Interesting Links


Jul 15, 2009

Operator's Manual

Your Career: An Operator's Manual

A few weeks ago I posted six Self-Coaching Guides, compilations of edited posts on the topics of Communication, Leadership, Motivation, Change, Learning and Happiness.  Those six topics--listed here in the order they were written--emerged from a review of my work on this site over the past 5 years.  As I sifted through more than 600 posts, I found that the ones with lasting relevance to my work as a coach sorted themselves into these topics.

I've continued to reflect on these topics and feel that they cover the full range of issues that come up with my coaching clients and students while also providing a useful overview of my perspective on effectiveness and fulfillment.

Three topics--Communication, Leadership and Change--address our effectiveness relative to our external environment:

  • How do we communicate with others?  How can we express ourselves more effectively?
  • How do we lead and manage?  How can we direct subordinates, influence peers and "manage up" more effectively?
  • How do we deal with change?  How do we make change happen?  How can we adapt to--and create--dynamic circumstances more effectively?

The remaining three topics--Happiness, Motivation and Learning--address our sense of fulfillment relative to our internal world:

  • What makes us happy?  Are we both professionally and personally fulfilled?
  • What motivates us to achieve our fullest potential?  Are those drives contributing to our fulfillment?  And how do we respond when we feel demotivated?
  • How do we learn?  How do we maximize our fulfillment as learners to insure that our skills keep pace with our challenges?

Rolling this all up into the graphic above creates an Operator's Manual for professional and personal development.  We need to look out and assess our effectiveness as communicators, as leaders and as change agents, and we need to look in and determine whether we're truly happy, truly motivated, truly learning--in short, whether we're fulfilled.

There's something meaningful here for me, and I'm considering making this framework the foundation for some ongoing work.  If you have any input, I'd love to hear it.

Jul 10, 2009

Chris Anderson on "Free" at Global Business Network

Chris AndersonI heard Chris Anderson speak tonight at the offices of the Global Business Network in San Francisco. He's promoting Free: The Future of a Radical Price and is tight with GBN co-founder and Chairman Peter Schwartz, who introduced Anderson and led the Q&A session, so this was presumably a friendly stopover on his media tour.

Anderson opened with the story of how Jell-O was launched in the early 20th century: they went door-to-door and gave away richly illustrated Jell-O cookbooks, creating demand for the new product among consumers, who then flocked to grocery stores seeking it.  (It's similar to the story of King Gillette subsidizing the cost of razors to sell blades, which Anderson used to open his original Wired article on the topic in early 2008.)

Anderson discussed the work of 19th century French economist Joseph Bertrand, who argued that in a competitive market, price falls to the marginal cost.  (A brief exploration of the Bertrand competition model suggests that Anderson is oversimplifying to make a point, but let's not quibble.)

In Anderson's words, "The Internet is the first truly competitive market the world has ever seen," and in this environment we experience "the law of gravity online: If marginal cost is zero, and competition is unlimited, price will fall to zero."  Anderson's quick to note that he's not saying the price should be zero or things should be free; he's merely observing the dynamics at work in the market for any products or services that can be converted to bits.

He also noted that it's not simply "free" vs. "paid" products and services, but rather free versions supported by advertising and "freemium" versions in which consumers and users pay to get something extra.  What will people pay for?  In Anderson's words...

  • People will pay to save time.
  • People will pay to lower risk.
  • People will pay for things they love.
  • People will pay for status.
  • People will pay if you make them (once they're hooked.)

The key opportunity created by offering your products and services for free is that "free allows you to fully explore your customer space... How do we use free to increase our audience [for Wired] and convert some of them to a higher price?"  He noted that you can read Wired for free online, you can purchase single copies at newsstands for one price, and you can purchase a print subscription for yet another price.  But why be limited to just three prices?  "We need more prices... What is the $100 version of Wired?"  Referring to the recent uproar over the Washington Post's plans to host a "salon" for health care lobbyists at $25,000 a head, Anderson noted, "That wasn't the right answer, but it's a really interesting question: What is the $25,000 version of the Washington Post?"

Appropriately, Anderson is offering "Free" at a range of prices: The hardcover book was $26.99 tonight (and it's $16.19 on Amazon as I write this.)  Almost all digital versions of the book are free, but most come a with a variety of limits on how long you can access the materials.  The unabridged version (6 hours) is free, but the abridged version (3 hours) is $9.99.  (Now you know how Hyperion prices 3 hours of your time.)

And Anderson strongly believes in the future of books.  Printed materials will survive to the extent that they add value to the online version of the same content.  Anderson expects books, which are convenient for long-form content and "look nice on a shelf," to make it.  He expects newspapers to die (or at least to be radically reinvented.)  And magazines?  They'll eventually be replaced by Apple's version of the Kindle, but the rich graphic experience they offer will keep many of them safe for now.

Anderson was asked about Malcolm Gladwell's dismissive review of "Free" in The New Yorker, in particular Gladwell's skewering of YouTube as a paragon of this new economic model.  From Gladwell's review:

To recap: YouTube is a great example of Free, except that Free technology ends up not being Free because of the way consumers respond to Free, fatally compromising YouTube's ability to make money around Free, and forcing it to retreat from the "abundance thinking" that lies at the heart of Free. Credit Suisse estimates that YouTube will lose close to half a billion dollars this year. If it were a bank, it would be eligible for TARP funds.

Anderson's not-quite-compelling response was that Gladwell underestimates the power of Google's economies of scale, his figures are off by a factor of 10, and "advertising always lags the audience" (i.e. they'll figure it out eventually.)  To Anderson's credit, he deftly acknowledged and defused the issue of his apparently inadvertant plagiarism from Wikipedia in "Free" by telling his questioner, who had apologized for asking such a tough question, that there were much tougher questions he could have asked, which prompted a chuckle from the audience.  A colleague said the Anderson-Gladwell dustup was "the nerd version of Biggie vs. Tupac."  Outstanding.  (I'll let him remain anonymous, unless he asks for attribution.)

I was reminded of my "attention economy" experience with AttentionTrust and others by Anderson's comment that the 'net and its attendant armies of bloggers, videographers and garage bands has yielded an overabundance of content, and today our attention is the truly scarce commodity.  And just as many attention-focused projects touched on the related issues of reputation and identity, Anderson sees links there as well.  He believes that "Facebook and Twitter are establishing the first quantifiable reputation markets," although I'd argue that groups like Rapleaf, Opinity and Trufina tried to do just that a few years ago, leveraging data from credit reports to eBay seller status.

Finally, one of Anderson's most interesting comments tonight was his assertion that "the key talent of the 21st century is self-promotion and creating celebrity...[and] the goal is to create celebrity, or reputation...and convert that into something that pays the rent." (On a cautionary note, he added, "And that business can be just as dirty as it sounds.")

Although one example of this is Paris Hilton and the "fame-for-being-famous" that she embodies, the openness of the Internet means that today anyone can at least get their ideas into the marketplace.  That's no guarantee of success, of course--you'll still need some luck, even with good ideas and a talent for self-promotion.  But as Anderson notes, we're now able to tap into "the long tail of talent... The Internet has lowered the transaction costs of finding talent...[and] talent will find a way."

This fascinates me as an executive coach, both on my own behalf and on behalf of my clients and students at Stanford Business School, because what Anderson is saying is that the rules are changing.  We used to rely solely on personal networks and resume credentials to locate and identify talent (and to be located and identified by others as talent.)  But in a more open marketplace of ideas, those filters are less and less useful as they screen out more "false negatives" (i.e. talented people unknown to us who lack traditional credentials) and allow through more "false positives" (i.e. people within our networks who possess traditional credentials but who aren't really all that talented.)

From a personal perspective, my writing on this site on coaching, leadership, change and related issues over the past few years has given me a reputation as someone with something of interest to say on these topics--a reputation that can be quantified in data such as my feed subscribers (932 today), my site visitors (192 so far today), even my Twitter followers (302 at the moment, enjoying all 105 of my tweets to date.)  These aren't big numbers in any absolute sense, but they're big enough (particularly given how infrequently I post) to give me a sense that what I'm saying is being heard, a sense of presence.

Calling this reputation "celebrity" would be a serious stretch, but that's a matter of degree.  And if you're interested in a topic such as "double-loop learning" or "ground rules for meetings" or the "definition of organizational effectiveness," you'll find me in Google's top 10 results for those terms (at least as of today), and that's certainly celebrity in a strange, narrow way.  (Hell, if you're just interested in "ed batista" I'm #1!)

