103 rules and counting — contributed by the community.
Sell the hole, not the drill. Make people imagine what benefits are going to bring into their lives - comfort, status, opportunities, experiences, emotions, etc. Listing specific properties of your value proposition without the value will not convince people to start convincing themselves to buy into your value proposition. For example, if you're selling a software service your client imagines worry-free collaboration with an efficient team who empathize with their sense of ownership and purpose of their business. Or if you're trying to get an employee to join your team, they imagine an where they can advance their knowledge, communicate openly and have autonomy to perform which ever tasks they want whenever, however and with whomever they want. The list of your actual benefits & perks (dental insurance, say) is nice, but it will neither open negotiation nor close the deal. When talking to the spouse or a friend in need realize that the need often isn't advice or favors, but simply being acknowledged and heard. Stand back, listen and assess before jumping to sharing something that worked for you and may not work for anyone, anywhere ever again and making it about you.
Investing is a voluntary act. We invest not just money, but time, knowledge, attention, influence, etc. To be willing to invest any of these we need a sense of engagement. For example, if your family has history with cancer - you're more likely to empathize and engage with cancer prevention charities. In turn, our engagement obviously increases as invest. It's a positive feedback loop. The easiest path to initialize the loop is by asking for less limited resources like an advice or opinion. On top of being practically free, giving advice makes us feel important and wanted. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to immediately attract limited resources: money, energy or time. If you're out for donations, start by asking for input, sharing updates, expressing gratitude. In early 2000s our alumni events would gather no more than 100-120 people. For the alma mater's 20th anniversary, we were determined to bring to give it our best shot. Instead of the usual 3-4 organizers, a committee of 15 or so were included in the committee. We reached out to them asking for ideas for an interactive experience to be set up at the event. Ideas were great: bringing in a legendary couch from the main building, making a map of campus locations people had sex, faculty quotes collection, etc. Simple ideas needing no more than a few hours to organize and implement, so that we could ask the same people to organize them. Each of the invited organizers was intentionally selected from a different "clique". Building up their engagement and sense of ownership gradually led them to actively invited their friends. People we wouldn't have been able to reach otherwise. It was social proofing at its finest. Ultimately the event ended up with 600 attendees and fundraising on the spot was a huge success. The biggest alumni event to this day some fifteen years later. Imagine if we had gone the stardard route, i.e. distributing an e-mail to the disnegaged alumni asking them to support the university with a donation for its 20th anniversary. Standard participation rate is around 4-5%. What we got was close above 15% participation - in person. The same approach can be applied when trying to solve engagement issues at the office or company events. We made it a habit to ask colleagues for feedback in early stages of event organization, things like location selection or cocktail menu. At home we always ask kids where they want the next family trip to be. There's a friend who always asks us where we'd like his birthday bash to happen. It just works. He gets the most expensive gifts.
What does it mean to be a mature kid or a mature professional? Apart from a potential discussion in semantics, the word's meaning and usage ultimately is a practical denomination for a level of development desirable to achieve in any context. One of my favorite definitions that worked well in evaluation both my own and others maturity was defining it as being aware of the consequences of one's actions. An immature kid is going to experiment with everything - crayons, mini-pianos, parent's patience, stoves and sharp objects. A mature kid will probably skip some of these understanding the consequences. Same goes for a student or a professional. What happens to your time, how do people react, what produces results, etc. It's all different types of consequences. What this teaches us apart from giving us some sort of a measurement is that ways towards understanding the consequences are many, but usually it's based on mistakes we or others have made. And making it a conscious choice to accept those risks or not because no one can guarantee us everything. Hence, maturity isn't necessarily getting the expected results. It is to understand the existence of a scenario where we don't. Lastly, but most importantly - sometimes we need to let go and just jump into the jacuzzi.
There are no universal rules. No forever truths. There's no ultimate judge to define right and wrong but our internal moral compass. Thinking for ourselves is the only reliable option. This is both a relief and a supreme responsibility. For instance, Stoic philosophy may resonate and work for you, but choosing a life philosophy isn't a plug'n'play process. We would be better off evaluating consistently whether everything a 2,000-year old text says, rather than follow it uncritically. We are products of the environment, but also actively creatе environments. One example of how thinking for yourself may not be as easy as it sounds is the proven existence of collective illusions. We can define them as shared false beliefs we disagree with privately, but wrongly assume everyone else agrees leading to conformity. Be it panic buying of toilet paper, fame and wealth as criteria for success, or the rise of fascism. Public and private opinions differ. The problem is that the perception of what the majority believes as opposed to the actual belief is easily manipulated. Did you know that 80% of social media content is created by less than 10% of the users? Loudest ones, usually. You probably have counted yourself out already after reading this. But so has everyone else. Question your beliefs and values. But be practical. Moderate, not radical. Avoid an internal debate for each of the million plus decisions made every day. Develop a set of personal decision rules instead, accepting that the level of correctness you will reach is at best probabilistic. Select proven experts with substantiated opinions aligned with your core values. Then remember to be critical now and again. People and circumstances change constantly. Good luck to us all.
A cliché for a reason. After several relatively quiet flat years for the company, we returned to steady growth. What changed? We set up proper measurements. For example: how well we distributed work, how much revenue we were generating per unit, and how long it took us to actually collect due payments (always an issue for a company). As a result, we could finally see the difference in utilization rates between projects, increasing our average utilization from around 60% to almost 80% over several years. That’s almost 20% added straight to the bottomline. We also reduced our average payment collection periods from 90+ days to around 45 days drastically reducing cash flow management issues. Less tangible factors, too, not as directly linked to the "economic engine". Average overall satisfaction increased from 3.81 and reached 4.31 on a 1-5 scale in the five years since we introduced the engagement survey. What made the difference? We were able to identify specific issues, which enabled us to investigate and learn what our employees wanted or lacked. One example is the revamped benefits package which included the exact perks employees needed, The other is a dedicated training budget and strategy for distribution, both of which were discussed and implemented with the teams’ participation. The data was necessary and hard to argue against. The hard part was identifying the actual reasons behind, identifying sustainable processes and actually implementing them. One hard decision that made all the difference was giving up on our dream of creating products and refocusing on our strength which was the service part of the business. Again, the indisputable measured cost versus return triggered the change of course. In personal life you can apply the same principle. Around my 40th birthday, I was luckily reminded that it may be time to start planning for retirement. The plan required input: data on income, expenses and desired standard of living. A close-to-final version was done in about an hour. How? We had kept a detailed family budget ledger for over 10 years. Now, several years into it, the plan is working. How do I know? Measuring portfolio performance data. Spreadsheets be blessed. What aspects of your habits, personal life or business do you believe are worth enhancing? Make measurement the initial step toward reaching the next level of improvement. Then also make it the final step of each iteration of improvement.
We make thousands of assumptions each day about people, events, ideas, etc. It's a pre-programmed shortcut that often involves stereotypes or misconstrued beliefs because being objective is costly and hard. Where we should be careful is applying broad assumptions in a specific context, especially if important. For example, having a Balkan business partner over for dinner. Would it be safe to assume they’re not vegetarian? Rather than rolling with it - it's usually best to ask directly. Eddie Vedder, the frontman of Pearl Jam, had a habit of getting to high places in venues and jumping into the crowd. At a festival in the Netherlands in the '90s he climbed a camera crane counting on the crew to lift him above the crowd. Eddie shared that for decades he'd felt sorry for the cameraman sitting on the same crane who kept shouting in Dutch throughout the ordeal. Eventually, Eddie sought him out, determined to apologize. It turned out that the cameraman wasn't yelling out of anger, but out of fear. He shouted at the crane pullers as he had realized he would get catapulted the moment Eddie jumped off. The two were working as a team, but Eddie didn't know it - he just assumed there was some bad blood, probably out of a sense of guilt. The story rang a bell on situations at not just the office, but family or friend gatherings, too. For years I thought a circle of employees perceived me as a persona-non-grata at social events given that I was against playing synthetic folk music at large company gatherings. Combining this with being part of the management team was less than ideal for shortening the distance. After an authentic folk music event we'd organized, members of the group came forward. They'd thought I was against folk music overall. Two assumptions built an artificial barrier and cost us years of opportunities to build trust instead. A simple question, a short conversation with ego sat aside could have prevented it all. Assumptions tell us more about ourselves than they do about others. When you do remember to check your assumptions, try to remember checking why they existed in the first place.
Do not assume people remember things you say. You certainly don't remember everything you have been told. We don't pay attention, let alone memorize, over 80% of what's said. We are too preoccupied with grooming our ego. When intending to get an important message through what we control is: a) carefully packaging the message making it engaging, relevant and memorable b) consistently and persistently repeating it being mindful of the setting and the timing c) not take it personally if we fail. When organizing company events, I'd get frustrated about my e-mails not being read with the same meticulous attention that I had crafted them with. All the details were right there! Every question pre-empted. Formatting carefully engineered. Until years later I realized the number of questions and misunderstandings can only be reduced but never eliminated. The trick was to both do your best to package the messaging and humbly accept the need of patiently repeating the same messages across all available channels. Figuring out how to spread information about a single event was just the beginning. What about messaging on larger or abstract topics like strategy or culture? Much less tangible or relevant to a tired colleague trying to get through the day of operational hell. It's a huge undertaking. It's also a two-way process and no job for a single person. And certainly cannot be something you mention once in an e-mail or speech believing everyone owes you their undivided attention. What if someone hears it more than once? Well, then they'll know you're on a crusade for something you truly believe and work towards. Power to you. Imagine trying to get a message across to a city, a country or a planet. How many times, across how many channels and in how many ways should you be ready to repeat it? No matter the audience or the message - responsibility for getting it through is shared at best. Focus on the controllables. Do not fingerpoint, do your homework, and set your intentions and expectations accordingly.
