. [21]

I believe that this is one of the primary reasons why people pursue leadership roles, despite all of the headaches and heartaches noted above. Leadership itself is a heroic project, an attempt to make a difference, leave a legacy, and in so doing strive to transcend mortality. Few leaders take a job or start a company with this goal explicitly in mind, but it's often a factor at some level. [22]

This striving ultimately proves futile, and at some point we must all come to terms with mortality. Whatever we may believe about what precedes or follows this existence, its finite nature eventually asserts itself. And yet this doesn't render our heroic projects invalid or unworthy. It is right and necessary that we make these efforts--that's how we keep the terror of death at bay, which allows us to function. We raise the family, build the business, pursue fame or status or wealth, hoping that when we accomplish our goal we'll finally feel some ease, a sense of peace, mission accomplished. That hope may be misplaced, but there's nothing wrong with striving toward an illusory goal when it's the striving that matters, and heroic projects serve that purpose.

But this work is hard enough when times are good and life is predictable, and it will be increasingly difficult in the era that is emerging. The factors noted above--artificial intelligence, future pandemics, financial instability, social discord, and even the weather will make it harder for leaders to reliably pursue and accomplish any number of heroic projects. This doesn't mean there will be fewer opportunities for heroism--as I note above, tough times make great leaders. But even the best leaders' efforts will be repeatedly thwarted, and it will be painful.

 


So What Can We Do?

Weightlifter by US Navy 6th Fleet 35731551275 EDIT

There's no simple solution, but there are certainly steps we can take. We can ready ourselves by acknowledging and accepting reality. We can prepare by developing our capacity for resilience. And we can identify and obtain the support we'll need in the process. What will this look like in practice?

Acceptance

I'm not a Buddhist, but I've learned much from teacher and author Pema Chödrön, and I find myself returning to this passage in difficult times:

We think that if we just meditated enough or jogged enough or ate perfect food, everything would be perfect... Doing this is setting ourselves up for failure, because sooner or later, we're going to have an experience that we can't control: our house is going to burn down, someone we love is going to die, we're going to find out we have cancer, a brick is going to fall out of the sky and hit us on the head... To be fully alive, fully human, and completely awake is to be continually thrown out of the nest. [23]

Mindfulness, exercise, a healthy diet--all worthy endeavors that I highly recommend. [24] But many of us pursue such activities in precisely the way that Chödrön describes--with the goal of exerting control over our minds and bodies under the illusion that doing so will guarantee that our experience in the world is predictable and pleasant. The absurdity of that idea will likely grow more evident in the years to come.

We should continue these efforts, but with full awareness that they will not keep us safe and secure in the nest. We can't predict the nature of the unexpected event that will throw us out, but somehow, some day, we will be thrown out. This need not entail a passive stance in the face of difficulties--but rather than react with shock and outrage, we can respond with acceptance and determination.

Resilience

We often misunderstand the meaning of resilience, confusing it with invulnerability or toughness. The etymological root of resilience is the Latin resilire, which means "to rebound, recoil or jump back." Resilient materials deform under pressure while retaining their internal consistency, later returning to their original form. Iron is tough, but it's not resilient--when it reaches its breaking point it shatters into pieces. Being resilient in the face of difficulties doesn't mean that we're unaffected by painful experiences. Being resilient means that we have the ability to absorb the impact, respond flexibly, adapt to the resulting stress and pressure, and persist in these efforts over time--without shattering into pieces. [25]

A model of resilience was Admiral James Stockdale, a prisoner of war for seven years in Vietnam. When he was asked by business author Jim Collins who among his fellow POWs were least likely to survive, he replied,

Oh, it’s easy. I can tell you who didn’t make it out. It was the optimists... They were the ones who always said, "We’re going to be out by Christmas." Christmas would come and it would go. And there would be another Christmas. And they died of a broken heart... This is what I learned from those years in the prison camp, where all those constraints just were oppressive. You must never ever ever confuse, on the one hand, the need for absolute, unwavering faith that you can prevail despite those constraints with, on the other hand, the need for the discipline to begin by confronting the brutal facts, whatever they are. We’re not getting out of here by Christmas. [26]

Among the various factors that contribute to resilience [27], one of the most important is emotion regulation, which is what enables that critical balance between faith that we will prevail and discipline to confront the brutal facts. The popular conception of emotions as mindless impulses that are antagonistic to logical reasoning is woefully inadequate and out-of-date. Neuroscientists have known for decades that emotions are vitally important inputs to the reasoning process. [28] At the same time, as neuroscientist Antonio Damasio notes, "uncontrolled or misdirected emotion can be a major source of irrational behavior"--a truism evident to anyone who's witnessed a panicked mob...or a bank run. [29]

We can't control our emotions--nor would we want to [30]--but we can regulate them, which entails improving our ability to sense, comprehend, articulate and express what we're feeling. [31] This is of the utmost importance for leaders in the midst of a crisis, not only because they must manage their own inner emotional state, but also because their emotions are contagious. [32] Establishing that balance between faith and discipline on a team--or in a nation--starts with the leader's ability to look within and do the same.

Support

Leading is an inherently social task, and yet it is often a lonely one. As I wrote years ago, reflecting on my own experiences, "If you're a leader at the head of an organization, by definition you don't have internal peers who share your perspective. Your Board of Directors isn't going to provide you with the developmental support you've enjoyed from previous mentors and managers--they're there to challenge you, not to nurture you. And your family is going to get tired of hearing about the challenges you face long before you get tired of talking about them." [33] So it's essential for leaders to have people they can turn to for support, and those relationships need to be up and running long before a crisis hits.

While I'm obviously a strong supporter of coaching, by no means is a coach a leader's only option. I tell my clients that I'm merely one member of their "coaching team," and they should activate as many others as possible, while taking care to identify truly trustworthy allies. [34] This includes family members and friends, who, even if they have limited patience or skills, can be guided into serving as more effective sources of support. [35]

I also advise my clients to think systemically, which in this context entails recognizing that all of the other leaders around them will be struggling with the challenges identified above. There are limits on colleagues' ability to offer support, thus the need for coaches and other external resources. But optimally peers and teammates will be there for each other when needed--and this rests upon an organizational culture that values empathy without sacrificing accountability. [36]

 


In Closing

Radishes by irisphotos 50016572008 EDIT

 My work piles up,
I falter with disease.
Time rushes toward me--
it has no brakes. Still,
the radishes are good this year.
Run them through butter,
add a little salt.

~Jim Harrison, "Zona" [37]

This poem was among those found on Harrison's writing desk when he died in 2016. Harrison is a hero of mine, not least because he faced adversity--the loss of an eye as a child, the death of his father and sister in an automobile accident, years of struggle as a writer--and yet he persevered, living a richly fulfilling life and completing a vast body of work.

He was dying when he wrote the lines above, and no doubt he knew it, but that knowledge didn't stop him from working, or from enjoying all that this existence has to offer, right up until the end. I hope to find inspiration in his example during the challenges I will no doubt face in the years to come. I hope this piece encourages you to do the same.

The radishes are good this year. Run them through butter, add a little salt.

 


For Further Reading

Change

Leadership

Mortality

Acceptance

Resilience

Support

 


Footnotes

[1] "Individual Psychology" (Alfred Adler, Chapter 21 in Psychologies of 1930, edited by Carl Murchison, 1930)

[2] Feeling of Control Viewed as Central in Mental Health (Daniel Goleman, The New York Times, October 7, 1986):

Researchers are finding that the sense of being in control, and the desire for such control, are more crucial and pervasive aspects of personality than psychologists had previously realized... 'We have a deep need to feel competent, to be in control of our environment; it is one of the primary motives in behavior,' said Jerry Burger, a psychologist at the University of Santa Clara.

[3] Born to Choose: The Origins and Value of the Need for Control (Lauren Leotti, Sheena Iyengar and Kevin Ochsner, Trends in Cognitive Science, October 2010):

Belief in one’s ability to exert control over the environment and to produce desired results is essential for an individual’s well being. It has been repeatedly argued that the perception of control is not only desirable, but it is likely a psychological and biological necessity... Converging evidence from animal research, clinical studies, and neuroimaging work suggest that the need for control is a biological imperative for survival.

[4] Excerpted from Authority and Control in Organizational Life.

[5] Embracing the rapid pace of AI (Laurel Ruma interviewing Cliff Justice, US leader for enterprise innovation, KPMG, MIT Technology Review, 2021):

Cliff Justice: Even if one could fully wrap their head around the progress of artificial intelligence and the potential of artificial intelligence, changing an organization and changing the mindset and the culture in a way to adopt and benefit from the opportunities that artificial intelligence poses and also protect against the threats take some time. So, it creates a level of anxiety and caution which is, in my view, well justified.

[6] See Statistics Say Large Pandemics Are More Likely Than We Thought (Michael Penn, Duke Global Health Institute, 2021) and Pandemics Will be More Frequent (Abraham Haileamlak M.D., Ethiopian Journal of Health Science / National Library of Medicine, 2022).

[7] To take just one example, see Fed Walks Tightrope Between Inflation and Bank Turmoil—but for How Long? (Greg Ip, The Wall Street Journal, 2023)

[8] As I wrote in my December 2020 newsletter, "The historian Peter Turchin has a theory that complex societies undergo predictable periodic crises, driven by 1) a decline in general wages, 2) heightened competition among elites, and 3) the loss of asabiya, an Arabic term that refers to 'the capacity of a social group for concerted collective action.' This characterized the U.S. in the middle of the 19th century, and the result, Turchin would argue, was the Civil War. A similar set of circumstances prevailed in the U.S. after World War I, when the country experienced a surge of violent activity, from racist mobs to labor strife. At both junctures U.S. society underwent a profound and dramatic change, and Turchin believes we’re at a similar point in the historical cycle. We’re unlikely to return to the status quo ante, he suggests, because the current environment isn’t a function of the pandemic, or the current administration, or any single given cause. These factors may not be causes at all, but, rather, symptoms of much larger trends to be observed over the past 50 years in the three elements in Turchin’s model."

[9] See Explaining Extreme Events in 2021 and 2022 from a Climate Perspective (American Meteorological Society, 2022)

[10] "The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster" (Karl Weick, Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 38, Number 4, December 1993)

[11] Excerpted from The Importance of Shared Narrative.

[12] Adapted from Leader as Avatar.

[13] Excerpted from The Difficulty of Empathizing Up.

[14] See CEO Compensation: Data (David Larcker, Bryan Tayan, Stanford Graduate School of Business, 2019) and CEO Compensation (Carola Frydman, MIT Sloan School of Management and Dirk Jenter, Stanford Graduate School of Business, 2008)

[15] Early research on hedonic adaptation dates back to the 1970s--for example, see Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative? (Philip Brickman, Dan Coates and Ronnie Janoff-Bulman, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978). More recently, UC Riverside Sonja Lyubomirsky provides what I find to be the most useful descriptions of the concept:

Although we may achieve temporary boosts in well-being by moving to new parts of the country, securing raises, or changing our appearances, such boosts are unlikely to be long-lasting. The primary reason...is that people readily and rapidly adapt to positive circumstantial changes. (The How of Happiness, page 63, 2007)

The more we attain, the happier we become. But, at the same time, the more we attain, the more we want, which negates the increased happiness. (The Myths of Happiness: What Should Make You Happy, but Doesn't, What Shouldn't Make You Happy, but Does, page 120, 2014) 

[16] Excerpted from Leaders Love Puzzles (for Better and for Worse).

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

[18] Ibid, page 16.

[19] "Fear of Death" (Gregory Zilboorg, Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1943, cited in The Denial of Death, page 17)

[20] I'm not aware that Ernest Becker ever used the term "terror management," but his work has been the inspiration for a concept in psychology known as terror management theory.

[21] Excerpted from Learning From Sisyphus.

[22] I'm convinced that this explains much of the ongoing fascination with Apple co-founder Steve Jobs well over a decade after his death. While he deserves to be remembered as a gifted entrepreneur who launched and later rescued an iconic company that continues to influence the culture at large, it is the fact that he is remembered at all that makes him a mythic figure in the eyes of so many leaders today. Jobs succeeded--at least for the time being--in achieving his heroic project. Of all the successful businesspeople from the past, perhaps only Henry Ford compares, the Jobs of his era. We still know Ford's name, although it doesn't come up in my practice nearly as often as Jobs'. And while both will eventually be forgotten, the fact that they are remembered is what makes them relevant, even more than the accomplishments that made them memorable.

[23] When Things Fall Apart, page 70 (Pema Chödrön, 1997)

[24] See the following:

[25] Adapted from The Ruling Out of Possibilities (On Failure).

[26] The Stockdale Paradox (Jim Collins, 2017)

[27] Work by psychologists Karen Reivich and Andrew Shatté suggests that resilience is a function of the extent to which we manifest certain characteristics and engage in specific behaviors, all of which are learnable or subject to influence: Emotion regulation, impulse control, optimism, causal analysis, empathy, self-efficacy and reaching out. See The Resilience Factor: 7 Keys to Finding Your Inner Strength and Overcoming Life's Hurdles, Chapter 2: How Resilient Are You?, pages 31-47 (Karen Reivich and Andrew Shatté, 2002).

[28] Antonio Damasio on Emotion and Reason

[29] Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain, page 53 (Antonio Damasio, 2005)

[30] "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.." From White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts: Suppression, Obsession, and the Psychology of Mental Control, page 123 (Daniel Wegner, 2nd edition, 1994)

[31] The Tyranny of Feelings

[32] For more on leadership and emotional contagion:

[33] Leading Is Lonely and Other Thoughts

[34] The Friendship of Wolves

[35] What Do You Need Right Now? (Advice, Listening, A Hug?)

[36] For more on organizational culture, see the following:

[37] Dead Man's Float (Jim Harrison, 2016)

 

Photos: Coyote traps courtesy of Fur-Fish-Game. The Edith Macefield house courtesy of My Modern Met. And Jesus Wept in Oklahoma City by Jerry Worster. San Francisco National Cemetery by Hitchster. Weightlifter by U.S. Navy 6th Fleet. Radishes by sk.

Three-Traps

Leaders Love Puzzles (for Better and for Worse)

Puzzle-Pieces-by-FreeImagesLive EDIT

An observation drawn from my practice is that leaders love puzzles. So do many people, of course, but typically as an absorbing hobby. In my experience a disproportionate number of leaders exhibit an almost obsessive need to tackle and solve complex problems, and this trait is one of the factors that drove them to seek out (or create) a leadership role, which reliably presents them with any number of "puzzles" to solve on a daily basis.

This is particularly true of entrepreneurial founders and startup leaders. In their case the new venture is a potential solution to a massive unresolved problem, and the business itself is a multi-layered puzzle, the real-life equivalent of a video game in which completing one level allows you to keep playing at the next level, usually with increasing degrees of difficulty.