What's the connection with "Free"?  Well, even though I don't post that often, the hours invested in my writing here over the past few years would add up to a substantial amount of unpaid time.  And I publish everything here under a Creative Commons license that gives anyone the right to share and remix my materials as long as they attribute it to me with a link and make any resulting work freely available under the same license.

So free work and free content have been the essential elements in developing a verifiable reputation and an identity as a trusted subject matter expert in my field, and I don't know how I could have done it any other way.  And seeing my own experience in this new light makes me wonder if I should be encouraging my clients and students to do more of the same.

Thanks to Chris Anderson for a thought-provoking and entertaining talk, and many thanks to Andrew Blau, Nancy Murphy and their colleagues at GBN for being such gracious hosts.

Jun 22, 2009

Cross-Cultural Communication: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Yes!How do cultural differences affect communications across a cultural divide?  Specifically, how does a culture's individual or collective orientation affect communications?

I've written before about the primary dimensions of cultural difference identified by Geert Hofstede.  One of the key dimensions is individualism vs. collectivism, which Hofstede defines as follows:

The degree to which people in a country prefer to act as individuals rather than as members of groups.  On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The word 'collectivism' in this sense has no political meaning: it refers to the group, not to the state.

In Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive, Noah Goldstein, Steve Martin and Robert Cialdini talk about the impact of this cultural dimension on communications:

People from collectivistic and individualistic cultures tend to differ in the relative weight they give to two central functions of communication.  In short, one function of communication is informational: When we communicate, we convey information to others.  A second, less obvious function of communication is relational: When we communicate, we help build and maintain relationships with others.  Although both functions are clearly important to people in all cultures, social psychologists Yuri Miyamoto and Norbert Schwarz argued that individualistic cultures place a greater emphasis on the informational function of communication, whereas collectivistic cultures place a greater emphasis on the relational function...

What do these findings say about influencing others within and outside the workplace?  As we discussed in previous chapters, relationships are a key component to the persuasion process--but this is especially true with people from countries with collectivistic orientations... These results suggest that, when dealing with people from collectivistic cultures, it is particularly important to attend to aspects of the relationship that the two of you share...

These findings also suggest that we should be especially vigilant about providing such feedback with people from collectivistic cultures, letting them know that we're attending to the relationship that we share with them as well as to the information they're trying to convey.

A point I'd add is that within any national culture, there are innumerable sub-cultures associated with different regions, industries and even organizations.  And these sub-cultures may differ substantially along the primary dimensions of cultural difference, including individualism vs. collectivism.  So even--and perhaps especially--when communicating with someone from your own country, it's worth taking some time to understand where they fall along this spectrum and tailoring your communication style accordingly.

(In addition to the research by Yuri Miyamoto and Norbert Schwarz in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology referenced above, Goldstein, Martin and Cialdini also cite the work of Ron Scollon and Suzanne Wong Scollon in Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach.)

Jun 14, 2009

Self-Coaching Guides: Communication, Leadership, Motivation, Change, Learning and Happiness

Self-Coaching GuidesSeveral students I worked with in the Leadership Coaching class at Stanford this year raised the question of how to "self-coach" after graduation--how to continue the process of personal development without the resources of a graduate program at their disposal.

Much of the writing I've done here over the past 5 years has been aimed at helping people do just that, so I've created a series of "Self-Coaching Guides"  on the topics of Communication, Leadership, Motivation, Change, Learning and Happiness.

I don't intend these brief guides to provide the definitive word on such expansive subjects, but hopefully they'll allow anyone with an interest in a given topic to do some focused reading and to learn more about the thinkers and resources I've found valuable.

(Note that the files linked to below are PDFs, which require Adobe reader, and they're fairly large, so access them over a fast connection.)

Self-Coaching Guide #1: Communication (PDF, 452 KB)

Self-Coaching Guide #2: Leadership (PDF, 301 KB)

Self-Coaching Guide #3: Motivation (PDF, 378 KB)

Self-Coaching Guide #4: Change (PDF, 397 KB)

Self-Coaching Guide #5: Learning (PDF, 564 KB)

Self-Coaching Guide #6: Happiness (PDF, 363 KB)

UPDATE: I'm finding that the six topics addressed here form a useful framework for personal development.

Photo by Nesher Guy.  Yay Flickr and Creative Commons.

Mar 26, 2009

On Decision-Making

Decision-Making

Here's a simple framework to help guide any decision-making process (and here's a one-slide PowerPoint of the graphic above [58 KB]):

1) Initiate the process in divergent thinking mode, generating as many options as possible.  Be deliberate about keeping all options on the table in this stage, and stay there as long as necessary and no longer.  (Spending too much time in this stage can be just as counterproductive as spending too little.)

2) At the end of this stage, mark a clear transition in the process.  Take a break or simply note that you're shifting gears.  If it's a group process, be certain that everyone involved is ready to move on, and get everyone's affirmative commitment before doing so.  (Trying to move on before everyone's ready can seriously undermine the group's investment in the final outcome.)  And be aware that the next stage will require a different mindset (and different ways of interacting in a group); use the transition period to make any necessary changes.

3) Begin to move toward closure by entering convergent thinking mode, eliminating options using whatever criteria you've chosen.  You may realize after entering this stage that you (or another member of the group) are still focused on generating options and aren't ready to begin eliminating them.  If so, either return to the previous stage or let go of the need to continue generating options.  (It may feel inefficient take a step back in the process, but it's even less efficient to try to reach closure when you're still generating options.)


I first encountered this framework in Sam Kaner's Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making (thanks to my colleague Andrea Corney), which I highly recommend.  And I was reminded of it recently when helping someone think about his career path.  His first inclination was to put himself through an extensive round of aptitude tests and other assessments.  But in the 2008 edition of What Color Is Your Parachute?,* Richard Bolles notes that testing can be a poor way to begin a career planning process, using a framework similar to Kaner's to make his point:

Most computerized tests embody the idea of starting with a wide range of options, and narrowing them down.  So each time you answer a question, you narrow down the number of options...

Good career-choice or career planning postpones the "narrowing down" until it has first broadened your horizons and expanded the number of options you are thinking about... You first expand your mental horizons, to see all the possibilities, and only then do you start to narrow them down to the particular two of three that interest you most.

So what's a good test?  All together now: a test that shows you more possibilities for your life.

And what's a bad test?  Again, together: a test that narrows the possibilities for your life.

(I'd modify those last two statements by noting that a good test shows you more possibilities when you're generating options--and a test that narrows possibilities can serve a useful purpose when you're eliminating options.  But I fully agree with Bolles' larger points that tests usually narrow our options, and we usually jump into convergent thinking mode too early in any decision-making process.)

None of this is rocket science, by any means, but I'm struck by how often our decision-making (particularly in group settings) could be improved by a more conscious application of this simple framework.


* In a recent review in the Wall Street Journal of Martha Finney's Rebound: A Proven Plan for Starting Over After Job Loss, Eric Felten suggests that Bolles' perennial best-seller "could stand to be retired... [W]ith its clumsy charts and checklists, its hokey visualization devices and hollow platitudes...it feels less like a book than the rummage of a community-college guidance counselor. And dusty rummage at that."  Felten makes a valid point--the ancient cartoons and hodge-podge graphics make "Parachute" feel woefully out-of-date, and there are some sections that should be revised or scrapped.  I think the book's continued dominance of the career-planning category is based more on its reputation than its current value, but all that said, there's still wisdom to be found there, particularly in Bolles' emphasis on self-awareness and understanding. 

Mar 01, 2009

Grant McCracken on the "Swift Self"

Grant McCracken's Author and anthropologist Grant McCracken had a good line a few months ago on the conventional wisdom about the generational divide:

The other day I found myself thinking that every time I hear Millennials described:

1.  the tone is that of a smug outsider.

2.  the speaker is not a Millennial.

I'm a Gen X executive coach who works closely with Millennial students at Stanford's Graduate School of Business, and Grant's observation serves as a useful reminder of the dangers of over-generalizing, a perspective reinforced by a Millennial commenter on Grant's post: "[W]e have such fine control over our own identities that we don't need to resort to big, poorly-defined memes like generational labels."

Points well taken.  So with the foreknowledge that I'm getting into a "big, poorly defined meme" here, I want to talk about a concept of Grant's that isn't a generational difference per se but that has implications for Millennials and anyone who works with them.  (And I sure hope I don't sound like a smug outsider, so please let me know if I do.)

