Ed Batista

Compliance vs. Commitment (On Behavior Change)

At times a gap emerges between a leader's expectations and employees' behavior, and a theme in my practice is the question of how to close such gaps when they occur. Sometimes this entails adjusting a leader's unrealistic expectations, but most of my clients are striving to achieve something that's both ambitious and novel, and allowing the status quo to determine what's "realistic" may guarantee failure.

So in many cases the challenge is how to influence employees to modify their behavior in order to make it more likely that a meaningful stretch goal will be accomplished. This need not be limited to financial or technical milestones--it includes all efforts to develop a more functional organization. Broadly speaking, there are two very different ways to accomplish such behavior change: enforce compliance or build commitment.

Enforcing compliance is easy at first, but it becomes more difficult with time. People comply when they're either threatened with punishment or promised a reward. This is initially easy because some punishments and rewards are inexpensive and readily at hand: the leader's disapproval or approval, a reprimand or praise, the loss of a bonus or a minor bump in status or compensation.

But this approach imposes increasing costs on both leaders and employees. People comply when they're being policed, which requires management to expend time and effort identifying violations--which people will be motivated to conceal. Many people will find such oversight heavy-handed and resent it, and the best people--who have the most options--will tend to leave.

Further, the punishments and rewards themselves become more costly, both literally and figuratively. When disapproval and reprimands fail, the next steps are reassignment, demotion and, eventually, termination. When praise grows stale and the impact of minor bumps wear off, more effusive praise and major bumps are required.

Even more fundamentally, enforcing compliance fails to address any resistance to the leader's expectations. Debate is stifled via threats and bribes, differing points of view are squelched, and resistance goes underground. Compliance ultimately relies on coercion, and people comply because they fear further and more severe punishments, or they fear the end of the gravy train and the loss of future rewards.

I'm not suggesting that there's no place for compliance in organizational life. We rely on compliance all the time, but it works when there's a shared consensus on 1) what constitutes expected behavior and violations of same, and 2) the appropriate response for various violations. This is most apparent where organizational life meets the legal system, and a host of laws and regulations set out expectations for leaders and employees alike. Violations are met with punishments such as fines or imprisonment. The reward for compliance is simple: you keep your money and your liberty.

But in most of the situations I discuss with clients there's no applicable legal or regulatory structure, nor is there a shared consensus on expectations for behavior. In fact, it's the absence (or breakdown) of such a consensus that typically leads a client to raise the issue with me. How do we define excellence or best effort? How much time and what resources should be allocated to a given task or initiative? What constitutes a productive company culture?

Trying to resolve these challenges by enforcing compliance is often unsustainable and at times utterly impossible. But there's another way: building commitment. When people are compliant, they're essentially passive figures responding to external pressure and unlikely to expend further effort once a minimum threshold has been attained. But when they're committed, they're active agents who are internally motivated to take initiative and will draw upon their full capabilities to achieve--and surpass--a goal.

Enforcing compliance is relatively mechanical, reducing human motivation to avoiding punishments and obtaining rewards. In this regard it reflects the industrial-era managerial philosophy that M.I.T. professor Douglas McGregor dubbed "Theory X" [1], which "assumes that people dislike work and must be coerced, controlled, and directed toward organizational goals." [2]

Building commitment is a far more complex undertaking, but it's also far better-suited to the management of contemporary knowledge workers. And in this regard it's aligned with what McGregor called "Theory Y" [3], which "emphasizes the average person’s intrinsic interest in his [sic] work, his desire to be self-directing and to seek responsibility, and his capacity to be creative in solving business problems." [4]

There's also a relationship with the distinction that psychologist Frederick Herzberg made between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on the job. [5] Herzberg's research suggests that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction aren't endpoints on a single spectrum, but two distinct scales. Satisfaction is derived from sources of intrinsic motivation such as a sense of achievement, recognition, responsibility, and opportunities for growth.

In contrast, sources of extrinsic motivation (also known as "hygiene factors") such as working conditions, compensation, status, and security generate dissatisfaction if they're perceived as inadequate. Compliant people remain so only as long as they aren't too dissatisfied, but the absence of punishment and the promise of rewards doesn't generate sustained motivation. Committed people are motivated, and the fulfillment they find in the pursuit of their aims makes them more likely to persist in the face of difficulties.

As noted above, it gets more difficult and expensive to apply the right mix of punishments and rewards necessary to obtain compliance. Commitment is also costly, but more than money it requires other equally precious and limited resources, most notably the leader's time, attention and creative energy. So what does this look like in practice? How does a leader build commitment?

Dialogue

There's a reason why we use the phrase "disagree and commit." [6] So the first step is ensuring an open dialogue in which disagreements can be aired and a range of factors addressed: the leader's expectations, employees' existing behavior, any gaps that exist between the two, potential explanations for said gaps, the organization's relevant goals, and the assumption that alternative behaviors will increase the likelihood of successful outcomes.

This inevitably requires a willingness on the leader's part to have some tough conversations in which resistance to their expectations can be safely expressed and explored. That doesn't mean leaders must defer to any resistance. But the absence of a free-flowing dialogue in which disagreement is welcomed ensures that any efforts to motivate behavior change will eventually default to enforcing compliance, whatever the leader's intentions.

Influence

Engaging in a dialogue presents a leader with opportunities to exert influence. And note the distinction between influence and coercion--the latter relies upon a simplistic formula of threats and rewards to induce behavior change, while the former is a much more nuanced process. The leader seeking to exert influence acknowledges and respects others' right to choose and expends time and effort to win them over.

