Ed Batista

Significance Junkies

Writer and comedian Seth MacFarlane--the creator of the animated series Family Guy--was recently interviewed by Terry Gross on Fresh Air.  Here's the very last question they discussed:

Terry Gross: One more question, and I know you've been asked this a lot, but, on September 11th you were supposed to be on that plane that was supposed to fly from Boston to L.A. but instead was hijacked and flown into the north tower of the World Trade Center, and you were late, your travel agent gave you the wrong time, so you missed being on that catastrophic flight.  Do you ever think of the rest of your life as being this kind of gift, because you, you just, it could have all ended for you that day?

Seth MacFarlane: One of my favorite quotes by Carl Sagan is that we are as a species, and as a culture, we are significance junkies.  We love attaching significance to everything, even when there really is no significance and something is just a coincidence, and this is a perfect example to me of something, you know, really, in all honesty, not to sound cold, but, you know, I don't think of it that way.  I, I think of it as, you know, I'm living the same way in 2011 as I was in 1999, and the reason for that is that, you know, I had missed a lot of flights for being late, I'm a perpetually late person, you know, every flight that takes off, you gotta figure somebody's missing the flight or somebody's late, and on top of that, you know, who knows how many times a day we have similar close calls as the one that I had, you know?  I mean this morning, crossing the street, if I had crossed five minutes later I would have been hit by a car.  I, I, who knows?  So, in my case, you know, obviously the day itself was a tragedy and a disaster, but if we're just talking about my case, um, it doesn't strike me as something that I am attaching an unbelievable amount of significance to because of those reasons, because I, I've missed a bunch of flights.

In 1997 Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan co-authored The Demon-Haunted World, a "passionate plea for scientific literacy," according to Publishers Weekly, and one of the book's last chapters, titled "Significance Junkies," addresses the many ways in which we misinterpret statistics and willfully substitute magical thinking for clear-headed understanding.  One example they cite is the common attribution of "hot" and "cold" streaks and other aspects of athletic performance to quasi-mystical sources:

We seek meaning, even in random numbers.  We're significance junkies... So what?  What's the harm of a little mystification?  It sure beats boring statistical analyses.  In basketball, in sports, no harm.  But as a habitual way of thinking, it gets us into trouble in some of the other games we play. [p 349]

Sagan's use of the term "junkies" is apt; we crave significance just as any addict craves their drug of choice.  And when it's not readily available, we invent it--we imagine significance all around us.  This is harmless entertainment when we're talking about certain topics--but as Sagan and Druyan suggest, it can also pose a real problem.

Why am I talking about this on a site focused on executive coaching and change management?  Because I think one of the areas where our "significance addiction" does pose a real problem is in our working relationships, particularly when we're in a leadership role.

Our craving for significance leads us to see meaning in randomness, to hear signals instead of noise.  We mistakenly believe it's all about US--that people are thinking about US, noticing US, responding to US--when, from their perspective it's really all about THEM--and they're thinking about something else, noticing someone else, and responding to a whole host of factors, ranging from what they ate for breakfast to the state of their retirement portfolio.

We matter less than we think we do, and the universe is more random than we want it to be--and those can be painful truths to accept.  (Sagan and Druyan open their "Significance Junkies" chapter with an epigram from mathematician and philosopher Henri Poincaré:  "We also know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling.")

We crave significance and invent meaning not because we're stupid, but because we're brilliant; it hurts like hell to admit our insignificance, and we find consolation in endlessly inventive delusions of relevance.  But it's really not all about us, and once we realize that we can enter into a different kind of conversation with the people around us.  Instead of simply assuming that our actions are the basis for their reactions, we can get curious about what they really are thinking about and noticing and responding to.  It may be humbling, but we'll undoubtedly learn a lot in the process.

I'm all too aware of a paradox at the heart of this post: While it's never entirely about us, sometimes, in part, it truly is about us, particularly when we're in a leadership role, and something we said or did innocuously has had a significant and unintended impact on someone else.  I'm certainly not suggesting we ignore that dynamic--increasing awareness of our impact on others is at the heart of my work as a coach.  But I would draw a distinction between improving our ability to discern when we've had an impact on others on the basis of observed behavior, and letting go of the assumptions and imaginary scenarios that spring from our craving for significance.

Photo by Ella's Dad.  Yay Flickr and Creative Commons.

Coaching, Advice and Feedback

Good coaches understand how important it is not to provide too much advice or feedback to clients.  A fundamental tenet of coaching is that the client already has the answers that are right for him- or herself, and the coach's primary role is to ask the challenging, provocative or supportive questions that will allow the client to discover those answers within.

But this isn't to say that coaches should never offer advice or feedback--there are times when it's essential to do so, and withholding such information from the client would be as unhelpful as providing too much.  The key is finding the right balance, both over the course of each individual coaching relationship, and in any given conversation.  Below are excerpts from three texts that have had an important influence on me as a coach, particularly in the context of my work at Stanford, where one of my primary roles over the last five years has been helping MBAs develop coaching skills to support their effectiveness as leaders and managers.

---

From Co-Active Coaching (2nd edition), by Laura Whitworth et al, one of the primary texts in Stanford's Leadership Fellows Program (and for many years in our Leadership Coaching and Mentoring course, which was integrated with the Fellows program this year and which provided the basis for the new Fellows curriculum):

Opinions and Advice

The urge to give good advice and to be helpful is so strong that it is sometimes nearly unmanageable.  This is another case in which self-management is a judgment call, not a rule to follow.

We emphasize that clients are naturally creative, resourceful, and whole and that they do have the answers or know how to find them.  Still, at times it may seem pointless to withhold your knowledge or experience when it is clearly relevant and could spare clients time, money and effort.  As long as you are conscientious about framing the conversation as your experience and encouraging clients to find their own best way while exploring a number of alternative pathways, your experience will be seen as one more potential course of action and not the "expert's" way.  In short, don't make it a rule that you will never share an opinion or a bit of advice.  Self-management is a context of discretion, always in the client's best interests.

This discretion also extends to sharing your personal story.  Most of the time, it's best to keep your personal story to yourself... In almost all cases, it is inappropriate and a waste of the client's time for you to share your personal story.  We say "in almost all cases" quite intentionally, because there may be times when a little of your story will be important in building trust and relationship with a client.  The fact that you are human, not just an anonymous impersonal resource will contribute toward building a strong, co-active relationship. [p 112]

Asking Permission

One of the most important techniques the coach uses to remind clients that they are in charge of the coaching direction is to ask permission: "May we work with this issue?" "Can I tell you what I see?" ""Would you like some feedback on that?" [emphasis mine]  When the coach asks permission, it demonstrates that clients have power in the relationship.  It demonstrates, too, that the coach knows the limits of his or her power in the relationship.  Asking permission is a sign of self-management on the coach's part and allows clients to take responsibility for managing their relationship and their work.  Clients are honored when you ask permission; their boundaries are respected.  This is especially important when the issue you'd like to work on is unusually intimate or make make clients uncomfortable: "May I tell you what I see about the way you've been handling this?" [p 114]

---

From The Coaching Manager: Developing Top Talent in Business, by James Hunt and Joseph Weintraub, the other primary text in the Leadership Fellows Program:

The Coaching Mirror

Self-assessment based on personal reflection alone may not be enough to help employees clearly see how they are doing and what they need to learn to improve their performance.  Feedback is a component of coaching episodes.  it may be one of the most difficult aspects of coaching.  We suggest that coaching managers have the goal of building a "mirror" in which employees can see themselves more clearly.  Feedback isn't meant to create change, it is meant to inform. [emphasis mine] [p 27]

Observing What is Important, Effectively

...Observational data are the best data of all.  The coach watches the coachee and, ideally, pays attention to what the coachee did and said, without interpreting the meaning, at least initially.  In this critical way, the coach is especially valuable to the coachee, serving as the coachee's eyes and ears and being in position to offer the coachee fairly accurate feedback.

Unfortunately, even with firsthand data, observer bias quickly becomes a problem.  Feelings about the individual being coached; a tendency to identify od "dis-identify" with that person; recent memories of great or terrible performance; race, gender and cultural and personal style difference between the coach and coachee; these can all make it harder for the coaching manager to focus on what the individual employee is actually saying or doing.  The coaching mirror is built from data, not inference... The most important point, however, is to acknowledge that such bias exists and is a potential problem for all of us.  [p 29]

Providing Balanced and Helpful Feedback

Feedback represents the coach's view of the gap between an individual's performance and what improved performance might be like, if indeed there is a gap.  (In the case of a strong performer, the gap might be "upside down," meaning that the coachee doesn't appreciate that he or she possesses a particular strength.)  Feedback serves as a source of information to coachees, helping them assess the gap between desired and current performance.  Ideally, feedback holds up an accurate mirror to coachees, so they can see themselves and take ownership of their actions or results. [emphasis mine]  Once coachees have defined learning issues or goals and offered self-assessments of their effectiveness in relation to those areas ("I think I need to be better at..."), feedback alone may be enough to help them improve their performance...

In addition to the problems associated with building a useful coaching mirror, there are other barriers to the effective use of feedback.  Simply put, nice people don't like to criticize... However, feedback should always be delivered in a way that will maintain the dignity of the coachee, particularly if it is critical information.

When coaching managers deliver feedback, a caring attitude is essential.  If coachees define learning goals, they are allowing themselves to be vulnerable to the process of receiving feedback.  They have let their defenses down, at least with regard to particular learning needs.  It is the coach's job to halp maintain an individual's sense of comfort, to the highest degree possible, so their collaborative efforts can continue.

However, this does not mean that such feedback can't be critical.  Indeed, it often has to be critical.  According to our interviews, coaching managers find that to withhold critical feedback as a means of supporting an employee is often seen as gratuitous.  In a coaching friendly environment, critical feedback is taken less personally, particularly if it is directed at the learner's actual goals. [pp 29-30]

---

From Helping: How to Offer, Give and Receive Help, by Edgar Schein, one of the most useful books I've ever read in this field--I've been meaning to write a review for ages--and a book that Prof. Carole Robin calls the "third, unofficial text" in our Leadership Fellows curriculum:

Feedback as an Essential Helping Process

Feedback, by definition, is information that helps one reach goals by showing that the current progress is either on or off target.  If it is off target, that feedback automatically triggers corrective action... Feedback is essential to the helping process when the client asks how to remain on track.  In this sense we are all seeking and using feedback throughout every day of our lives to ensure that what we intend comes to pass.  But the information we seek, especially when we explicitly ask for help, is only useful if it is relevant to our target.  The helper must be sure what the target is that the client is aiming for, and, therefore, must engage in humble inquiry before offering feedback...

Feedback is generally not helpful if it is not asked for.  ...[T]he helper must first identify what problem the client is trying to solve before it becomes possible to provide help.  When a colleague, boss, friend or spouse unilaterally decides to give advice or feedback, it is likely that not only will the message be misunderstood, but the other person will be offended and insulted.  I have seen this over and over again in performance appraisal where the boss says something like "You need to be more assertive in meetings" and the subordinate has not idea to what the boss is actually referring.  That leads to a second principle.  Feedback not only needs to be solicited, but it needs to be specific and concrete.

