I should trademark “Babbling Brooke”™ because I routinely say too much about too many topics.  

A key attribute of effective leadership is communication clarity. Howard Hendricks would tell his seminary students “A mist in the pulpit creates a fog in the pew.”

One of my mentors recommended condensing my verbosity to 3 statements I could fit on a 3×5 notecard.  Why? Few people can remember more than 3 key ideas from a presentation.  He said something like “If you want to impress them with your intelligence, talk and talk and talk.  If you want to move them to act differently, say no more than 3 things, explained well, and leave them wanting more.” He cited the example of the orator Edward Everett speaking for 2 hours before Abraham Lincoln delivered his 272-word speech at Gettysburg.

Don’t be fooled by apparent simplicity: Achieving clarity is hard work that requires the best of you. Marcus Tullius Cicero once wrote “If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter.”  Mark Twain wrote “If you want me to give you a two-hour presentation, I am ready today.  If you want only a five-minute speech, it will take me two weeks to prepare.”

Worth it. I like the phrase, “Everyone communicates, few connect.”

Shallow connection comes from the safe and common “blah blah blah” and buzzspeak of organizations today.

Deeper connection comes from sharing the truth without shading, respecting the intelligence and experience of people with skin in the game.

A mistake I see leaders in challenging times make is to favor what people want to hear over what they need to hear.  Warm fuzzies in difficult situations dissipate quickly in the chill of reality.  The formula needs to be “Facts of our situation / Here’s the plan of action / This is our confidence.”  Don’t sugarcoat difficulties as if that makes them better. It’s helpful to reframe challenges into opportunities, but don’t diminish the challenge or speak as if it’s not real. People won’t always like what they need to hear. In the long run they’ll respect you more.

Most leaders, when challenged to rank order the skill or contribution level of the people in their team, tend to think about aggregate capabilities.  “Sue is better than Michael, and Michael is more experienced than Jill.”   If you ask them to quantify how much is better, you’ll usually hear “Sue is 10-15% better than Michael.  Jill is 10% better than Michael at writing code, but Michael more than makes up for that with his years of experience.”   

That’s understandable and useful for aggregate capabilities and potential.  Each of us are a gumbo of skills and experiences.  

I encourage you to sharpen your thinking about quantifying specific skill areas in your team members, or in candidates for open positions.  The distribution of individual skill/experience is likely to follow a power law.  The best software developer using .net in agile environments is probably 10x better than the average developer, who is likely to be 10x better than the worst.  Not 10% better or worse, but 10X.  Often was makes someone 10x better is a prior set of practical experiences. Those same individuals might be flipped order if you’re talking about using python as an individual contributor in a bioinformatics team.  Context matters!  

100x differences between best and worst are common, and occasionally you will find 10,000x differences.  (There are a million software developers who are infinitely better than I at writing .net code!) 

Thinking in terms of power laws for specific skills helps you articulate a better rationale for selecting one person over another for an assignment, role, or position.   

Setting the destination is crucial, and then you must determine the path.  Let me share a personal story to illustrate one of the big dangers.

I really wanted my Orienteering merit badge when I was a Boy Scout.  Orienteering is using a map and compass to navigate from point to point over unfamiliar terrain.   

I failed on my first attempt, didn’t qualify for the badge.  I read everything and practiced with my compass.  I passed the written test, but failed the two practical tests in the woods.  In both tests I set out first (alphabetical order).  I took my bearing to the target on the map, then held to a straight line through thicket, bramble, and muck.  I thought I heard the other boys a few times but stuck to my bearing.  I emerged at the destination scratched up and a muddy mess to discover I was dead last.  Both times, dead last.  I was so late on the second test that Mr. Jones was about to send out a search party for me. 

Mr. Jones – who we all admired and were a little scared of, because he had been in the Army Ranger battalion – said “You failed, Brooke.”   I was crushed and humiliated.  I was already an Eagle Scout and had passed every other test for merit badges before.  

I worked up my courage to ask Mr. Jones what I’d done wrong, because I wanted to get that Orienteering badge.  

“You failed because the purpose of orienteering is to get to the destination with the least time and effort, using the map and compass to guide you.  The other boys read the map better, picked up the trail a hundred yards into the woods, curled around the swamp and had less of a climb, and got there with dry feet way ahead of you.” 

This was like a 2×4 to the forehead.  The next summer camp, my next opportunity, I qualified for the merit badge. 

Years later I read what Abraham Lincoln said to a critic:  “A compass will point you to true north, but it’s got no advice about the swamps and deserts and chasms that you’ll encounter along the way. If in pursuit of your destination you plunge ahead, heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp, what’s the use of knowing true north?” 

Lesson learned:  Be firm in your destination, but flexible in your approach.   

Now there is a counterpoint situation, and it was one Mr. Jones would have known well.   In wartime, especially in guerilla and unconventional warfare, attack where the enemy least expects you.  Stealth requires staying off the trail and avoid the easy way.  T.H. Lawrence captured the port city of Aqaba, attacking after crossing 600 miles of desert, something considered impossible.  Special forces tactics are often based on surprise attacks from unlikely vectors.  In business terms, sometimes the winning approach is to consciously embrace the difficult path for a high ROI. 

Ingratitude and selfishness seem rampant in many organizations – an issue of entitlement.  One of the ways I recognize I’m getting older is that I notice myself and others complaining and whining more.  I suspect I’m not complaining more but noticing it more than I used to years ago.   

The US Army Ranger School is one of the toughest leadership training programs anywhere.  It’s physically and mentally challenging – 3 major phases over 62 days, teaching small infantry unit tactics and leadership under austere conditions to simulate combat.  There’s minimal food and sleep, constant movement, and frequent go/no-go tests of strength and decision-making.  You must be fit and skilled to earn a slot at Ranger School, and fewer than half will graduate with the coveted Ranger tab.   

At the end of each phase every participant must rank order the performance others in his unit, from top to bottom.  This peer review reflects the importance of earning the respect of others.  The men and women who score low are “peered out,” and can either recycle that phase or quit.  Some soldiers ace every physical test but are peered out because they were a poor team member.    

I interviewed a retired Army Ranger and asked how peer judgments were made.  He told me that soldiers score low in peer reviews because they’re the lowest performers in the physical trials, are the first to complain and last to take on extra work, criticize their peers, fall asleep too many times on guard duty, and grumblers.  “You can avoid a low peer rating by volunteering to carry the heavy claymores and machine gun, encouraging your squad to keep going, never leave your Ranger buddy to fail alone, and zip your lip instead of complaining.”  

Where would you rank in peer reviews if they were held quarterly and annually?  Few organizations do anything like this, or take them this seriously, but your performance is being measured, especially when conditions are difficult.  Pre-decide how you’ll behave and the choices you’ll make under pressure.   

• Take on a heavy load to help a peer. 
• Cheer your peers onward and upward. 
• Don’t let your peers down. 
• Be constructive; no complaining. 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 

Does your organization have high expectations to create a high-performing culture?  Consider The Ranger’s Creed: 

Recognizing that I volunteered as a Ranger, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession, I will always endeavor to uphold the prestige, honor, and high esprit de corps of the Rangers. 

Acknowledging the fact that a Ranger is a more elite soldier who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air, I accept the fact that as a ranger my country expects me to move further, faster, and fight harder than any other soldier. 

Never shall I fail my comrades I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong, and morally straight and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be, one hundred percent and then some. 

Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially selected and well trained soldier. My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress, and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow. 

Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country. I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a Ranger word. I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country. 

Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission, though I be the lone Survivor. 

Over the years I’ve held different roles and signed up with multiple relevant vendors, conferences, and newsletters.   This created a steady stream of potentially useful information.  

Now that I work in an unrelated area, the emails are still coming in.  I either ignored or deleted them for a long time.  Deleting was especially nice.  You get a little “happy juice” moment in your brain when you shorten your inbox list quickly.  

A few months ago I realized that these were simply distractions.  They aren’t relevant.  I’m not gaining anything by even seeing the subject line.  The sender thinks I’m still a good audience member when I’m not.

Remembering what Andy Stanley says — “What distracts us is never as important as what we’re being distracted from” — I just unsubscribe from each mailing list as they come in.  Takes 30-60 seconds for each, which is an investment in reduced distraction going forward.

Distractions come in many forms.  What can you do to “unsubscribe” from no-longer-relevant signals in your work environment?  

I enjoy pictures and videos from the International Space Station.  Every spot on the Earth looks gorgeous from 400 miles up while traveling at 17,500 miles/hour.   Many places on Earth are gorgeous at ground level, too, but not the garbage piles, slums, and graffiti.  All your senses work at ground level.  

In a related way, everyone else’s job tends to look easier than yours.  You rarely see all their messes and complexity, whereas your face gets shoved into your messes every hour.

Sometimes distance gives us clarity and insight.  Often, we need to find solutions to real problems at a higher level than the problem exists (because it’s part of a larger system).  Wise leaders are mindful that distance masks the details.

Received fuzzy direction from your boss?  Trying to extract clarity about the best path forward when people aren’t aligned?  Need to “force” a decision from a stakeholder so you can move ahead sooner? 

The best tactic I know is to present 2 distinct scenarios.  The two should cover a range of possible interpretations of whatever fuzzy direction you have.  If one is a variation of the other make it a significant variation.  You want A and B to generate distinctly different “feel” as you present them.   

This gives you a strong platform for discussion and dialogue.  You’re likely to create a better variation that everyone prefers.   If you can’t get a decision between A and B you’re still likely to learn what additional information will be required to reach a decision.   

Expert mode: Create a 3^rd alternative which you KNOW is completely unacceptable.  It’s an intentional throwaway that helps keep the focus on a scenario you strongly prefer.  You lay it out as one of the three, then immediately get agreement that it’s not the right approach.  You have some alignment with very little effort –  alignment that make further alignment easier. 

This simple process will set you apart from 98% of your competitors for the next promotion and career opportunity:

1. Use 10 minutes of focused thinking to identify something which you should be working on 5-8 weeks from now.  Maybe it’s a predictable deliverable like a budget, a process review, or helping a new hire.  Maybe it’s developing a new product or service, or doing market research.  Maybe it’s improving your relationships with key stakeholders.  
2. Get on your calendar and schedule working time for yourself and meetings with others.  You and practically everyone else has plenty of open time on their calendars 5-8 weeks from now.  

Once you get better at this process, use the same approach for longer timescales!  What is something that you should be working on 1-2 years from now?  This is executive-level thinking and action.

I expect to wrestle with these challenges the rest of my days, in easy times and harder times:

• Choosing which voices in my head deserve to be heard (and stifling the whiners)
• Preventing anger from ruling me
• Deciding how to allocate my time and energy
• Doing what needs doing when it needs doing
• Studying for insights and patterns
• Writing and teaching as a means of discovery
• Struggling for joy amid the day to day
• Self-care – diet, exercise, sleep
• Praying and praising more than worrying
• Worshiping in spirit and in truth, loving God will all my mind, heart, and strength, and loving others as God wants me to love them.

It concerns me when groups, companies, and political leaders insist we cater to the least mature people.  This is a Teflon-coated slope to a place we don’t want to be.

Should we rather reward maturity, indeed insist on it?  A culture that celebrates prolonged adolescence will be upheld by the shrinking number of mature individuals, until it collapses.  Companies which demean maturity will end up increasing their costs by coddling the immature, and likely see talented individuals leave.  Human groups always get more of what they celebrate and get better at what they practice.  Let’s not practice and celebrate immaturity!

Maturity is not the default.   Maturity comes from making the right choices for the moment AND the long term.  Maturity has a cost to attain, and a cost to maintain. Ogden Nash observed “You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.” Indefinite immaturity is phenomenally expensive.

…

Mature people are authentic.  They bring out the parts of themselves which are appropriate in the right context.

Let’s examine the statement we hear business leaders say: “We want you to bring your whole self to work.”  Sometimes it’s said, “We want you to feel safe to bring your whole self to work.”

At best, this is sloppy thinking.  At worst, it’s intentionally disingenuous. I believe leaders saying “bring your whole self to work” are sincere but doubt they really want employees bringing their whole self. 

Here are key components of who I am:

• Religious convictions
• Political perspectives
• Opinions on history, literature, and art
• Sexual self
• Medical and psychological imperfections
• Relationship scars

These are all important but have no direct relevance to my current job.  They’re potentially divisive.  In our current state it’s not even “safe” to express some of my views because they’re “out of step” with what some say or imply is the only right way to think about something.

Being professional and fully engaged in a role means focusing on the work at hand, while being respectful with colleagues and customers.  You can be authentic and trustworthy as you leave the rest of yourself out it. 

You can work through the same logic for many settings – mature people bring out the appropriate parts of themselves.

…

A friend and I were sharing our battles with our inner critic, the voice(s) which usually whisper and sometimes shout that we’re not good enough and we’re going to fail at what we are called to do.  It is a regular battle.  The critic wants to rule and write the “We’re safe, we never risked anything” story. 

Mature people honor the obligation to keep control of the pen and remain the author. 

…

We’re remarkably good at lumping diversity into fewer buckets.  We say “Europe” as if it’s a monoculture, rather than more than 20 nations with a large range of history and culture.  We say “US” though even casual observers recognize immense differences in states and regions.  We say “White male” and “Black female” as if these are homogenous groups.  We say “Christian” and “Hindu” and “Muslim” and “Atheist” as if that small word encompasses the depth and richness of their variations.  We gleefully transform political and social labels as weapons to hurl at someone we disagree with.

Math wisdom tells us that all models are wrong, but some are useful.  In the same way, I now consider all labels wrong, but some have limited utility.  

Maturity means thinking and speaking better, holding labels more like a wounded bird than a spear.

…

Mature people exercise their responsibility to lead people in their sphere of influence in a positive direction.  I once read what a political advisor told his client: “In politics you can eat well or sleep well, but you can’t do both, so take your pick.”  The reason we despise so many politicians is that they obviously choose to eat well.

There will always be difficult choices in your leadership adventures. Always.  Maturity is doing the hard right thing rather than the easy wrong thing.  Maturity thinks past the expediency of today.

…

Mature people know – and it gets deeper in their bones as they gain maturity – that it’s not about you.  You’re always serving somebody.  Others are more important than you.  Humility keeps us in the right zone in our relationships.

…

Mature people know how to live among and positively influence messy groups who are at all levels of maturity. 

Paul’s two letters to Timothy are a study in how to become mature and respond to others wisely.  For example, he writes:

So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.  And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. (2 Timothy 2:22-25)

Controversies and quarrels are the sad currency of our day.  May we be a better example, like Timothy, even if we must patiently endure evil.

…

You – yeah, you! – need to grow up. 

Me, too.

None of us are yet mature as we’re intended to be.  This is our aim, for the sake of those we serve.