This doesn't mean that people are free to opt out with no consequences. Rejecting the leaders' expectations may result in a loss of opportunities, a reassigned role, or expulsion from the organization. But the leader who is seeking to build commitment through influence will make these consequences clear at the outset (or restore clarity when it's been lost), so that people can make both positive and negative choices with full awareness and agency.

Work by psychologist Robert Cialdini identifies six factors that make us more (or less) open to another's influence. [7] While it may take years to master these principles, simply understanding Cialdini's framework provides a leader with a starting point to guide their efforts:

• Likeability: We respond to people who convey warmth.
• Reciprocity: We repay favors.
• Social proof: We follow others' example.
• Consistency: We strive to live up to stated commitments.
• Authority: We defer to experts and authoritative figures.
• Scarcity: We're anxious about potential losses or insufficiency.

Norms

The leader's aspiration is to have their expectations result in a set of behavioral norms, which are "social regularities that individuals feel obligated to follow, and patterns of behavior based on shared beliefs about how individuals should behave." [8] But it's important to recognize that compliant people have not adopted the leader's expectations as norms--they've adopted the norm of doing whatever it takes to avoid punishments and obtain rewards. When punishments and rewards no longer suffice (or grow too costly to implement), compliance will vanish.

In contrast, committed people have adopted the leader's expectations as norms, and in so doing have come to internalize such expectations as their own--very possibly because engaging in open dialogue enabled them to influence the leader as well. And it's absolutely futile to try to establish norms in the absence of dialogue and mutual influence. The results aren't norms at all, but merely a set of rules, and we only follow rules when we're being policed--which brings us right back to compliance and coercion.

But even arriving at a set of shared beliefs about how people should behave isn't necessarily sufficient to cause people to feel obligated to act accordingly. We've all participated in groups and organizations that proclaimed a lofty set of values that everyone agreed with in principle but were routinely ignored in practice--the proverbial "plaque on the wall." Once the dialogue and influence process has yielded a set of shared beliefs, what else is needed to transform those beliefs into norms?

• Sufficient mutual esteem among members so that its withdrawal would be felt as a loss by any individual.
• A willingness by members to openly acknowledge a norm violation by a peer.
• A willingness by members to withhold esteem from a peer as a consequence of a norm violation.

I define this as a high-accountability, high-empathy culture. [9] It's not merely a high-accountability culture, in which people are harshly punished for their lack of compliance, nor it is a merely high-empathy culture in which people are richly rewarded for following the rules. In such a setting leaders do very little policing at all--instead, employees hold themselves accountable because of their shared beliefs regarding productive behavior coupled with their desire to avoid the loss of mutual esteem.

Again, all of this takes ample amounts of time, attention, and creative energy--and even many well-intentioned leaders are unable or unwilling to make these investments, so they wind up relying upon compliance. Which works, until suddenly it doesn't.

 

This is a companion piece to the following:

• Hard Problems in Soft Cultures
• Accountability and Empathy (Are Not Mutually Exclusive)
• Rules Aren't Norms (On Company Values)

---

FOOTNOTES

[1] "The Human Side of Enterprise," page 6 (Douglas McGregor, Leadership and Motivation, 1966):

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

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

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

[2] Beyond Theory Y (John Morse and Jay Lorsch, Harvard Business Review, 1970)

[3] McGregor, pages 15-16:

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

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

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

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

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

[4] Morse and Lorsch, HBR.

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

[6] While the principle of "disagree and commit" seems to have originated with Andy Grove or Scott McNealy, Jeff Bezos provided a useful definition in his 1997 letter to shareholders:

Use the phrase "disagree and commit." This phrase will save a lot of time. If you have conviction on a particular direction even though there’s no consensus, it’s helpful to say, "Look, I know we disagree on this but will you gamble with me on it? Disagree and commit?" By the time you’re at this point, no one can know the answer for sure, and you’ll probably get a quick yes.

This isn’t one way. If you’re the boss, you should do this too. I disagree and commit all the time... [emphasis mine]

[7] The most concise articulation of Cialdini's model can be found in this classic Harvard Business Review article: Harnessing the Science of Persuasion (2001). Cialdini discusses his work more thoroughly in Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (2021, 3rd ed. / 1984, 1st ed.) He also explains the principles of persuasion on his own website. (On that page he adds a seventh principle--"unity"--but that was not an element in his original framework, and I omit it here.) For further reading:

• The Language of Persuasion (Robert Cialdini, Harvard Business Review, 2008)
• The Uses (and Abuses) of Influence (Robert Cialdini, Harvard Business Review, 2013)

[8] From Rules Aren't Norms (On Company Values). (The section above on norms is adapted from this piece.)

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

 

Photos: Police car by Scott Davidson. Tug-of-war by Napat Chaichanasiri.

Connect, Reflect, Direct...Then Ask (On Coaching)

Coaching is a way of being with others that's accessible to everyone and is by no means the exclusive purview of professional coaches. And while there are limits on the extent to which you as a leader can coach an employee [1], coaching is an approach that lends itself well to many managerial relationships, particularly between senior executives. [2]

I've written before about coaching as part of your leadership toolkit, most notably in "How Great Coaches Ask, Listen and Empathize," first published by Harvard Business Review in 2015. As the title indicates, I believe these three skills are central to the coaching process:

Coaching begins by creating space to be filled by the employee, and typically you start this process by asking an open-ended question. After some initial small talk with my clients and students, I usually signal the beginning of our coaching conversation by asking, "So, where would you like to start?" The key is to establish receptivity to whatever the other person needs to discuss, and to avoid presumptions that unnecessarily limit the conversation...