Last year Grant published Transformations: Identity Construction in Contemporary Culture, and it's one of the most thoughtful books I've read on the subjects of individual identity and the process of change.

Grant writes from the perspective of a cultural anthropologist who's actively engaged with--but maintains a useful critical distance from--the business world.  As an executive coach, I find his views deeply thought-provoking, not merely because he's so damn smart but because I see my world in a different way when looking through his lens.

One of Grant's most striking concepts is the "swift self," an increasingly common type of individual in the professional world, and one that I see everywhere in places like Stanford and San Francisco and Silicon Valley (and, to an extent, one I identify with.) I'd like to quote Grant at length to illustrate what he means by a "swift self," and I hope he doesn't mind.  Excerpted from pages 123-128 in "Transformations":

[pp. 123-5] Some cultures treat the self as something that can define itself best by removing itself from the world.  The swift self offers a different orientation, a self that defines itself by rushing into the world, which is itself relatively inchoate and emergent (and doing some rushing of its own)...

The mobility of the swift self comes partly from our individualism, from a stripping away of the connections, contexts and constraints that surround the traditional and status transformation self.  Individuals are now capable of extraordinary mobility, in part because they have been released from certain domestic, social and other constraints.  Like Saul Bellow, they refuse or revise the definitions imposed by history and culture, especially those of ethnicity, gender and class.  These definitions both complete the self and slow it down.  Swift selves throw them off and rush into the world to find new ones.

The mobility of the swift self also comes from its instrumentality.  The swift self is driven by purpose.  It makes itself a means to an end.  This instrumentality stands in opposition to the powerful tradition that says that the individual must cultivate the self for the self, that the most noble creation of a self is the self.  The swift self is cultivated only to make it more effective in the world, upon the world... Swift selves suspend internal accomplishments for external ones.  They endure difficulty, they suspend satisfaction, they forego cultivation of the self for cultivation of the world...

Swift selves flock well.  For all their voracious individualism, they are prepared to enter into associations if these will aid them in the world.  Indeed, swift selves delight in strapping on the instrumentalities and powers that corporations put at their disposal.  Institutional augmentation is generally regarded as a good thing.  But the swift individuals are unsentimental about their ties to the corporation.  The do not expect to give or receive thoroughgoing loyalty.  The corporation uses them; they use the corporation.  Something is accomplished beyond the trade of salary for services.  Both selves and corporations get swifter.

Swift selves, especially the business versions, are prepared to be treated as modular... They are happy to fulfill a fixed set of responsibilities, to adapt themselves to the demands of a position.  And they are not surprised or affronted when the corporation decided to put someone else in their place.  They do not believe that their value comes from their uniqueness as individuals or the distinctness of the self...

The swift self comes, in part, from the marketplace, from an Adam Smithian understanding of human behavior as gain-seeking and the rise of capitalism that so inspires and rewards this particular performance of the self... [The swift self] is responsive to the demands of competition, to the inducements of opportunity.  Indeed, marketplaces and swift selves are mirrors of one another.  Both define themselves through their responsiveness.  Both are not very particular about form and are pleased to go with what works.  Swift selves and marketplaces flourish together...

But it would be wrong to associate the swift self only with Smith's economic man.  The mobility of the swift self comes, finally, from the willingness to give the self over to what happens next.  This is the fundamental orientation at work.  Certainly, many swift selves prefer markets, but not all of them do.  Swiftness does not need a free market.  It merely needs indeterminacy...

[p. 126] Inhabiting a swift self is thrilling, but difficult.  Popular culture is cluttered with survival strategies.  The most radical is simple repudiation.  Hollywood likes this theme particularly, and frequently declares the swift self bad and the slow self good.  Swift selves, it insists, are inauthentic, ungrounded and opportunistic.  Another survival strategy is to distinguish between the demands of Christ and Caesar: swift selves for the marketplace, something else for the home, Internet, family, lifestyle, church and community... A third strategy is to do selves in sequence.  We caught a glimpse of this as Generations X and Y took to the New Economy, some of them choosing start-up over selfhood.  It was common to hear members of the dot.com world say that they would figure out who they were when they had made their fortune.  In the meantime, swift selves.

[pp. 127-8] Many people with swift selves believe that their suspension of the self is temporary, that the swift self is a means to an end.  Eventually, they believe, the enterprise will pay off, the career will mature, rewards will come.  But sometimes, perhaps often, this is not the full truth of the matter.  Many swift individuals fear stasis.  They are happiest when in motion.  The don't want ever to "arrive."  They prefer to be a means; they fear becoming an end.  The pleasure of this self is precisely its swiftness and momentum, the bracing sense of power and safety that comes from being on the move.

...Swift selves are so dedicated to action and an exterior world that they are not very contemplative or self-aware.  This can mean, for instance, that they do not see emotional difficulty coming until it is upon them, and they are disinclined to study their own complexity.  The trope here is movement, and swift selves solve many problems by just "getting on with it."  This works well enough for some purposes.  But when it does not work, there can be no outcome but crisis...

And this is why swift selves are brought low by illness, the departure of a spouse who is tired of waiting, a sudden collapse of an enterprise or change in the economy, or, not infrequently, alcohol or drugs that they've been using as braking devices.  Now they must figure out what their life could be beside forward motion...

There is something tragic, in the classical definition of tragedy, about the swift self.  Its contradictions mean that, left to their own devices, things will end badly... The swift self knows it can't keep moving indefinitely.  It is neglecting its needs and exhausting its resources.  But it also knows that it cannot stop without crashing... At worst, the swift self suspects there is no stopping, only failing.  Swift selves rarely end with grace.

Even if we agree that Grant's concept of a swift self is a "big, poorly-defined meme," I still find it a compelling picture of many (if not most) of the high-achieving Millennials I work with at Stanford, and, further, I see aspects of myself and some of my forty-something contemporaries in it as well, suggesting that it's something much more more complex than a mere "generational label."

So what are the implications of "swift selfhood"?  How are we to respond to this dynamic in ourselves and in those around us?  The first issue that comes to mind for me is: When should we embrace the swiftness, and when should we resist it?  When should we keep our foot on the accelerator, and when should we hit the brakes?

Some swift selves don't even realize that they have brakes, or that slowing down and reflecting can be useful--and even necessary--practices.  I worked with a twenty-something woman a few years ago--a prototypical swift self--who felt anxious whenever she saw unscheduled time on her calendar.  It wasn't simply that she felt obligated to be as productive as possible, although that was one of her values.  She also felt that unstructured time was an indulgence, something that she couldn't afford and didn't need.  She had too many things to do and was determined to push through them without being deterred, without wasting thought or energy on the frustration and other feelings that sometimes accompanied her struggles.

This strategy served her well on the upward path that led her to Stanford, but when life suddenly became tougher and more complex than she expected it to be, she lacked the excess capacity--in her calendar and in her self--that she needed to handle these new challenges.  And this wasn't a matter of finding more time in the day to work, to execute.  What she needed was to give herself permission to to stop working and to take some time to just be with herself, to reflect on her responses to these challenges, to understand her feelings and to decide how to move forward.  She needed to step on the brakes, and that's what I tried to do in my work with her.

(It's also noteworthy to me that in contrast to Hollywood's stereotyped view of swift selves cited by Grant above--one that's shared by many Gen Xers and Boomers [i.e. the people who run Hollywood], this particular young woman also had a strong social conscience, a commitment to public service, and a deep religious faith.)

But there are certainly times and places when we should embrace swiftness, when swiftness will serve us best.  There are two spheres in which this is particularly true, one where I feel personally at home and another where I feel like a time traveler from the past, a visitor from the 20th century.  The first sphere is online, and I generally feel quite comfortable here.  I enjoy having a range of online identities that are interrelated but distinct, that are responsive and change rapidly, and that are instrumental and serve as means to various ends (including "thinking out loud," engaging in dialogues, and occasionally broadcasting to an audience.)  In a word, I feel (somewhat) swift in this context.  I don't count myself among the digerati--I've worked up close with card-carrying members in several settings, and although I speak their language, I'm not quite fluent.  But I'm struck by the resistance that many of my Gen X and Boomer friends and colleagues have to the fluidity and momentum--the swiftness--of online identity, and I want to encourage them to jump in the pool and join the Millennials who were born in the water and swim like fish.  (Carrying the metaphor a bit too far, I suppose I feel like an amphibian!)