Sociologist Thomas Henricks, whose research explores the role of play in human life, identifies the mechanisms that make puzzles of all types so engrossing to pursue and so fulfilling to solve:

Different puzzles have much in common. They produce similar sensations in their players: mixes of frustration and anticipation as the hunt advances followed (ideally) by the end-pleasure of solution. Sometimes that end--and the steps required to reach it--is apparent, but often it is not. In that latter case, success features a series of "aha" moments, the sudden revelations we call discovery. [1]

The process of solving a puzzle also engages the human fascination with "stories," in the broadest sense of the term. As we navigate the world around us, we automatically craft a series of explanatory narratives that help us make sense of our surroundings and predict what will happen next, a process I've called "the narrative engine." [2] This drive helps to explain why so much of the media we consume presents us with a story in the form of a puzzle: mysteries, thrillers, romances, adventure tales. Nearly every story is a puzzle, and nearly every puzzle tells a story.

These dynamics are at the heart of what makes leadership roles rewarding. The status, compensation and other perks are pleasurable, to be sure, but their power as sources of motivation inevitably diminishes or even disappears. A process psychologists call "hedonic adaptation" ensures that we adjust to our circumstances and eventually take them for granted. [3] I see this constantly in my practice--leaders may strive mightily for years to obtain a certain position or achieve a given financial goal, and when they do the feeling of accomplishment is frequently less fulfilling and more ephemeral than they expected.

In contrast, the satisfaction to be derived from solving puzzles is endless, in part because in business resolving any problem usually creates new ones. [4] And for many leaders in my practice this is both a blessing and a curse. It makes work intrinsically motivating and helps to provide the stamina needed to pursue complex challenges for long periods of time. But it can also make it very difficult to stop working, switch off, set limits, and take time away--or even get a good night's sleep.

If this sounds like you, what can you do about it?

Increase Your Self-Awareness

Awareness is rarely sufficient on its own to drive change, but it's the necessary first step. Your healthy drive to solve puzzles in the business (or the puzzle that is the business) turns counterproductive when you no longer make an active, deliberate choice to work but instead work compulsively. You compound the problem when you fail to prioritize your tasks, allowing what's urgent (or simply at the top of your Inbox) to dictate your agenda. Instead...

Manage Your Emotions

Emotions, both positive and negative, are at the root of your inability to stop working. The fulfillment and pleasure that are rewards for successfully solving a business-puzzle go hand-in-hand with the frustration that arises when a puzzle resists your best efforts, the anxiety evoked when time or other resources grow short, and the fear that you may someday fail--and thus lose the right to keep puzzling. We can't control our emotions, nor would we want to, but we can regulate them and their impact on our behavior:

Find Other Puzzles

It's profoundly difficult to stop thinking about something, so attempts to simply disengage with work will likely fail--the business-puzzles are just too compelling. [5] But if you keep working right up until bedtime, your brain will continue to try to solve those particular puzzles, which may diminish the quality of your sleep or even wake you up in the middle of the night. The solution is to substitute other puzzles, while taking steps to ensure that they remain healthy distractions and don't become unhealthy obsessions:

  • Most media you consume takes the form of a puzzle, but your laptop and phone make it all too easy for business-puzzles to interrupt you, so manage the flow of business data, and note that multi-tasking can be harmful.
  • Video games, social media, and any form of "news" [6] offer a perpetual supply of alternative puzzles, but they're also meticulously engineered to hijack your attention, so engage them with care.
  • Consider the benefits of a much older form of "puzzle technology"--paper. A good book will provide you with a fulfilling puzzle without interrupting you with notifications, and research suggests that reading a book in bed results in a better night's sleep. [7]

 


Footnotes

[1] Why We Enjoy Puzzles: The View From Play Studies (Thomas Henricks, Psychology Today, 2022)

[2] A Better Information Diet

[3] Early research on hedonic adaptation dates back to the 1970s--for example, see Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative? (Philip Brickman, Dan Coates and Ronnie Janoff-Bulman, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978). More recently, UC Riverside Sonja Lyubomirsky provides what I find to be the most useful descriptions of the concept:

Although we may achieve temporary boosts in well-being by moving to new parts of the country, securing raises, or changing our appearances, such boosts are unlikely to be long-lasting. The primary reason...is that people readily and rapidly adapt to positive circumstantial changes. (The How of Happiness, page 63, 2007)

The more we attain, the happier we become. But, at the same time, the more we attain, the more we want, which negates the increased happiness. (The Myths of Happiness: What Should Make You Happy, but Doesn't, What Shouldn't Make You Happy, but Does, page 120, 2014) 

[4] The Problems of Success

[5] Why You Can't Stop Thinking About Something

[6] The scare quotes around "news" reflect my opinion that the vast majority of information presented today via any and all news media comes in the form of puzzles intended to arouse anxiety and distress, while fostering the illusion that further passive consumption is a form of constructive puzzle-solving. I've had many clients who successfully stopped working on business-puzzles at a reasonable hour only to find themselves obsessively doom-scrolling late into the night. In this sense there's no distinction among video-games, social media, and most "news"--but the latter comes wrapped in a veneer of pseudo-productivity and virtue, making it all the more insidious.

[7] Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep in comparison to not reading a book in bed? (Elaine Finucane et al, National Library of Medicine, 2021)

 

Photo by freebie.photography.

Some Crises Build Character. Others Reveal It.

Help by GraceOda grace_land 17505759023 EDIT

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. Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman notes an important distinction between our experience and our memories:

The experiencing self is the one that answers the question: "Does it hurt now?" The remembering self is the one that answers the question: "How was it, on the whole?"... Confusing experience with the memory of it is a compelling cognitive illusion... The experiencing self does not have a voice. The remembering self is sometimes wrong, but it is the one that keeps score and governs what we learn from living, and it is the one that makes decisions. What we learn from the past is to maximize the qualities of our future memories, not necessarily of our future experience. This is the tyranny of the remembering self. [1]

So while events are still fresh in your mind, and the distress and anguish felt by your experiencing self are still vivid, here are some questions to pose to yourself and others:

What did you learn about yourself?

How did you respond under pressure, anxiety, and uncertainty?

Crises evoke a sense of threat, which triggers the "fight, flight, or freeze" response. What did you learn about your tendencies?

How did you communicate with people (venue, channel, cadence, level of detail, tone)?

How did people respond to your communications? What does that tell you about your effectiveness?

How did you make decisions? What did you learn about your decision-making under stress?

What did you learn about the people around you?

How did THEY respond under pressure, anxiety, and uncertainty?

What did you learn about THEIR "fight, flight, or freeze" tendencies?

How did they communicate with you and others?

How effective were their communication efforts?

How did THEY make decisions? What did you learn about THEIR decision-making under stress?

 

Gathering this data is a useful exercise, and it's by no means sufficient. Awareness is always the necessary first step, but it rarely leads to growth on its own. Truly learning from this crisis will entail understanding your strengths and your weaknesses, and then engaging in an ongoing effort to maximize the former and address the latter.

More specifically, you'll want to understand how you can best prepare for the next crisis. Outdoor writer Tom Stienstra survived countless life-threatening situations during his decades roaming the wilderness by remembering a piece of wisdom from self-defense instructor Il Ling New: "Everyone thinks they will rise to the occasion. What happens instead is that you default to your level of training." [2] So here are some further questions to consider:

What do your responses above tell you about your strengths and weaknesses?

How can you be better prepared for the next crisis?

What might it look like to train for that crisis?

Who might you turn to, where might you go, to obtain such training?

 

The questions above are largely aimed at capabilities, but crises also teach us something essential that can't be learned under any other circumstances about character.

What did you do that you're proud of? What motivated those actions?

What did you do that you're NOT proud of? What motivated THOSE actions?

What do any of these actions say about your character?

What do the actions of others say about THEIR character?

What do you want to remember?

 


Footnotes

[1] Thinking, Fast and Slow, page 381 (Daniel Kahneman, 2013)

[2] Tom Stienstra’s Tales of Survival (San Francisco Chronicle, 2023)

 

For Further Reading

How Leaders Overcome Adversity

Aggression, Panic, Paralysis, Denial

The Importance of Slowing Down

From Peacetime to Wartime

 

Photo by GraceOda.

JFK on Doing Hard Things

Full Moon by Denali National Park denalinps 14232964385 EDIT

In 1957 the Soviet Union launched the first satellite into orbit, known as Sputnik, which raised grave concerns in the United States and accelerated the "space race." [1] Having won election in 1960, President John F. Kennedy entered office the following year determined to increase U.S. investment in space exploration. This initiative took on new urgency in April 1961 when the Soviets sent the first man into space, Yuri Gagarin, a dramatic development that caught U.S. leaders by surprise. [2]

In May 1961 Kennedy convened a special session of Congress to address "urgent national needs," including space exploration, in which he made a bold declaration: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth." [3] In September 1962 he delivered another speech at Rice University in Houston, Texas--the home of NASA's "Mission Control"--in which he reinforced his determination to reach the moon within the decade. [4]

It's worth remembering that the international mood at the time was extremely tense. The U.S., the USSR and their respective allies had been facing off in the Cold War for over 15 years, a struggle that regularly broke out into armed conflict in proxy wars around the globe. [5] The U.S. was less than a decade removed from the height of the "Red Scare," when legitimate fears about Soviet agents escalated into hysterical paranoia.

And just four weeks after Kennedy's speech in Houston the nation would be gripped by the Cuban Missile Crisis, which, we now know, was the closest we've ever come to nuclear war. [6] So the space race wasn't just a spirited contest between international rivals, a high-tech version of the Olympics in which the winner would claim bragging rights. It was a new front in the Cold War, and the stakes were incredibly high.

It was also going to be incredibly expensive, and the benefits to the average American citizen were unclear and abstract. Going to the moon was going to be hard, but it might be even harder to convince the U.S. taxpayer to foot the bill. It was one thing for Nikita Khrushchev to order increased spending for the Soviet space program, as he did in the mid-1950s. But Kennedy would have to win Congressional and popular support for the U.S. efforts if he wanted to succeed while remaining a viable candidate for re-election.

Yet this is exactly what he accomplished, in part thanks to his speeches in 1961 and '62, which make them worth examining today for any leader who's asking people to do hard things. So what did Kennedy do that helped motivate his fellow Americans to do this hard thing?

He frames his goal in a larger context.

If we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. (1961)

The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space. Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. (1962)

For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. (1962)

He acknowledges the difficulties ahead and is candid about U.S. shortcomings.

The facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshalled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment. Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of leadtime, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. (1961)

This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. (1961)

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. (1962)

To be sure, we are behind, and will be behind for some time in manned flight. But we do not intend to stay behind, and in this decade, we shall make up and move ahead. (1962)

He stresses the need for shared sacrifice and collective agreement.

In a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there. (1961)

Let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all. (1961)

I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful. (1961)

To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year¹s space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year--a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United States, for we have given this program a high national priority--even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us. (1962)

He expresses hope and optimism, and emphasizes America's capabilities and potential.

I have not asked for a single program which did not cause one or all Americans some inconvenience, or some hardship, or some sacrifice. But they have responded and you in the Congress have responded to your duty--and I feel confident in asking today for a similar response to these new and larger demands. (1961)

In the last 24 hours we have seen facilities now being created for the greatest and most complex exploration in man's history. We have felt the ground shake and the air shattered by the testing of a Saturn C-1 booster rocket, many times as powerful as the Atlas which launched John Glenn, generating power equivalent to 10,000 automobiles with their accelerators on the floor...

Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them were "made in the United States of America" and they were far more sophisticated and supplied far more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union. The Mariner spacecraft now on its way to Venus is the most intricate instrument in the history of space science. The accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile from Cape Canaveral and dropping it in this stadium between the 40-yard lines. (1962)

He uses humor to lighten the mood.

I appreciate your president having made me an honorary visiting professor, and I will assure you that my first lecture will be very brief. (1961)

Why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? (1961)

(Rice University, the setting for the 1961 speech, had a longstanding football rivalry with the University of Texas, a much larger school. At the time, Texas led the series 29-19, and Kennedy's line got a laugh from the crowd. Notably, a few weeks after Kennedy's speech, Rice eked out the only tie in the series--although since 1962 Texas has gone 44-2.) [7]

Finally, he closes on a note of transcendence and uplift.

It is heartening to know, as I journey abroad, that our country is united in its commitment to freedom and is ready to do its duty. (1961)

Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there." Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked. (1962)

 


Footnotes

[1] Sputnik and the Space Race: 1957 and Beyond (Library of Congress Resource Guides)

[2] The Decision to Go to the Moon (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA History Office)

[3] Address to Joint Session of Congress, May 25, 1961 (John F. Kennedy Presidential Library), and here's a video of a portion of the speech.

[4] Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort, September 12, 1962 (John F. Kennedy Presidential Library), and here's a video of the complete speech.

[5] Here's just a partial list: Vietnam 1945-46, Iran 1945-46, Greece 1946-49, Philippines 1946-54, Vietnam (again) 1946-54, Malaysia 1948-60, Indonesia 1949-62, Korea 1950-53, Egypt 1952, Vietnam (again) 1955-75, Laos 1959-75, Congo 1960-65, Cuba 1961.

[6] One Step from Nuclear War (The Cuban Missile Crisis at 50: In Search of Historical Perspective), (Martin Sherwin, Prologue Magazine / National Archives, 2012)

[7] Rice-Texas football rivalry (Wikipedia)

 

Photo by Denali National Park and Preserve.

Self-Care for Coaches

Water by iezalel williams 48697635152

Coaching is a very fulfilling activity, and I feel lucky to spend all day, every day working with leaders in this capacity. But it's also very demanding, which is why I try to take good care of myself--and my practice--in a variety of ways. This certainly includes the basics: mindfulness, exercise, sleep, reducing chronic stress. [1] But more specifically, there are four self-care practices for coaches that I follow myself and recommend to colleagues.