It's important to understand the difference between hearing and listening. Hearing is a cognitive process that happens internally--we absorb sound, interpret it, and understand it. But listening is a whole-body process that happens between two people that makes the other person truly feel heard...

Empathy is the ability not only to comprehend another person's point of view, but also to vicariously experience their emotions. Without empathy other people remain alien and opaque to us. When present it establishes the interpersonal connection that makes coaching possible. [3]

Asking evocative questions, ensuring the other person feels heard, and actively conveying empathy remain the foundations of coaching. But there's certainly more to the process, and here's a sequence of steps that I employ frequently in sessions with clients that you may find useful if you're seeking to integrate coaching into your managerial style:

• Connect: Establish and renew the interpersonal connection, followed by an open-ended question.
• Reflect: Having elicited a response, reflect back the essence of the other person's comments.
• Direct: Focus their attention on a particular aspect of their response that invites further exploration.
• Then Ask: Pose a question that builds upon, integrates or challenges what's been said so far.

Throughout this sequence it's essential to listen and respond in such a way that the other person feels heard and empathized with, but note that the emphasis is on their responses and not your questions. There are more and less useful ways of asking questions--see below--but when you're experimenting with a coaching approach you may put pressure on yourself to ask a "powerful question," and that's often counter-productive.

Below I provide further context on each of the stages--I discuss Connect at greater length because we frequently underestimate its significance for all that follows. And while the stages are ordered in a logical sequence that may repeat itself multiple times over the course of a given conversation, they shouldn't be viewed as a fixed set of steps that must be followed in order. You should feel actively encouraged to trust your intuition and employ them fluidly as needed.

 

---

Stage 1. Connect

1.1. Safety and Trust

In "Ask, Listen and Empathize" I note the importance of connecting, albeit briefly: "After some initial small talk...I usually signal the beginning of our coaching conversation by asking, 'So, where would you like to start?'" In the years since I've developed a greater appreciation for the value of establishing the interpersonal connection at the beginning of a conversation and renewing it regularly.

When we encounter others, we are implicitly asking, Are you safe? Can I trust you? Executive coach David Rock has explored neuroscience research to understand its implications for organizational life [4], and he explains why connecting at the outset of an interaction helps us answer these questions affirmatively:

The ability to feel trust and empathy about others is shaped by whether they are perceived to be part of the same social group... When [a] new person is perceived as different, the information travels along neural pathways that are associated with uncomfortable feelings (different from the neural pathways triggered by people who are perceived as similar to oneself)... Once people begin to make a stronger social connection, their brains begin to secrete a hormone called oxytocin... [which] disarms the threat response and further activates the neural networks that permit us to perceive someone as 'just like us.'" [5]

1.2. Small Talk

The means by which these connections are most readily established is typically some form of "small talk," a colloquial term that obscures the significance of a vital element in human interaction. As I've written before,

Why can small talk have such a big impact? Possibly because it's a highly evolved form of "social grooming"--a common behavior among mammals that is believed to serve a range of functions transcending basic hygiene. Research by anthropologist Robin Dunbar and others indicates that social grooming in primates is a function of group size, suggesting that it helps maintain harmonious relationships in larger social units where individuals may have less frequent contact with each other. [6]

Dunbar has even proposed that human language evolved from social grooming, and while this theory remains controversial, it's clear that "vocal grooming" can play a significant role in effective relationships. [7] As science educator Kate Fehlhaber has noted, "Social grooming [in humans] can take on a completely non-physical form due to our extensive spoken and written language and is probably [our] dominant form of social grooming. A few kind words are often all the 'grooming' it takes to strengthen social relationships." [8] [9]

The appropriate amount of small talk and the acceptable topics for discussion are highly contextual, dependent upon the surrounding culture, the nature of the relationship, and the purpose of the conversation. But when you successfully abide by these constraints, the process of small talk presents you with many opportunities to accomplish the goals articulated by Rock: identify similarities, signal your shared membership in a social group, demonstrate that you're safe and trustworthy, and thereby set the stage for more meaningful discussion.

A disregard for small talk is often rooted in the perception that the topics seem frivolous or irrelevant. Sometimes they are, but even when the content of small talk is essentially meaningless, the process of engaging in the ritual for the right amount of time (and no longer), at the right level of depth (and no deeper) conveys a weighty message: I'm a safe and trustworthy person.

1.3. The Open-Ended Question

The connection stage concludes with an open-ended question, which should be simple and concise. If there's value in specifying potential topics in advance, after the initial connection has been established you can ask What's on your agenda? But that presumes a need to manage time, which won't always be the case. If not, you can ask, What's on your mind? or, as I note above, Where would you like to start? And as this four-stage process repeats itself over the course of the conversation, at subsequent junctures you can simply ask, Where do you want to go from here?

As with small talk, the purpose of the open-ended question transcends the content--as long as it's short, the wording is immaterial. The open-ended question serves to reinforce the process of interpersonal connection not only by putting the focus on the other person's priorities, but also by enhancing their sense of agency and control, which may be particularly important in a hierarchical reporting relationship.

