Monday, June 30, 2014

I am NOT proud to be an American


With all due respect to Lee Greenwood, I am not proud to be an American. I am THANKFUL to be American.

I think this is an important distinction that some people seem to overlook. I doubt anybody loves America more than I do. But, to be proud to be an American conjures up the idea of birthright. Let's be honest, you and I didn't do anything to create America. So how could we be proud? I feel lucky. In fact, I can't believe my good fortune. And, I think it's better that we be thankful to be in America.

As we all know, this week Americans will be celebrating the 4th of July. So, I figured it's a good time to say what needs to be said. Be thankful more than proud. Every day I try to be thankful that I was born in such an amazing country. I try to not take it for granted. Although I imagine that I screw up plenty.

An interesting guy, worth checking out, is the psychologist Robert Emmons. Emmons is up at UC Davis and he has written a neat book about the idea that gratitude is a very healthy state of mind (I know we didn't necessarily really need him to realize that.) But, I don't think the opposite, entitlement, is very good for us. And, I think being a proud American, when you didn't do anything to create this country, can be a definite form of entitlement. Most of us, who were born in America, did nothing to earn our American citizenship. It was bestowed upon us. I say we get rid of the prideful entitlement and focus more on being thankful.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why it's important to be proud. I understand that pride is adaptive when it binds together the members of a group. For example, the fans of the Oakland Raiders are proud of their team. That is to say they are proud to be in the group of people that root for the Raiders. So, I get it.

I understand why people say they are proud to be Americans. And, maybe it's foolish of me to bring this up during a holiday of alcohol and fireworks. Who knows. Maybe others will watch the fireworks and be thankful that a bunch of dudes, in Philadelphia, had the courage of their convictions. Or, maybe I should just shut up and reserve my gratitude for the alcohol and turkey holiday :)

At any rate. Cheerio. And, Happy Fourth of July!


Monday, June 23, 2014

When Failure Happens More Than Success


I am a salesman. Specifically, I am in multilevel marketing. And, I'm pretty damn proud of it. Right now I won't elaborate on the source of my pride. Rather, I wanted to relay part on my business plan. What I do is I recruit sales professionals into my network marketing company (another name for multilevel marketing.) The reason being very simple. Why bust your butt, for a one-time commission, when you get paid over and over again for something you did once? Meaning, why trade time for money when you can build a cash-flowing asset that will continue to pay you even when you don't work?

As you might imagine, I spend a lot of time talking with salespeople. And, I am always amazed at the number of salespeople who hate sales. Not too long ago I was talking with a gentleman who had been in sales for 30 years. His entire working career. When he revealed to me that doesn't like selling, my jaw hit the floor. I guess he got stuck.

This is something I have heard quite a lot. People who are in the sales profession and yet dislike the sales profession. Is that a paradox or what? (I even talked to one guy, in Utah, who said he is a realtor because he hates realtors.) I believe there are many elements to this paradox. First off, a lot of people have a misunderstanding of what selling really is. This is something I will elaborate on in future posts.

Another problem is that a lot of people cannot emotionally accept they are in sales. This forces them to live in denial. This problem shows itself when salespeople comes up with some fancy title that hides what they really do. They might call themselves an “Account Executive” or a “Financial Planner” or a “Consultant” or whatever. In reality they are in sales. It is for these people that I wrote the first sentence of this post. Right now, I won't dig any deeper into this particular emotional element of selling. Though I will get into it in a future post.

Today I want to talk about another reason people dislike the sales profession. The reason is, they have failed at it. Now, a lot of people won't admit they failed. They might say they took a better offer, or they decided to go back to school, or whatever. However, in my book, quitting is failing. But, I realize, it's really hard for people to admit they have failed. And the real pisser is that, in sales, you fail more than you succeed. Isn't that something?

I think one of the keys to successful selling is to internalize the fact that you will fail much more often than you succeed. In other words, it has been said that, in sales, you fail your way to the top. Now, it is one thing to know this truth intellectually. But, to really get it, in your gut, is another thing altogether.

When you are new to a job, every fiber in your body is telling you, “Don't screw up. Don't screw up.” Because, as adults we have learned to avoid making mistakes. Why have we learned to avoid mistakes? It's mostly ego, I think. But, in order to explain how that works I need to go back to the discussion of something called cognitive distortions.

The phrase “cognitive distortion” was coined by Aaron Beck, one of the fathers of cognitive psychology. It is a concept I wrote about here: It's a mistake As I wrote, in that post, instead of saying cognitive distortion, we can simply talk of “thinking mistakes.” And, we humans, make them all the time.