We make stories up all the time. To fool ourselves even. It's called confabulation - inventing narratives wihtout the intent to deceive. A relatively famous experiment by a neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga in the 1960s proved it. Severe epilepsy at the time was treated by physically severing the left and right halves of the brain enabling them to act independently. Patient's right brain would be flashed a visual instruction to walk. After complying and asking the left brain why they'd walked - it would make up a story the patient actually believed (e.g. "I went to get a drink"). What good can we do being aware of the phenomenon? If your genuine intention is to get a message across then wrap it in a story. It's what we expect (consciously or not), what makes us listen and, if you're lucky, what will get us to act. You can still grab attention with fascinating facts, support claims with theories and frame your case to persuade. Storytelling, though, is the only necessary ingredient. Resources on storytelling are abundant. You can read about Aristotle's seven elements of storytelling, Joseph Campbell's "Power of Myth", the 5 C's, etc. Too many to even list here. The important part is to internalize the idea of the inimitable power of a narrative. But I will mention three favorites: - Use components which will mix up the "angel's cocktail of hormones". Invoke compassion (oxytocin), joy (endorphins) and suspense (dopamine). Together they create focus, connection, and positive emotional states in audiences, boosting memory, empathy, and motivation. Opening one's heart just wide and long enough for a change of mind to creep in. - The lower the trust of the audience, the shorter a story should be. If trust in your logic is really low, just go for the headline and then list your facts and arguments, or you'll lose their attention. - Think of stories only you can tell. That's how to make them uniquely compelling, but also easier to tell. As a listener, remember that people unintentionally make explanations up, even elaborate ones. Do not rush to judge them. Our brain is primed to fill in the blanks because of the need for continuous, seemingly logical, narratives.
In high pressure situations we don't rise to the occasion, we fall to the level of our preparation. Whether it's a live performance, a competitive match, or a management meeting the same rule applies: come prepared. With all the moving parts and people involved - anything can happen. And often will. We don't magically recall a special trick we saw somewhere on YouTube. It will come down to muscle memory developed through practice or resorting to tactics applied enough times in the past that we couldn't get it wrong if we tried. Believing preparation is unnecessary implies either underestimation of a challenge or overestimation of an ability. With experience we gain awareness of everything that could go wrong. Older drivers have slower reflexes, but the young ones will start reacting later because they lack anticipation. A trained fighter or chess player won't overpower their opponent with a lucky move. The difference will come from thousands of hours of training allow her to intuitively recognize the right move. Preparation is about respect for every person involved, as much as for ourselves. Nothing disappoints a room of potential clients faster than a lackadaisically built and presented pitch. To create trust and respect we need to display understanding, consideration and bring a ready set of solutions. The outcome of being badly prepared can traumatize the unprepared. The experience tends to turn into a core memory. A messed up solo on an out-of-tune guitar, an unrehearsed presentation, or making two shots on ten tries after subbing for an injured star player got injured. We can complicate our situation in the future as much as the present. A must-see video circulated the web illustrating the point perfectly. A seasoned pianist, Maria João Pires, performs at a concert in 1999. She was invited last minute to replace a colleague. On camera, Maria experiences the nightmare we all have. The orchestra starts playing a Mozart piece different than the one she had prepared. Before the introduction was done, with the help of the conductor, Maria composed herself. She performed the unexpected piece perfectly from memory thanks to decades of preparation. That is greatness. You won't regret looking up the video online.
Not sharing information because you forget, prefer not to bother or assume what you know is known by everyone creates an information vacuum. Happens all the time in teams, companies, families, and communities. A vacuum unless hermetically shut, which groups of people rarely are, invite content of higher pressure environments until the pressure equalizes. In this case, that content is assumptions. When the truth isn't broadcast, something else will take its place. Rooting out already established false information is considerably costlier than any organized effort to communicate the truth. Healthy flow of information requires conscious, consistent and persistent action. Use any channel that reaches the intended audience (121s, chat groups, info screens, newsletters, etc.). Just make sure you know and not merely assume where the conversations are - it may not be where you think. Communicating needs to be inclusive. Both in terms of language and intent. A two-way street. Where there's no healthy two-way communication ignorance thrives. And lack of knowledge leads to fear. Fear leads to hate. Homophobia strikes where homosexuality is fenced out as taboo. Evolution is considered a hostile theory in settings where preaching replaced critical thinking. Employees and management perceive the company in two completely different ways and compassion gets lost when there's only top-down talking. Smaller groups aren't immune to it, too. If in a band only the drummer and the bass player discussed the tempo, others feel lost or left out. A teenager may be expected to share all the inevitable mounting worries while never hearing parents express unconditional love. In all these cases communication breakdown gives way to untruths and fear. Make sharing and listening a habit and part of your individual and group identity.
Zoom calls, e-mails, or chats cannot substitute a face-to-face meeting. It's not about being the best but the only way to build rapport, trust, empathy and understanding. And yet since the pandemic, we focus on the cost of a commute rather than the benefits of sharing a physical space. It's clearly impossible to bring everyone together frequently, but there's a balance to be struck. Find space and time for periodic, logically assembled get-togethers - whether it's with co-workers, partners, friends, or family. As our company expanded shortcomings and challenges of distance became increasingly obvious. First with an office in another city, then another country, and finally as a a global company. People separated physically quickly developed in-group versus out-group mentality. How else could one explain that without exception "in" were the people from the same office and "out" was everyone else? Conversely, bringing people together would without exception result in a series of small miracles. A vivid case was a Sofia-based employee befriending a member of their team from a diametrically opposite cultural value system. They even ended up visiting the other's home town hours of driving away. Eventually the narrative of the other and the language between them changed. In-person interaction isn't sufficient. It is, however, necessary to create psychological safety - the key prerequisite for efficiency and cohesion. Observing the social dynamics, I developed a scale of familiarity seeking improvement and starting by measuring, however imperfectly. I only used it for myself and made a conscious effort to move people I worked with on regular basis up the ladder. The levels were: 1) heard about them 2) had a call 3) met in person 4) spent some time in an informal setting 5) worked togeher for a while on a project 6) worked together for quite a while on various projects and spent considerable time together informally The higher the level, the less likely it would become to develop negative biases. Any random shared activity allows individuals to shine through in a new light. Good or bad, learnign about each other - and yourself - is always the right thing.
After unexpectedly taking on a more responsible role in the company, I spent over a year reading books and preparing a strategy. Even though I kept the ongoing process afloat there was not much sense of achievement. Then a partner walked into the office and compassionately said: "You know, you'll need to start doing something at some point?" It reverberated like few other gently stated criticisms ever have. The path was clear - I would never feel fully ready. So, I got started. Whatever it is: deciding to start a family, learn to relax or read a book. The best time to kick it off is always now, because it's the only type of time we will ever have. The brain loves idealizing the image of our tomorrow self as able and willing to act. But as someone once said: "Our future self is not to be trusted." Much like our present self obviously isn't - we're someone's future self, too. I don't believe anyone is lazy or a natural procrastinator. We're simply weak in the face of impulses of pleasure or fear. Once you give in, the mind conjurs up elaborate, convincing narratives justifying the decision. What you are up against is not a mountain of work and suffering. It's a lightning fast, fleeting moment of decision. A mind trick that works well in periods of low dopamine is to tell yourself: "Just 2 minutes". By the time they're over, you will have already dove deep enough not to feel like you need to stop. Before you know it, you're not wasting any more now's. Same principle applies whether it's exercise, writing, chores, career change, etc. Our most precious resource isn't money, connections, knowledge, or health. It's time. Time is finite and there's no choice involved whether you're spending it or not. Ironically, we treat it with least care. Each "yes" to something is a withdrawal and each "no" is a deposit in your piggy bank waiting to be spent on something worthwhile. Not dillydallying, I'm sure everyone would agree.
Values of an organization are the choice of the organization. But we can choose which organization to get involved with. Call it a matter of preference, but my conviction is that organizations valuing people over product, process or profit are worth getting involved with. Moral arguments aside, I believe that long-term value is in the team. At least until technology is able to completely replace us, if ever. In short, innovation and motivation. One thing an organization cannot afford losing is the ability to adapt to circumstances beyond it's control. I see no alternative to a healthy working environment filled with smart, engaged people as a source of ideas for improvement, let alone implementation (the hard part). Even if you're an organization who can afford to dictate the circumstances, you will still need people willing and capable of figuring it out. And yes, profit buys access to the top people, but what it doesn't automatically get you is the basic motivational factors (given financial needs are met): autonomy, mastery and purpose. These you need to cultivate by putting people first. What does it mean to put people first? A team member comes forward sharing they're in real trouble, you stop whatever you're doing as soon as practically possible and help. Substantiate the otherwise hollow words listed as your values as a "people-first organization". It builds trust and a safe environment where people's concerns and needs are heard and supported. It needs to become instinctive. Only then the values remain within the company and its next generation leaders. If you don't, the company will empty itself not just of its values, but the people you won't to keep. The people you want to keep are the ones that can afford to choose their organizations. Imagine a scenario where it comes down choosing between letting go of a client or a team. What would you choose? There's your conviction.
All resources are limited - time, budget, willpower, skills, etc. We cannot accomplish everything. It doesn't get easier with time, either, as battles accumulate. The earlier we learn to pause and think before taking up arms, the better it is for our health, performance and the people around us. Our primate brain is great at making short-term decisions that keep us alive. But it's very poor for strategy. Thankfully the civilization no longer signs us up for a sprint, but a marathon. We're not choosing battles to survive, most of us at least, but where to invest our limited resources. Already suffering burnout in my mid 30s, I was juggling a technical team, marketing a portfolio of 50+ mobile apps, building an HR function from scratch to support 100+ employees, and coding on client projects. Eventually I had little choice but to prioritize. What helped was validating my thoughts with people who trusted, knew and confidently encouraged me to act. Whether I chose right will never be clear. That's the trick: does it matter once its done? Collateral damage is inevitable, but manageable - and there's no need to manage alone. Another source of waste that's plaguing contemporary humans is getting into arguments. A powerful framework called RISA helps structure thoughts or avoid meaningless debates. I find it works for internal debates just as well. The framework revolves around four questions, traditionally ordered into the title acronym: 1) Is the debate Real? Are we perhaps misunderstanding each other rather than having a real issue and difference of opinion? 2) Is the debate Important? Is the issue significant enough to warrant a full-blown disagreement argument between us? 3) Is the debate Specific? Is the topic focused and well-defined enough to enable progress? Or is it too broad and theoretical leading us to nowhere actionable, even in case of a resolution? 4) Are we Aligned? Are both sides entering the debate intent on finding a solution to propel us forward? Or we're in it just to prove we're right? Do not to let your emotions or someone else's agenda dictate yours. Otherwise, all that awaits is fighting on too many fronts and eventually burnout, i.e. emotional exhaustion, distancing yourself from the work you love and losing the sense of purpose. And then more autopilot and more battles you wouldn't have chosen had you allowed yourself time to stop and think.