...If feedback is to be helpful, it must occur in the context of a review of action, something the group has done together where specific behavior can be referred to and analyzed... By referring to specific events that both parties can remember, there is at least a chance of meaningful learning, but note how crucial it is to redefine the norms of deference and demeanor for these things to be said at all and to be heard as constructive instead of punishing.

If we combine these two points, the potential for effective feedback would be even higher if in the after-action review the leader asked members to start with their own questions about their own performance in order to solicit feedback... By giving the initiative to those seeking feedback, there is a greater likelihood that they can hear it because it relates to something they want help with.  It turns the situation explicitly into a helping relationship around common team goals...

Finally, a fourth point is that feedback works best if it is descriptive rather than evaluative... By making a judgment on what you should have done, the helper is taking on the expert or doctor role.  By making a descriptive observation, the helper stays in the inquiring process consultant role, which allows elaboration and explanation on the client's part.

To summarize thus far...feedback works best if it is solicited rather than imposed, if it is concrete and specific, if it fits into a shared goal context, and if it is descriptive rather than evaluative...

...When I think of helping conversations that have gone wrong, in almost every case I discover that what I said was either unsolicited, too general, judgmental or related to some goal of mine rather than to what the other person was trying to do. [pp 117-122]

---

Photo by Erich Ferdinand.  Yay Flickr and Creative Commons.

Antonio Damasio on Emotion and Reason

Why do emotions have such a significant impact on our choices and decisions?  Aren't we better off relying on logical reasoning?  Shouldn't we try to control our emotions and minimize their impact? 

Emotions are a important factor in my work as an executive coach and Leadership Coach at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.  At times emotions are the explicit subject of discussion, as in Stanford courses such as Interpersonal Dynamics (aka "Touchy Feely"), or with clients who are working with me to address sources of frustration or unhappiness in their careers or professional relationships.  Even when that's not the case, emotions are always implicit in any issue that a student or client might raise with me, and they readily spring to the surface given the opportunity.  (One of the simplest--and most useful--steps I can take as a coach is to say, "It seemed as through you felt a strong emotion just now," and then give the person some space to talk about what they're feeling.)

My work with my clients and students has made it clear to me that emotions play an essential role in helping us decide, both at the micro-level in any given situation and at the macro-level as we chart our course through life.  Seeking a deeper understanding of this dynamic led me to the work of Antonio Damasio, a Portuguese neuroscientist who's been based in the US for the past 35 years, and whose 1994 book Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain is a landmark in contemporary neuroscience.  (I recommend the 2005 Penguin paperback; all of my quotes from and links to the book refer to that edition.)

Historically the elegant process of logical reasoning has been viewed as a function of our disembodied mind, an activity conducted in a highly evolved part of our brain that exists for this express purpose.  It was assumed that the brain structure responsible for reasoning was distinct not only from the body itself but also from the "lower" regions of the brain that govern other aspects of biological function.  But all of this, Damasio argues convincingly, is entirely wrong:

I propose that human reason depends on several brain systems, working in concert across many levels of neuronal organization, rather than on a single brain center.  Both "high-level" and "low-level" brain regions...cooperate in the making of reason.

The lower levels in the neural edifice of reason are the same ones that regulate the processing of emotions and feelings, along with the body functions necessary for an organism's survival.  In turn, these lower levels maintain direct and mutual relationships with virtually every bodily organ, thus placing the body directly within the chain of operations that generate the highest reaches of reasoning, decision making, and, by extension, social behavior and creativity.  Emotion, feeling and biological regulation all play a role in human reason. [p xvii]

Note that in Damasio's view emotion and feeling are not in opposition to reason but provide essential support to the reasoning process.  The passage above also alludes to Damasio's second topic, the physiological roots of emotional expression:

[T]he essence of a feeling may not be an elusive mental quality attached to an object, but rather the direct perception of a specific landscape: that of the body...

I propose that the critical networks on which feelings rely include not only the traditionally acknowledged collection of brain structures known as the limbic system but also some of the brain's prefrontal cortices, and, most importantly, the brain sectors that map and integrate signals from the body.

I conceptualize the essence of feelings as something you and I can see through a window that opens directly onto a continuously updated image of the structure and state of our body... By and large, a feeling is the momentary "view" of a part of that body landscape. [pp xviii-xix]

Damasio restates these themes concisely later in the book:

The action of biological drives, body states and emotions may be an indispensable foundation for rationality.  The lower levels in the neural edifice of reason are the same that regulate the processing of emotions and feelings, along with global functions of the body proper such that the organism can survive.  These lower levels maintain direct and mutual relationships with the body proper, thus placing the body within the chain of operations that permit the highest reaches of reason and creativity.  Rationality is probably shaped and modulated by body signals, even as it performs the most sublime distinctions and acts accordingly. [p 200]

The research that led Damasio to these conclusions began at the University of Iowa in the 1970s and '80s, where he found himself perplexed by certain victims of accidents, tumors and other sources of brain trauma.  In these unusual cases the victim's faculties remained generally intact despite their experiences, and yet their lives were falling apart.  They performed well on any test measuring their intelligence and critical thinking abilities, and yet outside the lab they made one bad decision after another, or found themselves paralyzed and unable to make a decision at all.

On the basis of his research into these cases and a series of novel experiments comparing the victims of brain trauma with "normals," Damasio formulated the hypotheses he lays out in Descartes' Error and his research appears to have stood up over the past 17 years.  In his 2005 preface he notes that, "today this idea [that emotion assists the reasoning process] does not cause any raised eyebrows..."

However, while this idea may not raise any eyebrows today among neuroscientists, I believe it's still a surprise to the general public.  We're trained to regard emotions as irrational impulses that are likely to lead us astray.  When we describe someone as "emotional," it's usually a criticism that suggests that they lack good judgment.  And the most logical and intelligent figures in popular culture are those who exert the greatest control over their emotions--or who seem to feel no emotions at all.

Damasio's title refers to the separation of mind and body implied in Rene Descartes' assertion, "I think therefore I am," first articulated in Discourse on the Method (1637).  Descartes elaborated on this concept in Principles of Philosophy (1644), in a passage quoted by Damasio:

[T]his "me," that is to say, the soul by which I am what I am, is entirely distinct from body...and even if body were not, the soul would not cease to be what it is. [p 249]

Damasio writes in response:

This is Descartes' error: the abyssal separation between body and mind...the suggestion that reasoning, and moral judgment, and the suffering that comes from physical pain or emotional upheaval might exist separately from the body.  Specifically: the separation of the most refined operations of mind from the structure and operation of a biological organism. [pp 249-50]

This concept of "Cartesian dualism" has had a profound effect on the Western worldview.  One of its implications is that we tend to see emotion and reason not only as distinct spheres but also as forces working in opposition to each other.  Further, we prize the reasoning that occurs in our disembodied minds while we often view our emotions and their many physiological manifestations as less important.  Damasio writes:

[W]e usually conceive of emotion as a supernumerary mental faculty, an unsolicited nature-ordained accompaniment to our rational thinking.  If emotion is pleasant, we enjoy it as a luxury; if it is painful, we suffer it as an unwelcome intrusion.  In either case, the sage will advise us, we should experience emotion and feeling in only judicious amounts.  We should be reasonable.

There is much wisdom in this widely held belief, and I will not deny that uncontrolled or misdirected emotion can be a major source of irrational behavior.  Nor will I deny that seemingly normal reason can be disturbed by subtle biases rooted in emotion... Nonetheless, what the traditional account leaves out is [this]... Reduction in emotion may constitute an equally important source of irrational behavior. [emphasis original, pp 52-53]

The implications for the victims of brain trauma in the cases studied by Damasio are clear; physical damage to their brains resulted in a significant reduction in their ability to experience emotion, which profoundly diminished their capacity to reason and make decisions.  The implications for the rest of us are not nearly as straightforward, but I suspect that the ability to experience our emotions more vividly and more rapidly allows us to make more effective use of them in the reasoning process.

And while emotions can certainly lead us astray, when they do it's not the inevitable by-product of their fundamental unreliability or irrationality, but a specific, localized error.  (It's a bug, not a feature.)  In certain situations of course we need to manage a given emotional response in order to minimize its counterproductive impact.  But that approach should be taken on a case-by-case basis, not as a general principle.  In this regard Damasio's research bolsters my empirical experience as a coach and leads me to conclude that dampening our emotional responses and distancing ourselves from them as a rule can only undermine the quality of our decision-making and result in worse choices.

In addition, Damasio's description of the physiological roots of emotions suggest that our ability to be in touch with our feelings bears some relation to our ability to, quite literally, feel.  I suspect that being in touch with ourselves physically allows us to be in touch with ourselves emotionally.  Some anecdotal but quite vivid evidence of this is the common experience I've had of working with people who were momentarily unable to describe their emotions.  I would ask them to scan their bodies and conduct a mental inventory of what they literally "felt," both inside and out, and invariably the acknowledgment of physical "feelings" make it possible for the person to access and discuss their emotions.

---

To provide some context for these assertions, I'll ask and (try to) answer a series of questions based on my understanding of Damasio's work.  (Note that you can find an extended series of quotes from Descartes' Error following my conclusion below if you'd like more specifics.)

Where do emotions come from?

Emotions are evoked by perceived or imagined stimuli that generate a wide range of physiological responses--body states, as Damasio calls them--that in turn generate sets of mental images associated with those body states.  For example, if you're walking in the woods and come across a bear, your perception of the bear's large bulk, possibly moving quickly toward you, will result in a series of physiological changes.  Your pulse and respiration will quicken, your blood pressure will rise, your pupils will dilate, and adrenaline and other neurotransmitters will be released.  Your brain senses these physiological responses, generates a host of mental images associated with this collective body state, and you experience the feeling you know as "fear."  Note the sequence--the unconscious physiological responses precede the conscious awareness of the feeling.

Damasio makes an important distinction between primary or early emotions, which are innate or "hard-wired" (and are thus essentially universal) and secondary or adult emotions, which derive from experience and acquired knowledge (and are thus highly individualized.)  Encountering a bear in the woods and feeling fear is an example of a primary emotion.  While Damasio points out that that we're probably not born with an innate "bear fear" per se, we are "wired to respond with an emotion, in preorganized fashion, when certain features of stimuli in the world or in our bodies are perceived," [p 131] and evolution has likely hard-wired us to fear large, fast-moving predators encountered in a dark space.  We don't need to learn to fear the bear; we come with that emotional response "pre-programmed."

But we do learn the much more complex responses that Damasio calls secondary emotions.  These responses are based on our experiences, particularly in childhood and adolescence, although the process of developing secondary emotions continues throughout our entire lives.  We learn these emotions as we associate certain stimuli with positive or negative outcomes, although it's obvious that the process of making these associations is by no means foolproof.  (We're particularly prone to biases rooted in statistical errors.)