The thinking mistake, that relates to this blog post, is “Personalization.” Personalization shows itself when we take an event and turn it into a part of our identity. That is to say, when we personalize things. People do it all the time. And, because of this, we assume other people are doing it to us as well. Meaning, we think other people are labeling us a failure when we fail at things (Hint, they aren't.) This is a very insidious problem. So, let me explain.

When we fail at something it is easy to label ourselves a failure. Do you see the problem? For example, if I attempt to sell something, and repeated come up short, it is very easy to assume I am a failure. But, that would be a mistake. It would mean taking an event and turning it into an aspect of my character. As you sit here and read these words you make think only a fool would make such a mistake. But, again, if you really take a minute to think it over, you'll see that people do this quite often. I know I have.

Most people probably do not deconstruct things in such a nerdy fashion. Nonetheless, the idea of personalize is something that society is very familiar with. We have all sorts of reminders, and sayings, that are meant to keep us from personalizing our failures. I guess the most famous would have to be a quote from Thomas Edison. While working on the invention of the light bulb, Edison is reported to have said, “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.” What a great perspective! For whatever reason, Edison refused to personalize his mistakes and failures. Anybody can follow in his footsteps. But, few do. Because most people personalize their short-comings and this causes them to give up. I mean, why not quit? Who wants to keep going if we think failing means we are a failure?

The problem, of course, is not that we have failed. The problem is that we have personalized the failure. I wish I could tell you exactly when, in life, we start to personalize. Unfortunately, I don't have that answer. All I know is that we do it. I mean, have you ever watched a child fall down? They can just pick themselves up, as if nothing happened, and go about their merry way. But, what happens when an adult falls down? Good Lord! Their cheeks turn red and they run for the hills. Because falling down was not simply an event that happened. It wasn't just an inevitable result of gravity. Nope. Most people personalize. And so, falling down is taken to mean something about their personality or character. It could mean they are a klutz, or defective, or something. When I think we all know, thanks to gravity, even the most coordinated person is bound to biff it.

In summary, people tend to personalize. It's not the end of the world. It is what it is. Just accept that it happens and then you can work to fix it. If you understand, and accept, that thinking mistakes are common you might just say to yourself, “Don't personalize.” Alternatively, you might prefer to visualize the light bulb and remind yourself of what Edison said. Another option, if you are a sports fan, is to remind yourself that even the greatest hitters strike out more often than they homer. However you choice to internalize this idea, it's important that we remain aware of this cognitive distortion. Because only then can we fix it.

If you are in the profession of sales don't let personalization get the best of you. The fact of the matter is, you will fail more often than you succeed. And, always remember that the failures can run in a string. Have you ever seen those screens, at a casino, that show the last winning numbers on a roulette table? And, have you ever seen one of the colors hit multiple times in a row? That is just the way it works. Let's say landing on red is equivalent to failing. The fact is we might land on red nine or ten times in a row. As we have discussed, the problem is not the failure. The problem is when we take the failures and allow them to define us.

You can not have success without failure. So, listen to what the founder of IBM said. If you want to succeed, increase your rate of failure. (Paradox!) I will leave you with a really good blog post which, for some reason, not a lot of people read: A Good One I think the name of the post must have been the failure. Oh well! Actually, that reminds me of a simple technique they teach in Cognitive Therapy. When you screw up, just say, "Oh well."



Monday, June 16, 2014

I Disagree With The Professor


The other day I was reading a blog post from a guy named Cal Newport. Newport is a professor of computer science at Georgetown University. And, he writes a lot. Somethings I agree with and others I disagree. For example, I totally agree with the premise of Cal's book So Good They Can't Ignore You. The premise of the book is that “Follow you passion” is bad advice. Instead, Cal and I agree with the words of Dirty Jobs host, Mike Rowe, who says, “Don't follow your passion, but always bring it with you.” Admittedly, this distinction is rather nuanced. And, it's not the purpose of this post to elaborate.

What I wanted to talk about was taking action. Newport has written several articles, about procrastination, and why humans do it. To Cal's way of thinking, procrastination happens when people don't really believe in whatever plan of action they have. Meaning, when people don't believe the odds of the plan are in their favor, they procrastinate.

If Newport is right, then the solution is very straightforward. Make a better plan. While Cal is probably on to something, I think he misses the target by a long shot. I think planning in itself is a very common way that people procrastinate. The real culprits are fear and inertia. We fear making mistakes, and we fear failure, so we convince ourselves we need a better plan. A plan that won't fail. This leads to the common phenomenon known as, “The paralysis of analysis.”