The other context where swiftness clearly has value is in the realm of citizenship and identity.  Do you identify as a citizen of the world or of a specific nation or region?  Can you participate fully in the global economy, or are your prospects more limited?  Here I feel positively sluggish compared to my Millennial students.  Stanford requires our students to have at least one "global experience" while in business school, and they do with gusto.  I'm in awe of their ability to feel at home while working around the world, from summer internships in India to study trips in South Africa, and I realize that my own world--the world in which I'm able to live and work, not simply visit--is quite small in comparison.  I'd like to get swifter and join my students in this larger world, but I feel a hesitation, born of uncertainty.  Am I too old to make that transition?  Would my skills translate to other cultures?   Also, I feel an amor patriae that connects me to the United States and to San Francisco in unique ways that would make it hard, if not impossible, for me to truly be at home anywhere else.

In the end, I appreciate Grant's overall analysis of the swift self, but I don't necessarily share his gloomy conclusions: "Left to their own devices, things will end badly."  This may be a function of the different roles we've played when interacting with the swift selves among our students.  Grant has taught at Harvard Business School, and I suspect that the role differentiation between a professor or lecturer and a student is still sufficient, even in our ever-flatter organizations, to make open communication difficult.  In contrast, I act as an in-house executive coach, and although I occasionally lead teams of students on task-oriented projects, my role is fundamentally that of a challenging and supportive adviser, which allows me to communicate with them very openly and candidly on deeply personal subjects.

So I disagree with Grant's assertion that swift selves are "not very contemplative or self aware."  They may not make much time or space in their lives for contemplation, and they may not naturally understand the value of self-awareness, but I work with people who fit this description every day, and I'm constantly impressed by their capacity for growth and personal development.  And they don't have to relinquish or repudiate their swiftness to undergo this transformation--they simply need to be encouraged (and occasionally compelled) to slow down, to reflect, to breathe.

It's possible to read Grant's analysis as a warning, as an expression of fear or disdain for a new world full of swift selves (and, equally, as an expression of nostalgia for a fading, slower world), but I don't see it that way.  The natural complementarity among swift selves, the market for human capital, and the contemporary corporation certainly has a dark underside, and swift selves would do well to understand the risks of economic swiftness as well as its benefits.  But as Grant notes, "[I]t would be wrong to associate the swift self only with Smith's economic man.  The mobility of the swift self comes, finally, from the willingness to give the self over to what happens next.  This is the fundamental orientation at work.  Certainly, many swift selves prefer markets, but not all of them do.  Swiftness does not need a free market.  It merely needs indeterminacy..."  I find something quite hopeful and encouraging in that perspective.  There's a healthy vibrancy in the swift self's ability to embrace change, to take what comes, to move fluidly in the world.  Swift selves need to learn when to slow down, but all of us can benefit from occasional lessons in speeding up as well.

Feb 25, 2009

On Learning From Mistakes

The Power of ResilienceRobert Brooks and Sam Goldstein's The Power of Resilience includes a chapter titled "Dealing Effectively with Mistakes," and I'm finding it particularly useful at the moment.

Today I tried to pay a colleague a compliment while discussing our personal working relationship, and I wound up inadvertently insulting and hurting her.  Thankfully, that very same relationship helped make it possible for her to share her feelings, and we work in an environment where that's strongly encouraged, so everything was laid on the table and not swept under the rug.  And although our miscommunication says something about the challenges we've experienced in this relationship, we're also both sufficiently invested in it that we spent a lot of time afterward discussing what happened and why.

And why is "The Power of Resilience" so helpful at the moment?  Well, the book's chapter on mistakes describes four steps to "manage mistakes and setbacks" that are both thought-provoking and encouraging:

Step 1: Examine Your Assumptions About Mistakes

The assumptions we hold about why we make mistakes exert a significant influence on our lives.  We typically do not identify, reflect on, or challenge these assumptions, so they remain powerful but unrecognized forces directing our actions... When people [attribute mistakes to personal shortcomings that are not easily corrected or blame others for their mistakes], they surrender personal control, an essential component of a resilient mindset.

Step 2: Challenge Self-Defeating Attributions

Attributions are assumptions within a [personal] mindset [about one's mistakes and failure.]  When these assumptions serve as roadblocks to a resilient lifestyle, they must be defined, understood and challenged.  If we are to be resilient we must strive to ensure that we avoid playing the role of a prosecuting attorney when we offer self-assessments about our mistakes.  Instead, we must assume the stance of a defense attorney.

Step 3: Learn Something Positive From Every Situation

A vital step in overcoming self-defeating attributions for mistakes is to address the question, What can I learn from this situation?... It is not always easy to discover the learning potential in our mistakes, especially when negative self-evaluations dominate our thinking.  However, even if one's self-esteem is high...[m]any mistakes trigger feelings of disappointment and doubt... As we focus on the theme of learning from, rather than feeling condemned by, mistakes and failure, it is helpful to remember Willie Stargell's view of mistakes...["My success is the product of the knowledge extracted from my failures."]

Step 4: Decide On a Plan of Action to Attempt New Scripts Based on New Attributions

Once we have become aware of and challenged negative attributions about mistakes and failure and once we have adopted the view that mistakes are experiences to learn from, our next step is to translate this new, more positive mindset into a specific action plan... [A]sk yourself what are different things you can do to change your behavior so that mistakes are less likely to occur or to change how you view and respond to mistakes when they do occur... We wish to emphasize that by directing attention to what you can do differently, you also assume personal control for your life... As we know, this sense of personal control is a major feature of stress hardiness and resilience.

So let me look at today's situation through the lens of these four steps:

Step 1: Examine Your Assumptions About Mistakes

I certainly don't blame my colleague for my mistake, nor do I believe it was caused by a personal shortcoming that I can't correct--a helpful start.  I don't believe I'm making any assumptions that surrender my personal control over the situation, which feels empowering.

Step 2: Challenge Self-Defeating Attributions

Maintaining a sense of personal control also allows me to manage any potential negative attributions about myself.  I don't feel that I'm a fundamentally bad communicator or a bad colleague.  I'm examining what happened--obviously; that's the purpose of this post--but I'm not beating myself up about it.  I've had some moments of deep regret, but I'm not overwhelmed by embarrassment or shame.  And I recognize that there's a larger interpersonal dynamic between the two of us that was a contributing factor.  So in addition to not blaming my colleague for my mistake, I'm also not blaming myself in a way that would undermine my resilience.

Step 3: Learn Something Positive From Every Situation

The key word here is positive.  I do feel a childish temptation to take away some negative lessons, such as "Keep my mouth shut," but that's obviously not a resilient response.  I feel good about the fact that my colleague trusted me enough to share her frustration and hurt--it certainly would have been easier for her to withhold those feelings, which would have prevented me from learning anything from them and would have inevitably undermined our relationship.  So I learned that I can build a trust deep enough to survive such a strong blow.

I also feel good about my response to my colleague in the moment--I was able to hear her feelings, express my deep regret at hurting her, and share my own hurt and frustration as well.  I learned that I can be fully present in a confrontation, take in some strong emotions that were hard to hear, and manage my own strong emotions while not ignoring or discounting them.

Finally, I feel great about our ability to hang in there through the post-incident debrief.  That's not to say we completely healed the wounds, but we did come to some important new understandings about ourselves and about our relationship.  In the end I'm not glad it happened, but I'd rather have it happen and reach these understandings than miss the learning opportunity (as painful as it might be), and that's the ultimate positive lesson.

Step 4: Decide On a Plan of Action to Attempt New Scripts Based on New Attributions

Today's experience suggest some immediately actionable items: I just came off an emotionally intense, weekend-long retreat, and after experiences like that I really need to pause before I speak and think about what I'm saying, because I'm a little jangly and my judgment isn't the best.  In addition, I believed that my intentions were clearly understood by my colleague when they were not, which made it easy to misinterpret my comments.  And perhaps most importantly, I failed to register her lack of immediate response, which actually indicated the depth of her distress.  So I feel like I have plenty of work to do going forward.

Brooks and Goldstein conclude their chapter on mistakes with a few heartening words:

[M]istaken attitudes about mistakes are a bigger problem than making mistakes.  Resilient people view mistakes as experiences to learn from.  If you are to lead a resilient lifestyle, you must recognize that mistakes and failure are a natural occurrence within that lifestyle.  Your choice is the manner in which you respond to these events.