As a devoted reader of William James, I find it noteworthy that Damasio's concept of primary emotions derives directly from James' work in the 19th century, and his concept of secondary emotions addresses a crucial shortcoming in James' theory.  Damasio writes, "...I believe William James seized upon the mechanism essential to the understanding of emotion and feeling.  Unfortunately, and uncharacteristically for him, the rest of his proposal [falls short]..." [p 129]  James, Damasio continues, "gave little or no weight to the process of evaluating mentally the situation that causes the emotion.  His account works well for the first emotions one experiences in life, but it does not do justice to" the much more complex emotions we experience subsequently. [p 130]

What purpose do emotions serve?

Emotions evolved to support our survival.  The primary (or innate) emotions can be seen as a complex form of biological regulation, an extension of the instinctive drives and impulses that support survival at an even more fundamental level.  But while those deeper forms of biological regulation operate automatically and typically beyond our conscious control, emotions allow us to make choices about how we'll express them and what we'll do in response.

What is reasoning?

Reasoning is the judicious consideration of a set of alternatives, the imagination of a series of possible outcomes, and the application of logic to determine which alternative will yield the best possible outcome.  If we view these behaviors along a spectrum, from biological drives to primary emotions to secondary emotions to reasoning, we can see a decrease in automaticity and an increase in conscious choice.

What role does emotion play in reasoning?

Reasoning is an extremely taxing mental activity, consuming vast amounts of such finite resources as our attention and working memory.  Even when we have these resources in abundance, reason is extremely time-consuming.  The process described above of identifying alternatives, imagining outcomes, and determining which alternative is most likely to yield the best outcome can readily take more time than we have available to make even the simplest of decisions.  And when we're under stress or when the stakes are high, the amounts of attention and working memory at our disposal may decrease, making it even more difficult to reach a decision.

Emotions serve as an automatic biasing mechanism that can have a substantial effect on the reasoning process--usually, but not always, helping us make better decisions more quickly.  Secondary emotions involve a learned set of associations between the mental images evoked by certain stimuli and a corresponding set of positive or negative outcomes.  When we experience a given set of mental images and the physiogical responses that comprise the emotion that we associate with those images, we "mark" the images in such a way that subsequent exposure to the same or similar images leads us to expect that a similar outcome is likely.  So emotions are a form of prediction, telling us what positive or negative outcomes are likely to result from certain alternatives.

Obviously this form of prediction isn't perfectly accurate, but it need not be to serve a useful purpose.  Emotions play a critical role in the reasoning process simply by allowing us to rule out many alternatives that would likely lead to a negative outcome and to focus on those that would likely lead to a positive outcome.  With the range of theoretical alternatives reduced, we can employ our resource-intensive reasoning strategies on a much smaller set of options, thereby saving a tremendous amount of time.

Emotions also enhance our finite capacities of attention and working memory by heightening our perception and recollection of particularly good or bad options, rendering them more vivid and easier to recall in the mind.

Emotions can obviously mislead us and undermine the reasoning process, but that's likely due to defects in our individual experience of developing secondary emotions, the process by which we create associations between certain stimuli and positive or negative outcomes.  This process continues throughout our lives, but our experiences in childhood and adolescence are key in forming our secondary emotions.  It is likely that when our emotions interfere with reasoning rather than support it, this is due to inaccurate or irrational associations made during our formative years.

---

In Conclusion

My reading of Descartes' Error leaves me more convinced than ever of the important role emotions play in helping us make good choices, in circumstances ranging from fleeting interactions to the most momentous life decisions.  This is not to say that our emotions are always "right" or that we should mindlessly follow their lead.  As Damasio writes,

Knowing about the relevance of feelings in the processes of reason does not suggest that reason is less important than feelings, that it should take a backseat to them or that it should be less cultivated.  On the contrary, taking stock of the pervasive role of feelings may give us a chance of enhancing their positive effects and reducing their potential harm. [p 246]

But that said, it's clear to me that the ability to access, interpret, and act upon our emotions is essential if we are to make good choices that will allow us to be more fulfilled and effective.  And I suspect the process of exploring our emotions more fully will allow us to better understand, compensate for and correct those times when inaccurate or irrational emotions lead us off course.

My sense of the importance of the body has also been greatly reinforced by Damasio's work.  While personal experiences long ago led me to reject traditional mind/body dualism and to recognize the interplay between the two, I failed to appreciate the depth and the complexity of the relationships that unify our mental and physiological systems into a single, organic whole.  I suspect that a heightened sense of body awareness and a greater sense of closeness with our physical selves can play an important role in the process of getting in touch with our emotions, and can thereby support our ability to make good choices.

Finally, I'm struck by the importance of attention (a concept that keeps reoccurring in my life, albeit in wildly different contexts).  As Damasio notes, attention is a crucial element in the reasoning process, not only in the form of our ability to focus on something, but also in the corresponding ability to tune out everything else.  As I wrote two years ago in a discussion of David Rock's thinking on neuroscience, coaching and leadership, "the ability to stop or minimize active conscious thinking and 'quiet our minds' is an important problem-solving skill."  My experience with meditation over the past few months has reinforced my sense that our capacity for attention is highly dynamic and can be increased through conscious effort, just as we can enhance our ability to access and experience our emotions.

While I encourage you to read Descartes' Error in full, in the section below I've included a series of quotes from the book that discuss his hypotheses and the underlying neurological and physiological processes that they're based on in greater detail.  While Joseph LeDoux's The Emotional Brain is next up on my reading list, Damasio's The Feeling of What Happens will follow shortly thereafter, and I'm eager to get to it.

---

William James on Habit

The hell to be endured hereafter, of which theology tells, is no worse than the hell we make for ourselves in this world by habitually fashioning our characters in the wrong way.  Could the young but realize how soon they will become mere walking bundles of habits, they would give more heed to their conduct while in the plastic state.  We are spinning our own fates, good or evil, and never to be undone.  Every smallest stroke of virtue or of vice leaves its never so little scar.

William James, Psychology: Briefer Course, Chapter X

I recently finished James' deeply thought-provoking 1892 masterpiece, and one of the highlights is his chapter on Habit.  While I read James' literal comments on brain function with some caution--after all, he was born 149 years before the first successful fMRI study--I still find him a great source of wisdom on matters both psychological and philosophical.  And even if aspects of James' analysis have been superseded by a century of advances in neuroscience, his 19th-century perspective helps me understand today's research more fully.  (Having been introduced to James through such secondary sources as Robert Richardson's outstanding intellectual biography and Alain de Botton's Status Anxiety, I decided to read the "Briefer Course" in its entirety as a sort of historical foundation for a collection of neuroscience and cognitive psychology books I'm planning to read later this summer.)

Chapter X opens with a concise neurological definition of habit:

An acquired habit, from the physiological point of view, is nothing but a new pathway of discharge formed in the brain, by which certain incoming currents ever after tend to escape. [Emphasis original]

James continues with a discussion of the "physical basis" of habits, namely "pathways through the nerve-centres":

Plasticity, then, in the wide sense of the word, means the possession of a structure weak enough to yield to an influence, but strong enough not to yield all at once.  Each relatively stable phase of equilibrium in a structure is marked by what we may call a new set of habits.  Organic matter, especially nervous tissue, seems endowed with a very extraordinary degree of plasticity of this sort...

[Neurological] currents, once in [the brain], must find a way out.  In getting out they leave their traces in the paths which they take.  The only thing they can do, in short, is to deepen old paths or to make new ones; and the whole plasticity of the brain sums itself up in two words when we call it an organ in which currents pouring in from the sense-organs make with extreme facility paths which do not easily disappear.

James then moves on to the "practical effects of habit"--it "simplifies our movements, makes them accurate, and diminishes fatigue," and also "diminishes the conscious attention with which our acts are performed."  In addition, James notes, habits "depend on sensations not attended to...sensations to which we are usually inattentive; but that they are more than unconscious nerve-currents seems certain, for they catch our attention if they go wrong."

Having concluded his physiological analysis, James turns his attention to the "ethical and pedagogical importance" of habit, and here's where James' genius makes him as relevant as ever more than a century later.  Even if we view James' comments on brain and neural function as mere metaphor, they provide a meaningful foundation for a compelling argument on how best to cultivate useful habits (and why such a concept even matters):

The great thing, then, in all education, is to make our nervous system our ally instead of our enemy.  It is to fund and capitalize our acquisitions, and live at ease upon the interest of the fund.  For this we must make automatic and habitual, as early as possible, as many useful actions as we can, and guard against the growing into ways that are likely to be disadvantageous to us, as we should guard against the plague...

In Professor [Alexander] Bain's chapter on "Moral Habits" [from The Emotions and the Will, 1875]...two great maxims emerge from his treatment.  The first is that in the acquisition of a new habit, or the leaving off of an old one, we must take care to launch ourselves with as strong and decided an initiative as possible.  Accumulate all the possible circumstances which shall re-enforce the right motives; put yourself assiduously in conditions that encourage the new way; make engagements incompatible with the old; take a public pledge, if the case allows; in short, envelop your resolutions with every aid you know...

The second maxim is: Never suffer an exception to occur till the new habit is securely rooted in your life... Continuity of training is the great means of making the nervous system act infallibly right...

A third maxim may be added to the preceding pair: Seize the very first possible opportunity to act on every resolution you make, and on every emotional prompting you may experience in the direction of the habits you aspire to gain.  It is not in the moment of their forming, but in the moment of their producing motor effects, that resolves and aspirations communicate the new 'set' to the brain...

No matter how full a reservoir of maxims one may possess, and no matter how good one's sentiments may be, if one have not taken advantage of every concrete opportunity to act, one's character may remain entirely unaffected for the better.  With mere good intentions, hell is proverbially paved...

A tendency to act only becomes effectively ingrained in us in proportion to the uninterrupted frequency with which the actions actually occur, and the brain 'grows' to their use...

[I]t is not simply particular lines of discharge, but also general forms of discharge, that seem to be grooved out by habit in the brain.  Just as, if we let our emotions evaporate, they get into a way of evaporating; so there is reason to suppose that if we often flinch from making an effort, before we know it the effort-making capacity will be gone; and that, if we suffer the wandering of our attention, presently it will wander all the time.  Attention and effort are, as we shall see later, but two names for the same psychic fact.  To what brain-processes they correspond we do not know.  The strongest reason for believing that they do depend on brain-processes at all, and are not pure acts of the spirit, is just this fact, that they seem in some degree subject to the law of habit, which is a material law.  As a final practical maxim, relative to these habits of the will, we may, then, offer something like this: Keep the faculty of effort alive in you by a little gratuitous exercise every day.  That is, be systematically ascetic or heroic in little unnecessary points, do every day or two something for no other reason than that you would rather not do it, so that when the hour of dire need draws nigh, it may find you not unnerved and untrained to stand the test. [All emphasis original]

That last passage in particular makes my heart beat just a little quicker--I'm motivated to rise to James' challenge, and I'd like to think that I do in such small, healthy habits as going to the gym or meditating when I don't really feel like it, or getting up earlier than usual to do some heavy reading.  Of course, I'm all too aware of how often I fall short, and how easily I can fall prey to unhealthy habits--not getting enough sleep, wasting time online, even avoiding a difficult conversation I need to have.  But my increasing awareness in recent years of the power of any habitual behavior--of the many ways in which both healthy and unhealthy habits reinforce and perpetuate themselves--is what sparks my interest in James' perspective in the first place.