The late Edgar Schein, a longtime professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management, highlighted the interpersonal aspect of open-ended questions. Here he refers to the person being coached or helped as the "client," but the concept applies to employees as well:

The pure inquiry process has several purposes: to build up the client's status and confidence; to create a situation for the client in which it is safe to reveal anxiety, information and feelings; to gather as much information as possible about the situation; and to involve the client in the process of diagnosis and action planning. [10]

1.4. Over Time

While establishing the interpersonal connection is most important in the first encounter of a brand-new relationship [11], it remains relevant in repeated encounters. My former Stanford colleague Richard Francisco called this "extended ritual"--a way of reaffirming safety and trust at each and every contact. [12] In some relationships we may be able to establish connection with increasing efficiency, and eventually just one or two opening remarks may suffice. In other relationships or in certain interactions, we may choose to linger at this stage--the key is being attuned to the needs of the moment.

Further, this four-stage cycle will repeat itself multiple times in any given conversation. While it's most important to establish the interpersonal connection at the outset of the interaction, there will be countless opportunities to renew it and deepen it. This need not entail returning to the small talk that opened the conversation, but it may well include jokes, asides, observations, stories, and disclosures. As I've noted before, coaching conversations should feel normal, not stilted, and that starts with the person doing the coaching: "Being normal myself allows coaching to be seen as a normal form of helping and interacting, rather than as something special or extraordinary." [13]

1.5. The Virtual Environment

Finally, as more of our working relationships have moved online in recent years, we've had to "translate" in-person social rituals that establish interpersonal connection, such as a handshake, with varying degrees of success. Virtual environments can make it tempting to dispense with such efforts in service of time-efficiency, and on occasion that may be necessary. But in my experience a little forethought ensures that virtual coaching conversations are as effective as face-to-face, and making the effort to connect goes a long way toward that goal. [14]

 

---

Stage 2. Reflect

The central idea in this stage is that once you've asked a question that evokes a substantive response from the other person, you reflect back your understanding of their response to them. This shouldn't be a verbatim recitation--instead, convey the essence of what was said. This will likely entail filtering out some (and perhaps much) of what you heard while also preserving any specific language that feels resonant or meaningful. The key is finding a balance between reducing the response into more concise language and ensuring that the other person hears their individual voice reflected in the language you use.

I find it useful to do some lightweight note-taking while listening, using a pen and pad instead of a device to minimize the risk of distractions. My intent isn't to transcribe what I'm hearing so that I can repeat it back, nor do I want to spend so much time glancing away that I miss facial expressions or gestures. I'm merely offloading items from working memory and capturing words or phrases that seem noteworthy--I pay close attention to emotions, imagery, metaphors, and colorful terms, including jargon or profanity.

This process will take different forms over the course of a given conversation. As I note above, at the outset you may want to ask the other person what's on their agenda and help them prioritize their list of topics. I find this approach useful with a client who may have more on their mind than we can realistically cover, given the time available. But even in those cases it may be possible to manage time assertively and strive to reach a point of sufficiency on each item. Here the task is to reflect back the list of potential topics as you understand them, both to test for accuracy and to jointly agree on an approach to the agenda. While the other person should feel a sense of ownership, you also have a stake here. If the agenda feels too ambitious, don't hesitate to say so.

But as you go deeper into a coaching conversation, the act of reflecting back serves a number of useful purposes beyond agenda-setting. It can be particularly valuable for the other person to hear your understanding of their response if that interpretation differs from their intent. Even when your understanding is aligned with theirs, it can be striking for them to hear it back in their own language--thus the importance of capturing specific words and phrases that resonate in some way, even (and especially) if you don't understand their precise meaning to the other person.

 

---

Stage 3. Direct

Sometimes merely reflecting back the other person's response is sufficient to advance the conversation. They may choose to correct misinterpretations in your reflection, restate the response in new language, identify a particular element of the response to focus on--or go off in a completely new and unexpected direction. And sometimes none of those things happen, and there's an opportunity for you to advance to the third stage of this process, in which you focus the other person's attention on some aspect of their response

Directing the other person's attention can be accomplished through questions (What do you think that means? How do you feel about that?) as well as statements (That's interesting. Tell me more.) When you're getting comfortable with coaching as a methodology, there's no need to get too hung up on the precise formulation. It's also off-putting to people when they only hear questions in a coaching conversation--to my point above, that's not normal, and it can serve to create distance when you've been working to establish connection. That said, it's useful to observe which phrasings work best, which will differ from person to person, and to evolve your approach over time.

The key is being deliberate and intentional about where you're directing the other person's attention. Honing your intuitive sense of what merits further exploration is more important than worrying about whether it's phrased in the form of a question. Schein identifies four areas that tend to yield fruitful results: 1) feelings and reactions, 2) causes and motives, 3) actions taken or contemplated, and 4) "systemic issues," i.e. the feelings, reactions, causes, motives, and actions taken or contemplated by any other individuals who have been referenced by the person you're coaching. [15]

This is also where some light note-taking can be useful. For example, I generally write down the specific term a person uses to describe an emotion, in part because their definition may differ from mine and synonyms may cause confusion. (I also find it helpful to encourage people to expand their "emotional vocabulary." [16]) And I write down other individuals' names, even when I already know the cast of characters in the other person's environment. Names are potent symbols, and when someone's name comes up repeatedly it's often a sign of something worth exploring.

 

---

Stage 4. Then Ask

To be clear, questions will be part of your coaching repertoire in all of the previous stages of this process. You'll ask questions while connecting in the course of making small talk, as a means of signalling a transition, and in order to evoke a substantive response. You'll ask questions while reflecting the other person's response back to them in order to clarify their comments and ensure an accurate understanding. And you'll ask questions to direct their attention, rather than simply making a statement--this is harder at first, but it gets easier with practice.