"Build it and they'll come." Not really. If you seek increasing awareness, spreading information, building relationships - you need to know where your audience is and work hard to get them to pay any attention. We need to be extremely lucky, innovative or rich to get people any place they already aren't or do anything they aren't already doing. Learn your target audience’s behavior and understand their motivation. Humbly and smartly ride the wave rather than swim against the current. This applies to vying for the attention of your community, friends, employees and potential customers. Let contemporary liberal politicians teach us how not to do it. They focus on accessible constituents, as opposed to expanding to potential voters behind the obstacles of cultural and wealth gaps, i.e. they ignore provinces. The student-led protests in Serbia gathered momentum literally walking hundreds of kilometers through remote areas. Talking to everyone, the forgotten. Building trust where the people were. Speaking their language in front of their houses, not political language from the evening news. If you want to learn skateboarding tricks - go where the skateboarders gather. If you want are interested in what employees really feel about your company - go to the kitchen, the hidden smoking area, each individual room and open up. If want to build up a fanbase for your band, you'll need to get on the road and swallow your pride posting vertical videos. Introducing intermediaries between the sender and the intended audience doesn't help. Social media and content platforms hooked us on promises of reach in exchange for a few terms and conditions. It was an enticing proposal. Now we're stuck with a greedy middle-man who's not even delivering on the promise. Going back to owning and nurturing the direct connection: in-person events, personalized mailing lists, and other direct channels. Don't delegate your critical features to a stranger you've never even met. Go where the people are, and go there yourself - why would anyone already there care if you don't care enough to even show up?
Assume that there exists a person for whom everything in their life is perfect. Obviously, not everyone will be in the same position and will desire to change the status quo. Once they act, the "life is perfect" person is now less happy because of the change. That person could be anyone, but always someone: your business competitor, your team member not buying into a new initiative, or someone who likes you the way you already are. The conclusion is someone being unhappy is not sufficient reason to stop the change. No change will ever happen otherwise. Being aware of this helps one overcome the mental barrier when it inevitably pops up. While growing the company we disappointed people playing any role: partners, clients, team members, ourselves... But we made conscious choices most of the time following our moral compass as best we could. Keeping the wolves fed and all sheeps alive often isn't an option. And it never will be. Sometimes, we were the disappointed ones, but we understood why it had to happen. All mature people eventually will because that's what it means - understanding the consequences of your actions. Conversely, if everything you're doing is making everyone happy, you're not contributing to any change in a meaningful way. At some point this either makes you unhappy or hurts your cause as the rest of the world marches forward. Is your company any good if you don't get a few sour side glances at a conference? Is your band any good if the established bands don't bad mouth you in interviews? It just comes with the territory, so stop worrying about it and use it as a signal, rather than a blocker.
Companies seek scale, revenue and profitability in the name of the sacrosanct shareholder value. As the market allows price increases (willingness-to-pay) only by that much, it's the employees who bear the pressure, i.e. produce more (increasing scale) and more efficiently (improving profitability) for almost the same or less take (willingness-to-sell). The same thing happens at home: costs go up, so household income needs to follow suite. The working folks get bogged down in the operational. It's instinctive. Doing more is familiar, less risky than real change and as such perceivably the right choice. But it's not. The right way is to zoom out, find what few others are doing and generate space in the busy schedule for strategy. Why are we in this business? What purpose does it serve? Is everything we're doing essential and urgent? Could there be more efficient ways to do it? Is the perceived market value of our work as it's always been? Have any expected changes of yesterday become true today? These are but a few questions the answers to which could lead to more value than the default choice of "more". In our management meetings we wondered when the time would come to speak about the "important stuff". But we rarely would. Everyone agreed strategy required our attention, but quietly continued granting precedent to immediate operational issues. Hence, most strategy level changes came not from senior management as a group, but its members' individual initiatives. Thanks to our long shared history and values never negatively disruptive. Periodically (once in every few years), we did have to regroup and clean up the "strategic" debt. Yes, we managed somehow, but we could have done a lot better and faster. At home, on individual level, the shareholder value creation crunch effects left little room for thinking or discussion about what my partner and I would like to do with our lives. Default was always "more of the same". Just felt familiar and a lot less risky. Especially with two children at home. A few decades back, being kids ourselves, we learned what living in a low income household feels like. It makes you sensitive on the subject. Almost not worthy of thinking about strategy or life's purpose. We either stop and make room for the big questions steering our personal and business lives or become a victim of passivity keeping our fingers crossed hoping someone steers it for us.
In every instance that we follow a behavioral pattern, bad or good, it becomes either less or more probable to repeat it. A response to a stimulus becomes less or more likely. Performing a behavior we render it more likely in the same future situation. Withholding from a behavior renders it less likely to repeat. There is no third option. Punching something when angry, practicing restraint when passing by our favorite icecream shop, being empathetic when considering a different point of view, showing courage to speak truth to power, doing the right thing over the easy thing - becomes more likely once we've done it or less likely if we haven't. We control our behaviors. We are also a result of them. And that's a good thing. Every decision affects not only our current situation or even all situations yet to come - it reflects on our inner narrative and identity. This fact can grant additional motivation to tip the scales in the right direction in any dilemma. Neuroscience has proven it adamantly with brain scans showing how specific neural pathways become more likely to fire as a response to a given stimulus. We're so sure that it works that we've built a whole technology mimicking the logic. It's called artifical intelligence. We train machines to think by defining desired outcomes to strenghen associations in the digital brain. Hopefully this will give us time to rewire our own brains for the better. If you've got someone in your team who's developed a habit of spreading rumours and monopolizing conversations, it's probably because no one put enough effort into helping them out to change it. And each instance where their behaviour went unchallenged - it only made it worse. Trying to affect other's behaviour is not wrong, especially if done compassionately and openly. Which behaviours are normalized is the responsibility of every member of the group. Eating unhealthily at home? Company of friends binge drinking regularly? Star player not passing the ball? It takes feeling as a bit of an asshole on occasion to prevent larger, consistent assholery. More importantly, there's no alternative.
It's important to share a personal distinction between three types of roles of responsibility: - Leader - needed when the problem is not fully defined; the goal is to define problems and functions to solve them - Manager - needed to run a defined function; the goal is to keep the function running smoothly - Dictator - needed when there's a crisis; the goal is to contain the crisis and retreat when it's over Being a manager will be complex, but still defined. Breaking complex problems into components always helps. When reality kicks in, of course, it will occasionally shift us to a leader or dictator role, at least for a while. Most of the time, though, the manager will "simply" be a manager. I hope not to forget how uncomfortable I felt becoming a manager. As opposed to the previous day, I was suddenly responsible for directing, developing, motivating and caring for other people, not losing money for the company and dealing with a whole new level of stress. What I'm sure I will never forget is a slide at a management training which broke the role down perfectly for my compulsively analytical self. I keep coming back to it worrying if all the bases are covered. The bases, practice has shown, are as easy to neglect, as they are to be understood - in theory. The components of the manager function are: - Business - vision, strategy, process, platform, etc. - People - performance and satisfaction - Self - mind, body and spirit Depending on personality and context we are inclined towards one or the other. The key is to cycle through all of them regularly, which means daily. This practice helps control the controllables and inspires a positive cross-component feedback loop. If done right. Neglecting a component will inevitably have a detrimental effect on every one of them. The ultimate goal? Build a business function which your team can take run as you move on hungry and ready for the next challenge. So, yes - I agree that the manager's job is to make him or herself obsolete. Only then will you prove a good manager covering all the bases.
Carl Jung is the statement's author. How people perceive us shouldn't be a concern. Our concern is to do the right thing within our control zone. Nevertheless, everything we do still influences how others will perceive and treat us. Do you keep getting assigned the same tasks? Same reactions to your opinions? Same neglect of your needs? Same distance between reality and ambition? People are sticking to the archetype they've associated us with. Why? All that's happened is they had asked who you were: "Are you dependable? Are you empathetic? Are you authentic? What motivates you? Where do you want to be?" Through your behavior you've already answered. Is it the answer that you wanted? Or have you compromised your values to please others? To avoid a conflict or hide an imperfection? Nobody owes us anything and we reap what we sow. I had no a career plan. I settled for being part of a brilliant group of partners picking up the responsibilities of the day. I jumped from coding to marketing to sales to HR. Looking back and being completly honest: I was fine with that. The fact remains that I never answered consciously the question that the world had been asking. So, it's not necessarily a losing situation. But after the acquisition, I found myself stuck in a role I didn't really dream of as a kid. Frozen in the Head of People role as we made way for the big priority that was the integration process. Few years later, leaving the business, I am entering the career's second halftime feeling a burning need to answer the question with intent this time. Mistakes will be made. We can never fully eliminate frustration or disappointment. But the impact of both diminishes with experience. Don't concern yourself with what others see Worry about doing the right things instead. This will provide the right answers and the surroundings will shape around you.
The book "Atomic Habits" offers a bunch of advice on how to develop desirable habits and quit undesirable ones. The part which I never forgot is the three levels to which a habit can be developed: outcome, process or narrative. Outcome changes a single occurrence ("I went to the gym"). Process changes a series of occurrences ("I will go to the gym every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8am"). Building an identity changes all known and upcoming occurrences ("I am a person who leads a healthy lifestyle; hence I go to the gym regularly."). Permanent, sustainable change only occurs when you've changed your inner narrative, i.e. identity. We've all done it a number times throughout our lives. Are you a diligent student? An ethical employee? A caring parent, child, or sibling? A trustworthy friend? Careful driver, perhaps? Generous host? Obsessive-compulsive cleaner? You get the idea, it's possible. After being diagnosed with gout I was determined: the solution would not involve shortcuts (medication included), but informed decisions on breaking and building habits. Today, I'm happy to have claimed a few new identities: - an alcohol abstainer - a person thinking what food does to the body, not just the taste buds - a person exercising regularly - a person aiming for prolonged healthspan for the sake of the ones they care about the most We should be careful not only of our own, but the identity of people we can influence, e.g. children or inexperienced colleagues. People cooperate with the narrative set by how others treat them. For example, if they make a mistake, don't judge them on anything but their effort. Help them build confidence in dealing with adversity, including developing their own identity. Developing identity is a continuous vote. We vote for or against an identity with every choice we make. No one's perfect all the time. Bad and good narratives are simply neural pathways which never completely disappear. Neuroplasticity has proven this - that's why old habits die hard - and occasionally breach the surface. So be mindful and bring your decisions from the subconscious to the conscious level.
