Month: February 2020

I’ve had the privilege of seeing how multiple, diverse businesses operate as a DuPont employee.  I’ve interviewed people who work in a large array of companies, non-profits, and the military. A recurring lesson: every business, every craft, every industry is complex and complicated.  The rabbit holes run deep everywhere. 

This is not a bad thing, but a reflection of reality.  It’s why decentralized control is so critical to success!  Central authoritarianism models cannot possibly keep up with real-world dynamics.  

We rightly worry about silos within an organization – groups that operate largely independently and unaware of what’s going on in other areas.  Siloed thinking and working misses opportunities for improving the system as a whole, for new and exciting work for employees, and for creating new products and services.  Silos tend to foster self-reinforcing bureaucratic organizations which have no interaction with actual customers or the markets.

There are many aspects of silos and bureaucracy which you cannot control and barely shape if you’re employed in a large organization.  Influence as you can.

The best strategy is to get to the top of silos often, and from there you can see into other silos at least a little bit.  You have a greater chance of interaction with actual customers and marketplace issues.

Elevation grants you perspective.  This is not only about being promoted into senior positions, though pursue them if it’s good for you and others.  Get closer to the tops of silos by volunteering for special projects, cross-functional committees, and intentionally networking with senior leaders to hear their views. 

Skilled leaders take what see and learn at the top of a silo back to others working much lower in the silo.  This helps everyone.

I recently finished writing and publishing my 17^th book, “Bold and Gentle: Thriving Wisely in an Age of Exponential Change.”  A friend asked, “Got any more books in you?” 

Yes, I’m sure I do, though I don’t know precisely which book I’ll publish next. 

Peter Drucker was a wise and prolific business thinker, perhaps the greatest in the 20^th century.  Here’s a picture of all the books he published:

At age 65 Peter Drucker had written only one third of his books.  When he was 86 years old Jim Collins asked him which book he was most proud of.  “The next one!” he replied. He published 10 more after age 86 and had a manuscript in development when he died at age 92!

Let’s remind one another that the view out the windshield is larger and better than the rear-view mirror.  If you’re here, you have something to contribute, some way to leave a legacy. 

Burnout.  The word even feels horrible.  Burnout people are wounded. It happens – and it’s likely to happen at least a few times over the span of your working years.

You need rest and recovery time.  This will be longer than you might imagine.  Don’t believe this lie: “Just a few days away will make me chipper again.”

The point of rest and recovery time is to put you in a place to begin healing.  The healing process takes time, solitude, reflection, and being with emotionally healthy people.  Smart people get help at this stage.  You’ll always be leading from your woundedness if you don’t pursue healing after a recovery time.

Once the healing process is underway you have two basic choices:

1. Return the role or job you had before
2. Enter into a new role or job (most common)

Key point: You must work differently in either #1 or #2, or else you go back into burnout.  If you don’t learn to work differently (and this probably includes working with and around healthy people), you’ll continue to be miserable and fill up your narrative with lies and blame.  This is a crumbling foundation for effective leadership.

The lesson to absorb from burnout is that you must learn to work sustainably, healthily, for the right reasons. 

The saddest way to “work differently” is to stop caring.  It’s just a job.  You defend yourself by risking nothing of yourself in the role.  You’re better than this.   

I’ve been asked for my views on Stoicism. 

I consider the writings of the great Stoics an essential part of appreciating Western Civilization, especially Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Cato the Younger, and Epictetus.  They have practical advice for understanding ourselves and relating to all kinds of people and circumstances.  They promote self-discipline and sober judgment.  Practicing Stoics manage their emotions well, avoiding the worst consequences of anger, sadness, and pride. 

Stoicism is a perfect philosophical system for atheists because it outlines a workable life code of standards and behaviors without requiring either the supernatural or a moral code from outside of yourself.  Thus the danger of Stoicism is that you can fool yourself and be self-oriented at the expense of others, because there need be nothing outside of your own judgment to call you to account. 

I can admire the Stoics and learn from them.  They promoted practical wisdom for real-world living, which is why I recommend studying their writings. But Stoicism falls short because the physical realm is not all there is.  I believe in a sovereign God who is the Creator and defines what is right and wrong.  I believe in God’s active interaction with people.  God speaks in ways we can understand, though there is mystery. God’s common love sustains all of us; His specific love expressed in Jesus rescues those who believe in Him. 

Every time there is a gap in information you’re forced to choose between trust and suspicion.*

Choose to trust by default. 

Trust usually works in most situations.  Think of how we often get new information later on to explain what was going on.  Misunderstandings and poor communication are the gasoline engine for a considerable fraction of conflict, hurt feelings, and (frankly) dis-engagement.

Choosing to trust is much easier on your psyche and emotional engine.  Trust conquers the kind of fretting which burns away energy without producing anything useful.  Choose charitable and optimistic explanations of gaps instead of allowing your imagination to flood your synapses with disaster scenarios. 

Perhaps most important for leaders: Believing the best about your team brings out the best from your team members.

Choosing to trust by default means you’ll get burned occasionally.  Our world gives us many reasons to be cynical.  Thus the honored strategy of “trust and verify.” 

There are people who by words and behaviors you will trust little or not at all.  Redemption in these cases is expensive.

There are new-to-you or new-to-this-role people whom you can give a default level of starting trust, and they’ll earn more over time. 

There’s a continuum of trust right up to “trust with my life.”

When (not if) you are burned, purposefully translate any hurt into a lesson for the future.  Acknowledge hurt and disappointment, but don’t hold on to bitterness for one second longer than necessary to get past it. 

*Andy Stanley is the modern writer I’ve read expressing this truth, but the concept appears in the writings of Cicero, Erasmus, and Machiavelli, too.  People are still people, which means these principles work over long periods of time.

HT: I’ve learned a great deal about this topic from my own mentors and the writing of Cary Nieuwhof, Henry Cloud, and Richard Foster. 

Leaders often face fuzzy and poorly-defined problems.  It’s hard to see their edges.  Sometimes you have a vague sense of the problem but aren’t sure how big it is. 

There’s a helpful “trick” to getting more clarity on dimly-lit problems:  Look to the side of them.

I was 8 years old when our Cub Scout leader took us on a night hike in the woods.  We were following a path in the pale moonlight, forbidden to use our flashlights, walking as silently as we could to listen for animal noises.  Our leader gave us about 20 minutes in the meadow at the edge of the woods for our eyes to adjust.  He also told us that we’d see better in the dim light if we didn’t look directly at objects but just to the side.  I was amazed how much better I could see the branches and rocks that way!  I learned later on that amateur astronomers do the same thing to better see dim stars in the night sky.

This visual trick is ancient wisdom rooted in the way the human eye is organized.  There are two types of photo-receptor cells, cones and rods.  Cones are less abundant, see color and bright light, and are concentrated at the center of the retina.  Rods are more abundant, can’t see color, and a distributed at the edges of the retina.

Individual cone cells are directly wired to the retina nerves.  It takes many photons of light to stimulate a cone cell, so they’re practically useless in dim light.  You might have noticed that even bright colors only look gray at night. 

Many rod cells are clustered to a single retinal nerve.  Each cell can pick up a small number of photons, but it takes a group of rod cells to fire the retinal nerve.  Rod cells are great for detecting movement at the edge of your vision, but have low acuity.  You might think it’s an animal moving in the dark toward you but it turns out to be trash blowing in the wind.

The combination of cone and rod cells gives humans the full range of color in daylight and decent navigation and threat detection in dim light. 

Back to fuzzy problem solving.  

As much as we favor and reward initiative and focused action, there are many organization and project problems which simply won’t yield to a direct assault.  Come at them from an angle.  Intentionally turn off the bright light focus and look askance to see them differently, often more clearly.  Let your subconscious work on it while you’re walking your dog, cleaning house, or sleeping.  Trust that new insights will come. 

Question: Do you replace all the analog tools of the past with digital and automation, or intentionally preserve a mix?

I’ve learned that there are times when I do better working with paper and pen, rather than opening up an application on my phone or PC.  I craft lists and mind-maps, doodling with arrow and stars to show key points and connections. I get new insights and ideas when I start with blank sheet of paper, or a new Moleskine journal page, and a pen that I really enjoy. This is particularly true when I’m trying to clarify my messy thoughts. 

Yet there are other times when I’ll choose a software program for capturing my brain dump and editing into something more useful.  I can type faster than I can write by hand.  My mind-map software is efficient and better suited to creating a map presentable for others.

I favor my analog watch with the night-glow feature.  I can tell at a glance how much time is left in a meeting without having to do a mental calculation.  The night-glow feature makes it easy to see the time when I wake up in the middle of the night.  I suffer from so many distractions that the idea of an Apple watch interface makes my gut wrench.

It’s much easier for me to study and learn from physical books and printed articles than to read online.  I do use my Kindle but… it’s not the same experience.  The Kindle is great for buzzing through books to find nuggets that are useful, when I don’t need to absorb complex information and long-format information.

I wouldn’t trade the calculator app on my phone for a slide rule.  I love studying maps but when I’m on the move I adore my GPS-driven navigation options.  I confess it’s been a few years since I wrote and sent a physical letter rather than an email. 

Discern what tools work best for you in what circumstances.  Don’t become self-righteous about your choices; don’t judge others for theirs.  Be intentional with your tools to maximize the value of your time and creative output. 

Bonus: Decide whether tool upgrades are worth it.  My rule of thumb is that an upgrade has be to 3x-5x better to compensate for the switching cost.  Last year I upgraded my stapler to a new design which requires about 1/5^th the force of a conventional stapler.  I can staple 5 pages together with a finger press. It’s a joy to use.  I wish all my upgrades have gone as well!

C.S. Lewis wrote “We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”

What did Lewis mean by “men without chests”?  These are men (and women!) who only operate with a brain stem, just primal functioning, lacking thinking, discernment, wisdom, or self-control.  They’re completely selfish.  They’re fearful, avoiding even the slightest pain or discomfort.  They lack conviction or principles. They have no heart.  They’re quick to sacrifice all their real freedoms for temporary pleasures.

A college student gives up his right to express himself so that no one can accuse them of “micro-aggression.”  No chest.

The manager continues to pass along what she knows are lies to her employees, to avoid any scenario where they might lose their bonus.  No chest.  

The politician uses “that’s the way our system works” to excuse a decision he never would have accepted before he was elected.  No chest.

Parents continue to rescue their adult children from the consequences of every bad decision they make.  No chest.

The unemployed man steals from the local gas station thinking “It’s not my fault, I don’t have a choice.”  No chest. 

The retired man sits in his BarcoLounger watching TV to pass the day, health worsening, wasting his ability to help someone, anyone. No chest. 

We need men and women with chests.  They can’t be manufactured or cloned, they must be produced one person at a time.  You don’t inherit a chest; it must be earned.  

Consider your situation.  Yesterday is done.  Choose today to be a man or woman with a chest.  Cultivate responsibility, honor, depth, and self-control.