I'm reminded of Don't Break the Chain, one of most effective--and simplest--motivational tools I've ever found.  I first began using DBTC to track my workouts in March 2008, a process that's helped me make regular exercise one of my most deeply rooted habits.  Here's my "Exercise" calendar for the last three months (as of July 12)--each red block represents a day I worked out:

Earlier this year I began to using this same tool to track other habits I was trying to cultivate (or break).  For example, here's my "Sleep" calendar for the same time period--each blue block represents what I'd call a good night's sleep, preferably a solid 7 hours:

As you can see, the habit of a healthy sleep pattern hasn't yet taken root in my life.  But if awareness alone is insufficient to motivate change and inculcate new habits, it's a necessary first step, and at least now I have some data at my disposal to nudge me down that path.  (It's also striking how motivated I am to do the right thing in order to earn the reward of "checking off" a day on my calendars--another manifestation of the power of habit.)

And while clearly a number of complex, interlocking factors are at work here, I do find James' perspective on habit a compelling explanation for my various successes and failures at sustaining healthy habits and breaking unhealthy ones.

(As I mentioned above, I read the "Briefer Course" as a precursor to a set of contemporary books on neuroscience and cognitive psychology, and I hope to refer again to James as I work through them, particularly on the topics of attention, emotion and volition.  But hopefully this discussion has shed some light on why I find James such a superb intellectual companion, and why I look to him for guidance and encouragement.)

Pam Fox Rollin on 42 Rules for Your New Leadership Role

So you've just landed your first leadership role--congrats.  Or perhaps it's not your very first opportunity to lead, but you've moved into a more high-profile and demanding role within (or atop) your organization--great.  What the hell do you do now?

A resource you'll find helpful is 42 Rules for Your New Leadership Role (the latest entry in the 42 Rules series), by my friend and colleague Pam Fox Rollin.  (Disclosure: Pam asked me to read the book and provided me with a copy of the manuscript, which mentions me in the acknowledgments.  While Pam and I are friends, if I didn't think I could be objective about her work I wouldn't have written this post.  I certainly want Pam and the book to do well, but not at the expense of my own credibility.)

I was first introduced to Pam through the network of Stanford MBAs working as executive coaches and organizational development consultants while making my own transition from management into coaching.  I've greatly appreciated Pam's insights and encouragement over the past 6 years, and the book feels like a conversation with her--high-energy, thought-provoking and enthusiastic, but also informal and easygoing.

Pam organizes her 42 rules into seven chapters:

1. Set Yourself Up for Success: How to prepare for your new role before it starts and how to hit the ground running once it begins.
2. Map the Terrain: Major issues you're likely to encounter in your new environment in the first few weeks.
3. Show Up Wisely: How to better understand yourself, and how to insure you're presenting yourself effectively.
4. Start Your Wins and...
5. Create Your Management System: Tactical tips and hands-on advice for new leaders.
6. Stay Smart: How to keep growing as you settle into your new role.
7. Set You and Your Team to Thrive: Insuring sustainable success over the long-term.

While the book's greatest strength is its detailed guidance and advice, I found this structure a really useful framework that helped me refer back to specific rules and other concepts in the text.  As you look over this list of chapter titles, you may be thinking to yourself, "Hey, this isn't rocket science--I already know this stuff."  And that's precisely why Pam's book is so useful: These are the basic steps that we often ignore when starting a new job, either because we assume we'll address them in the ordinary course of events or because we get caught up in "urgent" responsibilities that "require" our immediate attention.  Pam's overarching point--the whole premise of the book--is that when stepping into a new leadership role it's essential that we be intentional and systematic about the little things, that we never assume they'll take care of themselves, and that we take a longer-term view at the outset, prioritizing what's important over what's urgent.

I also appreciate the balance Pam stikes between building upon the latest leadership research while making her own original contributions.  Her extensive footnotes--all too often absent from current management literature--direct you to sources for original research or further reading, and highlight connections between Pam's work and that of other writers and theorists.  Even better, a page on Pam's site includes resources related to each chapter and direct links to additional articles and research--it's an open-minded approach that makes Pam's own work all the more relevant.  (Two additional elements that aren't in the book but would have been fantastically valuable are a bibliography and a subject index--perhaps they'll be added to Pam's site or will make it into the second edition.)

Here's one rule each from most of the chapters noted above that I found particularly helpful:

Rule 5: Take Charge of Your Start

Pam points out that most official onboarding processes may provide some helpful logistical guidance but are inadequate when it comes to the things that really matter--relationships, culture, history.  Compounding the challenge is the fact that "anything unfamiliar takes substantially more brainpower... Expect your productivity to tank until your brain learns to [execute new routines] without attention from your tiny, precious pre-frontal cortex."

The solution is to write your own onboarding plan: Figure out who you should meet and get on their calendar, familiarize yourself with the surrounding culture, and do some due diligence on recent organizational history.

Rule 9: Figure Out What to Prove by When

Pam writes, "On no topic was there less agreement among the executives I interviewed," than on the question of how much time new leaders have to demonstrate their value.  Her response:

There's always something to prove, and faster than you'd like.  To keep focused rather than frantic, start with two categories and three time horizons:

• Categories: What does my team need to deliver?  What do I need to prove about me?
• Time horizons: immediate (typically one to two months), near-term (two to five months), first year (six to twelve months).

(I firmly agree with Pam on the importance of choosing the right time horizons.)

Pam also quotes OD strategist Bart Fisher:

Figure out if you need [to be] a firefighter or a weatherman.  Is it smoke because there's a problem, or fog because there's uncertainty?  If smoke, fight the fire.  If fog, take the time you need to figure out what's going on.

Rule 16: Get Over Yourself

Throughout the job search or promotion process, Pam writes, "you've been focusing on YOU.  However, focusing on yourself is a quick road to failure as a leader.  Now's the time to turn it around and focus on your team."  She identifies a short but compelling list of things you need to learn about each of your team members--you can't learn everything at once, but dedicate yourself to completing this list over time as you get to know everyone:

• What are you working on?
• What do you enjoy the most and the least about your job?
• What is going well on this team?  What's going less well?
• How could this group be even more successful?
• What do you do well?  What do you want to do more of?
• What do you do less well?  What do you want to do less of?
• What helps you be most productive?
• Where do you want to be professionally in five to ten years?  One to two years?
• What do you think you need to get there?

How many of these questions can you answer for your team right now?  Assuming you know less than you should about them, what regular practices can you put in place that will allow you to learn more?

Rule 20: Communicate Early and Often

"Human brains pay attention to what's recent, what's repeated, and what's communicated with passion and clarity," Pam writes, and as a result, she encourages the use of this framework for presenting issues and positions:

• Here's what I'm seeing
• Here's how I interpret it
• What am I missing?
• Here's what I think that means for us
• What do you think?

I'm reminded of a similar "leader-communication checklist" from Karl Weick's "Managerial Thought in the Context of Action" (which I first encountered in Gary Klein's "Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions"):

• Here's what I think we face
• Here's what I think we should do
• Here's why
• Here's what we should keep our eye on
• Now, talk to me

In both cases, there's a consistent emphasis on concision, transparency and curiosity.  Be concise--make your points quickly and get out of the way.  Be transparent--assume that people don't know your intentions or understand what you're seeing or how you're interpreting it, and fill in those gaps.  And be curious--once you've framed the conversation, it's about getting other people's candid input, not about getting them to agree with you.

Pam goes on to note that "Many leaders are reluctant to repeat themselves.  Consequently, they say it once or twice, maybe at a team meeting or in an email, intending their message to stand for all time."  But this approach runs up against the neural "hard-wiring" that Pam mentions at the outset.  Instead, she counsels, "When you care about something, say it often.  Even better, ask about it often."

Rule 27: Adjust Your Approach

"Lighten up on talking about 'your leadership style,'" Pam counsels, "and think more about what you could do that would be truly useful for your team members and colleagues."  She continues:

I've developed an easy model to help you remember three useful ways to be flexible to differences:

• Appreciate: always look for value in the differences people bring to teamwork...
• Adapt: sometimes adjust your behavior to help other people get what they need to be more productive...
• Adopt: occasionally draw on less-used/less-comfortable behaviors so you can be more effective...

Much of my work with MBA students at Stanford involves experiences that intentionally push them slightly out of their comfort zone in group settings.  This process allows them to recognize three things: First, we all have default interpersonal settings, ways of interacting with others that feel most comfortable to us.  Second, those default settings aren't fixed and in many cases can be easily adjusted with a little conscious effort (and honest feedback from others.)  Finally, any new or modified behaviors we adopt with the intention of improving interactions with others needn't seem unnatural or inauthentic; we can readily internalize them and build them into our repertoire, thus expanding our comfort zone.

This process comes to mind when reading Pam's advice about adjusting our leadership style to accommodate the needs of our team members, and I think it's particularly important for new leaders to be aware of their default behaviors and of their impact on others.

 Rule 35: Ferret Out Feedback

As we say regularly at Stanford in courses focused on interpersonal skills and leadership capabilities, feedback is a gift.  And yet, Pam writes, new leaders "can't count on informal feedback, as many people fear annoying anyone in power.  You may not even receive formal feedback, as review cycles are disrupted by job changes--including yours."  So Pam suggest that it's your responsibility to "Forge your own feedback channels" through the following steps:

• Ask.
  "What am I doing that's helping you accomplish X?"  "When am I a roadblock to you and your team?"  "How might I screw this up?"  "What issues or people should I be giving more attention?"  The higher up you are, the more you have to ask for it...
• Initiate it yourself.
  Don't wait for an annual process to receive upward feedback.  If you can't hire an executive coach, arrange for a trusted peer to interview your team and summarize key messages back up.
• Respond tremendously well.
  Fastest way to kill your feedback channel: downplay the feedback, even slightly, verbally or non-verbally.  [Emphasis mine--I think this is spot-on and tremendously important.]
• Make sure your team members are also getting feedback--from you and others across the organization... By showing your appetite for hearing feedback and using it well, you shift your company's culture from "pretending I know it all" toward "let's learn how to be more and more successful."

The single most popular elective at the Stanford Graduate School of Business is Interpersonal Dynamics (known universally as Touchy Feely), a time-intensive and emotionally demanding course that's taken by over 80% of each graduating class at the GSB.  Why do so many of our students take it, and why do so many alums--including me--call it the most valuable class we took in business school?  Because of the rich feedback you get from 13 peers over 10 weeks of intense interactions--it's an incredibly valuable asset that makes the investment in the experience well worth the effort.  But to Pam's point, you're going to have to ask for, initiate, and respond well to feedback in order to enjoy its benefits in your new leadership role.