1. Get a Coach

There are a number of obvious reasons why every coach should have a coach. Just like our clients, we encounter difficult situations that test our capabilities on a regular basis, and coaching is a reliable means of augmenting our strengths and addressing our weaknesses. Further, guidance from a seasoned fellow professional can help us to consider new possibilities and overcome blind spots. As I've noted before, coaching isn't just about asking questions, and advice and feedback play valuable roles in the process. [2]

But being in a formal coaching engagement also offers something of special importance to the coach-as-client: empathy. As coaches, we're used to being in the position of having others come to us with their problems and challenges, and forgetting what it's like to be on the other end of a helping relationship can be an occupational hazard. Being coached reminds us of what it feels like to be a client--and that invariably makes us better coaches. [3]

My initial exposure to coaching came as a client in my first leadership role after business school. A mentor on my board of directors advised me to invest in myself and get a coach, and I went back to one of my Stanford professors, Mary Ann Huckabay, and asked if she would take me on as a client. Thankfully she did, and our work together not only transformed my approach to leadership, but also helped motivate me to launch my own coaching practice in 2006. Three years later I realized that I needed a coach in order to be the best coach I could be--I returned to Mary Ann's practice, and we've been working together continuously ever since. If you don't have a Mary Ann in your life, I hope you'll reach out to your network of colleagues and find one. [4]

2. Talk About Money (with People You Trust)

As an independent coach working solo, I wear two hats: I'm a coach who cares deeply about my craft, and I'm also the CEO of a small business who must ensure that my business remains profitable. It's easy to find people who want to talk about the soulful art of coaching but who don't know much about running a profitable practice. It's also easy to find people who are eager to sell you their services to help you build a practice but who don't seem particularly soulful, to say the least. In my experience the key is building relationships with colleagues who share your commitment to craft and who are also willing to discuss the financial and logistical aspects of running their practice. [5]

For many of us there's always some discomfort in discussing finances, and that can be exacerbated if we're reluctant to think of coaching as a profession. But a coaching engagement is both a personal relationship and a business relationship, and the integration of both halves makes it successful and sustainable. Acknowledging and attending to the financial needs of our practice is critical in that process and ultimately in the best interests of our clients.

Collegial relationships in which we can have such candid conversations are built on trust, which often starts with a willingness to be vulnerable. (This may be yet another reason to work with a coach.) And note that it may be easier than you think. I sometimes have occasion to talk with aspiring coaches who are just starting out, and at a certain point in the conversation I generally say, "Let's talk about money"--and they are invariably relieved that I've taken the initiative to broach the subject.

3. Manage Your Assets (and Say No More Often)

When wearing my CEO hat I have to be mindful that my small business has two (and only two) assets: my time and my reputation. I'm the sole steward of those assets--if my time is wasted or my reputation suffers, no one pays a price but me. Further, other people may well have very different ideas than I do about how to employ my time or build my reputation. So it's essential for me to manage these assets with great care.

I'm not suggesting that there's one best way for you to manage your own time and reputation. One person's wasted hour is another's sound investment. And what qualifies as a "good use of time" or provides a boost to your practice's visibility or your personal brand will undoubtedly change during the course of your career, so any guidelines in these areas should be revisited regularly. But it helps immensely to establish such guidelines in the first place, even if they're provisional and open to experimentation.

I suspect that running your practice with an eye toward managing your time and reputation with care will eventually require to you say "no" more often. Nearly a decade ago, I wrote about the necessity--and the difficulty--of this transition:

Success is often built on a reflexive habit of saying "yes" to opportunities that come our way. We’re hungry for any chance to prove ourselves, and when we're presented with one, we take it, even--or especially--if it seems daunting. A lesson I learned years ago was to say "yes" to opportunities that made me feel nervous because the anxiety was a sign that I'd learn something useful. We may also tend to say "yes" out of a fear that turning down an opportunity even once sends a message that we're not interested, and we'll stop getting additional chances in the future.

But success tends to attract bigger and better opportunities. As we succeed, a key challenge becomes prioritizing the many opportunities that present themselves. We often try to do this without saying "no" definitively--we still want to keep our options open. Inevitably, though, this results in a lack of clarity and overcommitment, and we wind up disappointing people, exhausting ourselves, or simply failing. To prevent this we need to learn to say "no" gracefully but firmly, maintaining the relationship while making it clear that this is one opportunity we're choosing not to pursue. [6]

4. Live a (Somewhat) Boring Life

The French novelist Gustave Flaubert advised Gertrude Tennant, a friend and patron who later edited his correspondence, "Be regular and orderly in your life, like a bourgeois, so that you may be violent and original in your work." [7] I don't think of coaching as artistry, nor do I aspire to be "violent and original," but I do find Flaubert's underlying principle highly relevant and seek to apply it in a number of ways.

By committing to a "regular and orderly" set of routines, both professional and personal, I make it possible to do my best work every day on a sustainable basis. I'm not recommending any particular set of routines--I think each of us needs to determine for ourselves the practices that will best meet our individual needs. In my case, I generally get a lot of sleep, wake up at roughly the same time each day, see clients at predetermined timeslots with ample time in between sessions, take several walks a day, and have a quiet evening at home.

To be clear, I don't think it's necessary to strive for some sort of "perfect attendance record," nor am I suggesting that you need to impose a rigid set of rules on yourself. [8] Routines that feel unduly constraining are fragile, not resilient, and usually fail to be become habitual practices. Every once in a while I feel the need to stay up late, drink too much wine, and watch an old movie--although that's as wild as I get these days. But by giving myself permission to make exceptions, I make it easier to sustain the (regular, orderly) routines that constitute a typical day.

 


Footnotes

[1] In The Art of Self-Coaching I devised the (admittedly cheesy!) acronym MESSy to highlight the importance of mindfulness, exercise, sleep and reducing chronic stress. For more on these topics:

Mindfulness

Exercise

Sleep

Stress

[2] Coaching, Advice and Feedback

[3] See Chapter 3 in Edgar Schein's Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help (2011), entitled "The Inequalities and Ambiguities of the Helping Relationship."

[4] How to Find (and Choose) a Coach

[5] While coaching isn't therapy, one of the most useful resources I've encountered regarding the management of a practice is Sheldon Kopp's Back to One: A Practical Guide for Psychotherapists. A few of the topics he covers are unique to therapy, but much of the book is equally relevant to coaching.

[6] Learning to Say "No" Is Part of Success

[7] Oxford Reference

[8] I make one exception: I expect to be early and fully prepared for every single coaching session, every working day. A coach's first job is showing up.

 

Photo by iezalel williams.

Thank You, Stanford, and Goodbye!

Me-at-Stanford

Hoover Tower, July 2016

Begin with the End in Mind

At the end of 2006 I accepted an offer to join the first in-house coaching staff at Stanford's Graduate School of Business, where I had completed my MBA six years before. I took on the role not because I aspired to a career in academia, but because I was excited about the opportunity to contribute to the launch of the school's new curriculum, with its emphasis on leadership development and experiential learning, and because I thought it could accelerate my own development as a coach. The results on both fronts exceeded my wildest expectations.

I maintained a full-time role at the GSB until 2016, when I resigned to devote more time to my private practice, although I continued to serve as a Lecturer teaching Interpersonal Dynamics (aka "Touchy Feely") and The Art of Self-Coaching, the course I had launched the year before. I resigned from the Interpersonal Dynamics faculty in 2017 after the school asked me to add a third section of The Art of Self-Coaching, as I could only be on campus one day a week, and until 2020 I taught my course year-round. It was routinely one of the school's highest-rated electives until the last time I taught it in 2021, and I learned a great deal from that experience. I took a break from Stanford entirely last year, in part to reflect on the role I wanted teaching to play in my life, and a few days ago I concluded that it was time to retire from the GSB.

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'm also somewhat astonished to realize that I worked with well over 1,000 MBA students in more than 50 courses from 2007 to 2021. It's impossible to convey how much my work with them has meant to me, and how significantly it shaped my growth and development, not only as a coach, but also as a person.

I know it's time to end this chapter of my professional life, but I do so with some ambivalence. I took great pride in delivering excellence as a teacher, and I don't like ending on a disappointing note with my final group of students. I loved creating an environment in the classroom that invited students to have deeper conversations and take some meaningful risks in order to learn, and I'm not sure how I'll meet that need in the future. And this evolution in my relationship with Stanford is yet another in a series of post-pandemic transitions that evoke a loss of identity.

All that said, the time is surely right. The last few years have made it clear that coaching is a counter-cyclical profession--the worse the state of the world, the more leaders benefit from good coaching, and I've never felt more useful to my clients or more needed. The idea of relating to Stanford as an alumnus, with none of the responsibilities that faculty and staff must bear sounds appealing. And at this stage of my life I'm reflecting on and writing about issues more relevant to senior leaders than to graduate students: coping with midlife malaise, evolving from warrior to sage, leading other senior leaders.

It's impossible to summarize my relationship with Stanford in a single essay, but I can recount half-a-dozen stories from the last few decades that provide a little color...

1. A Lesson in Humility

I arrived at Stanford as an MBA student in 1998--a quarter-century ago!--but my relationship with the university began in 1985, when I was a senior in high school. I was a bit lackadaisical about the college admissions process--the fact that high school was ending came as something of a surprise to me--and I discovered that I'd missed the application deadline for Brown, which had been my first choice, to the extent that I was making a choice at all.

I never considered the other Ivies, which seemed out of reach or a poor fit for me (or both), so I set my sights on Stanford, which I envisioned as both more achievable and more offbeat. I didn't feel arrogant about it, but I was confident I'd get in--and then a thin envelope arrived in the mail, informing me that my presence in California would not be required. It was the first of many useful lessons Stanford would teach me.

I ultimately graduated from Brown, via a long and winding path, but I keenly remembered Stanford's rejection, which served as a useful chip on my shoulder and source of motivation when I decided to apply to the Graduate School of Business to pursue an MBA. At the time I was passionate about helping nonprofits and NGOs use technology more effectively, and entrepreneur Jed Emerson and Stanford alumna Melinda Tuan helped me realize that the GSB would be the best place to pursue my vision. So it was very fulfilling when I got the call from the GSB's Director of Admissions Marie Mookini that I'd been accepted as a member of the Class of 2000.

2. Let's Talk About That

After graduation I spent the next six years pursuing the vision that had initially led me to business school, primarily as the first executive director of the Nonprofit Technology Network, aka N-TEN. I was determined to make N-TEN a success, and I threw myself into the experience with vigor, which resulted in some predictable conflicts. Vince Stehle, a member of my board, took me aside and said, in effect, "You're a talented guy, but you have some rough edges. I advise you to invest in yourself and get a coach." I turned to Mary Ann Huckabay, with whom I'd taken Interpersonal Dynamics (aka "Touchy Feely") as an MBA student and asked if she'd take me on as a coaching client. (Thankfully she said yes, and she's still my coach today.)

When I began exploring coaching as a career path in 2005, I considered applying to the GSB's Group Facilitation Training Program, which prepared community members to lead student groups in Touchy Feely. I participated in a group co-facilitated by Barbara Brewer and Dietmar Brinkmann to refresh my memory of the experience, and I got a lot more than I bargained for. Most significantly, I came to the realization that to give myself the greatest chance of succeeding as a coach I needed to quit my job and dedicate myself entirely to my practice--which I did. But for the first time I also grasped just how much growth would be required of me if I were to pursue this path.

With Mary Ann's encouragement I applied to the training program, and one step in the process was an interview with a current facilitator. The night before my interview Amy had to go to the emergency room, and the hospital kept her for observation. Amy insisted that I keep the appointment, and I arrived on campus feeling anxious and distracted. My interviewer was Tony Levitan, a GSB alumnus, and as we got started he noticed that something was amiss and asked me how I was doing. I answered candidly, saying something like "Not great," and Tony did something that I'll never forget: He said, "Well, let's talk about that." So we did--which, of course, turned about to be the most relevant type of "interview" for the program.

3. Too Big to Fail (Or So I Thought)

The Executive Challenge is a role-playing case competition that serves as the culmination of the first-year Leadership Labs course. I served as an alumni judge in a pilot version of the EC in 2007, and later that year my colleagues and I on the Leadership Coaching staff had to decide what to do with the event now that "LeadLabs" was becoming a mandatory component of the core curriculum. I recall a meeting with Evelyn Williams, the faculty member who had developed the original version of LeadLabs and the Fellows program at the University of Chicago's business school and had been recruited to bring it to the GSB by Dean Bob Joss.

At Chicago participation in the EC had been a reward for high-performing students, but I advocated for expanding it to include all students. If we kept it small, it would be our responsibility alone--and we were already struggling to command the resources necessary to make LeadLabs a success. But if the whole school was involved more people would feel a sense of ownership, and the EC would be "too big to fail." The final decision was Evelyn's, but I take a little credit for influencing the outcome, and today the entire MBA1 class participates in the EC, along with 70+ MBA2 Leadership Fellows and hundreds of alumni judges. (It's the second-largest event at the GSB behind graduation.)

This set the stage, however, for a great embarrassment and another profound lesson. From 2008 through 2015 I ran the scoring system for the EC, and it evolved into a finely-tuned machine that managed to process an immense amount of data throughout the day, carefully check the results, and deliver the final scores in time to be announced at a massive party held at the conclusion of the competition. But in 2014 an oversight on my part resulted in an error, which meant that several teams were awarded a victory that had to be renounced, and the real victors were denied the opportunity to celebrate with their classmates.

The cause of the error was a tiny technical glitch, and when I discovered what had happened I realized that it would be easy to evade responsibility. No one would have faulted me if I'd shrugged my shoulders and blamed the fates. But I decided that if I took pride in the system's previous successes--and I did--I had to claim this failure as my own. I reached out to the students who had been affected and apologized, and I received a host of gracious responses in return. I also wrote to the staff who had been assisting me, making it clear that I held myself responsible, and their supervisor, Ursula Kaiser, replied, "Thanks for the clarification, Ed. I appreciate your sense of accountability and honesty. You are a true gentleman." I don't always live up to that, but it's something to shoot for.

4. A Role Play for Real

In the summer of 2010 I was invited by Carole Robin to co-facilitate a group with her in the GSB's week-long version of Touchy Feely for executives, a program that would be overseen by David Bradford. I owe both Carole and David an immense debt for their many contributions to my career, including this experience, which was a high-profile opportunity for a relatively junior facilitator like myself. Much like the MBA version of the course, the program included large-group sessions before each group during which a faculty member would lecture or conduct an exercise that all 36 participants would observe. One such exercise was a role-play involving feedback between a faculty member and one of the facilitators, and it was agreed that David and I would team up for it.

Unbeknownst to David, I had felt an increasing sense of irritation with him as the week progressed. He had made a few joking comments that highlighted my junior status on the staff, and although in hindsight it was merely a form of friendly teasing, at the time I felt sensitive about my relative inexperience and resented these remarks. Without providing David any advance warning, I decided to make this dynamic the focus of our exercise--rather than conduct a "role-play," I would simply be myself and provide him with some direct feedback for real.

I don't recall what I said, but I recall vividly how it felt. David and I were seated in front of the room, with all of the participants and the rest of the staff arrayed in front of us. Somehow I conveyed to David that I wasn't role-playing, I was speaking from the heart, I was truly frustrated and upset, and I had some real feedback for him. Everyone in the room suddenly realized what they were witnessing, and it became very still and quiet.