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it disappear. It only spreads and grows until addressed. Only one remedy to an elephant in the room exists: pointing it out. The act does not automatically dissolve the elephant, but it will certainly disempower it. The cost of facing a problem head on is often high, but it's the best deal we will get, so we may as well take it. Sometimes the ignored problem returns in unexpected ways. If you postpone the visit to the gym or checking in on a friend - sure, it's exercise and a catch-up you will eventually get to. But problems change shape. In this case, it could be reduced confidence or quality of a relationship. Or a consequence you will never be aware of. For example, the price of letting a person get away with toxic behaviour could be paid by someone we've never even heard of. Still the worst type of resistance is not coming to terms with your own traumas. An episode where as a child I heard my parents fighting with one of them being overly aggressive and I chose not to intervene. The episode apparently stuck in my unconscious and ultimately led to years of struggle with anxiety and fear of lack of control. Does this mean that as a child I should have acted differently? Probably not. But the fact remains that not acting in the moment and not acting on the unrealized trauma for decades only exacerbated the issue effectively redefining my identity and mental health. More importantly, becoming aware and no longer resisting a resolution of the trauma was the only healthy path forward. We do not have the resources to fight all the battles, all the time. However, we can choose our battles consciously as opposed to leaving it on autopilot.
Protecting your ego is one of our strongest insticts. We do not want to seem naive, unsociable, or useless. Not in front of yourself, but especially others not in front of others. As a result, in a room full of people we tend to be conformative, less critical, less vocal. This is a big mistake. The entire room becomes less potent because of this instinct - the notorious "groupthink". The antidote to this sometimes deadly (see: NASA's Challenger space shuttle disaster of 1986) ego protection practice is speaking up ignoring the risk of being perceived as an asshole. Being part of the Student Government granted me the opportunity to learn this. There was a senator who would always go against the grain, always challenging the status quo. None of us liked them at the time. We would be so close to reaching a decision, but end up debating instead. After a while and certainly looking back from today's standpoint, I appreciated the "asshole" being part of the group. They were the key reason for keeping us honest, critical, under healthy stress and making better decisions. What the motivation behind their behaviour was we would have to ask them, but this doesn't change the fact that it helped. Every well-meaning opinion counts. If there's no "critic" in the group, let that be the bat-signal to become one. In a healthy group, getting over the self-preservation instinct is not only necessary, but welcome. Choose groups that welcome assholes. As Marcus Aurelius put it: "A straightforward honest person should be like someone who stinks: when you're in the same room with him, you will know it." The added bonus is that long-term it even helps your ego. Turning a risk factor into an opportunity.
Two topics dominate the list of requested "soft skills" trainings: communication and time management. Time management can be boiled down to the following sub-skills: managing interruptions, grouping tasks, timeboxing and prioritization. Without prioritization, others will make very little difference. Not taking control of our attention is extremely costly. We pay twice whenever we switch between tasks: wasting resources required to stop-start and not producing a result as we switch before completion. Falling into the trap of believing we can accomplish everything without the need of planning is common. Especially as we begin accumulating responsibilities. We mistake activity for achievement. Without prioritization we get lost and burn out - without accomplishing much. So, we need to take control of our focus. We should also learn how to translate mid- and long-term goals into daily tasks. Develop, test and revise your own definition of what's urgent and important. If everything seems urgent and important - the criteria are wrong. The answer is not to simply work harder. The rule-of-thumb I followed was to have three tasks which I knew I could start and finish within a day. Same for the week, month and year - just at different scale. Checking these against each other - day-to-year and year-to-day - helps keep your eyes on the prize. As a function leader I tried to help everyone on the team understand why they're doing what they're doing. The reason is setting priorities. Once the team were clear on priorities improving performance and satisfaction (always linked) was easy. We performed in an environment everyone will find familiar. We had to cover more bases than the team was designed for. Every time we would come close to figuring it out - earthshattering change came knocking. E.g. acquisition, which basically doubled the work. Prioritization became a nightmare and backs were bending. Only way through was dropping tasks with intent. First we put integration into the new business on hold. We read early (buyers and sellers, both) that though integration was advertised as a top priority - we weren't ready for it just yet. Too many questions of "how" were still unanswered before we could translated them into "what" for the team. When integration was ready, some of the business as usual had to drop. Another example is not to have all your eggs in one basket. E.g. having 30%, 40%, or 70% of your revenue coming from a single client account. You also don't want to have too many baskets. The ratio generally believed right is 10 clients with 10% revenue each. This never happens, of course. There's pilot projects who start as 2-3% but have the potential to become that perfect 10/10 match. Or an existing 10/10 client may grow - it doesn't make sense to drop them. What is under management's control is alignment on the north star and prioritizing. Getting a hold of our attention, balancing the criteria, and aiming for a sense of accomplishment at the end of the day is a solid foundation for a fulfilled and meaningful life.
A colleague in the regional People & Culture departmen was a champion. Topping the charts in slide decks per week, number of calls from early morning till late in the evening, drawing up updated organizational charts and RACI matrices, and being vocal in management meetings. When you drew the line actual results for the people were close to zero and for the culture - probably below zero, i.e. detrimental. But the champion behaviour was widely admired and celebrated as an example for others to follow. I couldn't help but wonder - why exactly? The official term for the answer, as I later found out, was Action Fallacy. A cognitive bias which leads us to mistaken heroism and visibility for quality leadership. Truth is that quality leadership - or any role, honestly - is lacking drama because it's about incremental, tangible improvements designed to prevent drama. A wonderful illustration of how susceptible to heroic narratives as opposed to smart planning we are as a species is the difference of visibility between the Shackleton and Amundsen expeditions from the early 20th century's obsession with reaching the farthest corners of our world. Shackleton was famous for his tenacity, battling ice shelves with dynamite, getting members of the expedition killed and falling behind schedule. Amundsen's was a meticulous researcher, planner, getting no people killed and being a day late on a 99-day expedition. Analyzing the Google Trends, though, there's four time more searches on Shackleton than on Amundsen. There's actually a book called "Getting Ahead" which I would heartily NOT recommend. It's exactly the type of crap that irreversibly injects Action Fallacy into an organization. Basically, it presents a PVI model (perception, visibility, influence) which will move you up the corporate ladder the fastest. No mention of adding value, critical thinking, caring for others. The only added value is to be aware of what some are up to. Sadly, the claims in the book are true. If you're part of an organization which has already caught the Action Fallacy virus - think about a career change.
Gaining power - be it financial, social, political, hierarchical, functional, etc. - tempts and tests your character. Will you perceive it as a tool to gain more power? Or as a privilege to help others? Will you think about what it would mean to weild your power responsibly? Traumas will seek revenge, needs will seek resolution, ego will seek validation. This is inevitable. As in any situation, being aware of oyur inner dialogue and motives will make the difference between succumbing to the temptations or recognizing an opportunity to give back. The secret people rarely consider is the limited mental capacity. We just cannot keep everything in our mind at the same time. Same problem happens with the Dunning-Kruger effect - it's not necessarily arrogance, it's the lack of capacity to both handle new information and consider the risks (i.e. we think it's going to be easy). In case of power corrupting us, raising above the average level you start seeing more things and need to manage more things, leaving less brain bandwidth to think about other people's perspectives. Not having a correctional force (like a long-time partner keeping you honest) - you are more likely to slip. After our second acquisition it was blatantly obvious that the people in the proverbial "Ivory Tower" just couldn't grasp the issues on the ground which is where inevitably things broke. Making multimillion dollar deals involving developers from Eastern Europe while on a yacht in Miami tends to make it diifficult to empathize. I don't blame the "ivory folks" for not being empathetic, but I do think that we all would have faired better had there been a way for them to hear what the voices from below deck where whispering. "The measure of a man is what he does with power." - Plato, "The Republic". A very true and practical quote. Power doesn't necessarily lead to corruption but acts of corruption only come with power. That's why I don't like the famous quote by Lord Acton which is "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Power is necessary, but not sufficient reason for corruption. If a new team leader's first thoughts are about the newly acquired freedoms rather than responsibilities - it's a yellow flag. If a team leader deservingly gets demoted and starts playing the blame game - it's another yellow flag. If you're the strongest kid on the playground, do you start searching other kids' pockets for change or do you help them feel protected? As I said, temptations will come which makes granting power, if for a limited time, a very efficient test. Do not hurry to conclusions, because it does take time to evaluate one's new roles and figuring out how best to use it. If it happens to you - be mindful and conscientious. If it's someone next to you - be observant, but also empathetic.
The effort necessary to implement an idea is higher than perceived. We tend to underestimate tasks due to optimism or overconfidence preventing us from recognizing the obstacles. Remember the countless brilliant ideas at dinner or party conversations? Trips, businesses, bands and charities - how many ended then and there? Creating is hard. It doesn't happen often. Ideas, on the other hand, are easy. As such they are abundant and carry low intrinsic value. Getting up from the toilet seat and making that idea happen carries high value. During the mobile app gold rush, every day a "killer app" idea sprung up from soneone on the team. Around the world thousands of apps were filling the app stores. A vast majority very poorly executed. More than we will ever know were likely executed perfectly, but lacked proper marketing. Ours, too. Ideas aren't hard. Getting something out is hard. Executing well is harder. Getting it in people's hands is extremely hard. So, let's not lose sleep over someone stealing our idea. Let's instead worry about diligent implementation and maximizing reach. Ever heard of Hotels4D? Exactly. It was our Trivago before Trivago (once valued at over $3B). Thousands of hours invested in production. Marketing hours - barely in the hundreds. Eight our of nine of our senior managers were focused on products. Less than 10% of our revenue came from products. We had to stop the distraction of too many incoming ideas. We introduced a simple idea submission form. It required nothing out of the ordinary: competition research, USP definition, estimate, and a business case. Raising the bar reduced the number of considered proposals by 90%. The quality, however, was incomparable. The prerequisite of basic effort created a tight filter. Giving an app a meaningful chance on the market required it. And we did make it (e.g. top-ranked travel app), at least for a while. In any setting the same process happens regularly. It doesn't have to be a product company. We propose initiatives and optimizations, but time and willpower are limited. We end up with a lot of talking and few results. Learning to recognize signal from the noise is key. Two possible strategies for mitigating the risk: Introducing criteria for "good enough" and mandatory pairing of a suggestion with commitment to partake in its execution. These will enable consideration of obstacles and mix some realism into the inescapable optimism.