I do have a few quibbles with the book.  As noted above, I really would have liked a bibliography--the footnotes are great, but a summary of all the references consulted would be a tremendous resource.  I haven't read other titles in the "42 Rules..." series, but while I'm glad it's providing Pam with a platform and a megaphone, it feels more like a marketing concept than an organizing principle that can be extended to any book-length topic.  Finally, I don't know anything about publishing margins, but I wish they'd invested just a little more in the quality of the actual paper and printing--I'm sufficiently old-school that I like to hang on to hard copies of books I enjoy, and I often make extensive notes in the margins, and that's easier to do with a book that's a bit more substantial.

But those concerns aside, I found 42 Rules for Your New Leadership Role well worth my time, and I want to thank Pam for such a concise, well-organized and readily accessible book that offers new leaders a great deal of valuable guidance and advice.

Happiness, Excellence and Boundaries: A Framework for Leaders (Part 3 of 3)

This is the third and final post in a series based on a workshop I developed and presented to a group of leaders in Los Angeles in June.  See Part 1 for an overview of this series' fundamental premise and a discussion of the first topic, Happiness, and Part 2 for a discussion of the second topic, Excellence.

---

III. Boundaries, Not Balance

Michael Gilbert and Boundaries

Many, and perhaps most, leaders view "work-life balance" as desirable in theory but unattainable, even illusory, in practice.  But if work-life balance is an illusion, what's the practical alternative?  Michael Gilbert, a former colleague of mine at the Nonprofit Technology Network and a deeply thought-provoking writer, has explored this issue thoroughly.  From Why Work-Life Balance is a Bad Idea:

Although I am firmly allied with the mission and spirit of all the professionals and organizations who use the term "work-life balance" as something to strive for, I've come to the conclusion that it's fundamentally flawed, a dangerous trap, an all-around bad idea...

The fact is that work is a part of life, not in opposition to it. The fact is that what we all seek is joyful work-life integration, not some sort of painful detente. The fact is that work-life balance is the sad refuge of those who have decided that work is not worth saving.

Michael pursued this concept further in Good Fences: On Boundaries, Agency and Wholeness in Work Life:

In regard to this exploration of "work-life balance," what's clear in our discussion is that we have been using the word "balance" when what we really seem to mean is "boundaries."  Boundaries keep things in their place.  Balance suggests the same amount of two things on either side of a scale.  Boundaries keep one of those things from oozing past the edge of its platter and taking over the other side...

Boundaries and integration go together.  Maybe it's just the biologist in me, but it seems that good boundaries are what make integration work.  Just as functional membranes (letting the right things through and keeping the wrong things out) facilitate the healthy interaction of the cells of our bodies, so do functional personal boundaries facilitate the healthy interaction of the various parts of our lives.  Bad boundaries lead to either being overwhelmed or withdrawal. Good boundaries lead to wholeness and synergy.

Boundaries and Interpersonal Communication

A potential problem with this metaphor is that we tend to think of boundaries as features of a landscape, because that's how we encounter them when crossing a border or viewing a map.  But very few boundaries simply spring forth from the underlying geology; most of them exist because people envisioned them and took action to establish them.  In this context, boundaries are dynamics that exist in our working relationships and in our organizations.  But the boundaries we need at work aren't going to magically appear before us--we have to envision them and take action to establish them by interacting with others.  (This is particularly true for leaders, whose jobs often feel "unbounded" because there's always more to do and often no one else capable of doing it.)

Whether we know it or not, in many of our professional interactions we're trying to identify boundaries and insure that they're clearly understood and respected.  From a leader's perspective, this could mean setting limits on the demands placed on us by a more senior figure or a board of directors, or it could mean setting clear expectations with a colleague or a direct report--or (just as importantly) it could involve putting work on hold long enough to fulfill other obligations and enjoy a personal life.

Note that a common dynamic in these interactions is that we feel some frustration and anger while also feeling caring and compassion for the very same people who are making us frustrated and angry.  Learning how to express both sets of feelings together is an effective way to identify, express and sustain boundaries in our working relationships.  If we're doing work that's meaningful to us, we tend to feel caring and compassion for our colleagues--and at the same time, we also feel frustrated and angry with them on a regular basis because of the professional demands that continually pull our lives out of balance.

Standard operating procedure in most organizations is to sweep those negative feelings under the rug until they get expressed in unproductive ways (at work or elsewhere.)  That's clearly not helpful--but what's also lost in that process are the positive feelings we have for our colleagues.  Note that these oppositional feelings don't cancel each other out. The frustration and anger we might feel at our colleagues is just as real as the caring and compassion we also feel for those same people.  We have to hold on to, honor and express both sets of feelings, as contradictory as they might be.

Susan Scott and "Mineral Rights"

Susan Scott is a coach and consultant whose book Fierce Conversations outlines a process for making difficult conversations more productive that she calls "Mineral Rights," named by a participant in a workshop of hers who noted, "If you're drilling for water, it's better to drill one hundred-foot well than one hundred one-foot wells."  Scott's model suggests that most of the conversations we have are the interpersonal equivalent of one-foot wells: too shallow to uncover what’s really going on.  In contrast, Scott writes:

[A Mineral Rights conversation] interrogates reality by mining for increased clarity, improved understanding, and impetus for change... The questions asked during a Mineral Rights conversation help individuals and teams interrogate reality in such a way that they are mobilized to take potent action on tough challenges.

Here are the steps in Scott's Mineral Rights framework:

1. Identify your most pressing issue.  What is the most important thing you and I should be talking about?

2. Clarify the issue.  What's going on?  How long has this been going on?  How bad are things?

3. Determine the current impact.  How is this issue current impacting me?  What results are currently being produced for me by this situation?  How is this issue currently impacting others?  What results are currently being produced for them by this situation?  When I consider the impact on myself and others, what are my emotions?

4. Determine the future implications.  If nothing changes, what's likely to happen?  What's at stake for me relative to this issue?  What's at stake for others?  When I consider these possible outcomes, what are my emotions?

5. Examine your personal contribution to this issue.  What is my contribution to this issue?  How have I contributed to the problem?

6. Describe the ideal outcome.  When this issue is resolved, what difference will that make?  What results will I enjoy?  When this issue is resolved, what results will others enjoy?  When I imagine this resolution, what are my emotions?

7. Commit to action.  What is the most potent step I could take to move this issue toward resolution?  What's going to attempted to get in my way, and how will I get past it?  When will I take this step?

As with any multi-step conceptual framework I discuss here, I'm not recommending that you follow Scott's Mineral Rights framework in some rigid, formulaic way.  But I do recommend looking at each step in this process and considering how it might help make your own conversations about boundaries more effective.

Perhaps in your current conversations you're getting distracted or avoiding the real issues at stake, in which case you should identify your most pressing issue and clarify that issue.

Or perhaps you're discussing that issue, but only in vague and abstract terms, in which case you should determine the current impact and future implications.

Or perhaps you're talking in concrete and tangible terms, but you're not making progress toward a solution, in which case the first step is to examine (and take responsibility for) your personal contribution.

Or perhaps you and the other party are (finally!) on the same page, but you just can't reach closure, in which case you should describe the ideal outcome and then commit to action to insure accountability.

Next Steps and Questions to Consider

• Where would stronger boundaries help?
• What conversations do you need to have to establish those boundaries?
• In what ways do you expect those conversations to be difficult?
• How might the Mineral Rights framework make those conversations more productive?
• Commit to having the most important conversations you need to have over the next three weeks with these concepts in mind, and assess their impact.

---

As I noted at the beginning of this 3-part series (here's Part 1 on Happiness, and here's Part 2 on Excellence), these posts are based on a workshop I developed and presented to a group of leaders in Los Angeles a few months ago.  Once again, thanks to Mike Allison for the opportunity to work with a group of leaders he's been supporting for several years, and thanks to my Stanford colleagues Andrea Corney, Carole Robin, Lisa Schwallie and Ricki Frankel for the opportunity to collaborate with them and deepen my understanding of the topics addressed here.

And many, many thanks to social psychologists Martin Seligman, Sonja Lyubomirsky and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi; business thinkers Peter Drucker, Seth Godin and Michael Gilbert; and executive coach Susan Scott--their original work is the basis for this series and has made it possible for me to be of much greater service to my own clients and students, and I'm deeply grateful.

Happiness, Excellence and Boundaries: A Framework for Leaders (Part 2 of 3)

This is Part 2 in a 3-part series of posts based on a workshop I developed and presented to a group of leaders in Los Angeles in June.  Here's Part 1, on Happiness (which includes a discussion of this series' fundamental premise), and here's Part 3, on Boundaries.

---

II. Excellence, Signature Strengths and Strategic Quitting

Peter Drucker and Managing Oneself

Peter Drucker was one of the 20th century's foremost organizational thinkers, and his work has had a substantial influence not only on my approach to executive coaching but also on my own personal and professional development. Drucker's brilliant essay Managing Oneself, which I discussed earlier this year, was first published in the Harvard Business Review in 1999 and highlights the importance of focusing on our strengths:

One should waste as little effort as possible on improving areas of low competence. It takes far more energy and work to improve from incompetence to mediocrity than it takes to improve from first-rate performance to excellence. And yet most people--especially most teachers and most organizations--concentrate on making incompetent performers into mediocre ones. Energy, resources, and time should go instead into making a competent person into a star performer.

I find Drucker's article a valuable resource in helping my clients and students make decisions about their careers because it encourages us to answer three challenging questions:  What are my strengths?  What do I value? and Under what conditions do I do my best work?

I believe all three questions are equally important, but at the moment I want to focus on the first.  So ask yourself: What are my strengths? Where could I improve from first-rate performance to excellence? Where should I be focusing my energy, resources and time? Just as important, where am I wasting effort trying to improve from incompetence to mediocrity?

Martin Seligman and Signature Strengths

We can begin to address these questions by returning to the work of psychologist Martin Seligman (discussed previously in Part 1 of this series) and his concept of Signature Strengths. 

In seeking to understand the components of mental health Seligman and his colleagues identified six fundamental virtues which he describes as "the core characteristics endorsed by almost all religious and philosophical traditions [which, taken together,] capture the notion of good character."  These virtues are as follows--I've added definitions from Seligman in parentheses where I find them useful:

1.Wisdom and Knowledge

2. Courage ("The open-eyed exercise of will toward…worthy ends that are not certain of attainment.")

3. Love and Humanity

4. Justice

5. Temperance ("The appropriate and moderate expression of your appetites and wants.")

6. Transcendence ("Emotional strengths that reach outside and beyond you to connect you to something larger and more permanent.")

As Seligman notes, these six virtues "are unworkably abstract for psychologists who want to build and measure these things.  Moreover, for each virtue, we can think of several ways to achieve it, and the goal of measuring and building leads us to focus on these specific routes."  So he and his colleagues also  identified 24 traits associated with happiness, meaning and fulfillment--the practical means by which we exercise the primary virtues--which he calls strengths.  These traits share three characteristics:

• Like the primary virtues, these strengths are ubiquitous, valued by almost every culture around the world.
• The 24 strengths are learnable, meaning that they're not innate and can be developed.
• Finally, the strengths are voluntary, meaning that they're not automatic reflexes and must be intentionally exercised.