My choice today has been to channel the energy that remains from the exchange into this post, and to assume that Willie Stargell's right: "My success is the product of the knowledge extracted from my failures."  (And by that logic I feel like some big successes should be right around the corner.)

Feb 12, 2009

Authentic Leadership and Your "Crucible Story"

CrucibleAs I wrote earlier this week, I spent Tuesday morning listening to Bill George and his colleagues from the Authentic Leadership Institute, Nick Craig and Tim Dorman, discussing leadership at the Stanford Faculty Club.  In addition to Bill's remarks, Nick and Tim led the audience through an exercise that I found compelling: Exploring your "crucible story."

In George's True North, he discusses the concept in his chapter on a leader's transformative growth:

What enables leaders...to avoid derailment and make the transition from being heroes of their own journeys to become authentic leaders who empower other leaders?  Most of the leaders we interviewed had transformative experiences...

A transformative experience may come at any point in your life.  It could result from a positive experience of having a wise mentor or having a unique opportunity at a young age.  But as much as we all want positive experiences like these, transformations for many leaders result from going through a crucible.

In Geeks and Geezers, Warren Bennis and Robert Thomas describe the concept of the crucible that tests leaders to their limits.  A crucible can be triggered by events such as confronting a difficult situation at work, receiving critical feedback, or losing your job.  Or it may result from a painful personal experience, such as divorce, illness, or the death of a loved one.

George goes on to discuss several crucible experiences of his own, including the death of his mother, the death of his fiancee three weeks before their marriage, and his deep unhappiness while leading a division of Honeywell.  He writes about the concept at greater length in Finding Your True North, a "personal guide" that serves as a companion to the earlier book, co-written by Andrew McLean and Nick Craig:

Your crucible tests you to the core of your being.  It forces you to look at yourself, examine your character and your values in a new light, and come to grips with who you are.  View in retrospect, your crucible may become the defining experience in your life, even if you do not recognize it when you are in the middle of the experience...

Passing through the crucible--or reframing it years later with the benefit of hindsight--you will see the world differently, and thus you will behave differently as well.  It is during such a passage that you recognize that your leadership is not primarily about your own success or about getting others to follow you.  Rather, you understand that the essence of leadership is aligning your teammates around a shared vision and share values and empowering them to step up and lead...

The exercise Nick and Tim conducted was disarmingly simple, but extremely powerful: Pair up with another person in the room, and spend 20 minutes sharing your "crucible stories."  The first story I chose to tell my partner was one I discussed here in a post last October: Peter Drucker on Knowledge Workers, Management and Leadership.

I was working with two teams of students in Stanford's Leadership Fellows program, but I was more focused on managing them--insuring that they "did things right"--than on leading them--insuring that they "did the right things."  As Drucker notes, knowledge workers like my students must be led and not managed if they are to feel satisfied and challenged, to maintain their belief in the team's mission, to learn continuously and to ultimately achieve results.  Drucker declares with great emphasis in Management Challenges of the 21st Century, "One does not 'manage' people.  The task is to lead people."

Both of my efficiently-managed but poorly-led teams were becoming increasingly unhappy, and it was clear that I needed to work with them in a fundamentally different way.  I made a major mid-course correction and told my teams that I wanted to be less directive and foster a greater sense of empowerment and ownership among them.  In practice, this required some very tangible changes: I stopped setting meeting agendas, I stopped attending some team meetings entirely, and I stopped running the meetings I did attend.  I made fewer decisions, particularly with regard to logistics and the allocation of resources--clearly managerial domains.  And I did all I could to give team members a free hand to fulfill their responsibilities--to "do things right"--as they saw fit, with minimal interference from me.

When I wrote that post in October I had just begun to implement those changes, and although the initial results were positive, the jury was still out.  But both teams were ultimately highly successful, at least from my perspective, and it's gratifying to look back on the experience and to feel that this change in approach--from management to leadership--was a meaningful factor in our success.

I'm struck by the fact that George's discussion of "crucible stories" highlights their role in what he calls "the transformation from 'I' to 'We."  From Finding Your True North:

As leaders experience challenging times and learn the lessons of those difficult periods, the process of transforming from "I" to "We" is seeded.  Initial successes may reinforce what leaders do at an early stage, but difficult times force them to question their approach...

We single out the transformation from "I" to "We" because it places leaders in a powerful paradox... [Crucible] experiences force them to be humble.  This newly found humility stems from the recognition that leadership is not just about them.

Only when you stop focusing on your own ego will you be able to develop other leaders.  You will be able to move beyond being competitive with talented peers and subordinates, and you will be more open to other points of view.  As you overcome your need to control everything or do everything, you find that people are more interested in working with you.  A light bulb goes on as you recognize the unlimited potential of empowered leaders working toward a shared purpose.  This transformation opens the door to discovering your full potential as an authentic leader.

I hardly feel that I've "discovered my full potential" as a leader, but my experience with these teams was certainly a significant step forward in my "transformation from 'I' to 'We," and I'm very grateful to the team members for their candid feedback, vast talent and extraordinary dedication.

Postscript 1: A striking after-effect of the "crucible story" exercise in the Authentic Leadership seminar was the way it created such strong feelings of closeness among an roomful of strangers.  As both Tim Dorman and an audience member noted in the debrief, we typically introduce ourselves with success stories and highlights from our resume, "putting our best foot forward," and the result is that we often find ourselves in an unspoken competition with those we meet, comparing ourselves to them and feeling better or worse depending on how we measure up.

In contrast, sharing our crucible stories allowed us to feel much more empathic, engaged and connected with each other.  Rather than focusing on our differences, we were surprised by how much we had in common, how many similar challenges we had faced and how similarly we had responded.

It's made me think about how I might introduce myself differently the next time I meet someone new or begin working with a new team.

Postscript 2: During the debrief, Nick asked, "What do your crucible stories tell you about your style as a leader?"  I realized that although I don't go through the day thinking of myself as a big risk-taker, I'm actually fairly comfortable with risk--I can take some big leaps of faith without knowing how things will work out in the end.  Not all these leaps do work out, of course--I've crashed and burned plenty of times.  But they work out often enough to allow me to feel a greater sense of trust in myself, which I can tap into as a source of reassurance when I'm feeling stressed or uncertain.

Again, thanks to Tim and his colleages at ALI for a great experience.

Photo by Dave Hogg.  Yay Flickr and Creative Commons.

Feb 08, 2009

Sonja Lyubomirsky and The How of Happiness

The How of Happiness

What makes us happy?  How can we become happier?  And is happiness sustainable?  These are the fundamental questions Sonja Lyubomirsky addresses in The How of Happiness, subtitled "A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want."  (Note: This is a relatively long post, so if you find it more convenient to read in print form, here's a PDF version [236 KB].)

Lyubomirsky, a professor of psychology at UC Riverside who's devoted her career as a research scientist to studying happiness, believes that our individual level of happiness springs from three primary sources:

A) Our Genetic Set Point

Fifty percent of our happiness derives from a genetically determined "set point," 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.

B) Our Life Circumstances

"Life circumstances" determine a scant 10% of our happiness, 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.

C) Intentional Activities

The remaining 40% 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:

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.

The bulk of "The How of Happiness" is devoted to exploring a dozen (well, actually 14*) activities described by Lyubomirsky as "evidence-based happiness-increasing strategies whose practice is supported by scientific research."  These include:

1. Expressing Gratitude

2. Cultivating Optimism

3. Avoiding Overthinking and Social Comparison

4. Practicing Acts of Kindness

5. Nurturing Social Relationships

6. Developing Strategies for Coping

7. Learning to Forgive

8. Increasing Flow Experiences

9. Savoring Life's Joys

10. Committing to Your Goals

11. Practicing Religion and Spirituality

12. Taking Care of Your Body:

    • Meditation
    • Physical Activity
    • Acting Like a Happy Person

(* I'm not sure why Lyubomirsky treats the final three "Taking Care of Your Body" activities as a single strategy.  There's clearly a relationship among them, but they're also sufficiently distinct to merit separate consideration.  Perhaps 12 just feels better than 14.)

Lyubomirsky describes precisely what these somewhat generic terms mean in this context, provides a rationale for why they work (typically drawing upon examples from her research), and explores what they might look like in practice.  She doesn't say that these are the only meaningful happiness strategies, but separately they meet her standard for being "evidenced-based," and together they constitute a list sufficiently broad "so that every individual could find a set right for him or her."