Getting a task done is hard, because we are poor at defining them. One simple rule doesn't guarantee executing the task won't fail, but it significantly improves our chances of knowing why. A defined task requires three pieces of information: 1) Who is responsible for getting it done; 2) What needs to be done; 3) When it needs to be done. If one or more are missing, the likelihood of it getting done drops significantly. While this is still fresh in your mind, here are a few statements in which you will immediately figure out, not just where the risk is, but how to improve: - Let's pick up the plates and load the dishwasher. - We need some sort of plan by Feb 15th. - The two of us need to figure out how to get the window fixed. Can you feel that, too? The missing parts swallowing the task definition attempts from within? Unless someone steps up to ask the right question there is bound to be disappointment. We should be careful to neither accept, nor request vaguely defined tasks. Again, there's still no guarantee we won't be disappointed in the end, but at least not for a self-inflicted reasons. Our band meetings are pleasurable affairs. Good friends chatting, throwing around song ideas, capturing moments for social media posts, planning merch orders, imagining equipment upgrades... People make promises, but approximately 20-30% of the commitments are honored. We have assigned specific responsibility areas and have built up a routine for most types of tasks. The What and the Who are typically defined. However, where we accomplished the most is when being pushed into a corner by a deadline (gig, release date, etc.). Meaning that the When was also clear, and non-negotiable. In semi-formal environments like this one we may afford to lower our guard now and again. But in formal, critical contexts there is no good excuse or reason to forget the rule.
The time of mythologized lone inventors and maverick entrepreneurs is gone. If it ever even existed. Even if we generate an original concept and are somehow capable to build it on our own, would we have the time and the skills to market it? Grow and support it from a local to a global success? We need colleagues, mentors, partners, clients, investors... We must be trusting and be trustworthy. Empathetic and empathized with. Developed and developing. We need people skills - communication, compassion, teamwork, delegation, management. We need to set our ego aside. Learn how not to hold others to the same standards as we do ourselves. We are not giving anything up in the process, only gaining. Find the right partner(s). It may turn out that the partnership itself was the prize we were after. Imagine coming up with an innovative scientifc theory or an original music score. There is no way we haven't used the theories of Newton, Maxwell or Bohr. Or the musical foundations set by Bach, Davis or Sabbath. Whether we know it or not, we all step on shoulders of giants. Hence, we should respect and recognize those who came before us. Just as we pave the way for people we'll never get a chance to meet. That's why it sounds funny when someone says "I built this with my own two hands". There's a moving video of Benjamin Zander, Boston Philharmonic conductor, tutoring an already accomplished young celloist. She's playing, he's sitting next to her. Passionately conducting as if pulling invisible strings between his fingers and the celloist. The celloist, however, remains focused on the instrument and her playing. Benjamin interrupts the performance: "Don't manage alone. Ever. Use everyone around you." Also pointing to the audience in the room. In the next try, her eyes locked on Benjamin. Surely enough, the next try is poignant. What others can give us is beyond favors, advice, and resources. We should indeed use everyone around us.
Karpman's Drama Triangle theory helps describe frequently found unhealthy social dynamics and remedy them quickly. To protect our fragile egos we retreat into one of the three roles : - victim (I am the problem) - savior (I will solve the problem for you) - aggressor (You are the problem) A victim blames their misfortune or failure on circumstances beyond their control effectively relinquishing responsibility and avoid accountability. Savior takes on more responsibilities than they can handle and rob others of any chance to redeem themselves. Aggressor actively avoids any responsibility and pushes accountability on others while blaming and belittling them. The three roles feed off of each other well. It's easy to imagine how the dynamics would work: a mistake happens. The aggressor blames and bullies the victim ("It'a your fault, idiot"), the victim is happy to blame themselves ("I'm such an idiot"). Reverse order is also an option, as the victim hurries to jump in front of the blame bullets. Then the savior rides in on a white horse interested in nothing but personal glory - not the resolution, not the people, not the good of the group. Here is the interesting part. Roles start shifting which raises the likelihood of conflict escalation and lowering that of a resolution. The savior or the agressor could become the next victim using the suffering of the consequences of the original failure as an excuse for victimhood. The victim or the saviour could become the aggressor retaliating or becoming sick of the situation not getting resolved and being surrounded by incompetence. The aggressor and the victim could become the savior taking matters into their own hands not to resolve the situation, but personal glory. There is a healthy way forward. First step is to recognize the faulty dynamics. Then we should identify our assumed role in the triangle and starty by changing the personal narrative as follows: - I am the problem -> I can solve the problem - I will solve the problem for you -> I will help understand how to solve the problem - You are the problem -> Identify real reasons for the problem and offer constructive criticism We get into a Drama Triangle only because we let it. With years of practice I became a master of the triangle observing my father's behavioral patterns. Spiraling between being a victim as an employee in the military behemoth administration by early afternoon, a savior of the household by being the sole breadwinner and an aggressor while home (never physically, mind you) in most late afternoons when all willpower and self-control waned. My mother was the savior most of the days. We could hear her victim and aggressor moments through the walls on the bad days. I'm not judging. My parents never gained the momentum required for triangle escape velocity. It was an economically and socially exhausted war-torn country. In a time when "soft skills" or "self-improvement" were not part of the vocabulary. Excuses we don't have nowadays. But I tattooed my emotional memory. Dug through, reappraising the episodes as I matured and recognizing the dark triangle's pull. Knowing the cause, the antidote, and the constructive approach of owning reponsibility has been a blessing time and time again. I'm grateful and empathetic of the people who granted me the opportunity.
The best metaphor for perfectionism I've encountered is “insecurity with lipstick”. We can be obsessed with being judged or making a mistake. We tie in our self-worth with the work we do or how other's may perceive it. A lot of effort goes into avoiding gut punches to the ego. We fool ourselves we can get someplace that doesn't exits. The answer is only we can and should determine how we feel about our work. Work that is never completed, but working on it must finish at some point. I had the privilege of working with brilliant people. Many set an extremely high bar for themselves. And often others, too. Frustration was inevitable. For any undertaking we are obliged to choose two out of the following three: quality, time, and cost. Perfectionism locks in quality. With perfectionist approach once we lock in time or cost - the dependent third variable goes off the chart. "Take all the time you need and money is not a issue" said a client never. "We need best quality at the lowest cost possible, but we need it done yesterday", said almost every client ever. Reasoning with client and team is part of the job. The sooner we do it, the better. The antidote to perfectionism is an agreed upon "good enough". No reasonable person will expect or argue for perfect. Including a perfectionist. We call it "perfectionism" but in fact the problem comes long before perfect. The problems arise even at "better than necessary" or "too good for resources available". Not being able to define "good enough" means you will be better off in a different client-team combination. We talk about clients, but the same issue happens at home. Co-owning a home teaches us acceptance. Either one will have to accept an imperfect kitchen, or the other will have to accept kitchen renovation taking forever. It happens in bands, trip planning with friends, and doing homework with kids. There's no better option between the two types of acceptance. The better option is doing it consciously and living with the decision. The British engineer, Robert Watson-Watt, credited with creating the "cult of the imperfect" has a brilliant quote on "good enough". Robert was part of the team working on the long range radar intended to detect incoming German bombers in WW2. The famous quote attributed to him explains it clearly: "Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes." Learn to understand your impulses and control them, rather than the opposite.
Do you want to show you're taking something seriously, to others and to yourself? Write it down: a birthday gift idea before falling asleep, an important business insight at a dinner, or takeaways from a key meeting. A common tragedy is forgetting something so striking that we thought would be impossible to forget. Notetaking is a habit with one of the highest returns. If I may claim from personal experience, developing the habit draws the line between doers and talkers. How can we develop the notetaking habit? The first step is admitting we're not machines and that relying on anyone but ourselves is no more than a bet. The second is setting up a default notetaking option - for any situation. Pick whatever, but pick at least one: voice recorder or note app, pocket notebook, dedicated device (e.g. Remarkable). Mark events in the calendar. Learn not to trust your future self any more than the present. Share invites with family, friends, colleagues and bandmates. Chris Cornell famously came up with "Black Hole Sun" while driving, but I'm willing to bet most legendary compositions weren't created from memory. That's why notes were invented. In fact, that's why writing was invented. With some worthwhile effort everyone can become that reliable notetaker in their organization. The person others ask for information and direction. These are my favorite folks - the finishers. The forward thinkers sacrificing today's comfort for tomorrow's achievements. I want to be on their team. Our frontman and vocalists is unshakeable when it comes to capturing song ideas. An invaluable component for our bands prolificacy. As a civilization we must have lost countless genius ideas because we couldn't record them on a piece of papyrus or a voice message.
John Locke's Labor theory of property was part of our undergraduate political science courses. Seemed as nothing more than a theory at the time. Now I find it applicable in a number of contexts. A quote from Locke's "Two Treatises of Government": "The labor of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property." Only that in which we invest our own work - physical, intellectual, energy, etc. - can potentially be considered our property or co-property. Feeling we deserve something comes through work. Work brings a sense of ownership because we have given a part of ourselves. In turn, having a sense of ownership raises the level of engagement. Once we are engaged, we invest. A few examples to illustrate how it works in the real world: - You buy a new guitar. It's yours now. But only once you've fiddled with it and invested time in making it sound right does it start feeling like yours. Once it feels yours, you are more likely to take care of it. - An investor feels much more as a part of the team only once they have actively contributed through work, not just financially. Passive investing doesn't build a sense of ownership. Additional investment, therefore, doesn't happen for any other reason than a return, not the purpose or the mission. - The apartment building's backyard starts feeling like home once a weekend or two are spent fixing it up. Once it's part of home, we are more likely to clean it again. - Kids at play see us as their equal once we've immersed in their scenario. We're also more likely to play with the kids, once we've already felt the enjoyment of being part of their play. - Our coworkers will see us differently depending on whether we come to corporate parties or not. Taking part in fun activities is part of the relationship. Relationships are part of work. Perhaps not for everyone, but certainly for many. We will never be "one of the guys" by not partaking in the fun. The theory helps explain not just how we perceive our stake, but also how others will perceive us. I believe it directs the logic behind all our relationships. Meritocratic systems are sustainable and efficient in the long term because of the corelation between privileges and effort. Doubt is eliminated, and so is the need to challenge the status quo. Hopefully this offers insight into not really feeling like a part of something. Or not accepting another as an equal in something you co-own. We signed the social contract millennia ago. Now it's leverage to get people engaged - give them a small task and build up their sense of ownership.