Here's a list of the 24 strengths that Seligman organizes in clusters under each of the primary virtues:

Wisdom and Knowledge

1. Curiosity / Interest in the World

2. Love of Learning

3. Judgment / Critical Thinking / Open-Mindedness

4. Ingenuity / Originality / Practical Intelligence / Street Smarts

5. Social Intelligence / Personal Intelligence / Emotional Intelligence

6. Perspective

Courage

7. Valor and Bravery

8. Perseverance / Industry / Diligence

9. Integrity / Genuineness / Honesty

Humanity and Love

10. Kindness and Generosity

11. Loving and Allowing Oneself to Be Loved

Justice

12. Citizenship / Duty / Teamwork / Loyalty

13. Fairness and Equity

14. Leadership

Temperance

15. Self-Control

16. Prudence / Discretion / Caution

17. Humility and Modesty

Transcendence

18. Appreciation of Beauty and Excellence

19. Gratitude

20. Hope / Optimism / Future-Mindedness

21. Spirituality / Sense of Purpose / Faith / Religiousness

22. Forgiveness and Mercy

23. Playfulness and Humor

24. Zest / Passion / Enthusiasm

Most of these traits are self-explanatory, but I refer you to Seligman's book Authentic Happiness for complete definitions that help to explain why he frequently buckets multiple traits as a single "strength."

What Are My Signature Strengths?

Seligman and his colleague Christopher Peterson devised a questionnaire that allows us to determine which of these traits are most important to us, known as the VIA (Values in Action) Survey of Character Strengths.  The complete, 240-question version of this survey is available online through the VIA Institute on Character and the University of Pennsylvania's Positive Psychology Center, which are both associated with Seligman.  A 48-question paper version is also available in Authentic Happiness, although it actually takes more time to complete than the longer online version because you have to score it yourself.  (I've completed all three, and I find the online versions more useful.  Registration with an email address is required at both sites, but it's a simple, straightforward process, and I've never received any spam from either organization as a result.)

These surveys rank the 24 strengths in order of their importance to us, but Seligman encourages us to also assess them qualitatively in order to be able to apply them most effectively.  He writes:

Look at the list of your top five strengths.  Most of these will feel authentic to you, but one or two of them may not be the real you...

I believe each person possesses several signature strengths.  These are strengths of character that a person self-consciously owns, celebrates, and (if he or she can arrange life successfully) exercises every day in work, love, play and parenting.  Take your life of top strengths, and for each one ask if any of these criteria apply:

• A sense of ownership and authenticity ("This is the real me")
• A feeling of excitement while displaying it, particularly at first
• A rapid learning curve as the strength is first practiced
• Continuous learning of new ways to enact the strength
• A sense of yearning to find ways to use it
• A feeling of inevitability in using the strength ("Try and stop me")
• Invigoration rather than exhaustion while using the strength
• The creation and pursuit of personal projects that revolve around it
• Joy, zest, enthusiasm, even ecstasy while using it

If one or more of these apply to your top strengths [as reported by the survey], they are signature strengths... Herein is my formulation of the good life: Using your signature strengths every day in the main realms of your life to bring abundant gratification and authentic happiness.

Seth Godin and Strategic Quitting

While I find Seligman's definition of the good life useful because it supports my sense of agency in the process of attaining fulfillment and happiness, I can also find that same quality overwhelming, particularly when things aren't going well--and when I may be susceptible to feeling that a lack of fulfillment or happiness is a deficiency on my part, as if I just weren't trying hard enough.

I'm reminded of another quote from Drucker's "Managing Oneself":

[M]ost 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... [Emphasis mine]

Drucker is pushing us to recognize that there are many careers and jobs that are not a good fit with our strengths, our values or the conditions under which we do our best work--and we need to be able to close doors, limit options and move forward in order to find those places where we do fit.  Given that many of my clients and students are making or considering a career transition and are looking to expand, not limit, their options, this concept can be both scary and liberating.

But what if you know you're in the right job, in the right career, on the right path...and you're still feeling unhappy or unfulfilled?  Perhaps rather than making a BIG change, you could make some little changes.  This leads me to the concept of "strategic quitting," a term from Seth Godin's 2007 book The Dip that I first discussed a few years ago.  Godin writes:

Strategic quitting is the secret of successful organizations.  Reactive quitting and serial quitting are the bane of those that strive (and fail) to get what they want. And most people do just that.  They quit when it's painful and stick when they can't be bothered to quit...

Strategic quitting is a conscious decision you make based on the choices available to you.  If you realize you're at a dead end compared with what you could be investing in, quitting is not only a reasonable choice, it's a smart one...

Coping is what people do when they try to muddle through... The problem with coping is that it never leads to exceptional performance... All coping does is waste your time and misdirect your energy.  If the best you can do is cope, you're better off quitting.  Quitting is better than coping because quitting frees you up to excel at something else...

Quit the wrong stuff.  Stick with the right stuff.

I find Godin's framework a useful parallel to Drucker's on a smaller scale.  Where Drucker is helping us chart our life by choosing (and rejecting) careers and jobs, Godin is helping us plan our days and weeks by sticking with (and quitting) projects, responsibilities, ventures.

In both cases they're encouraging us to focus--to focus our time, energy and attention on areas where we can deliver excellence.  In my experience most of us are over-committed, spreading ourselves too thin, and failing to deliver excellence where it really counts.  We're coping, when we should be quitting.  But what Drucker and Godin are saying is that only excellence matters. Improving from incompetence to mediocrity is worse than useless, because time and effort expended in those areas are being stolen from areas where excellence is within our grasp.

I find it liberating to think along these lines, not only in my professional life but also in my personal life.  Where can I deliver excellence?  Where should I expect excellence in return?  And how can I focus my time and energy to make this as likely as possible?

This allows me to do some strategic quitting--or even better, not to start misguided efforts in the first place--and substantially increase the return on my personal investments.  And even when I can't quit outright, I'm better able to set boundaries that put projects and activities in perspective and prevent them from hogging resources (most significantly, my finite time and energy) that they don't deserve.

And the real payoff comes when I bring my signature strengths to bear on the process of strategic quitting.  By understanding not only what skills I possess but also which skills I find particularly fulfilling to exercise, and then by focusing my time, energy and attention on activities where those skills are called upon--and by quitting those activities where they're NOT called upon--I find that I experience Seligman's definition of the good life more readily and with less effort.

Next Steps and Questions to Consider

• Take the VIA Survey of Character Strengths, online at the VIA Institute on Character or the University of Pennsylvania's Positive Psychology Center, or on paper in Seligman's Authentic Happiness.
• What are your Signature Strengths, and which ones are most meaningful to you?
• How can you make more effective use of your strengths to deliver excellence?
• Where are you merely coping rather than succeeding?
• How do these efforts correspond with your scores on the Strengths Survey?
• What strategic quitting can you do?
• Commit to employing your three most meaningful Signature Strengths more intentionally for three weeks and assess their impact.

---

Again, here's Part 1 of this 3-part series, on Happiness (which includes a discussion of the series' fundamental premise), and here's Part 3, on Boundaries.

Continued thanks to my colleagues Mike Allison, Andrea Corney, Carole Robin, Lisa Schwallie and Ricki Frankel.  And many, many thanks to Peter Drucker, Martin Seligman, and Seth Godin--their work has made it possible for me to be of much greater service to my clients and students, and I'm tremendously grateful.

Happiness, Excellence and Boundaries: A Framework for Leaders (Part 1 of 3)

This is Part 1 in a 3-part series of posts based on a workshop I developed and presented to a group of leaders in Los Angeles in June.  (Here's Part 2, on Excellence, and here's Part 3, on Boundaries.)  The underlying concepts discussed here originate with social psychologists Martin Seligman, Sonja Lyubomirsky and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi; business thinkers Peter Drucker, Seth Godin and Michael Gilbert; and executive coach Susan Scott, and I'm deeply grateful to them for their influential and important work.

Thanks to my colleague Mike Allison for the opportunity to spend time with a group of people whose growth and development he's been supporting for the past few years, and many thanks to the members of that group for welcoming me into their community.  Thanks also to my Stanford colleagues Andrea Corney, Carole Robin, Lisa Schwallie and Ricki Frankel--the five of us worked together developing what eventually became Taking Stock and Moving Forward, an elective taught by Carole to second-year students at the Graduate School of Business.  I'd already been working with the concepts touched on in these posts for several years (and in this series I often revise passages from my earlier work), but the experience of collaborating with that team was incredibly educational and furthered my understanding immensely.

---

Fundamental Premise

Happiness: Organizational success starts with leaders who feel a personal sense of happiness and fulfillment.  Not all successful organizations are led by happy people, and not all unsuccessful organizations are led by unhappy people (although I suspect the correlation is higher in the latter case), but I believe that, all else being equal, happy people make better leaders, and happy leaders build better organizations.  Research shows that we have a substantial degree of control over our levels of happiness and fulfillment, and we exercise that control most effectively through small-scale, consistent intentional activities, not through large-scale changes in our life circumstances.

Excellence: Leaders cultivate excellence in our organizations by striving for it ourselves. We achieve excellence most readily by focusing on our strengths and making the most of them, not by focusing on our weaknesses and seeking to overcome them.  In order to employ this approach, we first need to identify our "signature strengths," the traits that are most meaningful to us and in which we find the most fulfillment, and then we typically need to do some "strategic quitting," letting go of certain responsibilities or tasks in order to focus on others where excellence is obtainable.

Boundaries: The demands of leadership and the dynamic nature of work today inevitably make the concept of "life/work balance" seem out of reach--but "boundaries," not "balance," should be our goal.  Good boundaries allow leaders to live an integrated life, fulfilling our organizational responsibilities while insuring that our other needs are met as well.  But we can’t establish boundaries alone—we need to collaborate and communicate with others, a process that requires us to step into difficult conversations more effectively.

---

Part I. Happiness and Intentional Activities

Martin Seligman and Positive Psychology

The field of psychology has, for the most part, focused on mental illness and its causes.  These efforts have met with success—we can effectively treat and in some cases fully cure most forms of mental illness.  But a consequence of this approach is that we know relatively less about mental health and its causes.

Beginning in the late 1980s and '90s, a number of psychologists recognized this gap in our understanding and turned their attention to the study of mental health, happiness and other forms of high functioning.  Martin Seligman of the University of Pennsylvania was a leader in this group, and he's often credited as the father of "positive psychology," as this field of research came to be known.

Here's a brief example of the type of the research conducted by positive psychologists, drawn from Seligman's 2002 book Authentic Happiness:

Fordyce Emotions Questionnaire

Question 1: In general, how happy do you usually feel?  Pick the one statement that best describes your average happiness.

10. Extremely happy (feeling ecstatic, joyous, fantastic)

9. Very happy (feeling really good, elated)

8. Pretty happy (spirits high, feeling good)

7. Mildly happy (feeling fairly good & somewhat cheerful)

6. Slightly happy (just a bit above normal)

5. Neutral (not particularly happy or unhappy)

4. Slightly unhappy (just a bit below neutral)

3. Mildly unhappy (just a bit low)

2. Pretty unhappy (somewhat "blue," spirits down)

1. Very unhappy (depressed, spirits very low)

0. Extremely unhappy (utterly depressed, completely down)

Question 2: On average, what percent of the time do you feel happy?  What percent of the time do you feel unhappy?  What percent of the time do you feel neutral (neither happy nor unhappy)?