But having connected with the other person, reflected their response back to them, and directed their attention toward aspects of their response, you'll also have opportunities to ask questions that build upon, integrate, or challenge what's been said so far and open up entirely new avenues for exploration. This is where coaching becomes a truly synergistic process--where your questions have the potential to help the other person discover answers they didn't know they had.

Yet while acknowledging the importance of questions in the coaching process--and the value of learning how to ask better questions--I also want to take some of the pressure off. For a decade I helped train MBA students at Stanford in coaching skills, and almost all of them struggled with the sense that their questions needed to be powerful or profound. This impulse is problematic. At a tactical level, it can cause you to fumble for the right words, which is a distraction to the person you're coaching. More broadly, it positions you as "the insightful coach," which distorts the relationship and elevates your role when you're coaching a direct report.

There are some easy ways to ask more effective coaching questions without worrying about whether they're sufficiently "powerful." First, questions that invite an extended response are generally preferable than those that can be answered with "Yes" or "No." For example, How did you accomplish that? is better than Did you accomplish that? And What did you think would happen? is better than Did you think that would happen? And How did you feel? is better than Did you feel [X]?

Observe that my preferred questions above begin with What... and How... but not Why. While you shouldn't feel precluded from ever asking a Why question, they tend to evoke rationalizing and even defensiveness. The other person feels obligated to justify their actions or their response to you, which narrows their frame of reference rather than expanding it. So instead of asking Why did you do that? ask What were your intentions? Instead of asking Why did you feel that way? ask What prompted those feelings? Instead of asking Why is that your goal? ask How would that be helpful to you?

A bad habit that many managers bring to coaching conversations is asking a leading question, such as Don't you think it would be better if [X]? or Wouldn't you prefer [Y]? The problem with leading questions is that they're not really questions--they're statements in disguise: I think it would be better if [X], and I prefer [Y]. Even worse, a leading question can feel like a pop quiz with a "right" answer, which will remind the other person that they're talking with their manager, and they'll start telling you what they think you want to hear, rather than candidly exploring their inner thoughts with you. The solution, yet again, is to make coaching normal--if you have something to say, just say it. This may affect the coaching dynamic, particularly in a reporting relationship, but it's preferable than trying to contort a statement into the form of a question.

One final point: As someone who's in love with language, I often find myself thinking of an even better question when I'm in the middle of asking one. But if I give in to the temptation to tack on second question, I put my client in a bind: Which question should they answer? If you share this tendency, remind yourself to ask once, and stop.

 

For more on this topic, see Coaching and Feedback Tools for Leaders.

---

Footnotes

[1] Coaching has limits as a managerial tool because leaders are usually attached to a given outcome--they want something specific to happen--and not simply invested in their employees' success. A leader's desired outcome and an employee's definition of success are generally aligned, which is why coaching can be effective as a managerial tool, but they aren't always identical. This is one of the reasons why external coaches have a unique role to play--we're invested in our clients' success, but rarely attached to any particular outcomes. For more on this, see Investment vs. Attachment.

[2] "Senior executives require a great deal of autonomy, and this may entail a shift in perspective as CEO, particularly if you're used to working with direct reports who are less experienced, more deferential, and more dependent on you for tactical direction." From Mind the Gap (On Leading Senior Executives).

[3] How Great Coaches Ask, Listen and Empathize (Originally published by Harvard Business Review.)

[4] For an overview of Rock's work, see Neuroscience, Leadership and David Rock's SCARF Model.

[5] Managing with the Brain in Mind (David Rock, strategy+business, 2009). More recent research has added nuance to our understanding of oxytocin's role. It appears to augment social connections but isn't necessary for their establishment. Journalist Katharine Wu offers an overview of this research in The Atlantic (2023). I include Rock's reference to oxytocin here to simply to highlight that our perceptions of safety and trust have a neurological basis.

[6] For more on the role of social grooming in primates and the relationship with group size:

• Functional significance of social grooming in primates (Robin Dunbar, Folia Primatologica, 1991)
• Group size, grooming and social cohesion in primates (Julia Lehmann, Amanda Korstjens, and Robin Dunbar, Animal Behavior, 2007)

[7] For more on social grooming and language:

• Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language (Robin Dunbar, 1998)
• Group size, vocal grooming and the origins of language (Robin Dunbar, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2017)

[8] Social Grooming: It's not just for monkeys and prairie voles! (Kate Fehlhaber, Knowing Neurons, 2013)

[9] Excerpted from Bosses and Birthdays (The Importance of Small Talk).

[10] Helping: How to Give, Offer and Receive Help, page 70 (Edgar Schein, 2009)

[11] First Impressions

[12] Five Levels of Communication

[13] From In Defense of Normal (A Coaching Manifesto).

[14] Tips for Coaching Someone Remotely

[15] Helping, pages 70-73

[16] Vocabulary of Emotions [PDF]

[17] For a list of potential questions, see Scott Ginsberg on Asking (Better) Questions.

 

Photos: Connect / Handshake by Amtec Photos. Reflect / Taj Mahal by Louis Vest. Direct / Tufa at Mono Lake by Sathish J. Ask / Question Mark by Dominik.