Once our mind is set on completing a task, we should give it our best effort and full attention. This does not mean obsessing with it. It will never be perfect. It does beg us to question whether we are indeed investing the thought, energy and time it deserves? Not everything does. Hence, it may not be worth an effort in which case we are better off choosing a different battle. But if we decide it's worth it, then a maximum effort is due. The best thing about maximum effort - the pressure of achieving success and fear of failure are obsolete. Giving anything less than our best effort and the pressure is back on. Because we have willingly given up control of a controllable and luck comes into play. Completeing a task should be tiring and challenging. Even if simple. Find an angle from which the simple task would matter, make a difference. Infusing importance will imply prioritization and minimize distractions. Marcus Aurelius describes it: "Concentrate every minute like a Roman—like a man—on doing what's in front of you with precise and genuine seriousness, tenderly, willingly, with justice." It's a conscious choice, the right choice. Whether it's a visit to the gym, a band rehearsal, or a weekly with the team at work - give it your best. If you're missing the why, then it's better to skip the task than to force yourself through it. My mother calls it "taking three seconds". Not rushing anything and considering everything. Eliciting awareness of what we are doing and why. What are the consequences? What is the purpose? What matters to the person we are doing it for? What may happen if I misstep? Our daughter regularly rushes through tasks she finds unappealing (every time she irons her clothes, the iron is left on the ironing board placed ideally for a toe-crushing booby trap). This can be frustrating, but it's also very natural. Not every task will gain our full focus, exactly because it's tiring and we're not machines. Just like not every conversation should be a chore. But deciding consciously to dive into something should also imply our full focus. As a person who can do one thing and one thing only at any given moment, I can say this rule is especially tempting.
Happiness depends more on our desires than the satisfaction of those desires. We're surrounded by clues telling us it is true. A piece of bread can turn a hungry man's week around. Buying the world's most expensive car will not make a billionaire happy for more than a day or two, if that. Mature philosophical systems (like Buddhism and Stoicism) independently proclaim that happiness is lack of desire. Arthur Brooks, author and Harvard professor focusing on happiness, gives us the formula: Satisfaction = Haves ÷ Wants. The denominator (what you think you need) is more efficient to manage. Yet most people focus on increasing the numerator. An uphill battle if you don't manage the wants. Physiologically, dopamine keeps us seeking. A survival mechanism driving us to acquire food or critical skills. In a world of abundance, it works against us. 70% of second-generation millionaires go bankrupt. For the third generation, the number is 90%. Every time we satisfy a need - we raise our level of expectations. A process that's difficult to reverse. Being refused expected comforts feels worse than never having had the comforts at all. A salary raise feels good for a while, but before we know it we have adjusted our living standard and start looking for more. A salary reduction to switch careers or create opportunities is an extremely painful decision. Hence, we should manage expectations. Our own and those of the people we are responsible for. We shouldn't neither overcommit, nor overshoot expectations. We should be wary of getting our hopes up on promises and be ready to disappoint. Remain mindful of the actual needs and realistic achievements (then deduct some more as a buffer). Start by appreciating more what's already there.
Delegating a task does not delegate accountability. If I ask my 8-year-old to hold my 5kg Gibson Les Paul guitar and I'm accountable if they drop it. I didn't provide the resources required to complete the task. At the same time, if we never relinquish responsibility (different from accountability) - we are not creating opportunities to develop skills and confidence. Hence, delegation is not about sharing accountability. It's not about cutting corners. With the correct level of challenge, delegation is an instrument of empowerment. Some pointers on delegating well: - Be clear on the purpose. Create a vision of the long-term gains over immediate benefits of task completion. - Provide the necessary resources: skills, information, time, budget, energy, etc. Everything else is a lose-lose scenario. - Respect the best practices for task definition. Clearly state and agree on who should do what and by when. - Delegating the interesting tasks. We will be more likely to track and support the progress. Moreover, engaging task boosts motivation. Delegation demands pause and consideration for ourselves and others. We need to understand both sides of the coin. Keep in mind the bottom-up and the top-down view. Not forgetting the different perspectives are the markings of the true servant leaders.
The frontman of one of my favorite bands invited the audience at a live show to crouch before the most energetic part of the song. Pointing to someone in the crowd, the singer said: "If you think you're special - trust me, you're not." I was also conflicted. I'm not into following the herd. At the same time, I like contributing to something bigger than myself. Do I meld into the collective? I decided not to overthink and get into the moment. Most of the people had already crouched, so peer pressure was piling up. We all go through the similar thought process in different contexts. Sometimes we comply, others we don't. But no one always chooses to be the black sheep or compliant. It's all statistics, including our opinions and emotions. They don't call it "normal distribution" for nothing. It's normal. None of us our special, most of the time. Group consensus will not come organically. What we usually end up with is roughly 10-15% enthusiasts, 10-15% nay-sayers, and 70-80% of the in-between. Exact percentages depend on how polarizing the issue is. In an election, it could be 30-40-30. In a "where do we go next weekend" dinner conversation it could be 5-90-5. Listening to extreme opinions helps us adjust, but it shouldn't lead us. Nay-sayers will almost certainly be asking for too much. Examining the situation, though, should be about getting the balance right. This means caring and doing the right thing for the 80% in the middle. Getting 100% regardless of what you're trying to achieve won't be an option. Making the correct judgement and commanding the crowd's respect with a show of decisiveness will elicit understanding, potentially forgiveness, or even gratitude further down the road. Everything worth doing will make someone unhappy. This is what makes decision-making hard. Including a perk in the benefits package, choosing an office location, moving the salary update by one or three months, or deciding on whether to kill a product line - the same rule applies. And who's to say whether the decision was right or wrong? The world answers, we can only do our best to make the best guess for the biggest number of people.
I remember vividly what our city was like 20 years ago. The traffic, the pollution, the clunky sidewalks, the rude waiters... Some of that remains still. But objectively and despite shameless corruption, the overall quality of life has improved significantly. There's a metro system, sporadic practical bicycle lanes, a walkable sidewalk, most cars don't exhaust black smoke, and decent (albeit overpriced) restaurants are abundant. Still some way to go to becoming a top livable city, but considerably better than in the early '00s. It's bad, but also better. Most functioning systems from employee experience at work to global wealth distribution aren't that much different. Yes, we absolutely have wars, famine, terrorism, fascism, etc. In certain places and periods we stumble backwards. The key is not giving into sensationalist news vying for nothing more than profitting from a desensitized audience by feeding our innate negativity bias. They hold us back from acting, because we start believing we're either powerless or the situation is out of control. We should recognize the betterments, even the small stuff. Grant them due visibility and propel them forward. This is quite different from keeping our eyes closed - on the contrary. Every improvement is action against a wrong. We cannot realistically expect to eliminate all of them. Or even any of them, as they do tend to re-emerge. But we can reduce them. In my humble opinion, this is what most of us are doing on a daily basis when not depleted. We just don't give ourselves, or others, the credit. A must-read for anyone looking to preserve their sanity by way of pragmatic optimism is "Factfulness" by Hans Rosling. He passed away, but his kids carry on the legacy. The book is full of real stories of how our negativity bias misleads us. It's more than a book, because it's also a much wider movement. Take the test at www.gapminder.org and familiarize yourself with a worldview that will lift you upward and onward.
This can be very difficult in practice. In theory, just about every rational person would agree. We all believe our decisions are based on data and information. The default case, however, is making our minds up first and only seriously considering the data confirming our preconceived beliefs. A favorite quote offers one of the more poetic criticisms of the approach: "Using data as a drunken man uses a lamp post. For support, rather than illumination." With time, data - even good data - becomes easily attainable. The hard part is treating and analyzing it without bias. We have an ego to protect around the clock. Wihtout a doubt data can never offer all nuances. Especially when it's people-related. When collected and structured properly, data remains our best bet and extremely fertile ground for strong hypotheses, evidence to support them and reasonable enough decisions to follow. Data doesn't reveal the whole truth. It's a compass pointing a likely way out of countless possible directions ahead. Our management team’s discussions on salary updates were mostly enjoyable. One check of the suggested company-wide plan was analyzing which team received the biggest slice of the pie. What could be observed was that the analysis turned out to be used not as a check, but as a cause for an excuse for decisions already made. Protecting the interests of one's team is natural. So is protecting one's integrity by justifying the decisions. But in situations like these, it took extra guts for someone to stand up for data and objectivity. Because apart from being a social risk, it likely lead to revised, often unpleasantly so, updates. Having data on our side is not enough. It's a frustrating battle, especially when pusing against an affirmed status quo. Often we would think it's enough, but we forget that we're not dealing with automatons, but humans. The whole of them - emotions, thoughts, beliefs, values. Knowing this before we start the battle equips us for the marathon that it is bound to be, rather than forcing us to quit after the initial sprint and labeling people as unreasonable. However, building a culture of careful data collection and interpretation will invite reciprocity. In small, operational groups this is a realistic expectation to have and an effort worth making.
"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self" - what a great quote by Hemingway. What good does it bring to you realizing that you're better or worse than another in anything, if you can even judge it objectively? Absolutely nothing. Feeding your ego perhaps? If so, ask yourself why you feel the need to feed it in the first place? Probably nothing good. Pushing yourself harder when not performing as well as another to ensure better performance in the future? If so, what happens when you do reach your goal of becoming the best? And the damage your self-esteem will take along the way and what would it take to come to peace with yourself again? At high school I was part of a class focus on mathematics. An experimental talent program of sorts. I ranked 10th, which was decent. However, I soon realized the imposing difference between the top four and the rest of us. The speed and depth of their capabilities was at a whole other level. More than anything, I'm thankful to have learned early on that there's peaks I won't be able to reach. Being that exceptional at something, though, usually came at a cost. I learned that, too, almost just as fast. I continued having, you could say, above average academic success, doing well in competitions, being awarded a full scholarship for an undergraduate degree, having a top five GPA in a competitive class, etc. After graduation, I was immediately offered a job, helped grow the company, gained financial independence, etc. But through all of this, comparing myself to colleagues, fellow graduates or friends wasn't part of my motivation. What helped me was keeping the cost of whatever success I had under control, my motivation intrinsic and being lucky enough to be surrounded by extraordinary talent and people. Recognizing and respecting the value of others, in my experience, is a more solid strategy than try to rise above them.