And Lyubomirsky believes it's essential to choose happiness 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.  She offers a Person-Activity Fit Diagnostic and encourages readers to focus on the four strategies with the highest "fit scores."


So What About MY Happiness?

Over the past year I've felt increasingly happy, and at the moment I believe I'm happier than I've ever been.  Some of this has to do with my life circumstances--I've been blessed with a rich and rewarding marriage, I love my work, and I live in one of the most beautiful cities in the world.  But according to  Lyubomirsky, all this has far less of an impact on my happiness than my daily behavior, the intentional activities that I pursue on a regular basis.

Although I began reading "The How of Happiness" because of a project at work, it's been a very personal experience as well.  At the beginning of 2008 I realized that I wasn't as happy as I wanted to be, and I decided to do something about it.  I hadn't yet come across Lyubomirsky's research about the importance of intentional activities, but it seemed self-evident to me that I needed to do more things that made me happier in order to be happier, and that's just what I experienced over the course of the year.

In December I became involved with a team that was working on a new class at Stanford, and each member of the team had to read several books as part of our background research.  As I reviewed the list of possible texts, I was immediately drawn to "The How of Happiness," and while reading it I was struck by the parallels between the conclusions she had drawn from her academic research and my own experiences.  And although I've always had an intuitive sense about the value of intentional activity, now I'm trying to apply Lyubomirsky's findings on "happiness strategies" to my own life even more deliberately. 

According to Lyubomirsky's "Person-Activity Fit Diagnostic," the four best happiness strategies for me, in order, are: Increasing Flow Experiences and Taking Care of Your Body (both tied for first), Practicing Acts of Kindness and Expressing Gratitude.


Increasing Flow Experiences

First, what do we mean by "flow experiences"?  The concept of "flow" was initially developed by Mihaly Csíkszentmihályi (pronounced "cheek-SENT-me-high"), currently Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Claremont Graduate University.  In Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Csíkszentmihályi describes flow as:

[A] sense that one's skills are adequate to cope with the challenges at hand, in a goal-directed, rule-bound action system that provides clear clues as to how well one is performing.  Concentration is so intense that there is no attention left over to think about anything irrelevant, or to worry about problems.  Self-consciousness disappears, and the sense of time appears distorted.  An activity that produces such experiences is so gratifying that people are willing to do it for its own sake, with little concern for what they will get out of it, even when it is difficult, or dangerous.

My good friend Doug Edwards, currently working on a dissertation in philosophy that touches on flow, describes the concept this way:

[A] person 'in flow' is absorbed in what he is doing.  All of his attention is concentrated on his activity, and his activity proceeds in a seamless, spontaneous, adept way, creating a sense of fluidity in one's action.

A key aspect of flow, according to Csíkszentmihályi, is its impact on the self:

In our studies, we found that every flow activity...had this in common: It provided a sense of discovery, a creative feeling of transporting the person into a new reality.  It pushed the person to higher levels of performance, and led to previously undreamed-of states of consciousness.  In short, it transformed the self by making it more complex.

The mechanism underlying this process of transformation is our desire to avoid the unpleasant states of anxiety and boredom.  In a flow experience, our skills are "adequate to cope with the challenges at hand," creating a sense of balance.  But if our skills increase relative to the challenges being posed, the balance tips, and we eventually become bored.  If the challenges ramp up while our skills remain static, the balance tips in the opposite direction, and we feel anxious.  To avoid anxiety and boredom, then, we must increase our skills (in the first case) or tackle bigger challenges (in the second case)--and in both cases, we're transformed.

Lyubomirsky, who cites Csíkszentmihályi as an important influence, believes that experiencing flow offers several specific benefits:

Why is flow good for you?  The first reason is obvious: because it is inherently pleasurable and fulfilling, and the enjoyment you obtain is generally of the type that is lasting and reinforcing... Second, because flow states are intrinsically rewarding, we naturally want to repeat them...[but]... to maintain flow, we continually have to test ourselves in ever more challenging activities... We have to stretch our skills or find novel opportunities to use them.  This is wonderful, because it means that we are constantly striving, growing, learning and becoming more competent, expert, and complex.

Lyubomirsky concludes:

The experience of flow leads us to be involved in life (rather than be alienated from it), to enjoy activities (rather than to find them dreary), to have a sense of control (rather than helplessness), and to feel a strong sense of self (rather than unworthiness).  All these factors imbue life with meaning and lend it a richness and intensity.  And happiness.

OK, now that I understand the concept and its likely positive impact on my happiness, how do I actually experience flow?  Lyubomirsky offers several suggestions: Control your attention in order to be "fully engaged and involved" in a given activity, adopt values of openness to new experiences and lifelong learning, heighten awareness of flow experiences and strive to repeat them, and seek out challenges in your recreation and your work.

These all sound potentially rewarding, but they also seem incomplete.  My sense is that flow results not only from 1) my intentional activities and attitude, but also 2) my ability to "drop into" a flow state in a given moment and 3) specific aspects of the external environment which make it more (or less) conducive to flow experiences.  Lyubomirsky's suggestions address the first element but neglect the other two, and I think it's important to bear them in mind as well.

The most intense flow experience I ever had came on a 40-mile stretch of Utah's Route 14, headed west from Long Valley Junction to Cedar City:

Utah Route 14

I was in the middle of a long motorcycle trip in the summer of 1995 with my friend Doug Edwards, mentioned above.  Shortly before we reached Long Valley Junction--which was just an empty highway intersection in the middle of a desert valley--we'd been passed by a group of riders on Harleys.  But soon we saw the Harleys headed back toward us--they had apparently missed the turnoff for Route 14 and had doubled back.  We reached the intersection and turned west just before they did.  The road ahead was a winding, twisty track through the mountains, and I was suddenly seized by an intense desire to ride fast, outrun the Harleys and beat them to Cedar City.  And that's just what we did.  For the next 40 miles--I have no idea how much time it took--I was totally absorbed in the process of riding fast.  I felt such a sense of "oneness" with the motorcycle, even with the road, that I didn't feel like a conscious person on a vehicle but like an organic component of an integrated system.  Rather than thinking and making decisions, I was simply acting, reacting, being.  And as we emerged from the mountains, drifting down toward Cedar City on a long straightway, I popped back into consciousness and thought, "What the hell just happened?"

In retrospect, I see this as a classic flow experience, and I believe it was so intense not only because of my intentional activity and attitude (as per Lyubomirsky's suggestions), but also because I was able to drop into a flow state more readily than usual (because my riding skills had been heightened over the course of the long journey, and the experience of riding fast had become second nature) and because the external environment (the challenging road, the risk of crashing, the "pursuing" Harleys) was so highly conducive to flow.  In Csíkszentmihályi's words, I was fully immersed in a "goal-directed, rule-bound action system that provides clear clues as to how well one is performing."

Stanford Climbing WallBut I don't find myself riding a motorcycle through the mountains all that often--in fact, I've more or less quit riding (although my bike is still in the back of my garage.)  So how do I experience flow more frequently?  These days I'm finding it not at high speeds but while hanging nearly motionless a few feet above the ground at the Stanford Climbing Wall.  I'm not a skilled rock climber, but that's fine--it's sufficiently challenging for me just trying to make it around the perimeter of the wall on the easy "traverse" route (the climbing equivalent of a Bunny Slope at a ski resort.)

I started climbing last summer, but found it too physically taxing to go regularly.  So I spent the rest of the year getting into better shape--more on that below--and just began climbing again recently.  I still can't do it too often--my muscles can take the strain, but my joints still ache afterwards--but that's fine.  I'm not interested in becoming an expert climber--I just want to be able to stop by once or twice a week, boulder around the wall, and lose myself for 30 or 45 minutes.

I think climbing is so conducive to flow because, once again, it's a "goal-directed, rule-bound action system that provides clear clues as to how well one is performing."  The stakes are pretty low in this case--success means advancing a few more holds along a given route, while failure means falling a few feet onto a cushioned floor.  But what matters is that my (novice) skills are appropriately balanced with the (modest) challenges posed by the wall's "traverse" route.  I suppose I'll get better over time, but I'm not in any hurry.  And--to the point of this essay--I absolutely feel happier after climbing.


Taking Care of Your Body

As noted above, I don't know why Lyubomirsky treats three related-but-different activities--Meditation, Physical Activity and Acting Like a Happy Person--as a single strategy.  The fact that "Taking Care of Your Body" is one of my best-fit happiness strategies poses a dilemma: Must I pursue all three elements of the strategy to reap its benefits, or can I pick and choose from among them?