Exploring a Potential Partnership

If you're considering forming a partnership--for a project, a team, a firm or a venture--here are three exercises to complete and an agenda to help you discuss the results. This framework is inspired by a set of questions posed by the great management thinker Peter Drucker:

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

~Managing Oneself

---

INDIVIDUAL PREPARATION (90 minutes)

1. What are my strengths?

It takes far more energy and work to improve from incompetence to mediocrity than it takes to improve from first-rate performance to excellence. ~Managing Oneself

Many personality tests lack validity and reliability, and I employ them sparingly in my practice and teaching. One of the few I've relied upon is the Values in Action Survey of Character Strengths, often referred to as the VIA, developed by Martin Seligman and Christopher Peterson.

• Complete the VIA and return to the link below to review Section 7: Making Use of Your VIA Results.
• VIA Survey of Character Strengths

 

2. How do I perform? What conditions allow me to do my best work?

Too many people work in ways that are not their ways, and that almost guarantees nonperformance. For knowledge workers, "How do I perform?" may be an even more important question than "What are my strengths?" ~Managing Oneself

When we work with people who share our work style it may feel more comfortable, but homogeneous teams can have blind spots and be prone to groupthink. Teams whose members have a diverse range of styles can be more effective if they develop the ability to manage conflict successfully.

• Complete two versions of the worksheet linked below--one that reflects your personal preferences and one that reflects your best estimate of your partner's preferences.
• Work Style Differences

 

3. What are my values?

To work in an organization whose value system is unacceptable or incompatible with one’s own condemns a person both to frustration and to nonperformance. ~Managing Oneself

A dilemma we face when discussing "values" is that their definitions are highly subjective--and when we arrive at a definition that's true for us, we still have to determine what it means to actually live that value. Here's an exercise to reach an actionable definition of your core values:

• Create a list of words that you think of as values that have some meaning to you. Don't worry about what that meaning is at this point.
• Keep writing until the words stop flowing freely. Don't worry about how many words are on the list.
• Take each word in turn and think of a story that demonstrates that value in action--an actual event you experienced or observed. Don't write out the entire story, but jot down a few notes so that you can readily reflect back upon it.
• Having illustrated each value this way, ask yourself:
  • What intrinsic rewards are the result of this value? In what ways does it fulfill me or create a sense of meaning in my life?
  • What extrinsic rewards--what forms of status or compensation--am I willing to sacrifice on behalf of this value?
  • How important is this value to my self-identity? How different would my life have to be for me to abandon this value?
• Use the answers to these questions to narrow your original list of words down to no more than five--and preferably as few as three. Consider the results your core values.

 

---

PAIR (OR GROUP) DISCUSSION (1-2 hours)

(Here's a printer-friendly version of this agenda.)

If possible, share the results of your individual preparation with your partner/s in advance of your pair/group discussion. This will allow you to spend more time considering the implications of these results for a potential partnership. The times below are for a 1-hour pair discussion. Groups of 3 or more should allot 90 minutes to 2 hours.

1. Warming Up (10 minutes)

Presumably introductions aren't necessary, but a warmup exercise can set the stage for a more meaningful discussion:

The Most Important Year of My Life.

• Each person has 3 minutes to answer this question: What was the most important year of my life?
• Note that the question is NOT: What was the BEST year of my life? It's an important distinction.
• After each person has finished, take a moment to acknowledge them and express appreciation for their story, but don't do an extensive debrief or ask further questions at this point.
• Take a few minutes after the last person has finished to discuss the exercise: What was that like? How do you feel as a result? What questions are you left with?

2. Strengths (15 minutes)

• What items among your VIA results would you characterize as "signature strengths"? Your results should inform but not dictate your signature strengths--it's ultimately up to you to make this determination.
• What surprised you in your results? What surprised you in your partner's results?
• In what ways are your respective signature strengths complementary? How might they conflict?

3. Working Conditions (15 minutes)

• What items on your worksheet are most important to you? What items are least important?
• How accurate was your estimate of your partner's preferences?
• In what ways are your respective preferences complementary ? How might they conflict?

4. Values (15 minutes)

• What are your core values? (Again, identify no more than five, and preferably as few as three.)
• Share one of the stories that illustrates one of your core values. If time allows, repeat this step while taking turns.
• In what ways are your core values complementary? How might they conflict?

5. Conclusion (5 minutes)

You held this discussion because you're seeking more information about what it would be like to work with this person. Note that the discussion itself has been a type of "work," and how your partner has participated may provide some useful data.

• What has your partner done over the past hour that made you more interested in working with them?
• What has your partner done over the past hour that made you less interested in working with them?
• What questions do you have about their behavior?
• What feedback would you like to share with them?
• What questions do you have about your own behavior over the past hour?
• What feedback would you like to request from them?

Take some notes in response to these questions now, while the discussion is fresh in your mind. But don't jump into a feedback conversation immediately--take a day or two to digest everything first. And as always, bear in mind that feedback is not a gift--it's data.

 

---

NEXT STEPS

Should you decide to work together, bear in mind that even the best partnerships experience difficulties over time, and this isn't merely inevitable--it's desirable. In my experience a "conflict-free relationship" is a sign that people aren't being candid with each other, perhaps because they fear that any conflict will put the relationship in jeopardy--which renders it fragile and unlikely to last. The key is learning how to engage in conflict safely, how to "disagree without being disagreeable," and how to repair when necessary. Here are a further set of readings on building--and sustaining--a stronger partnership:

Better Working Relationships

Feedback Is Not a Gift

How to Deliver Critical Feedback

How We Connect (and Why We Might Not)

The Tyranny of Feelings

You Make Me Feel... (On Language and Responsibility)

Authority and Control in Organizational Life

Safety Is a Resource, Not a Destination

The Toyota Production System for Relationships

Whether or Not to Fix a Broken Relationship

 

Photo by Wil C. Fry.