From my vantage point today, I'm both embarrassed by this episode and proud of it. I'm embarrassed because it was clearly an effort to gain an unfair advantage over David by surprising him with this feedback in a public setting. And yet I'm proud of it because it was also a legitimate attempt to "walk our talk" as facilitators, to illustrate the concepts we were teaching not through a simulated experience but a real one.

David, to his immense credit, responded in the moment with grace and compassion, dissolving my frustration and providing our participants with a powerful example of how a leader could respond effectively to critical feedback from a subordinate, even--and especially--when it was an unwelcome surprise. After the conclusion of the large-group session, Carole and I joined our group in our breakout room. One of our group's members was a hardened military veteran, and throughout the week he had been skeptical about the experience and what he might learn from it, but as our group session began, he expressed how my interaction with David had earned his respect. He saw that we took our business as seriously as he took his, and he was going to put his skepticism aside.

5. On the Big Stage

From 2017 through 2020 I taught The Art of Self Coaching, the course that I founded in 2015, three times a year, in Autumn, Winter and Spring Quarters. While it was rewarding to work with so many students--over 100 members of each graduating class--by the end of each academic year I needed a break from Stanford. In 2017 and 2018 I was invited by the Second Year students to give a "Last Lecture," a talk on any topic I chose that would be held in the GSB's largest auditorium the week before their graduation.

It was an honor to be invited, but it also felt like a lot of work at a moment when I was ready to take a break, so I declined as graciously as I could. That was true, but it wasn't the whole truth--I was also anxious about the prospect of speaking in front of hundreds of people. I'm not a natural public speaker, and I've had to work hard to feel comfortable at the front of a room. The most helpful step in that process was taking a public speaking course at the Engineering School while I was an MBA student myself, but I still get butterflies even today.

In 2019 I anticipated being invited to speak for a third time--and having to decline a third time--when something interesting happened: The expected invitation never came...and I was disappointed. I realized that I enjoyed being asked, and when you keep saying "No" eventually people stop asking. Then, out of the blue, the invitation finally arrived, and it was clear that this time I had to say "Yes." So I did.

I knew what I wanted to discuss, and expanding that theme into a full lecture was relatively easy. But I was still anxious at the prospect of appearing on the big stage, so I went back to what I learned in that public-speaking course decades earlier--practice. I recorded myself giving the talk in my office, and that helped, but the best preparation was a bit more esoteric. The day before the lecture I drove all the way out to Chimney Rock, at the very tip of Point Reyes, and I gave my talk to the Pacific Ocean. The vastness of the sea was calming, perhaps because it put everything in perspective. If it went well, if it didn't go well, what would really change? (It went well.)

6. Bookends

Although I ended my GSB career teaching The Art of Self-Coaching virtually as a result of the pandemic--the first time was a big success, the second not so much--the course itself and my philosophy as an experiential educator were built around the in-person classroom experience, which is reflected in two activities that served as bookends for the course. I designed The Art of Self-Coaching to be an accelerated and economical journey. In a given quarter we had just nine or ten class sessions, each 1 hour, 45 minutes, which was less time than the other courses I'd been involved in over the years. I was confident that in the right conditions students could still have a deeply meaningful experience, but we had to get off to a fast start.

So before each quarter I memorized every student's face so that I could greet them by name as they walked into the classroom for the first time. There's no trick to the memorization process--it just takes time and effort--and it inevitably had an outsized impact. Occasionally students would even laugh in amazement. My goal was to send two messages: First, I'm setting a high standard for myself, and I hope you'll join me. But also, I see you--you're not just one of 36 students to me, you're an individual.

And in the final class session there was an exercise that invariably provided some of my best moments as a teacher. An ongoing theme in the course was what I really meant by "self-coaching." I provided a simple definition in the syllabus: "The process of guiding our own growth and development, particularly through periods of transition, in all domains of life." But this was intentionally vague and abstract, and by the final class I expected each student to have determined what self-coaching meant to them as an individual, and what it would look like in practice in their life.

I began the final class session with a warm-up exercise to get everyone moving and energized, and then I had them work on whiteboards in small groups, creating mindmaps that answered the question, "What is self-coaching to me?" The students would sketch out their mindmaps in silence and then discuss the results in their group. After the small group discussions we would conduct several more full-class activities, including some final remarks from me and a ritual to close the class. I enjoyed the entire session immensely, but it was particularly rewarding to observe my students as they discussed their mindmaps. Many of these conversations were quite animated, and there was a palpable sense of energy in the room. My persona as teacher was generally "circus ringmaster," so it's unexpected to realize that my most lasting memory of the classroom will be those times when I sat in the back and merely observed.

Many Thanks...

So to my former students: It was an honor to work with you, and I hope our time together continues to bear fruit in your current endeavors. Thank you, good luck, and keep in touch.

Over the course of my career at Stanford--as an MBA student myself, and later as a Leadership Coach and Lecturer, I was blessed with so many people who provided support and encouragement. I'm certain that I've inadvertently left some people off this list, and I apologize in advance for those oversights. That said, many thanks to...

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, Chevalisa Bruzzone, Chris McCanna, Chris Sadlak, Christopher Williams, Collins Dobbs, Courtney Payne, Delilah Gallardo, Dietmar Brinkmann, Dikla Carmel-Hurwitz, Domenico Anatrone, the late Don Flaxman, Don Hejna, Erica Peng, 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, Mark Voorsanger, Melinda Tuan, Michael Terrell, Mike Hochleutner, Mindy Williams, Nancy Dam, Nirit Hazan, Nonna Kocharyan, Nora Richardson, Paul Abad, Paul Roberts, Rebecca Taylor, Rebecca Zucker, Rich Kass, Richard Francisco, Richard Haukom, Ricki Frankel, Roberto Fernandez, Saraswathi Ram Mohan, Sharon Richmond, Stephanie Stevens, Sunny Sabbini, Sue Neville, Suzan Jensen, Tony Levitan, Tuquynh Tran, Ursula Kaiser, Vince Stehle, Yifat Sharabi-Levine, and Zoe Dunning.

More specifically...

Thank you, Carole Robin, for your invaluable guidance, your commitment to excellence, and your ongoing friendship.

Thank you, David Bradford, for your unfailing candor and your lifelong stewardship.

Thank you, Evelyn Williams, for your passion for leadership development, your genius for curriculum design, and the opportunity of a lifetime.

Thank you, Garth Saloner, for your rigor as a teacher and your foresight as a leader.

Thank you, Gary Dexter, for being yourself in the classroom, which emboldened me to do the same.

Thank you, Marie Mookini, for taking a chance on me.

Thank you, Mary Ann Huckabay, for being the single biggest influence on my life outside my family.

Thank you, Paul Mattish, for your unfailing professionalism in the face of utter chaos.

Thank you, Roberto Fernandez, for all you taught me and for being my greatest role model as a teacher.

Thank you, Sarah Stone, for being a beacon of clarity in the confusing life of a Lecturer.

Thank you, Scott Bristol, for your intellectual innovation and your heartfelt compassion.

 

Thank you!

My Appearance with John Baldoni

My colleague John Baldoni is a highly experienced coach, a great ambassador for the field, an inspiring writer, and a generous champion of the work of others, so I was truly delighted to join him on Grace Under Pressure. Our 30-minute live interview was recorded and is available via YouTube or the following podcast platforms:

In addition to thanking John for the invitation, I want to thank the many teachers and mentors who made it possible for me to pursue coaching as a career, including Mary Ann Huckabay, Carole Robin, and Scott Bristol, who I mention in our interview. There are too many others to name, but I will always be in their debt.

Making Layoffs Less Painful

Headache by threephin 2309047966 EDIT

Layoffs are painful for everyone involved. But there are varying degrees of pain, and a theme in my practice is helping leaders who are conducting layoffs reduce the pain, not only for the employees losing their jobs, but also for everyone else. The recommendations below are by no means comprehensive, nor will they eliminate the pain of layoffs. But if you're a leader embarking upon this process, here's how you can make it less painful for these stakeholders:

Front Line Managers

You're probably planning the layoffs with a small group of senior leaders, in part to minimize the risk of leaks and rumors. If there are more than two layers of management in your organization, front line managers are unlikely to play a direct role. But when leadership teams fail to provide any advance notice to front line managers, they solve for secrecy while creating other problems.

Because immediately after the layoffs have been conducted, the remaining employees will reach out to their managers with any number of questions, including something like, "I heard what senior leadership said, but what's the real story?" And if those managers have nothing more to say than, "I don't know," they look and feel useless. It's a painful moment that can undermine managers' ability to offer support and reassurance in the future.

This can be mitigated by communicating with front line managers before the layoffs are conducted to give them a heads-up and provide additional context. One way of accomplishing this is via a synchronous virtual meeting conducted a few days (or, if necessary, hours) before the layoffs begin, but there are countless variations. The goal is ensuring that your managers are better prepared to respond to employees' questions and concerns because they're not hearing the news simultaneously. [1]

Employees Being Laid Off

Being laid off is always painful, but you have some choices to make that may cushion the blow. The first is scale--en masse, in small groups or individually. The least painful option will depend not only on the number of people involved, but also on their expectations of you as leader. In some cases people want to hear directly from the ultimate decision-maker, but at times that's not feasible, and it may be preferable for the message to be delivered by someone else. Even if you aspire to speak directly with each individual, note that your capacity to convey the message skillfully is finite, and as the numbers increase so does the likelihood that affected employees may hear the news before you reach them.

Another decision is when to shut off employees' access to email, messaging, and other systems. In some cases this is a non-issue--data security and other factors may compel you to restrict access as soon as possible. But here, too, note that solving for maximum security can create other problems, and not all systems pose the same degree of risk. Allowing employees to utilize various channels to say their goodbyes can afford them a degree of grace and dignity and will benefit the employees who remain as well.

Whatever medium you employ--but particularly if you're speaking live--you can make it marginally less painful for the people you're laying off by being thoughtful about your message. This includes taking responsibility for past decisions that resulted in layoffs being necessary. But it's not just about the content--it's also about expressing empathy through your tone. To be clear, empathy isn't sympathy--the latter is equivalent to pity, and your employees will not want your pity. Instead, empathy is the ability to grasp how someone else feels and to convey that understanding. This will entail acknowledging not only their pain at being laid off, but also a range of other possible feelings--surprise, fear, anger--some of which will be directed toward you. [2]

Employees Who Remain

As vital as it is to consider your communication with the employees who are being laid off, it may be even more important to follow this up with the right message to the employees who remain. Unfortunately many leaders take a misguided approach here, imagining that this is the moment to fire up the team. Their initial remarks to the rest of the organization have the feel of a celebratory speech at a rally--while everyone is still thinking about their colleagues who were just laid off. It's yet another painful experience, but one that can be prevented.

Yes, your remaining employees will need to be reinvigorated, and they will need to hear why you're hopeful about the future, and they will look to you for inspiration--but perhaps not quite yet. In the immediate aftermath of layoffs the employees who remain are likely feeling a complex mix of emotions, and it's essential to meet them there, at least at first. After a layoff the remaining employees typically suffer from a degree of "survivors' guilt," even if they agree that the layoffs weren't entirely random. [3] In most circumstances, they'll work through these feelings with time, but efforts to rush them can be counter-productive.

I'm not suggesting that the message to your remaining employees should be entirely downbeat or that you should refrain from expressing optimism--but don't start there. Begin by legitimizing whatever people are feeling at that moment. As I've noted before, "If the leader runs too far ahead or pulls too hard in an effort to bring people along...there's a rupture between the leader's vision of the future and everyone else's current reality, and the leader loses influence as a result." [4] There will be a point at which you can transition to looking ahead and invite your employees to join you--the key is to create that moment together with them rather than trying to impose it upon them.

Yourself

Conducting layoffs is one of a leader's most painful responsibilities. Even when you know that layoffs are needed to ensure the continued existence of the organization and preserve other employees' jobs, you're not going to feel good about it. And that's appropriate--negative emotions play an essential role in learning from experience, and you'll want to learn as much as possible from this one in order to avoid repeating it.

It will be useful to acknowledge those emotions, with a major caveat. Although your ability to convey empathy will involve emotional expression, your feelings will not matter at all to the people you're laying off. It's not their responsibility to empathize with you, so don't ask them to, even implicitly. [5] And while you'll need to be judicious about what you discuss with any other stakeholders, note that difficult emotions are always easier to manage when you can talk about them with someone you trust. [6]

The effort to strike the right balance in your message and to do so while under an intense spotlight will be depleting, so plan accordingly. Don't let the logistics keep you up the night before--finalize the details well in advance and make sure you're well-rested. Don't allow less important tasks to distract you--clear your calendar before and after of any optional events. And don't expect your efforts to be appreciated--everyone will be caught up in their own anxieties, and no one will be thinking about you. So be sure to end the day with people who care about you and who think of you as a friend, a family member, a human being--not a leader. [7]

 


Footnotes

[1] Who Needs to Know? How Will They Feel? (On Change)

[2] How to Deliver Bad News

[3] For more on layoffs and survivors' guilt, see the following:

[4] The Rubber Band Effect

[5] The Difficulty of Empathizing Up

[6] Talking About Feelings

[7] The Friendship of Wolves

 

Photo by threephin.

What Am I Most Alive To?

Point-Reyes-from-Chimney-Rock

What am I most alive to?

I'm alive to my grievances and disappointments. They arise at the slightest provocation. And should I momentarily ignore them, vast enterprises will offer their assistance by reminding me.

I'm not very alive to all the sources of fulfillment I enjoy. These gifts I fail to acknowledge.

I'm alive to my aches and limitations, the slow-motion train wreck of middle-age. And should I momentarily forget the reality of life as a mortal creature, vast enterprises will offer their assistance by promising immortality.

I'm not very alive to the fact that I am alive. Breathing normally. Not in any real pain. In full possession of my senses and faculties. Able to walk unassisted, and feed and bathe myself. These blessings I take for granted.

I'm alive to all the things I'm "missing" and "need," the absurd shopping list that I carry around in my head. And should I momentarily misplace it, vast enterprises will offer their assistance by suggesting alternatives.

I'm not very alive to the diminishing returns and ultimate uselessness of material things. This truth I lose sight of.

I'm alive to everything I think I lack. I'm not very alive to all I have to be thankful for. This I can change, but only when I stop and consider what's truly on the scales, and when I decline the assistance of all those vast enterprises.

Happy Thanksgiving.

 


For Further Reading

Gratitude Checklist

Not Every End Is a Goal

Stop Trying to Be "Good Enough" by "Getting Better"

Learning from Sisyphus

Adventure, Tragedy, Comedy

Gualala (On Mortality and Gratitude)

Feeling Sorry for Yourself?

A Better Information Diet

Bad Is Stronger Than Good (Roy Bauermeister, Catrin Finkenauer, Ellen Bratslavsky, and Kathleen D. Vohs). One of the most influential papers ever written, this 2001 article from the Review of General Psychology explains much about the dynamics noted above.