The percentage of time I feel happy:

The percentage of time I feel unhappy:

The percentage of time I feel neutral:

Average responses from a sample of 3,050 American adults

I'm not drawing any particular conclusions from this specific set of data, but I do find it a useful introduction to the quantitative measures of happiness developed by positive psychologists, a body of research that underlies the findings discussed in the next section.

Sonja Lyubomirsky and Happiness Strategies

Sonja Lyubomirsky is a social psychologist who studied with Seligman, completed her Ph.D. at Stanford and now teaches at UC Riverside, where she has been researching happiness for a number of years.  Lyubomirsky's work culminated in the 2008 book The How of Happiness, which I discussed extensively in February 2009 and which includes the following graph:

This image conveys three of the most important (and surprising) findings from positive psychology research:

1. Half of our happiness is attributable to a "genetic set point" inherited from our parents and similar to other genetically influenced predispositions, such as weight.  (As the graph indicates, the other half of our happiness is attributable to a combination of life circumstances and intentional activities.)  Lyubomirsky writes:

The set point for happiness is similar to the set point for weight. Some people are blessed with skinny dispositions: Even when they're not trying, they easily maintain their weight. By contrast, others have to work extraordinarily hard to keep their weight at a desirable level, and the moment they slack off even a bit, the pounds creep back on.

So those of us with low happiness set points will have to work harder to achieve and maintain happiness, while those of us with high set points will find it easier to be happy under similar conditions.  This framework fits with our current understanding of genetics in which the question of "Nature vs. Nurture?" has been supplanted by a model in which genes we possess are turned on or off by certain behaviors and factors in our environment.

2. A surprisingly small amount of our happiness—just 10 percent—is determined by our life circumstances.  Lyubomirsky continues:

[O]nly about 10 percent of the variance in our happiness levels is explained by differences in life circumstances or situations--that is, whether we are rich or poor, healthy or unhealthy, beautiful or plain, married or divorced, etc. If with a magic wand we could put [a group of people] into the same set of circumstances (same house, same spouse, same place of birth, same face, same aches and pains), the differences in their happiness levels would be reduced by a measly 10 percent.

Lyubomirsky notes that this finding runs contrary to many of our efforts to obtain happiness:

One of the great ironies of our quest to become happier is that so many of us focus on changing the circumstances of our lives in the misguided hope that those changes will deliver happiness… An impressive body of research now shows that trying to be happy by changing our life situations ultimately will not work.

Why do life changes account for so little? Because of a very powerful force that psychologists call hedonic adaptation…

Human beings are remarkably adept at becoming rapidly accustomed to sensory or physiologic changes. When you walk in from the bitter cold, the warmth of the crackling fire feels heavenly at first, but you quickly get used to it and may even become overheated… This experience is labeled physiological or sensory adaptation. The same phenomenon, however, occurs with hedonic shifts--that is, relocation, marriages, job changes--that make you happier for a time, but only a short time…

Human beings adapt to favorable changes in wealth, housing, and possessions, to being beautiful or being surrounded by beauty, to good health, and even to marriage…

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 implication is that almost all efforts to increase and maintain happiness through changes in life circumstances are doomed to fail. Even the most positive changes will eventually be taken for granted as we adapt to them, and their long-term impact on our happiness will be minimal.

3. Finally, the remaining 40 percent of our happiness is determined by our behavior--intentional activities that we might call "happiness strategies." This is the core of Lyubomirsky's thesis: We can't alter our genetic set points, and changes in life circumstances don't have a lasting impact on our happiness, but we can increase and sustain our happiness through intentional activities.  She concludes:

If we observe genuinely happy people, we shall find that they do not just sit around being contented. They make things happen. They pursue new understandings, seek new achievements, and control their thoughts and feelings. In sum, our intentional effortful activities have a powerful effect on how happy we are, over and above the effect of our set points and the circumstances in which we find ourselves. If an unhappy person wants to experience interest, enthusiasm, contentment, peace and joy, he or she can make it happen by learning the habits of a happy person.

Twelve Happiness Strategies

The twelve activities described by Lyubomirsky as "evidence-based happiness-increasing strategies whose practice is supported by scientific research" include:

1. Expressing Gratitude: Counting your blessings for what you have (either to a close other or privately, through contemplation or a journal) or conveying your gratitude and appreciation to one or more individuals whom you've never properly thanked.

2. Cultivating Optimism: Keeping a journal in which you imagine and write about the best possible future for yourself or practicing to look at the bright side of every situation.

3. Avoiding Overthinking and Social Comparison: Using strategies (such as distraction) to cut down on how often you dwell on your problems and compare yourself with others.

4. Practicing Acts of Kindness: Doing good things for others, whether friends or strangers, either directly or anonymously, either spontaneously or planned.

5. Nurturing Social Relationships: Picking a relationship in need of strengthening and investing time and energy in healing, cultivating, affirming and enjoying it.

6. Developing Strategies for Coping: Practicing ways to endure or surmount a recent stress, hardship or trauma.

7. Learning to Forgive: Keeping a journal or writing a letter in which you work on letting go of anger and resentment toward one or more individuals who have hurt or wronged you.

8. Increasing Flow* Experiences: Increasing the number of experiences at home and work in which you "lose" yourself, which are challenging and absorbing.

9. Savoring Life's Joys: Paying close attention, taking delight, and replaying life's momentary pleasures and wonders, through thinking, writing, drawing, or sharing with another.

10. Committing to Your Goals: Picking one, two, or three significant goals that are meaningful to you and devoting time and effort to pursuing them.

11. Practicing Religion and Spirituality: Becoming more involved in your church, temple or mosque or reading and pondering spiritually themed books.

12. Taking Care of Your Body: Engaging in physical activity, meditating and smiling and laughing.

These aren't the only meaningful happiness strategies, but they're all evidenced-based and supported by the research of Lyubomirsky and her colleagues, and together they constitute a list sufficiently broad so that each one of us can find the set of activities that's right for us as an individual.

* A note on "flow": The concept of "flow" has been the primary research topic of psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pronounced Cheek-sent-me-high).  When we chart our mental state during activities that present us with a varying level of challenge relative to our skill--see below--we find that when our skill is substantially higher than the challenge being posed, we become bored.  Conversely, when the challenge is substantially higher than our skill, we become anxious.  And when the two are relatively balanced, we find ourselves in a state of "flow," where we lose track of time and become fully absorbed in the activity.  This is the state we're referring to when we say we're "in a groove" or "in the zone."  While Csikszentmihalyi's research has shown a number of advantages to cultivating opportunities to experience flow, Lyubomirsky's work shows that more flow experiences result in greater happiness.

What Strategies Are Right for You?

All of the happiness strategies listed above are potential options for us, but it's essential to choose strategies that best address the sources of our unhappiness, that take greatest advantage of our strengths, talents and goals, and that can be adapted most readily to our needs and lifestyle. In determining which happiness strategies are best for us, we should consider the following factors:

"Naturalness": Some strategies simply feel "natural" to us, making it easier for us to stick with them.

Enjoyment: Some strategies provide us with intrinsic enjoyment and seem both interesting and challenging to us.

Value: We inherently value and identify with some strategies, and would practice them freely even when it's not enjoyable.

Guilt: Strategies that work best don't induce feelings of guilt, shame or anxiety.

Situation: Finally, strategies that work best aren't mandated by our immediate situation, but are more universally applicable and can be practiced in many different contexts.

The How of Happiness contains a "Person-Activity Fit Diagnostic," which Lyubomirsky developed based on the work of psychologist Ken Sheldon to help you select the strategies that are the best fit for you based on the criteria above.  Lyubomirsky offers a short online version of the diagnostic, but I find the full version much more useful, although it's a little more time-consuming to complete.  Here's a printer-friendly paper version of the diagnostic (PDF, 35 KB, requires Adobe Reader).

Note that the bulk The How of Happiness describes each of the 12 strategies in detail, including the specific activities that have the greatest impact on happiness as well as certain limitations and challenges associated with each strategy.  For a full understanding of how to implement these strategies most effectively, I highly recommend reading the complete book.

Next Steps and Questions to Consider

• Complete Lyubomirsky's "Person-Activity Fit Diagnostic" online or on paper.
• What strategies feel like the best fit for you?
• How might you implement them in your own life?
• Commit to three strategies for the next three weeks and assess their impact.

---

Here's Part 2 of this 3-part series, on Excellence and here's Part 3, on Boundaries.  Again, thanks to my colleagues Mike Allison, Andrea Corney, Carole Robin, Lisa Schwallie and Ricki Frankel.  And many, many thanks to Martin Seligman, Sonja Lyubomirsky, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and their colleagues--their groundbreaking research into these topics has made it possible for me to be of much greater service to my clients and students, and I'm tremendously grateful.

Photo credits: "Happiness" by babasteve.  "Excellence" by neal_mcquaid.  "Boundaries" by lemoncat1.  Yay Flickr and Creative Commons.

Developing Your Professional Vision

"Truly great [professionals] understand the difference between what should never change and what should be open for change, between what is genuinely sacred and what is not.  This rare ability to manage continuity and change--requiring a consciously practiced discipline--is closely linked to the ability to develop a vision."

Introduction

The passage above is from Jim Collins and Jerry Porras's Building Your Company's Vision, originally published in the September-October 1996 issue of the Harvard Business Review and derived from their work together on Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies.  (The HBR article is freely available, or you can purchase and download a PDF from HBR or Amazon.)

Collins and Porras's article was originally aimed at organizational leaders and intended to highlight the value of a corporate vision, but I've found in my coaching practice that their principles apply equally to individuals and can be readily adapted to help a person define their own professional vision.  (For example, I've substituted "professionals" for "companies in the passage above, and coaching clients of mine have found this quote personally meaningful to them.  I suspect that the transferability of Collins and Porras's ideas from organizations to individuals derives in part from Porras's study of systems theory and the many parallels between organizations and individuals from a systems theory perspective.)

Please note: The concepts and language below are derived from Collins and Porras's original work, which I've merely adapted and modified for use by individuals.  For a fuller exploration of Collins and Porras's ideas, I highly encourage you to read Building Your Company's Vision and Built to Last in full.

---

Developing Your Professional Vision

A professional vision consists of two interrelated elements:

• Your CORE IDEOLOGY: What you stand for and why you exist as a professional, lasting qualities that in some cases will never change over the course of your lifetime.

• An ENVISIONED FUTURE: What you aspire to become, achieve, or create--a vividly described goal that will change only at long-term intervals.

Let's discuss each of these elements and their constituent components:

Your CORE IDEOLOGY

Your core ideology defines what you stand for and aspire to achieve as a professional.  It consists of 1. Your Core Values and 2. Your Core Purpose.  Be aware that you can't create your core ideology; you discover it.  You won't deduce it by observing anything in your external environment; you understand it by looking within yourself.  Your core ideology must be authentic and genuine.  It is not relevant to consider what core values you should have or what your core purpose ought to be.   Aspirations may be part of your long-term envisioned future or your short-term strategies, but they're not elements of your core ideology.  (You may identify authentic core values that have weakened over time, but you should also acknowledge the great effort that will likely be required to revitalize them.)