Classrooms, Churches, Cocktail Parties (On Norms)

Many of the situations we encounter in contemporary professional life take one of three cultural forms: A classroom, a church, or a cocktail party.

While there are countless variations among schools, places of worship, and celebratory gatherings, we can readily envision an idealized classroom, an idealized church, an idealized cocktail party, and these archetypes are useful lenses through which to view any number of situations.

So some meetings are like a classroom, others are like church, and still others are like a cocktail party. And some companies are like a classroom, others are like church, and still others are like a cocktail party.

Each of these forms involves very different norms, which I've defined as social regularities that individuals feel obligated to follow, and patterns of behavior based on shared beliefs about how individuals should behave. [1] To be clear, norms aren't rules. Rules are what we intend to do, or what we're supposed to do, or what we aspire to do. Norms are what we actually do.

The problem, however, is that schools, places of worship, and celebratory gatherings identify themselves very clearly through obvious signifiers. We know where we are, we readily grasp the norms, and we act accordingly.

But meetings and companies are much harder to interpret. They must serve different purposes at different times for different parties--and those parties may disagree. So the signs and signals are opaque and confusing, and it's easy to misread them.

The key is asking ourselves: Where do I think I am? In a classroom? In a church? At a cocktail party? And where does everybody else here think they are?

There's no implied value-judgment. We have need of schools, places of worship, and celebratory gatherings all. But if we think we're in a classroom, and everyone else thinks they're in church, there's going to be trouble.

The next question to ask is: Who do I think I am? A teacher or a student? An officiant or a congregant? A host or a guest? And who does everyone else think they are? We need all these roles, but again, if we don't have a shared understanding of who we are to each other, there's going to be trouble. [2]

A final question to ask is: To what extent is this cultural form serving our collective needs at the moment? Cultures are hard to change because people feel obligated to adhere to existing norms. So unless we step outside a given culture in order to observe it, we're likely to perpetuate it. We'll keep going to class, to church, to the party, without pausing to consider whether that's really where we want to be.

 

---

Footnotes

[1] Rules Aren't Norms (On Company Values)

[2] Role Clarity and Role Confusion

Photos: Classroom by Robert Couse-Baker. Church by Garry Knight. Cocktail Party by Yelp/Tom Pagut.

Three Painful Truths (On Change, Leadership & Mortality)

I believe three things to be true:

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

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

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

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

 

---

On Change

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

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

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

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

 

---

On Leadership

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

Storytelling [is] such a powerful process...because we depend upon narratives to navigate the world--they are our compass in the wilderness, our lantern in the dark. Organizational psychologist Karl Weick called this "sensemaking": we rely upon narratives to "make sense" of ambiguous situations and pursue a plan of action in coordination with others. But our reliance on narratives means that in the absence of a coherent story we will feel lost and ungrounded. This poses a risk when we face rapid change that may overtake our existing narrative and render it out of date, as Weick noted: "People...act as if events cohere in time and space and that change unfolds in an orderly manner. These everyday cosmologies are subject to disruption." [10]... Through the act of storytelling the leader provides the group with an explanatory narrative that is invested with their authority and informed by their expertise, and thus more influential and credible. [11]

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

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

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

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

 

---

On Mortality

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

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

Our terror serves an essential purpose, Becker argues--the fear of death is "an expression of the instinct of self-preservation, which functions as a constant drive to maintain life and to master the dangers that threaten life." [18] But to function on a day-to-day basis we have to keep our fear of death on the margins of consciousness, a point Becker makes by citing the psychoanalyst and historian Gregory Zilboorg--the fear of death "must be properly repressed to keep us living with any modicum of comfort... Therefore in normal times we move about actually without ever believing in our own death, as if we fully believed in our own corporeal immortality." [19]

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

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

As described by Sam Keen in his introduction to Becker's The Denial of Death, Becker believed that "the basic motivation for human behavior is our biological need to control our basic anxiety, to deny the terror of death," and over the course of our lives we engage in any number of activities with the (typically unconscious) goal of achieving a symbolic victory over mortality, which offers us at least a provisional respite from this terror. These energies can be directed toward many different ends--raising a family, building a business, pursuing fame or status or wealth. [21]

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

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

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

 

---

So What Can We Do?

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

Acceptance

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

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

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

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

Resilience

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

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

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

 

---

In Closing

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

~Jim Harrison, "Zona" [37]

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

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

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

 

---

For Further Reading

Change

• The Obstacle Is The Way
• Aggression, Panic, Paralysis, Denial
• Tumbling Down Maslow's Hierarchy
• Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and the Markets (Nassim Nicholas Taleb, 2008)

Leadership

• How Leaders Overcome Adversity
• From Peacetime to Wartime
• Leadership as Professional Practice
• Compass and Weathervanes (30 Questions for Leaders)

Mortality

• Not Every End Is a Goal (On Midlife Malaise)
• The Final Third (On Mortality, Values and Spending Time)
• Death: The End of Self-Improvement (Joan Tollifson, 2019)
• Four Thousand Weeks: Time Management for Mortals (Oliver Burkeman, 2021)

Acceptance

• When We Are Ready, the Practice Will Be Waiting
• On the Shortness of Life
• When Things Fall Apart: Heart Advice for Difficult Times (Pema Chödrön, 1996/2016)
• Gratitude (Oliver Sacks, 2015)

Resilience

• The Tyranny of Feelings
• How to Cross Antarctica (On Surviving Chaos)
• How I Read Stoicism
• Ignoring Bandits and Building Resilience

Support

• How to Find (and Choose) a Coach
• Getting Coaching for Your Team
• Trauma Stewardship: An Everyday Guide to Caring for Self While Caring for Others (Laura van Dernoot Lipsky, 2009)
• Helping: How to Offer, Give and Receive Help (Edgar Schein, 2009)

 

---

Footnotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11] Excerpted from The Importance of Shared Narrative.