Four Thousand Weeks: Time Management for Mortals (Oliver Burkeman, 2021)

Death: The End of Self-Improvement (Joan Tollison, 2019)

When Things Fall Apart: Heart Advice for Difficult Times (Pema Chödrön, 2016)

The Power of Meaning: Crafting a Life That Matters (Emily Esfahani Smith, 2017)

Gratitude (Oliver Sacks, 2015)

 

Photo of Point Reyes from Chimney Rock.

1x 10x 100x (On Leverage)

A theme in my practice is helping leaders determine which tasks and activities add the greatest long-term value (both professionally and personally), reallocate their time and attention accordingly, navigate around the obstacles that block their way, and resist the endless distractions that threaten to drag them off course.

This isn't about productivity. That framing often yields a focus on "doing more things," or "doing things more efficiently." The efficient use of our time and attention is important, but doing the wrong things more efficiently is an easy way to expend a lot of energy going nowhere. We should never confuse motion with progress. [1]

A more useful guiding principle is leverage. One way I discuss this with clients is by distinguishing among different orders of magnitude: 1x. 10x. 100x. These aren't precise measurements, but precision isn't the point--what matters is simply the recognition that some tasks and activities generate an immense amount of long-term value relative to others. So what can we do with this idea? And what are its implications?

Return on Attention

We're familiar with the concept of return on investment, but we usually think of the resource being invested as capital. This is understandable--most leaders operate under financial constraints, and grasping the ROI of a given initiative helps to ensure that their capital is being put to its best use. But we often fail to appreciate that our time and attention are also finite resources, and in some circumstances they're more limited than capital. [2] And going a step further, I'd argue that attention is a more important constraint than time. As I've noted before,

Time merely passes, while focused attention makes things happen. When we’re able to gather and direct our attention toward a particular task or interaction, we can have a significant impact in a minimal amount of time. But when we’re unable to bring our attention to bear on the work at hand, all the time in the world is insufficient. [3]

So we can assess the amount of leverage we derive from a given task or activity by understanding its return on attention. [4] A key is recognizing that "ROA" is a ratio, and both the numerator and the denominator matter. Consider the difference between a one-on-one with a direct report and a large-group meeting. A one-on-one is a tremendous "expenditure" of attention--each party is focused exclusively on the other person and their respective agenda. And yet the substantial return almost always justifies the expense. (Whenever this isn't the case, one or the other party will usually seek to conserve attention by cancelling the one-on-one.) [5]

In contrast, most large-group meetings don't consume much attention at all--we see this in the tendency to multi-task during such gatherings (which can be interpreted as an effort to maximize the relatively low ROA.) A problem is that in many organizational cultures there's a high tolerance for low-ROA meetings because no one regards their attention as a finite resource.

Again, note that the goal isn't mere efficiency or productivity. You could hold your one-on-ones en masse and feel very "efficient," or you could shorten your meetings to 10 minutes to be highly "productive," but you'd generate less long-term value as a result, not more.

  • How would you assess the ROA of the tasks and activities on your calendar?
  • Where might you gain leverage by maximizing the return?
  • Where might you gain leverage by minimizing the expenditure?

Events < Processes < Systems

When we first undertake a task or activity, we often conceptualize it as an event--a one-time occurrence that we prepare for and execute, after which we move on to other matters. But when we conduct a certain event repeatedly we generate more leverage by approaching it as a process--not a single discrete experience, but an ongoing, continuous series. And when we're engaged in a set of processes, we generate even more leverage by treating them as a system--an interrelated and organic whole. The goal is to continually generate more leverage by transforming events into processes and processes into systems.

For example, two areas where this often comes up in my practice are fundraising and enterprise sales. The inexperienced CEO or sales leader views a pitch to a prospect as an event--they prepare, they do their best, they move on. Over time more capable CEOs and sales leaders develop a process, which can take any number of forms: Qualifying prospects so they refine their pitch in a deliberate sequence of conversations. Limiting the number of conversations they have in a given day. Conducting retros after each conversation to learn from every iteration. Etc.

And the most capable CEOs and sales leaders integrate their various processes into a system, creating connections across a host of seemingly disparate tasks and activities: Engaging in self-care and managing their calendars so they're at their best when it matters most. Hiring the right team around them to augment their personal capabilities. Documenting their approach so they can teach others and delegate lower-leverage processes and events. Establishing a culture that attracts and retains the best talent. Ad infinitum.

  • Where do you see opportunities to approach events as processes?
  • How might you treat multiple processes as a single system?

Time Frame Matters

Leverage isn't always an inherent quality of a given task or activity. It can change dramatically depending on the relevant time frame. A good night's sleep is often a high-leverage activity because we're more effective at decision-making and emotion regulation when we're well-rested. [6] As a result it's usually a good investment to prioritize sleep over late-night work, which often adds relatively little value, because everything we do the following day will be of higher quality.

On some occasions it's truly necessary to stay up late or even pull an all-nighter, but these circumstances will likely become less frequent as we grow more senior. [7] And yet over the course of our entire careers, we'll add the most value by consistently getting the right amount of sleep, in part because doing so contributes to better health and longer life. [8]

Similarly, at any given moment pausing to reflect is usually a high-leverage task, because it helps to ensure that our time and attention are subsequently directed toward the most valuable ends. [9] In some rare situations, there's not be a second to spare, and we're best-served by simply following our intuition. But the longer the time frame--a day, a week, a year, a life--the more value we'll create by regularly reflecting on what we're doing and why. [10]

So is sleep a 1x activity, or 10x, or 100x? Is reflection a 1x task, or 10x, or 100x? It depends, of course. The dilemma is that tasks and activities that generate a great deal of value over long time frames are always important but rarely urgent. As I've noted before,

Important-but-not-Urgent activities are like brushing our teeth (or exercise or meditation): There are no real consequences if we skip a day, but if that becomes a trend we'll miss out on significant benefits and may run into serious problems. [11]

  • What Important-but-not-Urgent tasks and activities do you expect to generate the most value for you over time?
  • What boundaries will help you protect them on your calendar in the short term? [12]
  • What consistent habits will help you cultivate sustainable commitments? [13]

 


Footnotes

[1] Confusing Motion with Progress

[2] The Problems of Success

[3] To Stay Focused, Manage Your Emotions

[4] Growth, Profitability and Return on Attention

[5] The best guidance I'm aware of on how to conduct one-on-ones can be found Andy Grove's High Output Management, pages 72-79 (1st edition, 1983). Here's a passage I share with clients frequently:

A key point about a one-on-one. It should be regarded as the subordinate's meeting, with its agenda and tone set by him. There's good reason for this. Somebody needs to prepare for the meeting. The supervisor with eight subordinates would have to prepare eight times; the subordinate only once. So the latter should be asked to prepare an outline, which is very important because it forces him to think through in advance all of the issues and points he plans to raise. Moreover, with an outline, the supervisor knows at the outset what is to be covered and can therefore help to set the pace of the meeting according to the "meatiness" of the items on the agenda. An outline also provides a framework for supporting information, which the subordinate should prepare in advance. The subordinate should then walk the supervisor through all the material.

[6] For more on sleep and leadership effectiveness:

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

[8] For more on sleep, health and mortality:

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

[10] Time Horizons

[11] Importance vs. Urgency

[12] Happy Workaholics Need Boundaries, Not Balance

[13] Building Blocks (A Tactical Approach to Change)

 

Image courtesy of Inventors of Tomorrow.

Questions for a New Leader

Hello My Name Is by Emily Rose mlebemle 3511330328 EDIT

In late 1998 U.S. Navy Captain David Marquet was about to take command of a nuclear submarine, an assignment for which he'd spent months preparing. At the last minute, his superiors decided to put him in charge of a different boat, the Santa Fe, which was not only the worst-performing sub in the fleet, but also an entirely different type of craft, rendering much of the technical knowledge he'd absorbed irrelevant. This unexpected development caused him to approach his first interactions with his new sailors differently:

Walking the ship, I would ask the crew questions about their equipment and what they were working on. They were skeptical about these questions initially. That's because normally I would have been "questioning," not curious. I would have been asking questions to make sure they knew the equipment. Now I was asking questions to make sure I knew the equipment.

My unfamiliarity with the sub's technical details was having an interesting side effect: since I couldn't get involved with the specifics of the gear, I opened up space to focus on the people and their interactions instead, and to rely more on the crew than I normally would. [1]

Marquet developed a set of questions to guide these initial conversations, and (with a few minor changes) they're relevant for a new leader in any situation:

  • What are the things you are hoping I don't change?
  • What are the things you secretly hope I do change?
  • What are the good things about this organization we should build on?
  • If you were me, what would you do first?
  • Why isn't the organization doing better?
  • What are your personal goals for your time here?
  • What impediments do you have to doing your job?
  • What will be our biggest challenge?
  • What are your biggest frustrations about how the organization is currently run?
  • What is the best thing I can do for you?

 


Footnotes

[1] Turn the Ship Around!, pages 23-24 (L. David Marquet, 2012)

[2] Ibid, page 24.

For Further Reading

Conform to the Culture Just Enough

Building a Feedback-Rich Culture

The Six Layers of Knowledge and Better Conversations

How Leaders Create Safety (and Danger)

Andy Grove on the Right Kind of Fear

 

Photo by Emily Rose.

Holding Our Breath (On Maslow's Hierarchy)

Hold Your Breath by Jerry Crowley cuppojoe_trips 17764883509 EDIT 2

I've written before about the Hierarchy of Needs, a influential theory developed by the eminent 20th century psychologist Abraham Maslow. [1] According to this framework, human needs are ordered by their "prepotency" or their ability to command our attention and influence our behavior. This hierarchy begins with physiological needs, such as hunger, thirst and sleep:

Undoubtedly these physiological needs are the most prepotent of all needs. What this means specifically is that in the human being who is missing everything in life in an extreme fashion, it is most likely that the major motivation would be the physiological needs rather than any others. A person who is lacking food, safety, love, and esteem would most probably hunger for food more strongly than for anything else. [2]

But what happens to [a person's] desires when there is plenty of bread and when [their] belly is chronically filled? At once other (and higher) needs emerge and these, rather than physiological hungers, dominate the organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still higher) needs emerge, and so on. This is what we mean by saying the basic human needs are organized into a hierarchy of relative prepotency. [3, emphasis original]

As indicated by the first passage above, the needs that emerge once physiological needs are met are the following:

  • Safety: "Security; stability; dependency; protection; freedom from fear, from anxiety, and chaos; need for structure, order, law, limits; strength in the protector... [The safety needs] may serve as the almost exclusive organizers of behavior, and we may then fairly describe the whole organism as a safety-seeking mechanism." [4]
  • Belongingness and Love: "If both the physiological and the safety needs are fairly well gratified, there will emerge the love and affection and belongingness needs, and the whole cycle already described will repeat itself with this new center. Now the person will feel keenly, as never before, the absence of friends, or a sweetheart...or children. [They] will hunger for affectionate relations with people in general... Now [they] will feel sharply the pangs of loneliness, of ostracism, of rejection, of friendlessness, of rootlessness." [5]
  • Esteem: People "have a need or desire for a stable, firmly based, usually high evaluation of themselves, for self-respect, or self-esteem, and for the esteem of others. These needs may therefore be classified into two subsidiary sets. These are, first, the desire for strength, for achievement, for adequacy, for mastery and competence, for confidence in the face of the world, and for independence and freedom. Second, we have what we may call the desire for reputation or prestige (defining it as respect or esteem from other people), status, fame and glory, dominance, recognition, attention, importance, dignity or appreciation. [6]
  • Self-Actualization: "Even if all these needs are satisfied, we may still often (if not always) expect that a new discontent and restlessness will soon develop, unless the individual is doing what [they], individually [are] fitted for... What a [person] can be, [they] must be. This need we may call self-actualization... This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one idiosyncratically is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming. The specific form that these needs will take will of course vary greatly from person to person. [7]

Often inaccurately displayed as a pyramid--a figure never used by Maslow himself--the hierarchy of needs is better represented as a ladder, which evokes the image of hands and feet on multiple rungs simultaneously. [8] Yet while we can envision and pursue higher needs when lower needs aren't entirely fulfilled, this becomes difficult if not impossible when lower needs go unmet. There's an easy way to demonstrate this:

Hold your breath, for as long as you can, while timing yourself.

I just did and lasted 1 minute and 15 seconds. I haven't tried that since I was a kid in a swimming pool somewhere, and as I began I truly intended to give it my best effort--in part, of course, because some vestigial, childish part of me thought it would be "impressive," although who I was trying to impress is unclear. I was determined to hit the 1-minute mark, which was a little challenging, and once I did I thought momentarily of shooting for 2:00--but within seconds I realized that was going to be impossible. At 1:10 I had abandoned all pretense of appearing "impressive" and was just thinking about the breath I finally took 5 seconds later, to my immense relief.

And that is Maslow's hierarchy in action. When my physiological need for oxygen was being fully met, it was easy to think about higher-order social and symbolic needs. Even as my oxygen supply was being depleted, I still gave some thought to those higher needs, striving to hold out a little longer. But eventually the "prepotency" of my most fundamental need exerted itself and took control--thankfully.

Why engage in this trivial exercise? Because it vividly illustrates some aspects of Maslow's theory that have significant implications for our lives in the real world:

Our needs aren't mutually exclusive, nor do we pursue them in a fixed sequence. The need for safety doesn't emerge only after all of our physiological needs are met, and higher needs don't emerge only when we're completely secure. As lower needs are met more fully, we can climb further up the ladder, but we're usually reaching for higher rungs no matter where we stand.

Yet we rapidly descend the ladder when fundamental needs go unmet. Holding your breath to induce hypoxia may seem silly, and few people reading this will experience persistent hunger. But some of us will experience chronic pain--I have myself, several times. [9] Others will struggle with insomnia, an issue that comes up regularly in my practice. And still others will feel profoundly unsafe, even imperiled. On these occasions it's essential to reestablish a firm footing before we begin climbing again.

But we will continue to strive upwards, which is a function of evolutionary psychology. Lower needs lose their power as motivators and eventually disappear from consciousness when they're fully met. (If you actually tried holding your breath earlier, you probably felt a surge of gratitude when that first wave of oxygen hit your lungs. What a pleasure it was to breathe! How long did that last?) This dynamic bears a close relationship with a concept known as hedonic adaptation: We adapt to changed conditions more readily than we anticipate, and we tend to take any improvements for granted. [10]

This is a feature for the species that often feels like a bug in our individual lives. Once our physiological and safety needs are sufficiently fulfilled, we re-organize our lives around the need for belonging. With sufficient social connection, we focus on obtaining self-esteem and the regard of others within that community. It's readily apparent why evolution has solved for these needs, in this order, and why this benefits the species while often leaving us feeling unfulfilled or inadequate in some way. (Evolution has never cared much about our peace of mind.)

The concept of self-actualization--the final rung on Maslow's ladder--doesn't fit so neatly into this schema, and its purpose seems to transcend such utilitarian calculus. It's clear that whole, secure people who live in connection with others and enjoy their esteem will be more biologically successful than those who lack similar advantages. But it's not at all clear what evolutionary advantage is conferred through self-actualization, what purpose is served by "becoming everything that one is capable of becoming." Perhaps that's the question that Maslow is asking us each to answer.

 


Footnotes

[1] For more on my thinking on Maslow and his work, see the following:

[2] Motivation and Personality, 2nd edition, pages 36-37 (Abraham Maslow, 1970)

[3] Ibid, page 38.

[4] Ibid, page 39.

[5] Ibid, page 43.

[6] Ibid, page 45.

[7] Ibid, page 46.

[8] 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.

[9] On Pain and Hope

[10] For more on hedonic adaptation, see the following:

 

Photo by Jerry Crowley.

Hard Problems in Soft Cultures

'The Albanians' Mosaic, National Historical Museum, TiranaPhoto of "The Albanians" by Marcel Oosterwijk.

The philosophy of management by direction and control--regardless of whether it is hard or soft--is inadequate to motivate because the human needs on which this approach relies are today unimportant motivators of behavior. Direction and control are essentially useless in motivating people whose important needs are social and egoistic [i.e. related to self-esteem and reputation]. Both the hard and the soft approach fail today because they are simply irrelevant to the situation.

People deprived of opportunities to satisfy at work the needs that are now important to them behave exactly as we might predict--with indolence, passivity, resistance to change, lack of responsibility, willingness to follow the demagogue, unreasonable demands for economic benefits. It would seem that we are caught in a web of our own weaving.

~Douglas McGregor, 1957 [1]


1. Organizational Culture Today

A few years ago one of my clients was a C-level executive at a technology company that had met with early success but was now falling short of its goals. My client had deep expertise in their particular function, and they were hired into their role with the understanding that they would serve as a change agent, helping the company adopt new ways of operating in order to improve performance. They had strong support from senior management, positive relationships with the rest of the executive team, and substantial resources at their disposal. And even with all of these advantages, the process of fostering change was a profound struggle. Today I believe it's fair to say they would characterize their effort as a failure.

What happened? What got in the way? The most significant obstacle was the culture--the ways of working together and the norms that define acceptable behavior which emerge early in a group's existence and rapidly evolve from subtle preferences to clearly-established practices. [2] And despite all the platitudes about excellence and performance, and the heartfelt desire by many people to actually live up to those platitudes, at bottom this culture didn't want to change--it preferred the comforts of mediocrity. While the specifics are unique, this is a type of culture that I've seen often in my work as a coach to senior leaders, one that poses a particular set of challenges for anyone seeking to enhance a company's effectiveness, and one that is newly relevant in today's economic and political environment.

The complex relationship between culture and performance has recently become the subject of heightened scrutiny. Profitability has rapidly replaced growth as a metric of success, and leaders are responding accordingly, with layoffs, hiring freezes and other cost-cutting measures. This strategic shift has prompted a wave of commentary in the media and among management thinkers expressing concern about the negative impact not only on individual employees, but also on the cultures of the affected organizations. A central point seems to be that leaders pursuing this approach are making a fundamental error that will ultimately damage their culture and undermine performance.

I share some of these concerns. I believe layoffs should be conducted in a thoughtful, humane manner that affords departing employees as much dignity and grace as possible. I agree with the late Intel CEO Andy Grove that employees must not be afraid to speak up and share bad news, a fear that he characterized as "poison." [3] I care deeply about the role of empathy in organizational life, not because it's "nice," but because I think it contributes to productive working relationships and, ultimately, value creation. [4] And I've worked with many clients who've suffered in dysfunctional organizations. [5] In nearly two decades as an executive coach, I haven't seen any evidence that harsh, unforgiving cultures motivate talented knowledge workers to give their best effort.

But what some of these media reports and management thinkers seem to miss is that a host of organizations today are falling short of their potential not because their cultures are too hard, but because they're too soft--and the latter can be as dysfunctional as the former. I've talked with many leaders who are hesitant to hire candidates from a number of well-known companies because those organizations reliably foster low standards and a sense of complacency. A capable professional I know left a job at a high-profile company that paid in the mid-six figures because the environment was so unambitious and stultifying.

A major theme in my practice is helping leaders of growing companies develop cultures that attract and retain the best talent while avoiding the common pitfalls that plague so many late-stage organizations. [6] And although Andy Grove wanted every employee to feel free from the fear of reprisal for speaking up, he also believed that a healthy "fear of losing" was needed for companies to "sharpen their survival instinct." [7] I know many leaders who are striving to ignite a similar competitive spirit in their organizations and feel thwarted by a suffocating culture of mediocrity.

It's tempting to view problems with organizational culture as by-products of contemporary trends, but that's a narrow-minded view, the equivalent of old people (like me) perennially complaining about "Kids these days!" There are certainly some specifics unique to the 21st century [8], but the underlying problem has been with us for much longer, and to truly understand this we need to look to the history of management and one of its greatest theorists, Douglas McGregor. [9]

2. Theory X and Theory Y

A host of changes in management practice swept the business world in the mid-20th century, and one of the most important concepts in this context is known as "Theory Y," developed by McGregor during his career at MIT's Sloan School of Management. McGregor referred to conventional management as "Theory X":

With respect to people, [Theory X management] is a process of directing their efforts, motivating them, controlling their actions, modifying their behavior to fit the needs of the organization. Without this active intervention by management, people would be passive--even resistant--to organizational needs. They must therefore be persuaded, rewarded, punished, controlled--their activities must be directed... Behind this conventional theory there are several additional beliefs--less explicit, but widespread:

  • The average man is by nature indolent—he works as little as possible.
  • He lacks ambition, dislikes responsibility, prefers to be led.
  • He is inherently self-centered, indifferent to organizational needs.
  • He is by nature resistant to change. [10]

It's readily apparent how Theory X informed the labor practices of the early industrial era. Operating under the assumptions of Theory X, traditional businesses focused on increasing production with minimal concern for the people doing the producing. Such organizational cultures could be characterized as "produce-or-perish," in which people were rewarded strictly for performance, and productivity was maximized by imposing punishments for failure to meet certain standards or follow specified procedures. [11] But this "hard" version of Theory X inevitably yields problems in labor relations, McGregor noted:

Restriction of output, antagonism, militant unionism, subtle but effective sabotage of management objectives. This approach is especially difficult during times of full employment. [12, emphasis mine]

Unemployment in the United States plunged from an all-time high of 24.9 percent in 1933 during the Great Depression to a record low of 1.2 percent in 1944 at the height of World War II. [13] After a brief postwar increase, it dropped to 2.5 percent in 1953 and fluctuated for the next two decades but remained under 4 percent as late as 1969. During the anemic 1970s unemployment rose to a peak of 10.8 percent in 1982, but then dropped again until the financial crisis of 2008, peaking briefly at 10.0 percent the following year. And it's dropped ever since, despite a momentary surge due to the pandemic in 2020, and the latest figure for October 2022 is 3.7 percent. [14]

Undoubtedly many factors contributed to the abandonment of "hard Theory X" management practices, at least for knowledge workers in the developed world, but relatively low unemployment in the postwar era has to be counted among them. And yet the "produce-or-perish" approach to management is just one version of Theory X. The alternative adopted by most organizations in response to changing conditions continued to assume that employees are "indolent, lack ambition and dislike responsibility," but offered proverbial carrots instead of sticks. McGregor characterized this as "soft Theory X," in which management emphasizes employees' security and comfort in the hope that improved productivity will result:

The methods for directing behavior involve being permissive, satisfying people’s demands, achieving harmony. Then they will be tractable, accept direction. [15]

But there are also problems with this "soft Theory X" approach, as McGregor noted in 1957, and which we continue to observe today in any number of ostensibly enlightened organizations:

It leads frequently to the abdication of management--to harmony, perhaps, but to indifferent performance. People take advantage of the soft approach. They continually expect more, but they give less and less. [16]

McGregor's solution to this dilemma was to propose an entirely different approach to management, neither "hard" nor "soft," which rejects the underlying assumptions of Theory X and substitutes an alternative set of concepts rooted in findings from social psychology. He called this Theory Y:

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. [17, my emphasis]

The passage in bold above is critically important and yet often overlooked. Theory Y is not a "soft" version of Theory X, in which management drops the sticks in favor of an endless supply of carrots and hopes for the best. While the "hard" version of Theory X is obviously useless with knowledge workers who enjoy mobility in a low-unemployment environment, the "soft" version that so many organizations have adopted as an alternative is equally problematic. Why?

3. Maslow's Hierarchy

Here we turn to yet another groundbreaking figure from the 20th century, psychologist Abraham Maslow, a close contemporary and colleague of McGregor's. [18] In the 1940s Maslow developed a highly influential concept known as the "Hierarchy of Needs." [19] This theory proposes that human needs are organized in a series of sequential steps, starting with the most basic--and urgent--and ascending to more refined mental and emotional requirements:

  • Physiological needs, such as hunger, thirst and sleep.
  • Safety: "Security; stability; dependency; protection; freedom from fear, from anxiety, and chaos; need for structure, order, law, limits; strength in the protector."
  • Belongingness: "Love and affection and belongingness needs... [The] hunger for affectionate relations with people."
  • Esteem: "A need or desire for a stable, firmly based, usually high evaluation of themselves, for self-respect, or self-esteem, and for the esteem of others."
  • Self-Actualization: "Even if all these needs are satisfied, we may still often (if not always) expect that a new discontent and restlessness will soon develop, unless the individual is doing what [they], individually [are] fitted for... What a [person] can be, [they] must be. This need we may call self-actualization." [20]

Maslow didn't believe that the various levels of this hierarchy are mutually exclusive, or that higher needs emerge only after lower needs are entirely satisfied. [21] But he made clear that that the higher needs are felt more intensely when lower needs are largely met:

A person who is lacking food, safety, love, and esteem would most probably hunger for food more strongly than for anything else... But what happens to [a person's] desires when there is plenty of bread and when [their] belly is chronically filled? At once other (and higher) needs emerge and these, rather than physiological hungers, dominate the organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still higher) needs emerge, and so on. [22, emphasis original]

This highlights the fundamental limitation of "soft Theory X" management in a era of generally low unemployment for knowledge workers (which is unlikely to end anytime soon, recent economic news notwithstanding.) Most knowledge workers' primary needs for the physiological requirements of life and for safety are met in a modern economy. This is not always the case, as I noted in late 2020:

Why does [Maslow's hierarchy] matter? More specifically, why does it matter today? It matters because in the current environment many people aren't moving up the ladder, they're moving down, and I see a version of this in my coaching practice. Most of my clients are CEOs, and all of them are high-status professionals for whom work fulfills many different needs, which is also true for the vast majority of their employees. And from the perspective of my clients and their colleagues the current environment has created a profound sense of unease as needs that had been largely fulfilled long ago are now making themselves felt again, in some cases for the first time in years. [23]

Further, of course, there are many people whose primary needs may go unmet in times of economic distress: white- and blue-collar workers in industries undergoing disruption, people who lack the education or training to participate in the modern economy, and billions of others in the developing world. But while the concerns of these groups are of tremendous social and political importance, the vast majority of well-educated, highly-trained employees in the organizations I encounter have been living and working under very different conditions in "soft Theory X" cultures.

The dilemma encountered by organizations that have pursued a "soft Theory X" approach is that an endless supply of carrots only provides a surfeit of material for lower needs that employees have largely fulfilled, while doing little or nothing to meet their higher needs for belonging, esteem and self-actualization. "Soft Theory X" leaders who express disbelief at the complacent cultures in their organizations despite the lavish compensation and perks enjoyed by their employees are witnessing exactly what McGregor predicted over half a century ago, as spelled out in the passage that opens this essay:

The philosophy of management by direction and control--regardless of whether it is hard or soft--is inadequate to motivate because the human needs on which this approach relies are today unimportant motivators of behavior... People deprived of opportunities to satisfy at work the needs that are now important to them behave exactly as we might predict--with indolence, passivity, resistance to change, lack of responsibility, willingness to follow the demagogue, unreasonable demands for economic benefits. [24]

So what can be done? I'm hardly in a position to offer a definitive solution to one of the most important challenges we face in contemporary life--but I have some suggestions.

4. Bootcamps and Daycares

In 2019 I highlighted the problems of both "hard Theory X" and "soft Theory X" by contrasting their respective emphasis on accountability and empathy:

In a high-accountability, low-empathy culture there's a strong emphasis on production and minimal regard for people's needs. Rewards are allocated strictly for performance, and productivity is maximized through punishments for failure to follow clearly defined rules. This Bootcamp approach to management has been common throughout human history, and it remains the norm in many industries today....

In a low-accountability, high-empathy culture [aka a Daycare] meeting employees' needs is a paramount priority, resulting in warm relationships, a comfortable, friendly atmosphere and a relatively relaxed pace. Management maximizes employees' security and comfort in the hope that improved productivity will be the result. [25]

Accountability-and-Empathy

The problem is that most leaders believe that they're obligated to choose one approach or the other--they must either hold people accountable in a Bootcamp or empathize with them in a Daycare (and accept one or the other set of problems articulated by McGregor.) This is a false dichotomy, and yet it is consistently reinforced by the pre-existing culture. It's as difficult for a Bootcamp leader to actively empathize with their employees as it is for a Daycare leader to hold them accountable.

So how do you get to Paradise? How do you build a high-accountability, high-empathy culture? How might you bring McGregor's Theory Y to life? McGregor himself knew how hard this would be: "It is no more possible to create an organization today which will be a fully effective application of this theory than it was to build an atomic power plant in 1945." [26] But he was speaking 65 years ago, and I'm hopeful that today we're in a better position to try. The key lies with three ideas that are conceptually simple but tremendously difficult to put into practice:

  • Update your models: If, like many leaders, you believe you can either hold people accountable or empathize with them, the starting point is recognizing that this is merely a model, a working theory about how to interact with your employees most effectively--and it's one you can change.
  • Accountability is not bullying: We often assume accountability entails a combative stance in an antagonistic interaction, with the goal of enforcing compliance--but that's not holding someone accountable, that's bullying them.
  • Empathy is not agreement: Understanding someone’s perspective and their emotions while suspending our judgments about both does not necessarily imply that we agree with that perspective or believe that the resulting emotions are justified.

 

This is a companion piece to the following:

 


Footnotes

[1] "The Human Side of Enterprise," page 14 (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. For more on McGregor, see footnote 9.

[2] Consultant and professor Michael Watkins provides a more thorough definition in What Is Organizational Culture? (Harvard Business Review, 2013):

Culture is consistent, observable patterns of behavior in organizations...

Culture is a process of "sense-making" in organizations [which] moves the definition of culture beyond patterns of behavior into the realm of jointly-held beliefs and interpretations about "what is..."

Culture is a carrier of meaning. Cultures provide not only a shared view of "what is" but also of "why is." In this view, culture is about "the story" in which people in the organization are embedded, and the values and rituals that reinforce that narrative...

Culture is 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..."

Culture is a form of protection that has evolved from situational pressures. It prevents "wrong thinking" and "wrong people" from entering the organization in the first place.

[3] Andy Grove on the Right Kind of Fear

[4] For more on my thinking about empathy in organizational life:

[5] For more on my thinking about dysfunctional cultures:

[6] For more on my thinking about leadership in productive cultures:

[7] Andy Grove on the Right Kind of Fear

[8] 12 Companies with the Most Luxurious Employee Perks (Paul Schrodt, Money, 2017)

[9] McGregor was a fascinating figure, in part because his life story seems so unlikely. Born in Detroit in 1906, he earned an initial engineering degree in Burma, and then dropped out of an American engineering school to work as a gas station attendant and to help with a family enterprise that provided food, career guidance and spiritual support to unemployed workers. (The McGregor Fund is still in operation today.) He returned to school and went on to graduate studies in psychology at Harvard before becoming one of the first professors at MIT's Sloan School of Management, where he did his best-known work. Sadly, he died of a heart attack in 1964, age 58.

[10] McGregor, page 6.

[11] The term "produce-or-perish" is derived from work by psychologists Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, whose Mouton-Blake Managerial Grid was published in Harvard Business Review in 1964: Breakthrough in Organization Development. There are many connections between McGregor's work and Blake and Mouton, and for more on the latter, see Historical Background: The Mouton-Blake Managerial Grid in Accountability and Empathy (Are Not Mutually Exclusive).

[13] McGregor, page 6.

[13] Unemployment Rate by Year Since 1929 Compared to Inflation and GDP (Kimberley Amadeo, The Balance, 2022)

[14] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

[15] McGregor, page 6.

[16] Ibid, page 7.

[17] Ibid, pages 15-16.

[18] Maslow, born just two years after McGregor, taught at Brandeis, near Boston, in the 1950s and 60s while McGregor was at MIT, and Maslow's ideas had a deep and abiding influence on McGregor's work, most notably in the formulation of Theory Y. It's not clear to me how they met, but their philosophies and worldviews were deeply aligned, and it's not surprising that they were personally acquainted. It's also plausible that they crossed paths through their involvement with T-groups, which were in the process of becoming popular in the management training and social psychology circles of the era, including a hotbed at MIT. Warren Bennis discussed Maslow's influence on McGregor and their shared impact on the development of T-groups (aka "sensitivity training") in his sidebar to An Uneasy Look at Performance Appraisal, a 1957 article by McGregor that Harvard Business Review re-published in 1972. Bennis also noted that McGregor's book The Human Side of Enterprise was still selling 30,000 copies a year over a decade after its publication.

[19] Motivation and Personality (Abraham Maslow, 1970). Maslow first published "A Theory of Human Motivation" in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Review in 1943. This paper remained essentially intact as a foundational chapter in Motivation and Personality, his first and most influential book, not only in the 1st edition of 1954, but also in the definitive 2nd edition of 1970 and the posthumous 3rd edition of 1987.

[20] Ibid, pages 39-46.

[21] This attitude is sometimes reflected in the portrayal of Maslow's hierarchy as a pyramid, but he never employed that figure in his own work (although he didn't correct this misimpression, which helped popularize his ideas.) Instead, Maslow used a ladder, which evokes the image of hands and feet on multiple rungs simultaneously. These ideas are discussed in a thought-provoking paper that reinforces the value of Maslow's work while rejecting its customary presentation: 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). Note that 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.

[22] Maslow, pages 36-38.

[23] Tumbling Down Maslow's Hierarchy

[24] McGregor, page 14.

[25] Accountability and Empathy (Are Not Mutually Exclusive)

[26] McGregor, page 16.

 


Why "The Albanians"?

It's worth asking why I chose to illustrate this post with the photo below (by Marcel Oosterwijk) of "The Albanians," the immense mosaic that adorns the National Historical Museum in Tirana, Albania's capital. I studied the history of Eastern Europe with Tom Simons, a former U.S. Ambassador to Poland, and he impressed upon me a tremendous appreciation for the historical struggles of the Albanian people, particularly under the regime of Enver Hoxha, the authoritarian dictator whose 40-year rule encompassed the creation of "The Albanians" in 1980. Hoxha's brand of socialist utopianism strikes me as a form of magical thinking that's as unrealistic as "soft Theory X"--albeit much less productive, and far more oppressive.

'The Albanians' Mosaic, National Historical Museum, Tirana

Emotional Speed Bumps

Speed Bump by Andrew Rivett veggiefrog 3435380297 EDIT

A major theme in my practice is emotion regulation--helping clients better manage their inner emotional experience, and then articulate and express what they're feeling in ways that allow them to accomplish their goals more effectively. [1] Much of that work involves down-regulating strong negative emotions: anger, fear, grief.

But sometimes we're tripped up not by strong emotions, but by weak ones. We're not enraged, just annoyed. We're not terrified, just worried. We're not overwhelmed, just sad. These weak feelings rarely lead us to take significant steps that trigger profound remorse, but they often cause us to feel stuck in some way, making it more difficult to obtain a desired outcome or resulting in expenditures of time or effort that we later regret.

I've come to think of these feelings as "emotional speed bumps"--they create a slight barrier between us and a goal or a preferred activity, raising the necessary activation energy just enough that we fail to move forward. And in the process, while held in place, we fall prey to unproductive impulses--nothing catastrophic, just poor uses of our attention--or we procrastinate on a task that can be deferred, perhaps indefinitely, when we would have been better off addressing it.

Something--or someone--evokes annoyance, or worry, or sadness, and although these feelings aren't strong enough to derail us, they do disrupt us and distract us. We avoid that task at the top of our to-do list. We don't send that important message or have that tough conversation. We don't get up off the couch and take a walk or go to the gym. Instead, we pursue something easier. We find something on our to-do list that makes us feel "productive." We spend a little too much time on social media. We watch one more episode, or have one more drink, or go for one more level in the game. There are no tragedies here, no great losses--but eventually, at some point, we look back and wish we'd done things a little differently. What helps? Raising our awareness and taking action.

Raising Our Awareness

While awareness is rarely sufficient to drive change on its own, it's the necessary first step. You may already feel self-aware in some important ways--for example, you may have a clear sense of your strengths and weaknesses, your values, and the conditions under which you do your best work. [2] But that big-picture perspective doesn't necessarily translate into in-the-moment awareness of low-intensity emotions.

Some of those feelings may be right on the margins of consciousness--in which case they can still affect your behavior. [3] In this context it's important to distinguish between regulation and suppression. The former involves decoupling feelings and subsequent reflexive behavior, while the latter essentially entails pretending that we're not feeling what we're feeling. We can suppress emotions for brief periods of time, and, in some circumstances--such as a dire threat to our physical safety--this is a useful strategy. But we can't suppress emotions for long, and even making the attempt can be counter-productive. [4]

The key is increasing our conscious awareness of low-level feelings so that we can be intentional about the resulting behavior. There's no simple solution, but there are several practices that enable us to be more attuned to our emotions and to be more deliberate about our subsequent choices. A cheesy acronym I like--the only one I use in my practice--is getting MESSy:

  • Mindfulness: The goal of mindfulness here isn't stress reduction, but simply being more effective at noticing what we're feeling.
  • Exercise: Regular physical activity attunes us to the physiological manifestations of emotion and allows us to sense an emotional response sooner.
  • Sleep: Ample research shows that when we' re not well-rested our ability to sense and regulate emotion is impaired.
  • (Reducing Chronic) Stress: Chronic, low-level stress diminishes our ability to regulate emotion, and there are often stressors we can minimize with some modest changes in our daily routines. [5]

Taking Action

We often assume that our attitude determines our behavior, and that we act as we do because of underlying feelings. But this view of ourselves poses a challenge when a "speed bump" lies between our current state and a preferred alternative. We may conclude that our feelings are keeping us from engaging in desirable behaviors (or compel us to engage in undesirable behaviors), and somehow we're helpless bystanders, prisoners of our own psychology. We know we should act differently, but we don't feel like it.

However, rather than being a one-way causal relationship, it's a two-way street: While our attitude obviously informs and influences our behavior, our behavior also informs and influences our emotions in a dynamic and cyclical process. To be clear, we can't simply will ourselves out of profound dysfunction caused by strong negative emotions. But we do have much more power than we typically realize to consciously choose behaviors that will affect our attitude and influence the "speed bumps" that can get in the way of our goals and objectives. [6]

This shouldn't be interpreted as a command to "Stop whining and suck it up." Occasionally, yes, that's exactly what we need to hear, but such dictates are often counter-productive--even when we're just talking to ourselves. Rather, the key is to avoid relying on willpower, a finite and unreliable resource [7], and instead construct a robust and predictable set of routines that will make it more likely we'll follow our intentions, take action, and thereby influence our feelings. [8]

William Faulkner supposedly said, "I only write when inspiration strikes. Fortunately it strikes at 9:00 every morning." [9] He didn't wait until he felt like writing--if it was 9:00, it was time to write. You may not require such a rigid schedule, but one of the values of a predetermined routine is that it makes it easier to follow through with commitments we've made (to others or ourselves), whether or not we feel like it. Another writer, Steven Pressfield, contrasts the "amateur," who works when they feel like it, with the "pro," who has a very different point of view:

When we turn pro, everything becomes simple. Our aim centers on the ordering of our days in such a way that we overcome the fears that have paralyzed us in the past. We now structure our hours not to flee from fear, but to confront it and overcome it. We plan our activities in order to accomplish an aim. And we bring our will to bear so that we stick to this resolution. This changes our days completely. It changes what time we get up, and it changes what time we go to bed. It changes what we do and what we don't do. It changes the activities we engage in and with what attitude we engage in them. It changes what we read and what we eat. It changes the shape of our bodies. [10]

 


Footnotes

[1] For more on emotion regulation:

[2] From Peter Drucker's Managing Oneself:

Most people, especially highly gifted people, do not really know where they belong until they are well past their mid-twenties. By that time, however, they should know the answers to the three questions: What are my strengths? How do I perform? and, What are my values? And then they can and should decide where they belong. Or rather, they should be able to decide where they do not belong.

[3] For example, see Effects of subconscious and conscious emotions on human cue–reward association learning (Noriya Watanabe and Masahiko Haruno, Scientific Reports, 2015)

[4] For more on the impact of suppressing emotions:

[5] For more on these MESSy practices:

[6] Adapted from Attitude and Behavior

[7] Against Willpower (Carl Erik Fisher, Nautilus, 2017)

[8] Building Blocks (A Tactical Approach to Change)

[9] Quote Investigator

[10] Turning Pro: Tap Your Inner Power and Create Your Life's Work, page 72 (Steven Pressfield, 2012) I discuss Pressfield's work further in Leadership as Professional Practice.

 

Photo by Andrew Rivett.

Leader as Shock Absorber

Shock-Absorber

One of a leader's most important functions is serving as a shock absorber, soaking up forces generated by one part of the organization (or from outside the organization) and distributing them elsewhere, and doing so in such a way that the entire system operates more effectively. This is a simple metaphor, but it has some implications that are worth making explicit:

A shock absorber cushions the blow--it doesn't prevent the flow of force.

If a shock absorber tried to prevent force from flowing, it would A) collapse and then B) wreak havoc on the system. A useful shock absorber serves a dampening effect, diminishing a force's intensity or frequency before passing it along. But it doesn't try to stop force from being transmitted throughout the system. The controlled movement of force through a system is what makes the system useful.

The equivalent for a leader is translating forces from within and beyond the organization into forms of energy that can be productively absorbed by the intended targets.

A shock absorber pushes back--in both directions.

An effective shock absorber doesn't just act as a conduit, passing force along to adjacent elements in the system. It also generates resistance, which increases in proportion to the force being applied. This resistance is tempered so it won't exceed pre-determined limits, and it's bi-directional--it flows up as well as down.

The equivalent for a leader is knowing when and how to offer resistance, not only to colleagues and subordinates but also to superiors and external stakeholders.

A shock absorber is, above all else, resilient.

A well-designed shock absorber will last a long time over rough terrain, and not because it's tough, but because it's resilient. A resilient component deforms under pressure while retaining its internal consistency, later returning to its original form. Iron is tough, but it's not resilient--when it reaches its breaking point it shatters into pieces.

The equivalent for a leader is acknowledging the stress of leadership, obtaining useful forms of support well before they're needed, and committing to self-care practices that foster high performance.

 


For Further Reading

On Translation

On Resistance

On Self-Care

 

The Balcony and the Dance Floor

Dance Floor by Quinn Dombroski quinnanya 16124008978 EDIT

In 2002 Harvard Kennedy School professors Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky introduced a profoundly useful metaphor to the management literature:

Any military officer knows the importance of maintaining the capacity for reflection, especially in the "fog of war." Great athletes must simultaneously play the game and observe it as a whole. We call this skill "getting off the dance floor and going to the balcony," an image that captures the mental activity of stepping back from the action and asking, "What's really going on here?"

Leadership is an improvisational art. You may be guided by an overarching vision, clear values, and a strategic plan, but what you actually do from moment to moment cannot be scripted. You must respond as events unfold. To use our metaphor, you have to move back and forth from the balcony to the dance floor, over and over again throughout the days, weeks, months, and years. While today's plan may make sense now, tomorrow you’ll discover the unanticipated effects of today’s actions and have to adjust accordingly. [1]

Heifetz and Linsky were addressing the need to assess organizational responses to a leader's efforts to initiate change over time and the importance of creating space in that process for regular reflection. While that is a theme in my practice [2], I also talk with leaders on a daily basis about a wide range of scenarios in which they must move between the balcony and the dance floor in the moment:

  • An executive team meeting
  • A pitch to a prospect or investor
  • A talk at an all-hands or a conference
  • A feedback conversation with a direct report
  • A Q&A session with employees or media members

In all of these settings--and countless others--a leader must simultaneously be an active participant on the dance floor while also observing the proceedings from the balcony. The ability to act in the moment is essential--it's rarely possible to hit "Pause" in a contentious meeting or a hostile Q&A session and take time to reflect on why things are going badly. All this is easy to grasp conceptually, but it can be difficult to put into practice. If you're a leader striving to occupy both spots at once, what helps? From the balcony, you gather data from others as well as data from within, and then use that information to guide your steps on the dance floor.