When saying fish have on way of knowing they're swimming in water we tend to look down on them. The truth is we aren't that much more aware of our own constraints for the better part of our lives. It's not the default option to have clear judgement after a heated discussion, an objective view of own team's culture, or a fresh perspective on an idea obsessing us for months. The reason is overwhelming amounts of information, aka "curse of knowledge", fogging the view. Gaining the benefit of distance goes a long way fanning the fog away. Here's a few ways how we can achieve it: - Asking an outsider for an opinion (these are typically easy to get) and be open to anything - Involving diverse members on the team - cultural background, level of expertise, tenure, etc. - Stepping away from operational work and finding time to evaluate decisions, process, or purpose from a strategist's eye view - Stopping to breathe when stuck on a task. Coming back to it tomorrow may solve it immediately or even allows dreaming up a solution. It does happen. At work, I would try to maximize the benefits of each new team member's outisder perspective. Getting a newcomer to speak up critically is a worthy and appropriate challenge, but also an opportunity we're given once per employee. Whatever glimpses of truth get through the social filter keyhole always prove invaluable. A colleague once said: "You need a woman's touch in the management group." Never before did we stop and realize that half a dozen or so men had always run the company. The comment lifted a curtain. We immediately identified issues and acted on them.
Anything can be hidden behind a selected average brazenly highlighted in large font on a slide. Any experienced person will know not to trust it. A good rule to remember is that a single number on its own means nothing. It only becomes a meaningful measure once adequately compared. As a lyric asks: "How much is two?" Always question single numbers. What was the measured value in the previous period (wekk, quarter, year, etc.)? How does the measurement compare to that of a different team, company, or country? Hiring a person at $100K annual salary may sound acceptable, until the realization that the same quality can be found one or two time zones away at half price. It took US and western EU markets decades to realize the potential of East Europe. But once the word spread and reached their clients it took less than a decade to overflow the small SEE markets with company offices. For quite some time 30 streams/day will sound impressive. Once a few zeros are added, we won't settle for less ever again. A discounted price of a phone sounds enticing from the mouth of a craft salesman, until we see a 20% lower price in the store nextdoor. Another question worth being annoying in asking: what unit is the number counting? The 1999 Mars Climate Orbiter mission failed because Lockheed Martin's engineering team used imperial units while NASA expected metric units for thruster data. This mismatch of a factor of 4.45 caused the orbiter to enter the atmosphere too low and burn up.
A snapshot measure meant can be misleading. Imagine monitoring unit sales numbers of an app. The daily result may be above the annual average - however, simultaneously it's possible the numbers have been going down for two weeks. Or a new daily low may occur even in the middle of a three-month upward climb. An individual number mean nothing unless compared to another. We should make it habit of requesting trend data along with any snapshot reading. The problem is that even if we remember providing snapshot and trend data - identifying trends is still tricky. For example, we're prone to pick the period to prove a point. We settle on a hypothesis first, and only then pick the data. Doing the opposite is crucial. Getting the right data is difficult enough without the additional burden of unwelcome biases. Confirmation bias is at the basis of a whole family of cognitive fallacies. Another one is the Straight Line Fallacy. It teaches us that we tend to take a measured trend and extend it as a straight line endlessly into the future. The reality is everything plateaus at some point. Plateauing isn't necessarily bad. A dip is sometimes necessary to gain momentum. For almost a hundred years we're reminded every 15-20 years or so that crashes happen. No trend is forever. Change of a change rate is as constant as change itself. Why would one change be constant and the change of change inconsistent? Anyhow, as tricky as trends are decisions have to be made and actions should follow, otherwise a downward trend is guaranteed. In the spirit of "good enough" what we can do is use snapshots and trends with minimal bias. This keeps us a few laps ahead of the snapshot-worshipping crowd.
Listening is difficult. What do we usually listen for when listening to another person? Yes, sometimes it's to help or support, but that's not the default. The default is to confirm pre-existing expectations, to interject with a smart comment or joke, the language and way of expression, etc. We rarely focus on the message, however capably conveyed. The mind is led astray easily by preconceptions, needs and distractions. Ask any professional manipulator. Starting with the awareness of how we listen is a great start. Certain techniques can enhance our listening effort. The simplest one to apply and witness the effectiveness of is mirroring. Mirroring means copying the wording, tone and body language of the speaker. It fires what are actually called "mirror neurons". These are part of our empathy's physical mechanism. When they turn on, two things happen. One is we understand better. Second is we start building rapport - we trust the speaker, but they also subconsciously start trusting us. We should feel tired after an earnest listening effort. For important conversations it's not just worth the effort, but a must. Once we're listening, what is it we should be listening for? Here are a few solid suggestions: - a chance to learn by challenging our prior knowledge and beliefs - the full context and motivation behind the message - clues to the solution hidden that are often hidden in the speaker and their words - statements that don't need judgement or advice, just recognition and validation Marriage is a true soft skill testing ground. We think, say and hear things in remarkably different ways. It would be increadibly dull otherwise. Moreover, putting in the work is a deeply rewarding experience, in every sense of the word. It's daily painful, gruelling, and frustrating work. Without which the magic, joy and sense of fulfilment around the "working hours" would not be possible. Same happens in friendship and business.
Resounding message stated simply by Marcus Aurelius, the last of the "Five Good Roman" emperors. A message from himself to himself. Same message phrased beautifully by Rudyard Kipling: "If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch [...] Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!" Entering any room triggers a recalibration of its silently accepted social ladder. Our positions on the ladder dictates our perception, feelings, language and behavior. We forget that every person in any room is equally mortal and imperfect. Just as winning and losing are two sides of the same coin, so are servility and arrogance. All can be replaced with humility and compassion, or can lead us astray into thinking we're somehow special. Authority should be deserved by constant challenges from outside and within. It's the only strategy for healthy levels of self-respect and untainted respect from others. The first time I walked into a board of trustees meeting was as a student at our alma mater. I clearly remember how paralying it would be to speak in front of the heavyweights seated around the table. Especially when the content wouldn't necessarily make them happy. I returned to the table at close to thirty years of age as an ex-officio trustee. There was improvement, but I still felt as less than an equal. At forty-something coming back as a member of the Univeristy Council I was now perceiving the room as one full of equals. People listened now. What I realized later than necessary was that we were equals all along and they were always ready to listen. The problem was in my head. The goal now is not to overcorrect into arrogance and use the privilege to empower those who may naturally feel like I did almost 30 years ago. One of the trustees at the first meeting was Dimi Panitza, prominent Bulgarian intellectual, philantropist and founding father of our university. His protruding voice commanded respect and unfailing friendly demeanor persisted regardless of whether he was talking to royalty or university freshmen. An inspiring model leader serving as a north star to, I'm certain, quite a number of today's leaders.
Why do we decide to trust someone? Or stop trusting them? How can we help others trust us? Everyone can give an intuitive answer. But breaking down what factors into the unconscious decision of trust can be extremely practical. The reason we need trust broken down is two-fold - to measure and influence it. We need this as individuals taking on roles of parents, spouses, friends, colleagues, etc. But also as organizations, whether we're interacting with the end consumer or a partnering business. The same need for the ability to quantify and improve levels of trust stands in all of these cases. I've encountered two formulas that work: 1) Trust = Empathy + Reliability 2) Trust = Empathy + Logic + Authenticity The second one may be slightly more precise, but the overall rationale is the same in both. In real life practice the first formula has proven to produce good enough results faster. It's simpler and easier to remember, too. Hence, I believe it's a practical breakdown. Empathy isn't necessarily measurable, but as opposed to trust there are observable behaviors that can be used to judge one's level of empathy or prove our empathy towards another. Reliability can even be directly measured and being reliable can certainly be converted into actionable goals (i.e. being on time). Imagine being a representative of a government agency responsible for helping an individual and charged with increasing trust in the said agency. For example, an administrative staff member issuing a passport for a baby. A key tricky step will be taking the photo. How can you show empathy? In many ways. Recognize the parent's predicament with keeping the baby still and putting it through the ordeal of administrative processing. Use an appropriate tone of voice. Ensure the family efforts will be made to make the process as quick and hassle-free as possible. What about reliability? Share tips based on relevant previous experience. Guide the family through the process step-by-step. Be prepared to take the photo quickly. Produce the passport on time with the correct data. What we did in this example is to convert a "wicked" problem (fostering trust) to actionable "kind" problems, i.e. actionable goals for showing empathy and reliability. Will this gain the client's complete trust in the state administration? Not likely. It does, however, lay the right foundation. Trust is both non-binary and context-dependent. But making an effort to improve it is just another good example of how things can be bad and better at the same time. And the formula shows us an actionable way forward.
Bad days happen to everyone, everywhere, all the time. Losing temper, underperforming, being absent-minded, making stupid mistake after stupid mistake. At the office, at band practice, and - most regrettably - at home with family. The aftermath is usually not that much better: self-loathing or seeking blame in others. Recognizing ourselves in any of these is unsurprisingly common. If you're the one having a bad day, take responsibility for your actions. But don' t be to hard and show empathy towards yourself. Deepening the guilt will lead to more bad days. Try to understand the "why" because our behaviors are just the observable layer of a deep and complex system of emotions, thoughts, beliefs, values and circumstances beyond our control. Sustainable improvement comes from understanding how our system works. Focusing on behaviors only and suppressing them without dealing with the source means we're repressing something that desperately wants to get out and eventually will. We are fed examples of outstanding performers. The top 0,001% or less who dedicate their whole lives to being outstanding in one thing and ending up in the media spotlight. The reality in their lives beyond the spotlight, as well as our own, which no one ever broadcasts is very different. We shouldn't base our standards on fairy tales, we should base them on how we can realistically deal with the shittiest of days. The flipside of the coin is being on the receiving end of someone's bad day. Same as us, they deserve the benefit of a doubt. That's easier (but not easy) to do with people closer to us as we get to see them on their good days, too. With strangers or people we hang out with less regularly it get tougher. Which usually means that's where it counts. Drivers cutting you off in traffic, streetballers talking smack and playing like crap, and impatient clerks at the cash register. This is when the "us vs them" mechanisms flare up, i.e. the fundamental attribution theory. This cognitive bias spares them of any leeway on our part. The objective truth is they are often acting under extraordinary circumstances - being late because they had to take care of their kids, in mourning, suffering the effects of a sleepless night due to loud neighbors. This is the meaning of reappraisal. The benefits of its application are two-fold: short-term we remain positive, long-term we reinforce a belief in human decency, whereby reducing the chances of bad days in the future.