Meditation: Lyubomirsky cites substantial research that demonstrates the benefits of meditation and its "positive effects on a person's happiness and positive emotions, on physiology, on stress, cognitive abilities, and physical health..."  And she provides a simple, straightforward guide to the process--"How to Meditate in Fewer Than Three Hundred Words."  But sitting still does not come easily to me, and meditation has always felt like an unpleasant chore rather than an opportunity for personal growth.  I used to practice a yoga routine that ended with a period of meditation, and although I occasionally experience moments of reflective peace, I usually found myself feeling like a kid in detention hall, waiting until the clock set me free.

I fully appreciate the importance of the elements of meditation articulated by Lyubomirsky: Be nonjudgmental, be nonstriving, be patient, be trusting, be open, and let go.  I recognize many ways in which my ability to embody these values has enhanced my life--and many ways in which my failure to do so continues to hold me back.  Finally, I'm well aware that my resistance to the practice only means that I have that much more to gain from it.  But I still can't bring myself to actually do it on a regular basis.  Let's see how I'm doing with the other elements.

Physical Activity: In contrast to my difficulties sitting still, I have no problem getting up and moving around.  The graphic below, from my Don't Break the Chain account, shows the days I exercised last year marked in red.  It's not entirely accurate, because I wasn't using it in January or February, but once I started keeping track of my workouts, I exercised nearly 2 out of every 3 days (and it would have been closer to 3 out of every 4 if I hadn't let work get the best of me in May.)

2008 Exercise

I was an active kid and an athlete in high school, but my relatively high level of fitness created a false sense of security in adulthood.  I found that I could be inactive for a few months and then suddenly return to regular activity without suffering serious consequences--but this all changed last year.  I loved my work at Stanford, but I had allowed it to consume me and had stopped exercising entirely throughout all of 2007.  I had gained weight and was probably in the worst shape of my life.  I decided to get active again at the beginning of 2008, but I went too fast and hurt my knee on a long, hard run.  My 40-year-old body wasn't cooperating like it had in the past, and if I was going to be active at all, I needed to let my knee heal, ease into a sustainable routine, and maintain it assiduously.  I've been able to do that successfully over the last year, and the keys have been:

1) Variety: I almost never do the same thing 2 days in a row.

2) Novelty: I've worked several brand-new activities into my routine, such as rock-climbing (see above) and swimming.  I also try to hike someplace entirely new in the Bay Area each month.  (Many thanks to Jane Huber.)

3) Consistency: It was shortly after I was able to return to regular activity that I discovered Don't Break the Chain, which turned out to be a surprisingly a powerful motivator to do something, anything, on a given day, just to keep filling up that calendar.

4) Humility: I'm old--or at least no longer young.  And that means that I simply can't do all the things I used to, and I need to listen to my body when it says "No."  Sometimes that means no lifting or climbing or swimming when my shoulders hurt, and sometimes it means no running when my knees hurt, and sometimes it just means take the whole damn day off and have a drink.

I've clearly had no problem sticking with this strategy, and it most definitely has had a positive impact on my happiness, but why?  As with meditation, Lyubomirsky cites extensive research that documents the benefits of physical activity:

Psychologists believe that several explanations underlie the well-being rewards of exercise.  First is the self-esteem/mastery explanation... Taking up a sport or fitness regime makes you feel in control of your body and your health.  Seeing yourself get better at something...provides a terrific sense of agency and self-worth.  Second is the possibility that physical activity offers potential for flow as well as a positive distraction that turns away worries and ruminations.  It essentially serves as a time-out from your stressful day, with positive spillover for hours afterward... Third, physical activity, when performed along with others, can provide opportunities for social contact, thus potentially bolstering social support and reinforcing friendships.

I've certainly benefited from the first two effects of physical activity, and the correlation with flow experiences helps to explain the particular appeal of something like climbing.  I tend to exercise alone, so I haven't found it a source of social contact, but given the very people-intensive nature of my work and the fact that "Nurturing Relationships" wasn't identified by Lyubomirsky's diagnostic as a key strategy for me, that hasn't posed a problem.

Lyubomirsky notes that "exercise may well be the most effective instant happiness booster of all activities," and I believe that being physically active has had the largest impact on my happiness over the past year of any of my intentional "happiness strategies."

Acting Like A Happy Person: Lyubomirsky writes:

Remarkably, pretending that you're happy--smiling, engaged, mimicking energy and enthusiasm--not only can earn you some of the benefits of happiness (returned smiles, strengthened friendships, successes at work and school) but can actually make you happier.  In poet Marge Piercy's words, "Live as if you liked yourself, and it may happen."

(This quote reminds me of St. Ignatius Loyola: "Perform the acts of faith, and faith will come." A paraphrase of his Spiritual Exercises, which seems to find its way into my writing on a regular basis.)

Why does this work?  How can acting happy make you happy?  Lyubomirsky's explanation focuses primarily on two feedback loops, one internal and one external.  Internally, our brains interpret the physical manifestations of happiness--our smile, our posture, our tone of voice--as the emotion itself, and we actually experience the emotion to a greater extent.  Externally, our manifestations of happiness are typically mirrored by others, creating a cycle of positive emotions.

Lyubomirsky is careful to note that the impact of these factors is modest, but it's real nonetheless: "[S]miling and laughter--even the insincere 'I don't want to pose for this photo' smile or 'This joke's not that funny' chuckle--gives rise to a mild feeling of well-being."

But despite its modest impact, this strategy seems to me the very essence of the concept that underlies Lyubomirsky's thesis: We don't always act a certain way because we feel a certain way; at times (and perhaps most of the time), we feel a certain way because we're acting a certain way.

In applying this strategy, I think there are two important points to keep in mind: First, "acting," by definition, implies a certain degree of conscious effort that can come dangerously close to inauthenticity.  How close is too close?  At what point do you stop increasing your happiness and start looking like a damn fool?  Clearly, there's no bright, shining line distinguishing helpful, intentional behavior from counterproductive naivete.

And second, "acting happy" doesn't mean "pretending pain and sadness don't exist," in yourself or in others.  Candide is not a role model, and we need to make room for the healthy acknowledgment and expression of the pain and sadness we experience.

But despite--or because of--these cautionary notes, I have found it helpful to strive to express and convey my happiness more vividly.


Practicing Acts of Kindness

According to Lyubomirsky's diagnostic, this is the third-best "happiness strategy" for me.  She writes in "The How of Happiness":

From a very early age we are inculcated with the idea that kindness and compassion are important virtues.  Of course we are taught to develop and apply these virtues for their own sakes, because by definition, it is the right, good, and ethical thing to do.  What scientific research has recently contributed to this agelong principle is evidence that practicing acts of kindness is not only good for the recipient but also good for the doer... [B]eing generous and willing to share makes people happy.

The reasons for this, according to Lyubomirsky, are that performing acts of kindness leads us to see others in a better light, creates a stronger sense of community, diminishes negative feelings of guilt or distress, encourages a sense of appreciation for your own circumstances, causes you to view yourself as "an altruistic and compassionate person," and, perhaps most importantly, "jump-start[s] a cascade of positive social consequences.  Helping others leads people to like you, to appreciate you, to offer gratitude."

All this said, Lyubomirsky cautions that kindness must be expressed in some specific ways in order to increase your happiness: "If you do too little, you won't obtain much benefit in happiness.  If you do too much, you may end up feeling overburdened, angry or fatigued."  She recommends choosing one day a week and on that day "commit one new and special large act of kindness or, alternatively, three to five little ones.  I say 'new and special' because...the kindness strategy calls for something extra, something that pulls you out of your routine."

I think of myself as a kind person (who doesn't?), but I also recognize that I tend to express kindness in ways that come easily to me.  I feel compassion and empathy and convey encouragement and support readily--that's one reason why I believe I'm an effective coach.  But expressing these feelings is, in a sense, part of my "routine."  And although my work as a coach is deeply rewarding and allows me to feel a sense of purpose and fulfillment, I suspect that I'll need to find other "new and special" ways of expressing kindness in order for this strategy to have an impact on my happiness.

The success I've already experienced with the strategies noted above encourages me to take this one seriously as well, but I'm not entirely sure what "new and special" acts of kindness will look like in practice.  Volunteering?  Donations to a worthy cause?  (Perhaps the Random Acts of Kindness Foundation has some suggestions.)


