Get Comfortable Being Uncomfortable

Get comfortable being uncomfortable. This is easily one of the most important paradoxes in existence. It applies to lots of aspects of life. Let me tell you a personal story.

In the year 2014 I have gained a few pounds. My clothes have been feeling a little tighter and I don't like it. If you have ever gained weight (and haven't we all) isn't it curious how the weight just creeps up on you? I mean, we don't mean to get fatter. But one day a certain pair of jeans just ain't fittin' so well.

How does this happen? That's a question I have spent some time thinking about. What I realized was that I had gained weight because I was unwilling to be uncomfortable. As I'm sure you know, hunger is experienced as discomfort. And, sometimes, we just don't want to deal with hunger pangs.

For a long time I have heard a lot about “emotional eating” and I didn't totally understand what it was. I think dealing with hunger pangs is one element of emotional eating. A couple weeks ago I wrote a post about the television show Naked and Afraid. (Here it is) I really like that show. In addition to the ideas I expressed in that post, Naked and Afraid also drives home an additional point.

If you have ever seen Naked and Afraid, you have seen the contestants go for a week or two without eating. I can not imagine that to be very easy. But, as they say in the show, humans can go for about a month without eating. Personally, I would never intentionally go even a week without eating. But that's not the point.

The point is, you and I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we don't need to eat on any given day. If you don't believe me, skip a couple meals. I promise you won't die. You won't even come close. What you will do is you will discover what it's like to experience hunger. Which is a good thing.

As you know, when your stomach empties it sends a message to your brain that it's time to search for food. The problem is this system was never intended for an environment that includes grocery stores and fast food restaurants.

When you start to experience a little bit of hunger, that's supposed to be a signal to begin looking for food. For most of human history it took some time to locate a good food source. Perhaps several days. In more primitive times, food tended to be scarce. So people had to live, with a low level pang, each and every day. The growl in the stomach would be a not-too-subtle reminder to keep looking for food.

Motivation science is a complicated arena. However, one thing we know is that humans like to avoid pain. Throughout human history, a good amount of effort and energy had to be expended to find food. For this reason the pangs of hunger had to be significant enough to be noticed. The pangs needed to be strong enough to motivate us into action.

The thing is, in the modern day, things have completely changed. We now have Walmart and McDonald's, and a million other ways to quickly, and easily, get food. And that's exactly what we do. When hunger calls us to action, we mosey over to the refrigerator.

I believe what happens is, over time, we forget what true hunger feels like. Most of us, living in developed countries, have never experienced real hunger. So, I believe the system is now backfiring. The hunger pangs that were meant to keep us alive are now killing us. Oh, the irony!

What I have discovered is that, yes, being hungry can be uncomfortable. But, I have also learned that we were made to live with a low level of hunger. It is definitely more healthy to go about our day while feeling hungry. And, yes, it's a little uncomfortable at first. But, I also believe that we can learn about the true nature of hunger. And this knowledge will help us to get comfortable being uncomfortable. Which is important!

I think this will be a good post for you to reread, in the New Year, when you might be a little more focused on losing some weight. I promise to reread it as well.

Ebola and Paul Ekman

The media can be such a pain in the butt. Right now they're going nuts about this Ebola thing. Listen, if you live in a developed country you probably have a better chance of being struck by lightning than of contracting Ebola.

Here is something I want you to consider. Have you ever heard of a gentleman by the name of Paul Ekman? Ekman is a psychologist of great repute. He's the one who taught us about the fact that the facial expression, of human emotion, is universal. Meaning, people around the globe, regardless of their language or culture, can read the emotions on other people's faces.

Let's do a little experiment. Look at the picture below. What emotion is this woman experiencing?

I'm pretty sure your answer was fear. It is clear that the woman is showing signs of being afraid. I want to draw your attention to one thing. Notice that one characteristic of the face of fear is a widening of the eyes. When we're afraid, our eyes tend to bug-out.

Most psychologists agree, the reason the eyes widen, when we are afraid, is so that we can maximize our field of vision. When we are in a dangerous situation, we need to take in as much information as possible. Hence the big eyes.

Though the media buffs might not explain it this way, keeping you locked in is exactly why they sell so much fear. When we are fearful we search for additional information. And, guess what the television news shows sell. Exactly, they sell you additional information. Their goal is not to put your mind at ease. Their goal is to sell their advertising slots for as much money as possible. To do this they need to keep you watching. This way their ratings go up. To keep you watching, they want to keep you afraid, so you'll keep coming back for more information.

Don't believe it. Don't buy into their game. Understand how you are being manipulated and you have a better chance of controlling your fears.

Work Smart or Work Hard? Which One?

Let me ask you a question. What should we do? Should we work smart or should we work hard? I think it's a legitimate question. This seems to be a debate which started back in the 1970's.

In the 70's, like today, colleges were working hard to increase their enrollment numbers. To that end, a campaign was created to preach the message, “Work smart not hard.” As a matter of fact, below is a poster which was produced during said advertising campaign.

As you can clearly see, the poster suggests that going to college is the way to work smart. And, working smart, according to these universities, is preferable to working hard. Grease monkeys be damned.

It's such compelling advice. It contains two elements that seem to have made the advice irresistible. I mean, most people believe that they're smart. Even more, people tend to take pride in their level of intelligent. And, honestly, who wants to work hard if they can help it? Smart, successful and lazy, how is that not a winning combination in the world of advertising?

I think people generally believe that smart work is what the upper-class does. It's more refined and sophisticated. Hard work is for the grunts. It conjures up images of sweat shops and even slavery. So, it only stands to reason that people would want to be viewed as sophisticated rather than as a slave. Thus, it isn't surprising that this old bromide, “Work smart not hard,” has taken such a strong hold.

The only problem is that it's bunk advice. It plays to the wishful side of our brains rather than the side of reason. To be blunt, I find it quite fascinating how often people willingly suspend reason in preference for fantasy. I reckon a guess that the person who proudly boasts, “I work smart, not hard,” also has a copy of The Four-Hour Work Week on his or her shelf. It's basically bull crap. I do understand, once you're successful, you might be able to work only four hours per week. But, to get to that level of success you're going to have to work four hours per hour.

Don't get me wrong, I'm down with fantasy. To dream, and escape, certainly has its place. But remember, the whole point of the poster's message has to do with the selection of a career. When it comes time to select your work, I recommend putting fantasy on the shelf. Unless, of course, you work for the Walt Disney company.

I believe better advice is to work both smart and hard. It's all about embracing the genius of and. Today we live in a knowledge economy. The two main creators of value are productivity and innovation. Both of which are applications of knowledge. So, for sure, we need to work smart.

It goes without saying that the organ of knowledge is the brain. If the brain is the main organ we use, I figure we should know how it works. For this reason, in the modern age, I believe it's very wise to study subjects like cognitive psychology. Which is exactly why I discuss emotions and paradoxes. Both are central elements in the life of the mind.

At the same time, life is largely built on competition. Especially in capitalist economies such as those which exist in North America. And, when competition reigns supreme, hard work is imperative. For example, take Mark Cuban. Cuban is a very smart guy. I don't believe it's possible to reach his level of success without being smart. Now, I don't know if the following quote is legitimately from Cuban, but I like the message nonetheless. Do you think Mark Cuban believes in working hard?

Naked and Afraid

My favorite television show, right now, has got to be Naked and Afraid. Have you seen it? If you haven't, you really should. The show is extremely compelling. It is so good. Though the season just ended, it was airing on the Discovery Channel on Sunday evenings.

The premise of the show is simple. Take one woman, and one man, strip them naked and force them to survive, in an inhospitable environment, for three weeks. I couldn't imagine doing it. There is no way I would last. I tend to give up when they forget to put cheese in my burrito.

As weird as it may sound, Naked and Afraid reminds me of two things from my favorite book. My favorite book is called Flow and it was written by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. The subtitle to the book is “The psychology of optimal experience.” (Here it is) You gotta read it!

Csikszentmihalyi is a professor of psychology, at the Claremont Graduate University, in California. In his book, Flow, he mentions a finding that is rather consist throughout the research. That finding is the following. When psychologists ask people to talk about someone they admire, the two traits which are most often cited, as reason for admiration, are courage and resilience. And, I think this is why Naked and Afraid is such a good and popular show.

We all know that people value rare things. The more rare something is, the more value people place on it. Obviously, this is what makes gold and diamonds, and all that stuff, so valuable. It's also the reason people admire, that is to say people value, courage and resilience.

Courage and resilience are traits which tend to be in short supply. And, the very essence of Naked and Afraid is that it tests the contestants on these highly admired traits. Of course, for the casual viewer, it also helps put our difficulties into perspective. Our daily fears generally pale when compared to walking barefooted through a jungle filled with snakes and spiders. And, when you watch somebody not eat for more than a week, it sure makes you feel like you'd be resilient enough to perhaps skip a meal.

Ever since reading Flow, I have tried to create a policy for myself. On a day to day basis, I try to build my levels of courage and resilience. This is because I know, like most people, being courageous and resilient does not come naturally. It's something we must work on. As often as possible, I try to remember what Eleanor Roosevelt said, “Do one thing every day that scares you.”

This leads to the second thing the Discovery show reminds me of. In Flow Csikszentmihalyi uses a word which isn't very common. That word is “Autotelic.” Even when I typed that word, just now, my spelling checker put a red line under it. Autotelic means, “Having a purpose in and not apart from itself.” Meaning, something that is its own reward.

An autotelic activity is an activity that you do simply to do. Meaning, it's something you do for fun. It's something we do even though there are no external rewards or punishments. Singing and dancing would be good examples of autotelic activities. For the most part, doing the laundry, or cutting the lawn, are not autotelic. Laundry and the lawn are exotelic, the opposite of autotelic.

As it turns out, autotelic activities tend to be more enjoyable than exotelic activities. Most people are not familiar with those terms. Nowadays, we tend to talk about intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. It's the same thing. But, a mistake that is often made, is people sometimes think intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are mutually exclusion. They are not. They can co-exist to varying degrees.

Part of what's so compelling is that the adventures, on Naked and Afraid, tend to be autotelic. That is to say they are intrinsically motivating. The show makes no mention of any sort of reward for finishing the challenge. The reward is simply that you finished the challenge. And that's the very definition of an autotelic experience.

A cynical soul may be thinking, “The reward is, they got to be on television.” To which I would agree, that probably does play a role. Some people simply like the fame, and others use the visibility to grow their businesses. But, that doesn't explain the end of the show.

If you have seen the show, you have seen the ecstasy on the contestants' faces when the challenge is over. If you haven't seen the show, you can imagine. After 21 days of misery, the couple reach the finish and that are ecstatic. The most common exclamation seems to be, “We/I did it!” That's an intrinsic reward. I highly doubt the people are thinking of all the leads they are going to get for their survival training business. If anything, they seem to be thinking about cheese burgers and cookies.

I'm not saying anything you don't already know. Bit I do think this is such a great lesson to learn, or to be reminded of. To put it very simply, becoming a better, more skilled person, is very rewarding psychologically. So, if you wish to experience true bliss, challenge yourself. Not for what you will get, but for who you will become.

A Game of Failure

As you probably know by now, I am a big fan of baseball. So why not take a minute, and honor #2, with a post. Yesterday was a big day. It was the very last game in the illustrious career of the New York Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter. In no universe am I a Yankees fan. But, I do admire excellence. And I am a firm believer in learning wherever I can. For this reason, I would listen to anything “The Captain” has to say.

Last week, I saw an interview, on the NBC Nightly News, with Jeter and Brian Williams. (You can see it here.) It was a nice tribute to a sure-fire Hall of Famer. But, there was one thing, in particular, that caught my attention. During the interview, Williams asked, “You've had so much success yet you always call (baseball) a game of failure. Why is that?” Jeter replied, “You fail seven out of ten times, people think you're great. So, it's definitely a game you have to learn to control your emotions.”

What I think Williams and Jeter were doing was trying to make light of the quirky essence of baseball. And I believe it's an extremely useful lesson. I think it's wise to reconsider our shared misconception of failure.

I would venture a guess that the majority of adults have a fear of failure. I know I do. Perhaps this fear is a part of the indoctrination we receive during formal schooling. Who knows. What I do know, as is usually the case, how we got here is less important than where we're going.

It seems to be the case that we were put on this earth to grow. Stated differently, I believe that growth is the human imperative. When we aren't growing, when we aren't becoming more complex individuals, we suffer all sorts of maladies.

The kicker is, it is in the nature of growth, and improvement, that we will fail. The old cliché, of learning to ride a bike, is a useful one. Because no one ever gets it right the first time. Falling down is part of the process. We can't succeed if we refuse to fail. It's one of the best paradoxes you can memorize. The paradox says, “The biggest failures I have ever met, are people who have never failed.” Think about it.

What's important to know is that whoever, or whatever, created us was a genius. Brene Brown is a psychologist who has been making a lots of waves lately. I am a big fan of hers. I paraphrase an excellent quote of hers when I say, “We are wired for struggle.” Let me explain.

As I have already mentioned, I believe growth is the human imperative. And we can't have growth without struggle. Hence Brene's quote. And this is where the human creation is so genius. As it turns out, we are wired to experience joy after we struggle. Now that's about as paradoxical as it gets!

Let me give you a specific example. This example comes from two eminent psychologists, one Hungarian and the other Turkish. These two psychologists were studying chess players. As it turns out, the world of chess has an excellent rating system which very accurately measures the abilities of the various players.

This rating system allowed the psychologists to run a very interesting experiment. The question that came up was the following, when are chess players most enjoying themselves? One might suppose that a very good player, who wins the majority of her matches, would be having the best time. However, it turns out, this is not the case.

What the psychologists discovered was quite profound and I think it might help explain why Derek Jeter loves baseball so much. It was discovered that chess players experience the most enjoyment when their opponent is, on average, 12 % better than they are. That might not seem like a very big deal, but it is. Because the lesson it teaches us is completely counterintuitive.

You see, what happens when you opponent has a rating 12% higher than yours, is that you lose the match three times as often as you win it. Meaning, for every time you win a match, you lose three others. This is kind of crazy. It gives hard evidence to the notion that we are wired for struggle.

Derek Jeter and Brian Williams seemed to have been waxing inquisitive on the humorous nature of baseball. And, I agree, it is rather funny to think that a person could enjoy failure. But it's totally true. As a matter of fact, I don't think baseball would be our national past time if a player got a base hit in the majority of his at-bats. Meaning, if a player were to bat .800 I think baseball would be a bore.

Rather than being bizarre, I think we are intuitively drawn towards the chance to fail. If a player improved his average from .800, to .850, it would probably be greeted with a yawn. However, when a player moves from .250 to .300 they go from being a no-name to being an all-star. Also notice the correlation between chess and baseball. When a baseball player hits around .250 to .300 he “loses” to his opponent two to three times as often as he wins.

When we succeed most of the time, we tend to get bored. We're actually more drawn to challenges because we subconsciously know they pay bigger dividends. And, when we're able to change our perspective on failure, we're able to control our emotions when faced with this most important precursor to success.

Get Action

This past week PBS aired a seven-part, documentary series called The Roosevelts. Did you get a chance to see it? I think it was quite good. It was produced and directed by Ken Burns, the guy who did the Baseball documentary back in 1994.

In the first episode, much is discussed about Theodore Roosevelt. Burns titled this first episode, “Get Action.” The title comes from something Teddy's dad used to say to him. Theodore senior used to say, “Get action. Do things. Be sane. Don't fritter away your time. Create. Act. Take a place wherever you are and be somebody. Get action.”

A life of action, that's what the elder Theodore was prescribing. And, it is exactly what Teddy did. But, let's first make a point about another president. Abraham Lincoln. What we know, and has been well-established, is that Lincoln battled severe depression. It's quite a story. Lincoln is arguably the greatest American President in all of history. And, to rise to such heights, in spite of debilitating depression, is truly an impressive feat. What not a lot of people know is that President Roosevelt had demons of his own.

Not a lot has been said about TR's depression. Picture this. The date was February 14, 1884. Valentine's Day. In an unbelievably sad turn of events, Teddy lost both his mother and his wife on the same day. His mother succumbed to typhoid fever. And, later in the day, his wife died of kidney failure. A mire two days after giving birth to the couple's daughter. The pain must have been unimaginable.

Apparently, in spite of all the suffering, Roosevelt was able to out run his sadness. TR listened to his father's advice and kept on the move. For example, he traveled west, and spend a fair amount of time in North Dakota. Basically living the life of a cowboy. Additionally, the documentary revealed a rather startlingly statistic. While in office, TR wrote 150,000 letters, by far the most of any President. To put that number in context, Thomas Jefferson wrote the second most letters. Jefferson's total was 22,000. Busy busy!

This probably isn't something you haven't considered before. After a romantic breakup, or financial reversal, hopefully you're fortunate enough to have friends that help keep you busy and occupied. Staying busy can help keep our minds off the pain. It seemed to have worked for Theodore Roosevelt.

Regardless of whether or not you've thought about it before, it is good it be reminded of the importance of taking action. It's important to remember to not sit around and dwell on our misfortunes. This story also points out the fact that no one is free from grief and sorrow. Not too many people have experienced a greater calamity, than that which befell TR, in the early part of 1884. Most of our troubles are comparatively mild. Good reason to be thankful.

Always remember, whatever it is you do, don't think too much about it. If you're sad, take action. Hopefully with a good friend. If you're feeling afraid, take small baby steps and the fear will pass. If you're angry, go for a walk. Action doesn't necessarily cure our emotional issues. But it does bring a welcome respite. If things get too intense, you might consider doing therapy.

“Get action. Do things. Be sane.” Old advice. And good advice.

Perfectly Imperfect

How do we get to become perfectionists? I'm not sure. But, I know I'm guilty of it. As a matter of fact, I know a lot of us are. It's a terrible waste. Let me share what I've learned.

I have learned, at least in my life, perfectionism is really just a euphemism. When someone is a perfectionist I think what's really going on is they're fearful of making mistakes. As I inspect my life, and my business, I have been able to identify my perfectionist streak. And, truth be told, what's really eating at me is a fear of screwing up.

Can you relate? When people are fearful our main coping mechanism is avoidance. I once heard it said that, “Avoidance is the hallmark of fear.” I have clearly recognized that truth when it comes to building my business. The fact of the matter is, to build a business, self-promotion is required.

JB Say was a French economist in the early 19^th Century. He created what has come to be known as Say's Law. To paraphrase the “Law” it basically says that supply creates its own demand. It's kind of what Emerson was saying, around the same time, when he said something to the effect of, “Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.”

Say's Law may have been true two hundred years ago. However, today, it certainly is no longer the case. Nowadays, if you wish to build a thriving business, you have to let people know you exist. You have to promote yourself.

When it comes time to self-promote I often find myself falling into a perfectionist trap. My mind plays tricks with me. I spend too much time planning what I am going to say, and not enough time saying it. Do you know what I'm talking about? It's so silly, and so funny. If I haven't had my promoter hat on for a while, it usually takes me a day or two to snap out of my perfectionist ruminations.

Little reminders such as, “You can't say the right thing to the wrong person,” do help. I have also placed little notes, around my office, to remind myself that my tendency is to try to be too perfect. Truth be told, I'm simply afraid of making mistakes, and this holds me back.

I also think about the fact that being perfect actually backfires. I mean, do we really admire perfection? Or, does it tend to just piss us off? I think it's the later. I don't think we can really relate to perfection, so I think it's more aggravating than anything. You know the type? The person who always acts as if they're life is flawless.

We know we all screw up and we all makes mistakes. When someone comes across too perfect it tends to remind us of our own warts. And, nobody likes that. I think this perfectionism thing leads to an interesting paradox.

I think we should strive for perfection, all the while knowing that we will never get there. It's a paradox because, why would we work towards something we can never attain? Of course, the reason is because it's the striving that matters. Perfection isn't really the goal. It's just a way to keep striving. We'll never reach perfection so we'll always have something to move forward towards.

Perfection is a big, big goal. That's where it's useful. It's useful to the extent that it staves off complacency. However, when it comes time to do something, when it comes time to take action, an insistence on perfection will totally backfire. That's why I recommend being perfectly imperfect. It sure helps me.

Cheerio!

Timeless Truths

Last week I spoke of my frustration with Mehmet Oz. Here it is. Hopefully you didn't misunderstand. I imagine Dr. Oz is a nice guy. I guess my beef has as much to do with the nature of television as it has to do with Oz. The fact of the matter is, TV shows that aim to get to the heart of the matter don't pull very good ratings. And, as we know, ratings dictate advertising rates.

Sure, sometimes we might watch the Discovery Channel or National Geographic. But not often. When was the last time you watched something on PBS? Can you name even one program on PBS? Probably not. Most people think PBS is boring.

It all ends up being a weird kind of conundrum. A ethical dilemma. People want exciting and sensational stories on television. They want to be entertained. They want to be surprised. So, is it wrong to give them what they want? I think that is an extremely difficult question. And, I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer. But it's still worth considering.

If we are going to give people what they want, I think it is also ok to anticipate their prejudices. Yes, we all have prejudices. Let me give you an example. Just so you know, I am stealing this example from Malcolm Gladwell.

There once was a man, and his son, driving down an old country road. The man lost control of their pickup truck and crashed into a ditch. During the crash, the man was killed instantly. Soon, an ambulance appeared and took the son to the hospital. In the emergency room, the attending physician took one look at the boy, gasped, and said, “This is my son.” Who is the doctor?

It's not an easy puzzle, is it? If you are like most people, you are having a hard time coming up with an answer. It's totally natural if you are stumped. Have you even thought that God must be the doctor? I hear that all the time. But, no, the answer is not God. The answer actually becomes quite easy when I point something out. Most people get stumped by this puzzle because most people have a prejudice which believes that all doctors all male. That's right. The doctor is the boy's mother. You prejudice devil you!

Most people assume that doctors are male. Most people also assume that medical doctors are honest, accurate, and can be trusted. Trust is the key word. Societies operate on trust. One of the reasons the United Stated of America is such an advanced country is because of its high levels of trust. Whenever someone violates the public's trust, they need to be penalized.

So, there are really two elements at play here. On the one hand, I do not appreciate the looseness of the Dr. Oz Show. Meaning, Oz plays fast and loose with the facts. And I think Oz does some damage to the trust we have for doctors. Another issue is the nature of television. Very simply, the incentive structure rewards outlandish behavior, and anything else that will keep people's attention. Stretching the truth, and making people scared, are two effective tactics.

I'm sure 99.9% of all American households have a television set. Even without the sensationalism, watching TV is the way we prefer to focus our attention. Have you ever thought of it that way before? It's true. It's a subject that is discussed in my favorite book of all time. The book is called Flow and it was written by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.

Flow fits into the category of what I would call “timeless truths.” The book was published in 1990 and it is even more applicable today than it was back then. The book is so deep, I could spend a long time writing about it. For now, let's just talk about one of the lessons that come from Flow.

Have you ever heard it said that an idle mind is the devil's playground? I'm sure you have. It's an old statement because it's a wise statement. A mind left to ruminate usually focuses on things negative. We all know this. But, did you know that is exactly why we watch so much television? What we are doing is we are using TV to give us something to focus on. Something to occupy our mind.

Television has been around for decades. During this time, the producers of TV shows have become experts at getting us to watch. We have all heard of the Nielsen Ratings. Getting more people to watch your show increases your rating. Increased ratings allow you to charge advertisers more to run ads during your show.

People tend to want to be entertained. We don't care much for timeless truths. By airing salacious scandals, and other voyeuristic gossip, TV producers can draw you in. It's basically hard-wired into our brains. When humans lived in small tribes, gossip was a very useful activity. It was the way the tribe could enforce compliance.

We no longer live in such small communities but our brains are still wired for gossip. The thing about gossip is that it is often incorrect. Conversely, schools and places that lecture on timeless truths, are a new invention in the history of mankind. Our brains are not wired to sit and listen to people expound upon timeless truths. We are naturally more inclined to be grabbed by news about who's doing what to who. That is it say, we're attracted to gossip like moths fly into flames.

To my way of thinking, reporting on scientific research that is debatable, and still in its infancy, is a form of gossip. There is lots of gossip out there, but it's rather shallow. If you insist on discussing inconclusive research, please don't call yourself a doctor. This is important because lots of people are watching. We can't help ourselves, TV is simply an activity preferable to playing with the devil.

Oz the Wizard

I am officially fed up with Mehmet Oz. If I needed heart surgery, I would consider using him. Other than that, he doesn't have much to tell me. This has to be said because I hear so many people talking about things they learned from the Dr. Oz Show. In turn, naturally, I recorded some episodes and took a listen. What I saw was not very impressive.

A couple weeks ago I talked about the human tendency towards complexity. Here it is. Related to our proclivity for complex strategies is our tendency towards newness. Meaning, human are drawn towards novelty. In fact, we have a specific, and powerful, emotion that deals with new or unexpected things. That emotion is surprise.

As you probably know, humans habitualize just about everything. We live in a complex world and our brains can only handle so much. To free up computing power we form habits and routines. These habits and routines allow us to not have to consciously think about what we're doing. If you are driving to work, via the same route you've always taken, your subconscious is able to do most of the work.

The problem with becoming so use to our surroundings is that it can put us in danger. When an event takes an unexpected twist, it's a good thing the subconscious brain has a protection mechanism. That mechanism is the emotion of surprise. Whenever we're surprised we snap to immediate attention. Whatever caused us to be surprised gets our full and undivided attention. This is important, it helps keep us alive.

One of the ways the subconscious mind keeps us safe is by being programmed to scan the environment for new events and new phenomenon. If we don't recognize the changes around us we can be put at risk. Though we may not be aware of it, our brain is vigilantly, and constantly, scanning the environment for anything out of the ordinary. Anything new. Mehmet Oz knows this and he is exploiting us for his benefit.

Perhaps you heard that Dr. Oz was recently called to appear in front of the United States Congress. The reason for this appearance was because he has made exaggerated, and unsubstantiated claims, about weight loss products. I won't elaborate on this issue. If you want to, you can read articles online. What bothers me is something else. Though it is related to weight loss, it's something that very few people are talking about.

A while back Oz talked about something called “obesogens.” The idea is that an obesogen is a environmental chemical, which we ingest, and it causes us to get fat. Now, of course Oz would talk about this subject because Americans are obsessed with weight loss secrets. The problem is most of these gimmicks don't work. And, when these secrets don't work, it can make people mad. If enough people complain, you might end up in front of Congress.

What disturbs me the most is the fact that the research on obesogens is still in its infancy. It is far from conclusive. But that didn't stop Mehmet Oz. Nope. He discussed the subject as though it is a well established fact. It's not. There's still an article, on his website, which I refuse to link to, that talks about obesogens. And, like a slimy little devil, it's full of the words “can” and “could.”

Don't get me wrong, I'm not naïve. I understand how television works. The news is constantly reporting on research projects without the slightest bit of context. Because the news programs, and Dr. Oz, are not paid to tell you the truth. They get paid to sell advertising. They are paid to keep your attention. I know that might sound a little cynical but, you know it's true.

Think about it, if Oz told you timeless principles, and truths, he would soon run out of material. And then you wouldn't pay attention. By talking about everything new thing, even if it is false, the doctor always has something to discuss. What's more, he can manipulate your emotional circuitry to keep you watching. Dr. Oz's goal is to keep you surprised and scared. Two powerful emotions that will keep you watching. And will allow him to sell his advertising slots for more money.

I understand how the game works. But that doesn't make it right. The biggest issue is that Oz is presenting himself as a doctor. And, while it is true that he has a medical degree, Dr. Oz's specialty is cardiology. Have you ever gone to a cardiologist with a skin problem? I doubt it. And, if you did, I hope that doctor refused to answer your questions. I hope that doctor referred you to a dermatologist. Because that's what good doctors do. They understand their limits and they stay within the lines.

The problem, of course, is that if Dr. Oz stuck to his area of expertise he would bore you to tears. How long could you possibly listen to a discussion about the heart? I don't imagine it would be very long. So, Oz ventures out into territory that he doesn't understand very well. And, it makes sense that he would do this. It's all in the incentive structure. As I've stated, Mehmet Oz is not rewarded for getting you healthy. His reward comes from advertisers with deep pockets.

It is not my intention to be negative or mean. If you have a health issue, by all means, consult an expert. You might also want to read up on the subject. One great resource would, of course, be books. Most books do not contain advertising. The goal of a book is to get things right so that more people will buy the book. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works on television. It's time for Dr. Oz to either get more honest or be called on the carpet more often.

By the way, one might note, this blog does not contain advertising. I am committed to avoiding this (sometimes) perverse incentive structure. I'm not against advertising. I'm against some of the things it can motivate people to do. It can make a good doctor become deceitful.

Confidently Humble

Which should you have, lots of confidence, or lots of humility? It's a trick question! Why not have both? Is that even possible? I think it is. As a matter of fact, this is an idea that goes all the way back to Socrates and Plato. (If I tricked you with that first question, I wonder if you even read the title of this post.)

Lately, I have been paying attention to a lot of the wisdom coming from a couple of Stanford professors. Their names are Jeff Pfeffer and Bob Sutton. I wrote about them in this post: The Knowing-Doing Gap. And, today, I walk to talk about what Sutton calls, “The attitude of wisdom.”

According to Sutton, the attitude of wisdom is about being simultaneously confident and humble. It's about knowing what you know and having enough confidence to act. While, at the same time, being comfortable enough with doubt that you remain open to learning. The attitude of wisdom is about being confident and humble. Perhaps confidently humble.

Many times in life we need lots of confidence to get the job done. Confidence is a good thing. However, when that confidence goes too far, and turns into arrogance or hubris, things start to backfire. This is when we close our minds to feedback. We shut ourselves off to learning and improvement. I know I have made this mistake. Thinking I had it all figured out. Yikes! It's a recipe for disaster.

Being very confident and also very humble, is a paradox. It seems to be a contradiction. And, I think the main reason I like to write about paradoxes is because I'll never run out of material. When it comes to resolving paradoxes, the challenge will never end. I think striking the right tone, between confidence and humility, will take a lifetime of practice. This all relates to one of my very favorite paradoxes, “The more you know, the more you know you don't know.” So true. And so humbling. I think that sentence sort of sums up the attitude of wisdom.

There's a guy out there, named Al Pittampalli, who is talking about the idea of being persuadable. What he found is that there are lots of book written on how to become more persuasive. But, there exists a paucity of books on how to be persuadable. The attitude of wisdom would suggest that we need to be both persuasive and persuadable. However, like Pittampalli says, to be persuadable requires humility. And often times, in our culture, humility is conflated with weakness.

How about one last paradox? Whether you like him or not our President, Barack Obama, says some pretty interesting things. In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama talks about some of the things he does when he feels his own hope fading. Being a public servant can be a thankless job and the president is not immune to doubt. To strengthen his resolve, Obama reflects on Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and the people, “who ultimately laid down their lives in the service of perfecting an imperfect union.”

Those last four words are what got my attention, “perfecting an imperfect union.” It's kind of like a paradox. It's kind of like what Robert Browning said about how a man's reach should exceed his grasp. I hope, and I believe, that America has this attitude of wisdom. I think it takes a pretty high level of maturity to be confident in America's greatness and still understand that she has room from improvement. I think we should all strive to perfect an imperfect union. Be it the United States of America. Or, be it our very own marriage.

I think we are pretty familiar, and comfortable, with either/or decisions. That is why I asked the question at the beginning of this post. But, I also believe we are capable of operating at a higher level. A level where we recognize and solve paradoxes. It's something I wrote about in this post: Operate at a higher level.

The Logic of Suicide

I think it is safe to say that suicide is one of the most traumatic events in all of human existence. But, I don't believe that should preclude us from discussing the subject. This post ties together the three elements of work, emotions, and paradoxes.

On the face of it, the idea that suicide is logical seems contradictory. It seems unacceptable. It doesn't make sense to most of us. However, to the person who commits the act, the decision contains its own logic. The fact that we may not understand does not mean the sufferer has not thought things through.

It may seem weird but suicide actually does relate to work and to business. Often times a company will think that their customers, or prospective customers, are acting irrationally. The producer of a new product, or service, usually has a picture, in his or her mind, of how their creation will be accepted by the market. And, as it turns out, things usually turn out other than planned.

Some years ago a company created motorized bicycles, to be sold to low income individuals, in third world countries. A fair number of bikes were sold but then something bizarre happened. All of a sudden, a lot of orders came in for just the motor. Meaning, people didn't want the whole bicycle, they just wanted the motor that powered the bike. This didn't make any sense.

The producer of the motorized bikes knew that these poor people needed reliably affordable transportation. They also knew that the motors were durable and could last a long time. They should not being breaking down. What's more, if consumers tried to take the motor, and attach them to their existing bicycle, they would spend much more than if they simply bought the preassembled product.

What were these crazy customers doing? Were they poor and dumb? This sort of scenarios plays out quite often. Most the time the producer tries to force the issue. Since the manufacturer often sees no use for a motor without a bike, they can be quite insistent that the customer is wrong. Then they refuse to sell the motor without the bicycle. That is a bad mistake.

As luck would have it, this particular company was wiser than most. Instead of pushing forward, against these “stupid” customers, the company went out and looked around. They went to see, with their own eyes, why these silly peasants didn't want the entire bike. What they found surprised them.

People were using the bicycles, to get around, but they also didn't mind pedaling themselves. So the motorized bikes weren't a huge draw. However, humans are ingenious and these customers found a better use for the bicycles. As it turns out, there exists a bigger headache than pedaling yourself around on a bike. The bigger challenge is transporting water.

The majority of the people, who bought these motorized bicycles, were indeed low income. And, the way they make the little money that they do is by farming. Many of them would farm rice. As it happens, rice requires extensive irrigation. It requires a lot of water.

What these poor and “dumb” people discovered was that the motor, from these new bikes, could be rigged up to propel water and irrigate their fields. This was something they wanted! Pedaling a bike is relatively easy. Watering your rice fields can be a real pain in the butt.

To this company's credit, they went and looked at the situation. In a moment the company changed course and got into the farming business. They adapted the motors and sold them specifically to water the fields. Most companies don't do this. People tend to be more stubborn. Instead of accepting that their ingenious invention is more useful somewhere else, most people refuse to change. They simply conclude that people are crazy or irrational. They continue producing what they want to produce instead of making what people what to buy. This is a big mistake.

Peter Drucker once said that there are no irrational customers, there are only lazy producers. And, as usual, Peter was right. Instead of assuming people are crazy it's better to assume people are pretty smart. Your customers are fully capable of thinking. And, when they do, they come up with some wild stuff. No producer of bicycles could have predicted that their real success would come in farming. And, because they are so committed to bikes, most producers would be unable to exploit an opportunity that lay right before their eyes. Most people wouldn't even try to look. Then there are those that would look and they would see what is happening. Yet they would still decide to continue making bicycles.

In a weird way, this brings us to suicide. The majority of people, who commit suicide, are suffering from depression. Depression is an emotion. It's kind of like sadness on steroids. And, suicide is, sometimes, the paradoxical solution. Thankfully we have people like Martin Seligman.

Seligman is a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. In 1967 he was conducting experiments with dogs. In one condition the dogs were repeatedly administer a shock and, understandably, they jumped to a new location were there was not shock. In the second condition the dogs were again shocked. But, this time, they could not move to escape the shock. Before long the dogs realized there was nothing they could do and they stopped trying to avoid the shocks. They had learned that they were helpless to change their situation.

This became known as the theory of learned helplessness, and it's a really big deal. I won't get into it here but this experiment completely upended the world of psychology. Until this point, psychology was dominated by Skinner's theory of behavioralism. The behavior of these dogs violated the prediction of the behavioralist theory. Seligman's insight ushered in the age of cognitive psychology.

That's not the end of the story. A third experiment was ran on these dogs. This time, once again, the dogs were given a safe zone. Meaning, they were able to escape the shocks. But something really interesting happened. Even though the dogs could escape the shock, many of them chose not to. They were simply resigned to their lot and they sat there enduring the shocks. Meaning, the dogs had come to learn, to believe, they were helpless.

Seligman would argue, this is what is usually at the center of depression. Over time, depressed people have come to believe there is nothing they can do to fix the problems in their life. They suffer. And they can suffer for a long time. Eventually, some come to believe the situation will never improve. They get stuck. And, this belief gets stronger and deeper every day.

Some people come to believe there is nothing they can do. They believe they are permanently stuck in misery. For some of these people death is the only way to end the suffering. And, that is what they choose. As paradoxical as it is, some people come to believe that death is the only way to end suffering. This is the logic of suicide.

Please understand, in no way am I advocating suicide as a good option. I was simply trying to illustrate that people are logical and they do think things through. This story has more to it that you must hear. Suicide does have a logic, but it also has a mistake. In the majority of situations there is a way to fix the problems of life.

The majority of people, who choose to end their own lives, had problems that could have been fixed. I'm not saying they didn't try. And, I'm not saying fixing problems is easy. But, for whatever reason, this particular person couldn't solve this particular problem. This is where it becomes extremely important that we destigmatize depression. As it stands, a lot of bias swirls around what we call “mental illness” (a term I am not a fan of.)

Nobody wants to be labeled “crazy” or “mentally ill.” Often for pride, and other understandably vain reasons, people who are suffering do not reach out for help. As I've said, most problems can be fixed. However, when a person repeatedly tries, and fails, the problem is compounded. Instead of believing the problem is difficult, this person can start to believe that he or she is defective or is a failure. It can easily become a downward spiral.

Not even for one second am I suggesting that I have all the answers. The reason for this post is very simple. It breaks my heart to see people believe they are so stuck that they give up on life. We all have problems, some worse than others. Just because a person is having difficulty with their struggles, does not make them crazy or mentally ill. As a substitute I guess I kind of like the term “troubled.” Maybe we should says that the person is “troubled” or “has troubles.” I really like that second one. To me, “has troubles” suggests impermanence. And, most problems, most troubles, are not permanent.

Don't get me wrong. I am as guilty as anyone. I have called people crazy before. And I have, hopefully, learned from my mistake. What I've learned is that I called someone crazy when I didn't know much about them. What I've learned is that, before we label a person crazy, maybe we should take a lesson from a bicycle manufacturer. Maybe we should go out and look. Maybe we should try to understand.

Simple is Difficult

How can you not love paradoxes? They're so funny. Simple is difficult. So true!

This short article is about Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton. Both Pfeffer and Sutton are professors at Stanford University. But there might be a problem. Being that I went to Cal, I guess I'm supposed to hate the Cardinal.

On a side note, in as much as we are about to enter college football season, I can't help but make a funny observation. Berkeley and Stanford are two of the most acclaimed academic institutions in the entire world. They also happen to be rivals. Having been a student, at Berkeley, I can tell you the two schools love to harass each other.

The funny thing is what they fight over. Here are two academic juggernauts and what symbolizes their rivalry? A football game. It's called the “Big Game” and it takes place in late fall. I consider it a lesson learned. Sports always have been, and always will be, more sexy than books. (Maybe I should "Sell Out" and change the subject of my blog...)

At any rate, back to the point of this post. Pfeffer and Sutton wrote a great book titled The Knowing-Doing Gap. As you are probably aware, in life, people know what they are supposed to do. But, often, they don't do it. The easiest example would be diet. People know they aren't supposed to be eating sugary snacks. But we do it anyways. I digress.

What Pfeffer are Sutton are concerned with is the knowing-doing gap in our work lives. Being professors they usually work at the organizational level. However, their advice is every bit as applicable to individuals as it is to organizations.

One of the barriers, to action, is complexity. Because they confuse people, complex ideas, concepts, and plans encourage procrastination. A confused mind tends to do nothing. For this reason it is usually a good idea to keep things simple. The problem is people tend to think that a successful outcome must be complicated and complex.

Here is what Pfeffer and Sutton say, “Simple talk is valuable because it is more likely to lead to action. It is difficult to dispute simple, direct ideas. One may disagree with a simple idea or a simple philosophy, but it is transparent at the outset. Second guessing and finger pointing are largely precluded. Simple philosophies, practices, and ideas are, ironically, more unlikely to be imitated by outsiders and competitors. Since most organizations have strong love for complexity, few will believe that a firm’s success is based on such simple premises. Consequently, they may not even try to implement what the successful organizations do.”

The authors use the word “ironically” when they could have, just as easily, used the word “paradoxically.” Paradoxes are ironic. And irony is entertaining. What the authors are saying is that it is possible to hide in plain sight. Hiding in plain sight is, in itself, a paradox. And, the reason it works, is because people distrust simplicity. So, often times, the answer you are looking for, can be hiding right in front of your nose. It usually is.

A simple strategy works better than a complex strategy. We know this intellectually. However, something in our gut makes us suspicious. We tend to think that hard things (and success is certainly hard) must be complicated things. What we must learn is that hard and complex and not necessarily synonymous. A thing can, in fact, be simultaneously simple and difficult.

Herein lies a paradox. People like to be effective. And, simple is more effective. However, at the same time, people have a distrust for simplicity. It's such a funny conundrum. What I have come to learn is that humans tend to think, and behave, in predictable patterns. For this reason, it's important to understand our tendencies.

When we understand our tendencies we are able to manage them. We are able to develop devices that help us get to where we want to go. I will end with two mental devices that have been developed to counter this human inclination towards complexity. You will probably recognize both.

The first one is slightly esoteric. It's called “Occam's Razor.” The idea is named after a gentleman who lived in the village of Ockham, England. To paraphrase Occam's Razor, it basically says that we should always search for the simplest of explanations. Stated differently, we should not permit of unnecessary complexity to explain events. Keep in mind that William of Ockham was born in the 13^th Century. Meaning, humans have been making this mistake for a long time. For more depth, you can Google Occam's Razor and find an interesting little article published by the math department at the University of California Riverside.

The other tool, that is useful to combat unnecessary complexity, is the KISS principle. First uttered by Kelly Johnson, of the Lockheed Skunk Works, KISS stands for “Keep It Simple Stupid.” Johnson was an engineer and all too familiar with people's tendency to complicate things. As you know, Lockheed creates military aircraft and this makes the KISS principle very important. While at battle, and in the field, mechanics need to be able to quickly repair aircraft. Obviously, a simple design better lends itself it quicker, and easier, repairs. Simplicity is, indeed, highly effective and functional. When we're making things harder than they need to be, we should remember to KISS ourselves.

A while back I wrote this, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, post: Don't trust yourself. And, as I am trying to convey, I think it's important that we understand our tendencies. As weird as it may sound, rather than distrust simplicity, we might want to distrust our instincts.

Safety is Just Danger Out of Place

The other day I was reading an interview, with Ellen DeGeneres, from March. In the article Ellen said something very interesting. She said, “I'm hosting the Oscars–because it's a really terrifying thing to do.” I love that! I don't know whether or not Ellen would use the nerdy “p-word.” But, she is definitely aware of the importance of the paradox.

To do something because it is scary is the very definition of a paradox. It is completely counter-intuitive. It's also very important. It is an idea I have heard, time and again, from successful people. A lot of successful people use fear to indicate the direction they should head. Meaning, when they fear something, they know that exact thing is what they must do.

Fear is arguably the most destructive force in modern life. Humans fear all kinds of stuff. Back in the day, when our survival was constantly in question, fear was an adaptive response. However, in the 21^st Century, in America, surviving day-to-day is a given. The problem is that no one told our brain.

The human brain is literally wired for anxiety. Anxiety is a a radar, it's our warning system. The emotion anxiety is meant to alert us of danger. For most of human existence we lived out in the open. Sure, we built shelters. But, they were nothing like modern houses.

This means, for the majority of the time humans have been on earth, we have been exposed to fairly high levels of danger. Anxiety is the body's way of alerting us of danger. Given this arrangement, false positives are acceptable. Meaning, when you live on the open plain and you hear a rustling of sticks or leaves, it is best to feel fear. Because this fear prepares us to flee or fight.

If the noise we hear is the result of a predator we are prepared to fight of run. If the noise was caused by the wind, or something, no big deal. We might feel some butterflies in our stomach. But, at least we're still alive. Better to be prepared than not. Hence the value of the false positive.

Undoubtedly there were humans that were more calm and serene. But they wouldn't last very long. The tranquil people would ignore the sound in the bush and eventually get eaten. They would be wiped out of the gene pool. Hopefully you can see why famed psychologist, Aaron Beck, said, “Evolution favors anxious genes.”

This is important to recognize because it teaches us about our tendencies. When we feel fearful, our first assumptions should be that our brain is being overly vigilant. If we know something about the architecture our our mind, namely that it tends toward false positives, then we can better cope with the vicissitudes of life.

I once heard it said that we have a Fred Flintstone brain, but we live in a George Jetson world. I think this is a useful analogy. Because the reality of life has changed (at least in the developed world.) We now live in well-built houses, with deadbolt locks on the doors, and 911 on the dial. The level of danger that humans experience, day-to-day, is quite low.

For this reason fear has gone from being adaptive to being maladaptive. Meaning, fear used to keep us alive. Now, it mostly holds us back. If we simply understand this human tendency we are better able to handle it. Ellen DeGeneres seems to have figured it out. And, she can teach us the modern paradox that safety is just danger out of place. Meaning, in a competitive world, being comfortable is the road to ultimate discomfort.

Listen, if you live in a tribal land, or third world country, fear has an important role to play. However, if you live in America, as I am fortunate enough to, fear will get in your way. For this reason it is advisable to do the very thing you fear. A pretty good rule of thumb is to use fear as a beacon, directing you to the very things you should do. This is what Ellen is doing. Or, to put this whole thing in the words of Emerson, “Do the thing you fear and the death of fear is certain.”

The Leadership Engine

Last week I wrote about Noel Tichy and his book The Leadership Engine. I am such of fan of Tichy's work that I thought we might continue the conversation.

In doing a little bit of research for last week's post, I came across a book report written about The Leadership Engine. The book report written by P. Bala Bhaskaran a professor of business in Gujarat, India.

There are a few grammatical errors, in the report, but that's ok. Understandably, English is not Professor Bhaskaran's first language. Enjoy.

Introduction

Man's concern with the art and science of leadership is as old as mankind itself. It has attracted many thinkers. Noel M. Tichy and Eli Cohen have studied a large number of successful leaders in the context of their winning organizations and have come out with a set of observations that mark the alchemy of winning leadership. According to them winning is all about leadership; winning individuals are essentially leaders. They are people with ideas, values, energy and guts to do what needs to be done. Winning companies value leaders; they have cultures that expect and reward leaders; these organizations actively invest time and resources into developing leadership. Winning organizations win because they have lots of leaders; they have lots of leaders because they systematically nurture them. The line that separates winning organizations from others is the formers' ability to create leadership at every level. In every winning company leading and teaching goes hand in hand. These organizations are generally net exporters of leadership talent.

Leadership and its relevance to organizations

Winning can be described as adding value to the customers and sustaining excellence. For commercial organizations, this can be gauged by the continued track record of excellence on the capital market; for non-profit organizations, we have to look at the increasing impact of the organization on increasing number of people. Winning organizations are those that reinvent themselves continuously to add value to the customers. Winning organizations have been more effective in teaching leadership. The authors' observations are that in these organizations:

- proven leaders do the teaching.

- the leaders are avid learners.

- The leaders tend to possess: ideas, values, energy, emotions and edge.

Why are leaders relevant or important to the organizations? In a competitive environment, organizations need leaders who can determine the direct; who can redirect the organizational energies. They are the people who decide what needs to be done; they make things happen in the desired direction. For organizations to be winning and effective, regular supply of leaders is essential. This is the story of any organization that has been winning, surviving and growing over long periods.

A leader is successful only if he is able to develop others to be leaders. If he does not oversee the leadership development closely, the process would not be effective and the organization would not be sustained. Great leaders accomplish their goals through their followers; they teach their followers to be leaders. The leaders develop their teachable point of view through clear ideas and values based on their knowledge and experience; not on borrowed ideas and values. Citing rear Admiral Chuck Lemoyne who taught special warfare, the authors observe, “...the real goal of the preparation, therefore, is not to give people proficiency in the latest warfare technology. It is to create leaders, men and women who will react with the right instincts in hostile, confusing and unpredictable environments.” Leading goes along with teaching.

The saying that extraordinary leaders are created by extraordinary circumstances is a myth according to the authors. Every body has a past. Extraordinary people visit them frequently for inspiration and craft them into useable stories. Ordinary people either do not visit them or are not able to find inspiration from them. We read about Tim Teller (CEO of Polaris) or Gary Wendt (CEO of GE Cap) or many others who got inspired from their early experiences and built their leadership. These leaders have been able to build their greatness based on their experiences. Many others, ordinary people, just did not do it.

The authors have come up with a model of winning leadership called the Leader's Teachable Point of View where the primary elements are Ideas, Values, emotional Energy and Edge. Most of the book dwells on this model.

Ideas: The Heart of Leadership

The heart of leadership is Ideas. Winning organizations are built on clear ideas. A classic example is Nike. Nike is the Greek Goddess of Victory. Phil Knight, the founder, articulated that his organization stood for the victory of the athletes; he made his organization synonymous with the athletes’ victory. This articulation served as an organizing and guiding principle for all its activities; this has propelled the growth and success of the organization Ideas serve as building blocks for the organization

Ideas serve as energizers. They are essential tools in motivating people. In 1961 John F. Kennedy declared that America would like to put a man on the moon in about ten years. This became the driving force, the energizer, for NASA to plan all its activities; it became the driving force for all the personnel in NASA to engage their minds and open up new creative possibilities and alternatives. Finally America put a man (Neil Armstrong) on the moon in less than a decade in 1969.

Leadership is about creating such ideas. The ideas need to be current and relevant in the context of the external market situation. In creating an idea one has to think of the unthinkable and literally use everything that he has around him.

Values: The Touchstone of Social Relevance

After ideas the next major building block is values. Morals and values have always been the cornerstones of society; Moses, Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. are examples to this. Winning leaders, invariably, recognize the significance of having corporate values that support and sustain the organization’s goals and making sure that everyone in the organization understands and lives by them. They

- Clearly articulate a set of values for the entire organization

- continually reflect on the values to make sure that they are appropriate to achieving the desired goal

- They embody the values with their own behavior

- They encourage others to apply the values in their own decisions and actions.

- They aggressively confront and deal with pockets of ignorance and resistance.

Winning leaders also ensure that with changes in technology and markets, the ideas and values continue to be appropriate. One of the basic differences between winning organizations and others is that the winning leaders live the values and they make every one else do the same. They help everyone internalize the values through day-to-day activities and through every process and act of the organization Having created a value system unique to the organization, it becomes a competitive tool; the values take root as the fabric of the corporate culture and they provide a tangible base for the growth and sustenance of the organization

Changing people’s values is harder than changing their ideas, but in the long run, this becomes essential. Restructuring the businesses, the organization etc are much simpler compared to changing the values of the people. For any change to be effective, leaders need to reorient the values that guide people’s actions. True leaders can see the writings on the wall, they can see the big picture, can change their mind and mindsets and help others do the same.

Emotional Energy: The cementing force

Organizations have energy because they are made up of people and people have energy. Winning leaders understand this; they help nurture positive energy, direct it to creative channels, use energy as a competitive tool. Winning leaders are invariable highly energetic: they work longer, harder and they love doing that. Their high energy, both physical and emotional, excites and energizes everyone.

Winning leaders use the operating systems, like meetings, communication channels etc, innovatively to create positive emotional energy. They seek ideas, plant ideas, seek involvement, enable decision making and generally empower the people around them. They are able to transform negative energy into positive channels. They do this by creating situations and conditions, which the authors list as below:

- a sense of urgency

- an inspiring mission

- a set of goals that stretch people’s capabilities

- Spirit of teamwork - “we are in it together”

- A realistic expectation that the team members achieve the goals

Winning leaders are experts in visualizing the possibilities in every situation, in terms of short-term and long-term impacts. They have immense energies of their own; using these they inspire others to dream and conjure up new possibilities, to rupture the existing paradigms and they lead them to newer horizons.

Edge: The differentiator

Edge is the ability to take tough decisions; it is the ability to sacrifice a comfortable present for the sake of a better future. Edge manifests in two major factors: first is the immense drive to seek the truth which will be the basis for decision making; second is the courage to take decisions. Edge is about having courage of convictions, of refusing to let difficulties stand in the way, of having principles and standing up for them.

Edge is observed in different categories of situations. In business related situations edge is about abandoning the existing business line to choose another, it is about adopting a new portfolio and the like. In people related situations, it is about assessing people and giving them a tough feedback and perhaps even firing them. Jack Welch came up with a 2 X 2 matrix on people. He looked at the ability of the person in accepting and adopting the values of the organization on one dimension and his performance on the other dimension. The resulting matrix is assessed as four types of people.

Type	Values	Performance	Prescription
1	Hi	Hi	Encourage and nurture
2	Lo	Lo	Must go
3	Hi	Lo	Give them another chance
4	Lo	Hi	OK in the short-run; but in the long-run not suitable

Winning leaders would have a high sense of the reality, they respect others, they go to great lengths to explain their position to others and they also inspire others by their tough decisions and actions. Such leaders are respected by superiors and subordinates alike. It is a fact that people like their leaders to be strong and action-oriented.

It is desirable to develop edge in every employee so that each becomes a leader eventually. Leadership scholars like Abraham Zaleznik, Eric Ericson, John Gardner and James McGregor Burns have written about early hardships in life and their impacts on character. Those who have come through hardships and sacrifices tend to develop self-confidence and self-reliance. Such persons find it easier to make tough decisions. In most professions and organizations people are put through progressively more difficult situations. This is meant to enhance their capability and competence to manage. This is the most common form of developing edge.

Conclusion

Winning leaders combine ideas, values, emotional energy and edge innovatively to achieve transformation in the organization Very often this is initiated through stories woven by the leaders; these stories reflect the following basic elements

- the case for change

- where we are going

- how we will get there

Stories are found to be powerful tools in involving people emotionally and intellectually. Leaders bind people together through these stories, energize them and lead them into the future.

The book concludes that winning leadership is about building for the future. In the short-run, the leaders prepare the organization to respond to changes; in the long-run, they create organizations that can sustain success. Organization becomes successful when it has large number of leaders. Legacy of a winning leader is creation of many leaders. Good leader take care to plan their succession systematically and leave the scene in a phased manner.