As comfortable as it feels - cosmic justice does not exist. This goes for all of us. But because it's such a comforting thought we're primed to believe it. "You get what you deserve", we've all said this, but it's wrong. There's numerous examples: dictators retiring in peace and living long comfortable lives, criminals never getting caught (our family's belongings were stolen on six different occasions - not one person was caught), innocent people spend a lifetime in jails, kids suffer from illnesses... An uneasy realization for sure. To spare us the uneasiness our brains evolved the "Just World fallacy". The healthy way is to look at it as a call to action. Bad things happen to good people, but that doesn't mean good acts can't reduce the bad. Dark exists where no light shines. We at least have the freedom to choose where to shine. Sometimes it may be enough, sometimes it won't. Unwanted results may give us a few sleepless nights before we accept. Standing idle while they are unraveling takes much longer to heal and forgive. The value of helping a hurt animal get well before returning it to the wild is not erased if another wild animal catches and eats it minutes after. Shit happens even when we do our best. Acceptance that things go wrong is more relieving than believing that everyone gets what they deserve. As is acceptance of the fact that greatest achievements may have been flukes. This is the painful truth.
A question I always ask candidates at job interviews is what made them decide to leave their current employer. It gives a sure-shot list of bullets for your employer value proposition pitch. They had a crap boss - you offer flat structure, empathy and open communication. They burned out - you offer work/life balance. They worked on a long-term unchallenging project - you offer multiple exciting projects. Beyond the sales process, the same can be applied to knowing how to help others and yourself. Carl Jung famously said: "Where your fear is, there is your task." Our fears and anxieties are roadsigns pointing the way to biggest opportunities for improving your experience of being alive. Anxious about losing control? Free yourself and experience the joy of letting go. Fear of failure? Realizing your successes and failures do not define you and mistakes are our best teacher. Afraid of losing a loved one? Accept that nothing is permanent and every experience you live through together is what counts and start enjoying each other more. If you don’t realize it, your mind is already answering the question of what it is that you want the most.
You get the new phone - it's the best one you've ever had. You read an article you disagree with - it's heavily biased, even potentially paid propaganda. You hate Christiano Ronaldo and he misses a penalty - you knew he was a crap player. Messi scores an incredible goal - a genius of a generation. Even though in some cases you'd be right, and in some obviously not, this just proves confirmation bias is part of our firmware. It's there to protect our sanity. Imagine re-evaluating your values, beliefs, and everyday choices each time they're challenged. You'd go crazy in a week. So, confirmation bias is there to help protect our ego. However, just because it exists doesn't mean it's always healthy. It keeps us trapped in our old ways which, and certainly more so with age, do not necessarily inform our decisions healthily given the ever-changing reality surrounding us. The famous quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson goes: "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." It comes from an essay called "Self-Reliance" - well-worth reading on a quiet morning or afternoon. As with all our impulses, it's good enough just to be aware of them as they happen. This allows us to make a conscious choice. It's perfectly fine to have a change of heart, especially if it opens you up to new people and experiences. The opposite means reducing life to its past.
Accepting humans are decent is as fundamental as it is challenging. It is fundamental because it will dictate how we see each other (and ourselves). It is challenging because paying attention to bad news is our built-in survival mechanism. And now we all know how far the abuse of this mechanism can go. But if we're willing and analytical enough - the evidence is abundant. I strongly recommend you read "Humankind: A Hopeful History" by the Dutch historian Rutger Bregman. It leads you through the evolutionary and societal reasons why being friendly and decent to each other isn't only "nice", but also practical and key to our survival as a species in an extremely competitive environment. My favorite examples are two stories: - The white of the eye (sclera) is visible in higher primates like bonobos, orangutans and humans because it instills trust by allowing us to determine which direction someone is looking. And we're quite good at reading what a look's direction means - shame, doubt, fear, affinity, trust, love. - Humans are the only species that blushes. The only evolutionary reason in our eerily perfectly built complex bodies is to reveal our emotions. If revealing our emotions had been a threat we either wouldn't be built to do it or our naivete would have spelled doom for us a long time ago. So, under all that malice, egotism, greed and violence lies a puppy-like interior which just wants to be decent and others to be decent to it. Traumatizing that innocence can twist it, but for a vast majority the damage isn't irreparable. Good deeds happen in abundance daily, they're just not newsworthy. We all make mistakes and mistakes are made against us, but we only win by showing understanding (not the same as suffering them in silence!) and separating behaviors from what one is as a person. I'm sure all of us benefited from others' understanding of our own ill-advised behaviors, too. As a psychologist once said: "One of the best arguments for empathy being the norm is the existence of psychopathy as an exception." It is estimated that anywhere between 1-2% of people suffer from psychopathy. Always because of brain damage or psychological trauma, i.e. factors they couldn't control.
It was a hard-hitting moment of revelation when I realized that being a tall, white male with serious looking face and deep voice granted me privileges I had previously not been aware of. Sometimes my role, history, attitude or supposed competence in an area may have had something to do with it, but it's hard to argue that had I been a short woman of color with a soft voice and facial features I'd be as prominent. In any social setting via silent assembly the group's hierarchy is voted and within a few minutes pretty much agreed upon. Certainly, it gets challenged and thankfully so, but the fact remains that the shortcut way is much easier than everyone presenting a case for their rightful ranking. It just doesn't happen that way. Being aware of your place - up, down, publicly or secretly voted - is an advantage. Being in a position of privilege, albeit unconsciously dictated, carries a degree of responsibility. In any case, the rule is the same. To bring out the best from the group and ensure equity - the privileged must speak up to empower the less privileged. Because privilege brings less value when consumed alone, than if shared. The fastest should be at the end of the marching group. The loudest should invite the quiet ones to speak and speak last themselves. Top of the hierarchy should listen to the voice of those at the bottom, as they're standing on their shoulders.
In autopilot mode we rarely end up taking the scenic route. A route which would help us appreciate all the intricacies of one's personality. If we always took that route, we wouldn't be getting to too many places on our journey. Hence our brain is programmed to judge quickly and move on. It's the same self-preserving mechanism behind most cognitive biases: confirmation bias, hindsight bias, sunk cost fallacy, availability heuristic, etc. A cocktail of which is behind every juice judgement of someone's behavior extrapolated to their character. A person looks like our friend from high school - we attribute our friend's characteristics momentarily to the new acquaintance. Someone raises their voice in the grocery store queue, so they must be aggressive and rude. A colleague makes an oversight, so they're probably incompetent and a risk. Jumping to conclusions in these examples would get you to waste value or time in the long-term. Latest example I can remember is a teenager I met on a basketball court. He had a rough physique, the loudest of the group, some scars on his face and not wearing a t-shirt. "Here's someone to keep an eye on", I thought. We started playing. The guy apologized every time we bumped into each other. In a rough tone, but you could tell it wasn't for lack of trying. He helped his teammates up even when they'd make mistakes. Never complained for being pushed. Congratulated the winners when losing and remaining humble in victory. Do I blame myself for the hasty initial judgement? Not really, it was a shortcut, I didn't have motivation to go the roundabout way. But I would have certaintly been wrong not to reappraise. We exchanged phone numbers, he lets me know when their group goes to play. Don't be too harsh on yourself when you judge - it doesn't make you a bad person, just a human. And if someone judges you... “Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.” - The Dude in The Big Lebowski, 1998.
We'll go to great lengths to protect our ego and not feel like an idiot. You're very reluctant to change your mind, because it would require your fragile ego to admit you were wrong before. And as this ego and karmic debt accumulates with time, it gets harder. But as you resist reality, it also works harder to persist. Eventually, you either disengage from reality or your own self - neither a healthy option. Certainly, it is less healthy than allowing yourself to believe that you're not the center of everything and that even if you were a lack of consistency, it is the most natural thing. No one cares about what you're wearing, saying, thinking or feeling. No one owes you anything. The world will do just fine without you. Realizing this helps you consciously shut down the subconscious mechanisms protecting you from imaginary harm. If the harm is real, then it's a clear sign you are already imperfect. And that's just fine and fixable. Marcus Aurelius wrote: "When your sparring partner scratches or head-butts you, you don’t then make a show of it, or protest, or view him with suspicion or as plotting against you." Our friends don't invite us into a chat group, colleagues make decisions without consulting us, teammates hurt us in practice, and family - you know. Mostly inadvertently. This doesn't define them or your relationship, and it definitely isn't about you. Just make note to be more careful with them next time, like your sparring partners in life. The weight of the crown of perfection and unmistakableness is so heavy it leaves very little energy for anything else. So, we borrow energy from external sources like other people's validation. Choosing to drop the crown opens you up to at least considering criticism, accepting and learning from mistakes, increases self-reliance and the almighty self-irony.
The expectation is always that others should behave as we would. Why? Because your way of doing things is the only and right way. How you fold clothes, how you wash dishes, how you format an Excel sheet, how you organize a team meeting, how you prioritize company goals, which university degree you should get, how much money you should make, ... I still remember my parents being quite disappointed when I told them that rather than pursuing a master's degree in US or UK I chose to stay in Bulgaria. I mean, who migrates eastwards?! But I also know the compulsive need to educate when watching people use a right-click menu to copy-paste things. Just because you feel disappointed or frustrated doesn't mean that you should. Is your way really the right way? How can you be sure? Is your way the only right way? Is your worrying about others' behavior in a given situation even justified? Is there actually a chance that you may learn something or that even if someone makes a mistake - they'll learn from it better than if you should them how? If someone's being rude or ignorant, should this bother you? Know that every day you will be tempted to comment or correct someone's behavior. Before you do, ask yourself these questions. Choose your battles and remember that we're all different.
Let's dive into the imfamous Dunning-Kruger Effect. "A cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities" (Wikipedia). Or the first and often last phase of not knowing, i.e. the "unconscious incompetence". It comes from a combination of things: a) nothing is easy; b) ego protection ("if you can do it, I can do it"). The practical application is evaluating a person's actual skill level. An aspiring developer saying a programming language is easy. An alleged salesperson saying they can sell anything to anyone. A non-parent friend saying raising kids must be all fun. Football coaches on couches, politics experts in bars, ... