The typical chess club invests a lot of time encouraging players to study openings and memorize opening sequences.  In 5th grade I was handed a 12 page list of openings to memorize.
 
The curious thing is that multiple chess grandmasters have shared that they spent very little time on openings, and instead focused on practicing the end-game.   Josh Waitzkin describes this in his book, “The Art of Learning.”  Josh and his mentor Bruce Pandolfini drilled every end-game scenario. It’s critical to know how you want the game to end, and steer your opponent in that direction.  (Fun fact about Waitzkin: The first master he ever defeated was Edward Frumkin, in a game featuring a remarkable sacrifice of Waitzkin’s queen and rook in exchange for a checkmate six moves later. Waitzkin was only ten years old at the time.)

The problem with studying openings at the expense of endings is that you get fixated on fast results but miss the overall game objectives.  You reward speed and conformity rather than concentration and bravery.  The reality is that new chess players get some early wins, but once they get to middle and advanced levels they can no longer win.  They’ve optimized the wrong part of the real game. The best players evolved way beyond a focus on openings.

Food for leadership thought: Project openings are important but perhaps we spend too much time studying those rather than project endings.

Have you ever eaten roadkill?  I did a few times growing up in West Virginia.  Some of it’s fine – chunks of rabbit or squirrel, or groundhog in a stew.  Opossum, however – truly nasty stuff.  Gack, I can still remember trying to vomit so the taste in my mouth would be obliterated with stuff previously in my stomach. Not being a foodie and nervous about trying new foods, I’ve pulled up that memory when I’ve traveled internationally and am staring at a plate of something unsavory looking that my host recommends.  “Hey,” I think, “it can’t be worse than possum.”   And I eat it. 

One time in Boy Scouts I was “recruited” to help clean out a pit toilet that the new EPA decided was now too close to the river.  Being small and easily intimidated, I was the kid lowered into the pit with a shovel and bucket.  The only thing that kept me from passing out from the smell and texture was the fear that I’d faint and drown in this crap (literally).  Afterwards I used a whole bottle of Head & Shoulders to get the smell out of my hair, and burned my clothes as a hopeless cause.  I pull up that memory when I’m faced with an unpleasant job or task.  “Hey,” I think, “it can’t be worse than cleaning out the pit toilet.” 

Ever had a horrible boss?  It’s useful to say, “Hey, it can’t be worse than _______ was, and I survived that and even learned a few things.”  If a person can’t be anything else he or she can at least be a bad example. 

How could you profitably use your worst experiences and memories as ways to help you move forward? 

Professionals do not assume other people understand the value they bring; they articulate it.  

For example, professionals often serve as linchpins in key conversations, broker alliances of shared values, and work out problems in advance of critical meetings.  It’s a mistake to say, “I coordinated that.”  Instead, describe the result of your coordination effort.  Supporting logistics is honorable and necessary, but you’re executing more than what an entry level admin assistant can do, right?

This might be something like:

• Eliminated all but 2 possibilities for a decision-making meeting to keep them focused on selecting the best outcome
• Tailored the agenda and provided written updates in advance so the quarterly review required 1 hour instead of 3 hours
• Secured verbal commitment for a new contract by introducing 2 people to our VP of Sales
• Suggested a contributor help draft a white paper about a step-change improvement to our manufacturing process
• Provided concise statement of the problem and obtained stakeholder’s approval in advance

Don’t assume people, especially your busy boss, automatically grasps the significance of what you delivered. 

(I served under a VP for several years who forbade anyone from using the word “coordinate” in a goal or a job description.  At first I found this quite irritating, but I did profit from the push for clearer thinking about the value delivered.)

Common tactics of bullies:

• Making false accusations and spreading rumors
• Non-verbal intimidation
• Making fun of a person’s feelings or behaviors
• Holding people to different standards
• Creating a scapegoat; nothing is ever their fault
• Singling out a target with a crowd at their back
• Name-calling and labeling
• Encouraging a person to quit
• Destroying property, or sabotaging work
• Skilled at playing the victim when cornered

Behaviors which encourage bullies:

• Being passive and compliant
• Adopting their image of you
• Leaders letting known bullying go unchallenged, unchecked

Standing against bullies:

• Don’t allow their words and deeds to become your self-image
• Remember their three most common drivers:  They see you as a threat.  They hate themselves. They secretly want to be you.
• Stand firm on rights and principles
• Act fearlessly.  Cowards may bluff but will retreat in the face of courage.
• Don’t return evil for evil

Wait a sec… did you think I was talking about children? 

The cynical leader says, “If there is doubt, if there is uncertainty, or when I need a distraction – reorganize!” 

There are many reasonable ways to design an organization’s reporting structure and operating model.  All organizations must adapt to changing environments and objectives. 

The key parallel questions:

                What problem are we trying to solve?

                What problems do we prefer to have?

A foundational question (the answer is rarely obvious): What business are we in?

I observe these common pivot points where designs flex over time:

• Centralized Decisions and Skills vs. De-centralized Decisions and Skills

• Global vs. Regional vs. Local standards and processes

• Rely on the unique strength mix of an individual in a role vs. a Structured Team or Program

(Can you think of others?)

I call these pivot points because we tend to swing the pendulum from one side to the other.  Each point along the spectrum has its problems, therefore there will always be someone who recommends a reorganization or redesign in order to solve a present problem.  

How many times in history have we seen examples where crisis situations evolved rapidly and leaders were stuck without good options?  Everything escalates rapidly.  They recognized problems too late.  There is no one available who can step in to fix things.

How many times has that happened to you? 

Perhaps the best people and project managers, and the best political, military, and organizational leaders are largely unknown.  They planned well and systematically generated options so that major crises didn’t happen. 

Reviewing crisis events pushes us to ask and answer this question: “What could have been done differently to prevent this from happening?”  There are sometimes mechanical and process factors.  There are almost always missed opportunities to have built relationships.  Weak relationships will lose to stronger relationships when the crisis comes. 

The optionality that leaders need often comes down to “Who can help here?”  Pre-existing relationships have platinum value.  Your web of relationships represents options you have to prevent bad outcomes, or begin to address them quickly before they become a crisis. 

Create time every month to diversify and deepen your personal network.  

Three instances where you need to be ESPECIALLY mindful of the “unseen part of the iceberg below the waterline”:

• When you’ve been “added into” an existing group of people who have plenty of prior experience with one another, but not you
• When you’re trying to persuade very senior leaders in an organization
• When you’re promoting a minority viewpoint or unconventional idea

Your best efforts can easily be derailed or nullified by the unknown history of relationships and events, the unknown aspects of organizational pressures or external factors, and the compelling power of status quo.

Do you research.  Test your assumptions.  Be prepared.

Study these complex historical events to find patterns:

The French Revolution (1789)
The Bolshevik Revolution (1917)
The Rise of the Third Reich (1943-45)
Mao’s Communist Revolution (1949)
The Cultural Revolution (1966-1976)
The Iranian Revolution (1979)

Common patterns:
None of the initial and noble aims for justice were achieved
The energy of the crowds was co-opted by individuals desiring power
Intentional and systematic lies became foundational structures
The meaning of words were radically changed and old standards cast aside
Individualism was suppressed in favor of collectivism
Race and class were emphasized above earned merit
An escalating series of loyalty oaths were instituted
All forms of media were taken over by the state
All religious ideas and practices not sanctioned by the state were persecuted to extinction
The state powers were deeply suspicious of parents and families educating children
Acceptable speech and action were compelled by force
The state encouraged citizens to turn in those who were non-compliant
Many of the early leaders were subsequently eliminated
Economies largely faltered and failed (the exception being Nazi Germany/Austria)
Humorless

Many business problems have been solved. They may not have been solved by you, but the primary problems of manufacturing, inventory management, accounting, marketing, and project management have known solutions. I do not diminish the importance or hard work associated with execution!

There are challenges which can be met from first principles, but do not have recipes:

Innovation
Organizational culture
Developing people
Business model transformation

These require a combination of cross-functional disciplines, paying attention to the Muse for inspiration, and plain hard work. There are examples (not recipes) to study. Generally people who read about successful changes in one organization can’t precisely replicate that same change in their organization.

Lean into hard problems. There’s joy and satisfaction in the journey through them.

When you’re younger you should read and listen widely. Get exposed to many speakers, writers, people of different ages and interests in your life. This is about breadth of ideas and experiences.

As you get into your 30’s you should intentionally become more discerning about your mentors. Aim to go deeper. Find those relatively few which consistently inspire and challenge you. Which people (living, or dead) give you information, ideas, and frameworks which are helpful?

Your mentors should meet two criteria:
1) Both the content and the style resonate with you. It’s easy to pay attention to learn and go deep. You don’t have to agree 100% with everything, but 8 times out of 10 you should experience an Aha.
2) You see results in others when you share what you’re learning from your mentor.

There’s a pattern to observe with the great leaders and teachers in history: they had a close inner circle, and an expanding radius of others they taught and trusted. You can see this pattern in every great political leader in history. You can see this in everyone who led a movement. Jesus had 70 close followers, 12 chosen disciples, and then 3 of these were in his inner circle.

Settling on your best mentors is the inverse — there might be 70 who have influenced you somewhat, a dozen that are more significant, and three who most deeply influence you. Narrow in on your key few.

(Excerpted from my book Bold and Gentle: Thriving Wisely in an Age of Exponential Change)