[12] Adapted from Leader as Avatar.

[13] Excerpted from The Difficulty of Empathizing Up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[18] Ibid, page 16.

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

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

[21] Excerpted from Learning From Sisyphus.

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

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

[24] See the following:

• Don't Just Do Something, Sit There! (Mindfulness for Busy People
• Get Moving! (Exercise for Busy People)
• Low-Carb High-Fat (LCHF) Resources

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

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

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

[28] Antonio Damasio on Emotion and Reason

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

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

[31] The Tyranny of Feelings

[32] For more on leadership and emotional contagion:

• The Contagious Leader: Impact of the Leader's Mood on the Mood of Group Members, Group Affective Tone, and Group Processes (Thomas Sy, Stephane Cote and Richard Saavedra, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2005)
• For better results, emotional contagion matters (Sigal Barsade, Wharton @ Work, 2011)
• Leadership and Emotional Contagion (Louise Altman, Intentional Communication, 2011)
• Contagious leaders and followers: Exploring multi-stage mood contagion in a leader activation and member propagation (LAMP) model (Thomas Sy and Jin Nam Choi, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2013)
• Emotion contagion in leadership (Inga Minelgaite and Egle Vaiciukynaite, Business and Economic Horizons, 2016)

[33] Leading Is Lonely and Other Thoughts

[34] The Friendship of Wolves

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

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

• Accountability and Empathy (Are Not Mutually Exclusive)
• Hard Problems in Soft Cultures
• Safety Is a Resource, Not a Destination

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

 

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

Leaders Love Puzzles (for Better and for Worse)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increase Your Self-Awareness

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

• Invest in a mindfulness practice, not because it will mitigate your stress--it won't--but to help you notice where your attention is going.
• Treat your attention like a precious resource, and try to maximize the return on your investments.
• Understand the difference between urgency and importance, and be discerning in what you choose to attend to--and ignore.

Manage Your Emotions

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

• Learn more about the role emotions play in reasoning, and their potential to disrupt your intentions.
• Note that the difficulty of disconnecting from business-puzzles is likely driven not by strong emotions but by weak ones.
• Explore the relationship between emotion and attention.

Find Other Puzzles

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

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

 

---

Footnotes

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

[2] A Better Information Diet

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

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

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

[4] The Problems of Success

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

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

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

 

Photo by Marco Verch.

Some Crises Build Character. Others Reveal It.

Something bad happened, and there was a crisis. There are still many risks, and the situation could yet turn worse, but at the moment, catastrophe has been averted. If approached correctly, this can be a fruitful learning experience for you and the people around you. It may seem too early to learn from the crisis, but don't wait too long. Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman notes an important distinction between our experience and our memories:

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

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

What did you learn about yourself?

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

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

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

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

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

What did you learn about the people around you?

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

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

How did they communicate with you and others?

How effective were their communication efforts?

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

 

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

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

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

How can you be better prepared for the next crisis?

What might it look like to train for that crisis?

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

 

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

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

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

What do any of these actions say about your character?

What do the actions of others say about THEIR character?

What do you want to remember?

 

---

Footnotes

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

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

 

For Further Reading

How Leaders Overcome Adversity

Aggression, Panic, Paralysis, Denial

The Importance of Slowing Down

From Peacetime to Wartime

 

Photo by GraceOda.

JFK on Doing Hard Things

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

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

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

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

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

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

He frames his goal in a larger context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He stresses the need for shared sacrifice and collective agreement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He uses humor to lighten the mood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

---

Footnotes

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

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

[3] Address to Joint Session of Congress, May 25, 1961 (John F. Kennedy Presidential Library)

[4] Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort, September 12, 1962 (John F. Kennedy Presidential Library)

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

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

[7] Rice-Texas football rivalry (Wikipedia)

 

Photo by Denali National Park and Preserve.

Making Layoffs Less Painful

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

Front Line Managers

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

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

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

Employees Being Laid Off

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

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

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

Employees Who Remain

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

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

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

Yourself

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

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

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

 

---

Footnotes

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

[2] How to Deliver Bad News

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

• Layoffs, self-esteem, and survivor guilt: Motivational, affective, and attitudinal consequences (Joel Brockner, Jeanette Davy and Carolyn Carter, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1985)
• Layoffs, Equity Theory, and Work Performance: Further Evidence of the Impact of Survivor Guilt (Joel Brockner, et al, The Academy of Management Journal, 1986)
• The Effects of Downsizing on Survivor Employees: A Literature Review (Alice Crawford, Loyola University Chicago Master's Thesis, 1997)

[4] The Rubber Band Effect

[5] The Difficulty of Empathizing Up

[6] Talking About Feelings

[7] The Friendship of Wolves

 

Photo by threephin.

Questions for a New Leader

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

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

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

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

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

 

---

Footnotes

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

[2] Ibid, page 24.

For Further Reading

Conform to the Culture Just Enough

Building a Feedback-Rich Culture

The Six Layers of Knowledge and Better Conversations

How Leaders Create Safety (and Danger)

Andy Grove on the Right Kind of Fear

Photo by Emily Rose.