This emphasis on authenticity is important because the purpose of your core ideology is to guide and inspire you, not to differentiate yourself from anyone else.  Other people may readily share your core values or purpose.  What will distinguish you is the consistency with which you live by your core ideology, not its content.

1. Your Core Values

Your core values are your essential and enduring tenets.  These guiding principles require no external justification and have intrinsic value, meaning and relevance to your conduct as a professional.  You will not alter your core values in response to changes in your circumstances or external environment; rather, you will change jobs or even professions in order to remain true to your core values.

You'll have to push with relentless honesty to define the values that are truly central for you.  After drafting a preliminary list of potential core values, ask yourself the following five questions about each item:

• If for any reason this value became a disadvantage and you were somehow penalized for maintaining it, would you continue to live by it?
• If you were advising your children about their core values, how important should this value be in their professional lives?
• If you were independently wealthy, how significantly would this value continue to affect your dealings with other people?
• If you were to launch a new career in an entirely different profession, how important would this value be to you?
• Do you expect this value to be equally valid for you a year from now?  Ten years from now?  Twenty-five years from now?

Aim to narrow down your list to three, four or (at most) five items.  If more than five values remain on your list after asking these questions, consider whether you're confusing values (which rarely change, if ever) with strategies (which should change as often as necessary).

2. Your Core Purpose

Your core purpose is your professional reason for being.  It reflects your idealistic motivations for working.  Your core purpose is a concept that should have meaning and relevance throughout your entire career, and it shouldn't be confused with professional goals, which may change frequently during your lifetime.

Your core purpose is like a compass heading: it defines a course for you to follow, but it is not a destination that you can reach.  But even though your core purpose doesn't change, it will inspire change.  The fact that your core purpose can't be entirely fulfilled should drive you forward.

You can begin to understand your core purpose through a "Five Whys" exercise.  First, state what you do as a professional in clear and simple language.  Then ask yourself, "Why is this important?"  Answer the question as clearly and simply as possible, and use your answer to redefine what you do as a professional.  Then ask yourself, "Why is this important?" again, and repeat the process four more times.  Each cycle should help you define your professional purpose at a deeper and more fundamental level.  It may take fewer than five "Whys?" or it may take more, but at a certain point you will have a sense that this is your core purpose.

Another approach is to ask yourself, "If I woke up tomorrow independently wealthy, what would keep me working in my current job?  What deeper sense of purpose would motivate me to dedicate my valuable energies to this career, if there were no need for financial rewards?"

The point of these exercises is not to create a perfectly crafted list of core values and definition of core purpose.  The point is to gain a deep understanding of your values and purpose, to enable you to live and express these concepts in a consistent way throughout your career.

Don't confuse core ideology with core competencies.  The latter define "What you're good at," while the former defines "What you stand for and why you exist."  Your ideology and competencies should be aligned and are often related, but they're still different concepts, with different implications for guiding your career.

Finally, once you've defined your core ideology, be aware that you are now fully free to change anything that's not part of the core.  If it's not core, you can change it!  Which brings us to...

YOUR ENVISIONED FUTURE

Like your core ideology, your envisioned future also consists of two parts: 1. An Audacious Goal and 2. A Vivid Description of what it would be like to accomplish that goal.

1. An Audacious Goal

Ordinary goals are, well, ordinary.  Audacious goals...

• Look beyond your current capabilities and environment.
• Are clear and tangible, requiring little or no explanation.
• Are compelling, energizing and engaging.
• Focus your efforts on their fulfillment.
• Have a defined finish line.

By definition, an audacious goal may have a modest chance of success, but it also compels you to believe that you can--and you will--achieve it.

Take care not to confuse your audacious goal with your core purpose.  You will one day achieve your audacious goal and move on to new ones, but you will never fulfill your core purpose.  If your audacious goal is a mountain to climb, your core purpose is a guiding star on the horizon.

2. A Vivid Description

This is a vibrant, engaging and specific description of what it would be like to achieve your audacious goal.  It may be useful to think of it not only in linguistic terms but also in images, as if it were a picture you could carry around with you to instantly communicate your audacious goal to others and to remind yourself of what success would feel like.

Passion, emotion and conviction are essential elements of a truly vivid description.  You can't just describe it; you have to feel it.

If identifying your core ideology is a process of discovery, determining your envisioned future is an act of creativity.  You may find it tempting to "analyze" your way into the future, but this approach may not yield success.  If you're having difficulty identifying your audacious goal, it may be more effective to start from a vivid description of what success would feel like (by any definition of "success" that is relevant to you).  This involves asking questions like the following:

• Where do you see yourself in ten or even 25 years?
• If a journalist in the future were to write an article about you and your success, what would the article be about?  What topics would it cover?
• What limits have you set for yourself as a professional?  And what would it look like if you exceeded those limits?

Note that there is no "right" envisioned future.  Your vision is the vision that you find exciting and stimulating.  Don't measure it using other people's yardsticks.

Ultimately, your vision is not a text that exists separate from your career; your vision will be defined by the actions that you take as a professional.  An outside observer should be able to infer your vision by watching what you do without ever reading it on paper.  So...what's your professional vision?

---

Appendix: Developing Your Professional Vision Exercises

Here's a streamlined version of the steps described above, which is also available as a set of PowerPoint slides (148 KB):

CORE IDEOLOGY

1. Core Values

List your values, ask the following questions about each one, and narrow down your list to three, four or (at most) five core values:

• If for any reason this value became a disadvantage and you were somehow penalized for maintaining it, would you continue to live by it?
• If you were advising your children about their core values, how important should this value be in their professional lives?
• If you were independently wealthy, how significantly would this value continue to affect your dealings with other people?
• If you were to launch a new career in an entirely different profession, how important would this value be to you?
• Do you expect this value to be equally valid for you a year from now?  Ten years from now?  Twenty-five years from now?

2. Core Purpose

("Five Whys")  State what you do as a professional in clear and simple language.  Then ask yourself, "Why is this important?"  Use your answer to redefine what you do as a professional, and then ask, "Why is this important?" again, and repeat the process four more times.  It may take fewer than five "Whys?" or it may take more, but at a certain point you will have a sense that this is your core purpose.

ENVISIONED FUTURE

1. Audacious Goal

Identify an audacious goal that...

• Looks beyond your current capabilities and environment.
• Is clear and tangible, requiring little or no explanation.
• Is compelling, energizing and engaging.
• Focuses your efforts on its fulfillment.
• Has a defined finish line.

2. Vivid Description

Describe what it would be like to achieve your audacious goal.  Think not only in linguistic terms but also in images, as if it were a picture you could carry around with you.  Start from a vivid description of what success would feel like.  Ask yourself:

• Where do you see yourself in ten or even 25 years?
• If a journalist in the future were to write an article about you and your success, what would the article be about?  What topics would it cover?
• What limits have you set for yourself as a professional?  And what would it look like if you exceeded those limits?

---

Many thanks to Jim Collins and Jerry Porras for their groundbreaking work in Building Your Company's Vision and Built to Last.

Gear image courtesy of Icons Etc.

Grant McCracken on Brainstorming as Intellectual Improv

Following up on my recent recommendation of Grant McCracken's Chief Culture Officer (as well as my appreciation for Grant's acknowledgment of the strategic importance of empathy), I wanted to highlight one more thought-provoking concept in the book: Brainstorming as Intellectual Improv.  Grant describes a brainstorming session convened by Denise Fonseca, who is currently director of global business and consumer insights for Coca-Cola:

[pp 135-137] Fonseca has assembled people with various kinds of expertise.  Most were from the academic world.  They do not play well with others.  They object, cavil, quibble, carp and niggle.

Fonseca gave us fair warning.  She said something like,

There is one rule in this room: No no's.  You may not contradict, dispute, or disagree with the things you hear here.  I am going to enforce the "no no's" rule with my M&M's.  When I hear you contradict, dispute or disagree, I am going to pelt you with an M&M.  Or several M&M's, depending on the severity of your offense.

I listened with interest.  And I tried my best.  But years of academic training got the better of me.  I caviled, quibbled and disputed several times.  The first M&M struck me in the lapel.  The second bounced off the notes in front of me.  The last one was a direct hit, caroming off my noggin.  (Nice shot, Fonseca!)

The "no no's" rule comes as a surprise to a lot of people.  It seems like a recipe for chaos.  Isn't caviling the very method of quality control?  Actually, it isn't always.  Too often it's the way academics jam the airwaves against new ideas.  But the point of this undertaking is not quality control, it's idea generation.  When what we are looking for is a sheer profusion of possibilities, no no's is the path to riches.

Good brainstorming is an act of intellectual improv.  A group of people agree to break the normal rules and reservations of interaction and "go for it."  Their objective: to go places they could not get on their own...

But how are we to separate the good from the bad ideas?  The good news is that, in good groups, bad ideas go away by themselves.  No one picks them up.  No one remains their champion...

One of the conditions of brainstorming is a "nonproprietary" approach from the participants.  The moment an idea escapes our lips, it belongs to the group...  We have to learn to say goodbye.  We get credit in general for our performance...but otherwise ideas end up belonging to everyone.  This is sometimes the hardest lesson for academics to learn...

Once we learn to say no to no, we have to learn to say yes to yes... Brainstorming works best when we commit heart and soul.  It works best when we engage in a kind of improv.  The first positive rule of brainstorming is just what it is in improv: Take up every pretext and run with it.

---

Further Thoughts on Group Process

While I do find Grant's belief in the power of brainstorming compelling (and have said so before), this counterpoint from Johnnie Moore is worth bearing in mind:

Personally, I like methods that allow...people a flexibility to work at different paces and [use] different ways of interacting. I tend not to use the word "brainstorming" as for me it's too suggestive of a relentless fast-pace. With more time for reflection, people sometimes generate ideas that are somewhere in the fascinating gaps between one point of view and another. And I like rules-of-thumb more than absolute instructions for how we might all choose to play together.

Ultimately I think it's most important to be mindful of the overall group dynamic.  For example, do we tend to "object, cavil, quibble, carp and niggle," like Grant's academics?  Then a formal set of brainstorming parameters, such as a hard-and-fast "No No's" rule, might give ideas time to breathe before they're suffocated.

It's also worth considering where the group is in the decision-making process.  Do we need to begin eliminating options in order to reach closure?  Then the time for brainstorming is over, and we need to transition into an entirely different process--but until we reach that point, perhaps we need a set of agreements that will help us stay in idea-generation mode.  Sam Kaner's framework for decision-making is a simple but very useful tool in this regard:

Finally, I'm reminded of Grant's elements of reinvention, an extraordinarily thoughtful list of the dynamics that characterize change.  Put all these concepts together, and they comprise a great set of tools for stimulating idea generation, reinvention, and change while also helping a group ultimately move forward and reach closure.