The Balcony, Part 1: Data from Others (aka Social Intuition)

Neuroscientist Richard Davidson has developed a framework for understanding the relationship among specific patterns of neural activity in the brain, our internal emotional response, and our subsequent interpersonal behavior. [3] Davidson calls this model the "dimensions of emotional style," one of which is "social intuition":

People differ dramatically in how attuned they are to nonverbal social cues. Extreme insensitivity to these signals is characteristic of people on the autism spectrum, who struggle to read facial expressions and other social cues, but people who fall well short of a clinical diagnosis can also be socially deaf and blind, with devastating consequences for personal and professional relationships. Conversely, acute sensitivity to the emotional state of others is central to both empathy and compassion, since being able to decode and understand social signals means we can response to them. [4]

We all tend toward a given point on the social intuition scale on the basis of our inborn capabilities and formative experiences, but if you find yourself insufficiently attuned to others' thoughts and feelings you can increase your sensitivity. This is the result of what's known as "neuroplasticity"--your brain retains the potential for growth and change throughout your life. [5] A starting point in that process is simply heightening your awareness of the potential data at your disposal.

The idea that precisely "93% of communication is non-verbal" is a myth that has been refuted by Albert Mehrabian, the UCLA psychologist whose research was the basis for that figure. [6] That said, a great deal of communication obviously occurs via facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, and vocables (which are sounds that aren't actual words but nonetheless convey meaning, such as "Mmmm," which generally indicates "Yes, continue.")

It can be harder to gather and interpret such data while working virtually, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Investing in the right equipment can help immensely, not only in reading the social cues of others but also in conveying your intended messages with greater accuracy and fidelity. [7]

You can also improve your ability to focus on the various forms of non-verbal communication available to you in any given moment. This involves directing your attention, and the most effective tool for improved "attention management" is mindfulness meditation. As I've written before,

Mindfulness...[is] merely the process of noticing what's happening around us, observing where our attention is going as a result, and sensing our cognitive, emotional and physical responses. A heightened sense of mindfulness allows us to direct our attention toward an intended object of focus and away from undesirable distractions... We can cultivate this ability through a number of practices, most notably meditation. A key is viewing meditation as a workout in attention management rather than as a break from the stress of daily life. [8]

While I've addressed the needs of people seeking to increase their sensitivity to the thoughts and feelings of others because that's more common in my practice, it's also possible to be hyper-sensitive to such social cues, and in extreme cases they can become a source of distraction or cause crippling self-consciousness. Here, too, mindfulness meditation can help, and in this context there's a parallel with the work of Jon Kabat-Zinn, who has championed meditation as a means of managing the distracting and even overwhelming effects of chronic pain. [9]

The Balcony, Part 2: Data from Within (aka Self-Awareness)

As we gather data from others' non-verbal cues, we also need to gather data from within, which takes several different forms. "Self-awareness" is another dimension in Davidson's model, although he employs the term in a very specific sense, referring to the ability to perceive the physiological manifestations of emotion:

Some people have a very hard time 'feeling' their feelings: It may take them days to recognize that they're angry, sad, jealous or afraid. At this extreme of the Self-Awareness dimension are people who are Self-Opaque. At the other end are Self-Aware people, who are acutely conscious of their thoughts and feelings and attuned to the messages their body sends them... This heightened sensitivity can be beneficial in several ways. It appears to play a crucial role in empathy, the ability to feel what others are feeling, and by allowing you to understand your own emotional state it can help you avoid misunderstandings... [10]

Note that emotions are physiological events well before they register in consciousness. We take in a situation, interpret it in some way, and the meaning we ascribe to it yields a pre-conscious emotional response. As a consequence neurotransmitters are released, triggering a flurry of bodily activity--an elevated heart rate, or more rapid breathing, or "butterflies" in the stomach--and only then are we aware that we're "having a feeling." People who Davidson describe as "self-opaque" take longer to access this internal data and to associate it with an emotional state.

But as with social intuition we can also be hyper-sensitive to our internal data, which at extreme levels can cause panic attacks or hypochondria. [11] Hyper-sensitivity on this dimension is more common in my practice, although it typically takes the form of anxiety or obsessive rumination. [12] In both cases, whether you're trying to increase or decrease your sensitivity to these physiological cues, Davidson again recommends mindfulness meditation:

How can the same practice both increase and decrease Self-Awareness?... Mindfulness meditation...has a regulating effect on the mind. If you lack Self-Awareness, it can help make internal sensations more salient and vivid. If you are hyper-aware, feeling and hearing your internal signals all too vividly and loudly, it can bring about a kind of equanimity so you are not as bothered by this internal noise. That equanimity eventually helps the noise itself die down. [13]

Self-awareness also involves other forms of internal data, such as intuition. While Davidson's concept of social intuition involves being attuned to the perceptions of others, we must also attend to our own. And we need not view intuition as some form of mysticism. Economist and psychologist Herbert Simon offers a straightforward definition: "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." [14]

Note Simon's emphasis on expertise--psychologists Gary Klein and Daniel Kahneman have determined that intuition is more reliable in circumstances that are more predictable and which provide us with feedback on our decisions, so that we learn over time. [15] This is why experience in the settings described above, from team meetings to media sessions, is so useful--even if we can't consciously predict what will happen in any given moment, when we have a broad base of experience to draw upon we're more effective at sub-conscious pattern recognition.

While we're well-served by acknowledging our intuition, we also need to be cautious before leaping to any specific conclusions on that basis. Years ago my colleague Bonnie Wentworth taught me to distinguish between A) an intuitive sense that something is happening and worth paying attention to, and B) my cognitive interpretation of just what is happening. Even when the latter isn't quite accurate, the former is usually worth exploring further.

The Dance Floor (aka Self-Monitoring)

Having gathered all this data, you now have to put it to use in your interactions with others--and in so doing move fluidly from the balcony to the dance floor and back again. But what does this mean in practice? One useful model is derived from a concept known as "self-monitoring." Psychologists Richard Lennox and Raymond Wolfe, building on earlier work by Mark Snyder, developed a 13-question instrument to measure this quality. [16] Their framework incorporates both aspects of the data-gathering process above, self-awareness and social intuition, and the first seven items in the instrument refer to one's "ability to modify self-presentation":

1. In social situations, I have the ability to alter my behavior if I feel that something else is called for.

2. I have the ability to control the way I come across to people, depending on the impression I wish to give them.

3. When I feel that the image I am portraying isn't working, I can readily change it to something that does.

4. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and different situations.

5. I have found that I can adjust my behavior to meet the requirements of any situation I find myself in.

6. Even when it might be to my advantage, I have difficulty putting up a good front.

7. Once I know what the situation calls for, it's easy for me to regulate my actions accordingly.

The final six items in the instrument refer to one's "sensitivity to expressive behaviors of others":

8. I am often able to read people's true emotions correctly through their eyes.

9. In conversations, I am sensitive to even the slightest change in the facial expression of the person I'm conversing with.

10. My powers of intuition are quite good when it comes to understanding others' emotions and motives.

11. I can usually tell when others consider a joke to be in bad taste, even though they may laugh convincingly.

12. I can usually tell when I've said something inappropriate by reading it in the listener's eyes.

13. If someone is lying to me, I usually know it at once from that person's manner of expression.

It's not necessary to formally complete the instrument to make use of the conceptual framework. [17] Simply review these items and consider the extent to which they already feel accurate for you, as well as where you might benefit from being more deliberate. (Items 4 and 6 are "reverse-scored," meaning that affirmative answers imply lesser capabilities.)

Such heightened awareness won't automatically result in behavior change, but it's the necessary first step. That said, making the effort to track all this additional data and translate it into more effective interactions is likely to be fatiguing, at least at first. For a decade I helped train MBA students at Stanford in coaching principles and practices, which requires a increased degree of self-monitoring, and they inevitably experienced their first coaching sessions as exhausting. [18] But as I've noted before, persistence in any discipline tends to yield a degree of ease and increased stamina:

With repetition we eventually relax, and the process becomes more automatic and require less deliberation.This doesn't mean that we lose all awareness of our abilities, but when engaged in an activity we don't need to focus intensely on our goal to hit the mark. [19]

A final point on self-monitoring and authenticity, topics that psychologist Adam Grant and author and researcher Brené Brown explored in an online debate in 2016. Grant initially took a position that could be paraphrased as "authenticity is overrated," citing a set of studies showing that people who are high self-monitors generally experience better outcomes in professional life. [20] But Brown rejected Grant's premise that authenticity and self-monitoring are inversely related:

In my research I found that the core of authenticity is the courage to be imperfect, vulnerable, and to set boundaries. ...I would argue that authenticity requires almost constant vigilance and awareness about the connections between our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. It also means staying mindful about our intentions. Real authenticity actually requires major self-monitoring and isn't, as Grant proposes, the lack of self-monitoring. In fact, setting boundaries is, by definition, self-monitoring. [21]

Being more deliberate about your behavior with the intention of guiding an interaction to a better outcome may feel novel or uncomfortable, but that certainly doesn't mean you're being "inauthentic." As I've written before, we may feel that way when we view our authentic self as something we discover, but I think it's more accurate (and more productive) to view our authentic self as something we create:

When we're tackling new tasks or trying out new behaviors that cause discomfort or require fatiguing conscious thought, rather than interpret those feelings as signs of "inauthenticity" we can view them merely as evidence of inexperience. Note that this approach doesn't require us to persist indefinitely with everything that feels like a struggle--we may conclude that certain tasks or behaviors simply can't be added to our repertoire, or that the effort required is too great or the reward too meager. But we shouldn't be dissuaded from the attempt by fears that we're acting "inauthentically." [22]

 


Footnotes

[1] A Survival Guide for Leaders (Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky, Harvard Business Review, 2002)

[2] For more on creating space for reflection, see the following:

[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, 2012)

[4] Ibid, page 51.

[5] What is brain plasticity, and why is it so important? (Duncan Banks, The Conversation, 2016)

[6] For more on Mehrabian and non-verbal communication, see the following:

[7] Better Conditions for Working Remotely

[8] Don't Just Do Something, Sit There! (Mindfulness for Busy People)

[9] For more on Jon Kabat-Zinn's work, see the following:

[10] Davidson and Begley, pages 54-55.

[11] Ibid, page 234.

[12] Why You Can't Stop Thinking About Something

[13] Davidson and Begley, page 237.

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

[15] Strategic decisions: When can you trust your gut? (Olivier Sibony and Dan Lovallo interviewing Daniel Kahneman and Gary Klein, McKinsey Quarterly, 2010)

[16] Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale (Richard Lennox and Raymond Wolfe, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984). For a comparison between Lennox and Wolfe's scale and Synder's original work, see Snyder's Self-Monitoring Scale and Lennox and Wolfe's Revised Self-Monitoring Scale (John Roob, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1994).

[17] Should you want to complete the instrument, while I'm unable to find a version of Lennox and Wolfe's revised scale that can be scored (or even a data set of results for comparison), you can complete Snyder's original Self-Monitoring Scale. Snyder's version has 25 true/false questions, while Lennox and Wolfe's 13 items are scored on a six-point Likert scale (0 = always false to 5 = always true). But as with any psychometric instrument, bear in mind that the map is not the territory.

[18] Three Conversations (On Better Communication)

[19] Conscious Competence in Practice

[20] Unless You're Oprah, "Be Yourself" Is Terrible Advice (Adam Grant, The New York Times, June 4, 2016). I discuss the Grant-Brown debate further in Cautionary Tales (Authenticity at Work).

[21] My response to Adam Grant’s New York Times Op/Ed (Brené Brown, LinkedIn, June 5, 2016)

[22] Leadership and Authenticity

 

Photo by Quinn Dombroski.

Jeff Pfeffer on Flattery

Mae West by tom-margie 1542814707 EDIT

Flattery will get you everywhere.

~Mae West [1]

I'm a student of the work of Stanford professor Jeff Pfeffer for many reasons, including his rigorous pragmatism and no-bullshit attitude. (This is even reflected in the title of one of his books: Leadership BS.) [2] A client recently observed a pattern of obvious flattery being directed toward a high-status member of a group, and my client expressed some surprise that such seemingly insincere praise would have the desired effect. This brings to mind Pfeffer's comments on the subject:

One of the best ways to make those in power feel better about themselves is to flatter them. The research literature shows how effective flattery is as a strategy to gain influence. Flattery works because we naturally come to like people who flatter us and make us feel good about ourselves and our accomplishments, and being likable helps build influence. Flattery also works because it engages the norm of reciprocity--if you compliment someone, that person owes you something in return just as surely as if you had bought the individual dinner or given a gift-because a compliment is a form of gift. And flattery is effective because it is consistent with the self­-enhancement motive that exists in most people...

Most people underestimate the effectiveness of flattery and therefore underutilize it. If someone flatters you, you essentially have two ways of reacting. You can think that the person was in­sincere and trying to butter you up. But believing that causes you to feel negatively about the person whom you perceive as insincere and not even particularly subtle about it. More importantly, think­ing that the compliment is just a strategic way of building influence with you also leads to negative self-feelings-what must others think of you to try such a transparent and false method of influence? Al­ternatively, you can think that the compliments are sincere and that the flatterer is a wonderful judge of people--a perspective that leaves you feeling good about the person for his or her interpersonal perception skill and great about yourself, as the recipient of such a positive judgment delivered by such a credible source. There is simply no question that the desire to believe that flattery is at once sincere and accurate will, in most instances, leave us susceptible to being flattered and, as a consequence, under the influence of the flatterer. So, don't underestimate--or underutilize--the strategy of flattery. University of California-Berkeley professor Jennifer Chatman, in an unpublished study, sought to see if there was some point beyond which flattery became ineffective. She believed that the effectiveness of flattery might have an inverted U-shaped relationship, with flattery being increasingly effective up to some point but beyond that becoming ineffective as the flatterer became seen as insincere and a "suck up." As she told me, there might be a point at which flattery became ineffective, but she couldn't find it in her data. [3]

I'm not suggesting that you should "suck up" to anyone, in part because such behavior is usually observed by others and may have an undesirable effect on them. (My client now has a new--and unflattering--perspective on the other members of the group noted above.) But Pfeffer challenges us to see the world not as we want it to be, but as it really is, and it's worth bearing in mind that we're highly susceptible to the effects of unscrupulous flattery even when we know it's insincere.

 


Footnotes

[1] Mae West (1893-1980) was an actress known for her risque persona and double entendres.

[2] For more on what I've learned from Pfeffer, see the following:

[3] Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don't, pages 33-35 (Jeff Pfeffer, 2010)

 

Photo of Mae West via tom-margie.