Expressing Gratitude

Finally, this is the fourth strategy recommended for me by Lyubomirsky's diagnostic.  In "The How of Happiness," she quotes Robert Emmons' definition of "gratitude":

[A] felt sense of wonder, thankfulness, and appreciation for life.

Lyubomirsky cites extensive research showing a causal link between expressions of gratitude and a sense of well-being, and she notes 8 specific ways in which gratitude increases happiness: Gratitude "promotes the savoring of positive life experiences," "bolsters self-worth and self-esteem," helps us cope with stress more effectively, fosters attitudes of helpfulness and appreciation, "build[s] social bonds," minimizes social comparison, diminishes negative emotions, and, most importantly, "helps us thwart hedonic adaptation" [which allows us to extract greater and longer-lasting feelings of well-being from the positive aspects of our life circumstances].

But just like acts of kindness, expressions of gratitude must be conducted in specific ways to have the greatest impact on our happiness.  Lyubomirsky notes that gratitude can be expressed in many forms, but she stresses two key aspects of the practice that maximize happiness: First, "keep the gratitude strategy fresh by varying it and not overpracticing it."  For example, her research suggests that, for the average person, writing in a "gratitude journal" once a week (rather than daily) is likely to yield the most significant results.

And second, expressing gratitude directly to another person--"by phone, letter, or face-to-face"--is particularly effective--so much so that Lyubomirsky's own research showed that "simply writing a gratitude letter and not sending...it was enough to produce substantial boosts in happiness."

Unlike "new and special" acts of kindness, expressing gratitude is a strategy that comes naturally to me, presumably because I've developed such a deep sense of gratitude in recent years.  In 2007, my wife and I lost several family members.  Counting colleagues who also lost loved ones and friends, we've been connected to nearly a dozen deaths since that time.  In some cases these deaths were expected and even welcome releases from suffering, but most of them were surprising, even shocking.  More than anything else, this association with death and the palpable feeling of my own mortality has fostered a deep sense of appreciation for my continued existence.

And I've found myself expressing that gratitude both internally and to others on a regular basis.  I don't keep a formal "gratitude journal," but at least every few days I'm compelled to stop and reflect deeply on how thankful I am for something--for my health, my marriage, a beautiful view, even just the bracing first sip of a well-made Martini.  But I've also made it a habit to express my thankfulness to others.  For example, at the end of the year I wrote thank-you letters to several dozen colleagues at Stanford, expressing my appreciation for their contributions.  It was a time-consuming effort, but it felt great, and many of them told me how good my letter made them feel in return.

Second only to physical activity, expressing gratitude has had a tremendous impact on my happiness, and it's been even easier to implement.


In Conclusion

I've discussed Lyubomirsky's overarching thesis that 40% of our happiness is derived from intentional activities, and I've explored in detail the 4 happiness strategies recommended for me by her diagnostic.  I have yet to implement all of them, but I've been practicing several of them for the past year, long before encountering "The How of Happiness," and I'm convinced that Lyubomirsky is right: We can identify activities that will make us happier on a sustainable basis.

If the 4 strategies I've discussed above don't resonate with you, I encourage you to buy the book and take the diagnostic yourself to determine if any of the other 8 strategies might be a better fit.

Three final points: First, Lyubomirsky is quick to recognize the distinction between unhappiness and clinical depression, and she notes in the book's postscript that "although a program to become happier can positively be attempted by those who are depressed, relief from depression is not what this book promises."  The recognition that our intentional activities can have a substantial impact on our happiness in no way implies that those who suffer from depression can simply will themselves to well-being and mental health.

Second, although I believe Lyubomirsky's conclusions are generally valid, I don't accept every point she makes in the book.  For example, one of the strategies she recommends to help people minimize counterproductive ruminating is the "Stop!" technique, "in which you think, say or even shout to yourself, 'Stop!' or 'No!' when you find yourself resuming overthinking."  This is actually not recommended by experts in treating anxiety disorders, such as Robert Leahy, author of The Worry Cure, and in some cases this technique can make things worse.  Although Lyubomirsky's work as a research scientist allows her to bring a great deal of useful data to bear on "The How of Happiness," there were times when I wanted to hear from a practitioner, such as a clinical psychologist or an executive coach, to get a different perspective.

And third, the work done by Lyubomirsky and her colleagues in the field of "happiness studies" (which we might view as an offshoot of positive psychology) is rooted in the idea that happiness can be objectively measured--and yet the primary instrument used to assess happiness is known as the Subjective Happiness Scale.  I don't believe this invalidates Lyubomirsky's conclusions, but it raises questions for me about the nature of happiness itself, the ways in which our personal experiences of happiness differ, and the extent to which happiness really can be measured.  Philosophical questions like that are beyond the scope of this essay, but they're worth thinking about.

Many thanks to Sonja Lyubomirsky for a valuable work of scholarship that I believe deserves a wide audience and makes a lasting contribution to both science and society.

Jan 20, 2009

Obama, Leadership and Authenticity

Obama Inauguration

I voted for Barack Obama, but without a great deal of enthusiasm.  I appreciated the symbolic importance of his candidacy, and I ultimately agreed that his message of change was appropriate to the historical moment, but the the fact that so many people seemed to view him as the Second Coming made me want to keep my distance.  Hero-worship automatically makes me look for flaws in the hero and question the judgment of the worshippers.

Even so, I was moved by Obama's inauguration this morning, and it led me to reflect on why so many people find him such a compelling figure.  Even if we set aside Obama's purely symbolic impact (as the successor to a deeply unpopular incumbent, as the first African-American president, etc.) and even if we account for the partisan passions of his most vociferous supporters, it's clear that Obama possesses several key qualities that mark him as a leader.

The quality of Obama's that stands out to me most vividly is authenticity.  It's always dangerous to describe a politician as "authentic"--they're in the business of telling us what we want to hear and  presenting us with a believable and consistent version of themselves.  But even Obama's most cynical critic has to admit that the man is effective at conveying a sense of authenticity which contributes substantially to his impact.  I'm sure Obama works hard at this--it's a prerequisite of his profession--but that effort doesn't seem to undermine his believability or distort him into a hollow shell.  Time will tell, of course, if that is true or not.  (This aspect of Obama stands in marked contrast to George W. Bush, who somehow managed to convey a sense of inauthenticity even when, in my opinion, he was being quite true to himself.)

In Why Should Anyone Be Led By You?, Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones assert that authenticity is such an important characteristic of effective leadership today because traditional sources of meaning such as hierarchies no longer serve this function, and we look to leaders to fill that void.  Goffee and Jones also offer a three-part definition of authenticity in the context of leadership (page 16):

First, authentic leaders display a consistency between words and deeds... But an ability to do what you say is not enough on its own.

The second element of authentic leadership is the capacity to display coherence in role performances.  In other words, despite the unavoidable need to play different roles at different times for different audiences, authentic leaders communicate a consistent underlying thread.  They display a "real self" that holds these separate performances together.

Closely linked to this is the third and final element.  Authentic leadership involves a kind of comfort with self, which is perhaps the hardest aspect of all to attain.  This is the internal source from which consistency of role performance is drawn.  The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines that which is authentic as having "undisputed origins."  And in a leadership context, this is what followers are looking for: a set of performances that have a common origin. [Emphasis original]

I'm eager to see how Obama makes use of this powerful dimension of his leadership, and, more importantly, to see if his next steps enhance or detract from my perception of him as an authentic leader.

UPDATE: What I find helpful about Goffee and Jones's definition of authenticity in action is that it provides multiple perspectives from which to consider someone before reaching a conclusion about their authenticity.  Obama's already drawn flak from some quarters because of a perceived gap between his campaign rhetoric on the economic crisis or the war in Iraq and the direction he appears to be taking as president.  I personally don't find this troubling because I'm encouraged by the more moderate tone he's adopted following the campaign, but I can appreciate why someone with a different viewpoint might feel otherwise and might even begin to question his authenticity as a result.

However, judging authenticity solely as a perceived consistency between words and deeds at some point becomes a matter of relative values.  What I see as a reasonable compromise someone else may see as a disgraceful sellout.  But if we set aside specific policy issues and go to the next levels in Goffee and Jones's framework, the questions to ask about Obama are: Does he display coherence in role performances and communicate a consistent underlying thread?  And Does he seem comfortable with himself?  And my answer is a resounding "yes."

Photo by lindseywb.  Yay Flickr and Creative Commons.