What's more, I think Newport has missed the most obvious of explanations. We humans tend to be lazy. Being lazy is, actually, kind of natural. (In egghead talk, it's "adaptive.") When we observe our surroundings what we find is that Mother Nature likes to take the path of least resistance. Whether it's the flowing of water, or a chemical reaction, or whatever, Mother Nature prefers the path of least resistance. Humans are, obviously, a product of nature. So, we tend to take the path of least resistance too.

The difference is, when we speak of Mother Nature we are speaking of inanimate objects. Inanimate objects definitely prefer the path of least resistance. However, with animated objects, things that are alive, the easiest path can be the most destructive path. Once intelligence entered the cosmic scene, it brought its good friend competition. Living creatures are often forced to compete for resources.

Rocks don't compete, rivers don't compete, and mountains don't compete. These are the resources, they are non-living (let's not get into the whole Gaia hypothesis right now.) But, living things do compete. What makes things rather complicated is that living objects are made up of non-living objects. Things like oxygen most certainly are inanimate substances. So, on the one hand, we are governed by nature's law of least resistance. But, on the other hand, living creatures must compete for resources. It's a bit of a conundrum.

As reductionist as it may sound, I think the main thing that causes people to procrastinate is inertia. As I'm sure you have heard, objects in motion tend to stay in motion. And, objects at rest tend to stay at rest. I wrote about it in this post: This is how you do it

Well, one thing is for certain, every day, humans must rest. It's not really a choice. And so, every day, we have to combat the forces of inertia. With all due respect to Professor Newport, I don't think your plan has much to do with it. And, I find it rather interesting that Cal has come to such a conclusion. Because I know, for a fact, that Newport is a fan of people like Stephen King and Woody Allen. Both King and Allen suggest that the best way to write, is to write. Meaning, what's necessary is to overcome inertia and get started. At first your writing might suck. But, once you build up some momentum (the opposite of inertia) good things can start to happen.

To take it to a super nerdy place, we know that energy is what makes life possible. To take it to the edges of metaphysics, some say that life is energy. Life exists, on Earth, because of the energy from the Sun. If there were no Sun, there would be no life. The way I think about it is that life always requires an injection of energy. For example, if you don't get up and get yourself some food energy, I promise your life will stop. And, sorry Cal, but you don't need a great plan to find food. What you do need is to force yourself to do it. Fortunately, the hunger pangs are there to remind us.

It might sound like I am picking on Mr. Newport. And, in some ways, I am. The reason being is that his advice about planning is at odds with his advice about passion. The whole follow your passion philosophy is predicated on planning. It says, “Figure out what your brain is passionate about and then you will succeed.” Which is rubbish, just as Cal talks about in his book. By the way, I do recommend that you read Newport's book So Good They Can't Ignore You. And, if you would like to read his blog, you can find it here. I do think it's a good blog.

However, on this topic of procrastination, I think Cal has swung and missed. I think much better advice is to inject lots of energy (work hard) and be opportunistic. Meaning, work really hard while staying open to the feedback. If you pay attention, opportunities will arise that will point you in the right direction. To reiterate, far from being a remedy for procrastination, I think planning is an excuse to procrastinate. I think a better plan is to, “Plan to improvise.” (You knew I had to throw a paradox in there, didn't you?)

When I started writing this blog my intention was to simply post the following picture from Kim Kiyosaki. So much for my plan. I got a little carried away by momentum. As weird as it may sound, I think my attack on Professor Newport is evidence of how much I like the guy. Have you ever heard that paradox, "You always hurt the one you love?" I think I have just added more evidence that the saying is true.

At any rate, here's what I wanted to say about Kim Kiyosaki. If you have not heard of her, she is married to Robert Kiyosaki, the Rich Dad Poor Dad guy. I used to be frustrated by overly simplistic bumper-sticker motivation. But, what I have come to realize is that they do provide useful little reminders. What's more, keeping it simply is good advice. Here's a meme that I think illustrates Kim's understanding of the law of inertia. Sometimes simple is very complicated. Love ya Cal!



Monday, June 9, 2014

Naturally Gifted?


Like a lot of dudes, I am a sports freak. I am a big fan of tennis. I love to play it and I love to watch it. I am also a big fan of mixed martial arts. Though I do not get into the cage.

Two days ago there was a big event in the UFC and an even bigger event in tennis. On Saturday morning, Maria Sharapova won her second French Open title. And, on Saturday evening, Benson Henderson was victorious in the headlining match of UFC Fight Night in Albuquerque.


This got me to thinking. Maria Sharapova is now 27 years old. She won her first Grand Slam title, ten years ago, at Wimbledon. So, it would be understandable if a person thought Sharapova was just a naturally gifted tennis player. Physically she is quite impressive. Standing six feet two inches tall the Russian, from Sochi, packs quite a wallop with her right arm.

Is it true that Ms. Maria was simply born that way, as Lady Gaga might say? Well, let's look at the facts. Sharapova began playing tennis, with her father, at the age of four. When she was six years old, she attended a tennis clinic run by the legend herself, Martina Navratilova. Navratilova liked what she saw and recommended that Maria attend a certain tennis academy in Florida. Now, that's quite the endorsement. So, Sharapova's father, Yuri, scraped together the money and he and Maria came to the States.

Sharapova's training was ongoing and consistent. Eleven years after meeting Navratilova, the relatively unknown Russian destroyed top-seeded Serena Williams, 6-1 6-4, to win the championship in London. So, is Maria Sharapova naturally gifted? Perhaps. But, if she is, I think her gift is mostly perseverance. By the way, Gaga was talking about sexual orientation not athletic ability.

Ever since Malcom Gladwell published his book Outliers, there has been a lot of talk about the 10,000 hour rule. This is the idea that it takes roughly 10,000 hours to reach the top level of any domain. Gladwell didn't invent the idea. It actually comes out the work of Anders Ericsson, a psychology professor at Florida State University.

Originally Ericsson called it the ten year rule. Because, whenever the professor studied expert performance, he found that the person had honed his or her craft for ten years. Now, I realize my weekend observation is far from scientific. But I'll tell ya what, Maria Sharapova sure fits the pattern.

Let's turn to Benson Henderson. Henderson's father is African American and his mother is Korean American. To his mother's way of thinking, Benson should learn the traditional Korean martial art of Tae Kwon Do. So, at the age of sixteen, young Benson began taking lessons with his brother. Not unlike Sharapova, training ensued.

In 2006, Henderson started his mixed martial arts career. And, in 2009, he defeated “Cowboy” Donald Cerrone to win his first title. It was for the lightweight championship of World Extreme Cagefighting. How old was Benson when he won the belt? Twenty six. Simple math shows us that Henderson had been studying martial arts for ten years when he first made it to the top.


Here is one thing I can promise you. Before writing this blog post, I didn't know the whole back stories of Sharapova and Henderson. I mean, I watched the winter Olympics this year and learned that Maria spent her part of her youth in Sochi. And, I've watched Benson since he first came into the UFC in 2010. So, I knew some stuff about them. But I certainly didn't know how long the two had been training. I had to look that up.

I looked up these facts for a few reasons. First off, I have a lot of respect for both of these elite athletes. I also am intrigued by Professor Ericsson's work. A lot of people think that talent, or natural ability, is the key to success. The problem with this mindset is that it causes people to search around for something they will be automatically good at. In view of Ericsson's work, it's not surprising that most people end up Waiting for Godot.

No, the myth of natural talent is largely that, a myth. Sure, Sharapova has always had good hand-eye coordination. But, a lot of people have good hand-eye coordination. And, Henderson had a proclivity for Tae Kwon Do because he's Korean. But, a lot of people are Korean (and this ridiculously stereotypical comment is just a joke.) In reality, Benson took up martial arts at his mother's recommendation. Not because of a preexisting passion or natural gift.

It seems like every other book has the word “Secret” in the title. Everybody seems to be searching for the secret of success. When it turns out there really is not a secret. The only secret is good old-fashioned hard work. And, your grandma could have told you that...

P.S. The men's winner, in Paris this weekend, was Rafael Nadal. Unbelievably, Rafa has now won the French Open nine times. Nadal started playing tennis at the age of eight. In 2004, at the age of eighteen years and six months, he became the youngest player to register a singles victory in a David Cup final for a winning nation. Just sayin'.


Monday, June 2, 2014

A Paradox of Leadership


There exists an excellent paradox that goes like this, “I finally got a grip when I learned to let go.” Have you heard that one before? I bet you have. It really is an important idea to remember. Here is why. Human beings tend to be control freaks. We like to feel as though we are in control. And, often, the instinct to control can backfire.

Are you aware that many more people die every year, in automobile accidents than do in airplane accidents? Here is the thing. As we know, lots of people have fears about flying in planes. And yet, very few people have a fear of driving in a car. Doesn't really make sense, does it? Well, it does make sense when you consider the human desire to be in control.

As a passenger, on an airplane, you know you are not in control. Your safety is in someone else's hands. But, when you are driving a car, you are in control. And so, we do not experience fear while driving. Even though we know, statistics, automobiles are much more dangerous than airplanes. It all has to do with control. Humans love the feeling of being in control. Even when it's an illusion.

On any number of things, being is control is just fine. Controlling your blood pressure, controlling your weight, these are good things. Trying to control people, however, is a recipe for disaster. Because, while it's true you desire to be in control, the other person wants to be in control as well. So, what will happen? You might get compliance, over the short-term, but another element of human nature will kick in. The other element, of which I speak, is the principle of reciprocity.

Reciprocity is not an everyday word. However, it does affect all aspects of human life. We don't use the word reciprocity. Instead, we typically say things like equality and fairness. And these are very strong emotional drivers. When a favor is returned with a favor, this is a good manifestation of reciprocity. But there also exists a dark side to fairness.

When a person feels they have been harmed, or done wrong, reciprocity can lead to a desire for revenge. I believe this is what happened with that deranged killer, in Santa Barbara, last week. If you watch the videos he made he kept referring to fairness. He kept saying things like, “It's not fair.” And, as we know, he went out to exact his revenge on innocent college students.

I do not bring up that mass murderer to be morbid. My point is simply to convey the power of reciprocity. It is so powerful it can lead people to kill. Now, in this post, and in daily life, we are talking about something less traumatic. And that kid, in Santa Barbara, was clearly delusional. But, the concept is important none the less. If you try to control people there is a good chance they will come to resent you. They might even desire revenge. Again, most people are not murderers. I only used that example to illustrate a point. The motivation to seek revenge is a strong one.

Let's bring it back to the point of this post. The paradox of leadership is that you get more control by being less controlling. It doesn't matter if you lead a business, a church, a family, a baseball team or whatever. You don't maintain real control by being controlling. If you need people, to help you achieve a goal, you want the best people possible. And great people hate being micromanaged. They hate being controlled.

A few years ago Geoff Smart and Randy Street wrote an interesting book titled Who. As the book says, when it comes to business, and work, the who is more important than the what. Meaning, success is all about execution. It is not so much about great ideas. Ideas are a dime a dozen. But good, performing people are always in short supply. If you want a successful business you need good people. You need what the book calls, “A Players.”

The following is an excerpt I have taken straight out of Smart and Street's book:

A Players have never liked being micromanaged. It runs against their grain–the inherent characteristics that make them standouts in the first place. That's even more true with Gen-X and Gen-Y A Players. Nothing will scare them off faster than the prospect of working for an overly directive boss or board. They're looking for positions where they will be left alone to excel.

The problem is that offering the sort of freedom A Players demand and expect scares some executives because it makes them feel like they are giving up control. This is one of the great paradoxes of management. In reality, great leaders gain more control by ceding control to their A Players. They know they are bringing talented people onto their team.

The scorecard tells them that, and the scorecard also tells new hires the outcomes by which they will be measured. Once it's all out on the table like that, there is no need for micromanagement. Instead, you need to create an environment where A Players like these can thrive.

George Buckley of 3M grants freedom by building trust with his employees. “A lot of CEOs think the role of the CEO is to be aloof, like a judge in a courtroom,” he told us. “But the role of the CEO is to inspire people, and you cannot inspire people unless you get to know them and them you. Don't cut corners on that. It takes energy. CEOs are sometimes afraid to be real people. If you want to extract as much value as possible out of somebody in an organization, you have to let them be themselves. Maybe they talk too much. Maybe they are awkward in front of others. Nobody is perfect. It is not about immediate competency; it's about confidence that builds that competency. If you know that I am confident in you, you are likely to take more risks, to work a little harder, because you know that I am not going to take your head off if something doesn't work perfectly. That builds competence. Extend the hand of trust. And occasionally extend the hand of friendship.”

Nothing sells freedom more than giving candidates free access to the people around you so they can ask whatever they want about your style … In the not-for-profit sector, a sense of purpose and the freedom to pursue it are often the best selling points a manager has to work with. George Hamilton, head of the Institute for Sustainable Communities says, “We try to convince them that what we are doing makes a big difference in people's lives, and it does. We do tremendous work in the field. But we're also very business-like, very results-oriented, and that's extremely appealing to a lot of people. They need to feel they will be productive. They want to know what their responsibilities are going to be and if they will have enough opportunities to show what they can do. Managing these people can be a real challenge because you have to create enough space for them to show what they can do.”

Freedom matters to today's workforce, and especially to the most valuable among them. A Players want to operate without micromanagement, develop their own leadership style, and prove their own worth.

End of quote.

I think we all know this kind of stuff but it bares repeating. Leadership is about choosing the direction we are headed. And, it is about creating what Smart and Street call the “scorecard.” But, after the direction has been pointed to, after the mission has been selected, it's a pretty good idea to stay out of people's way.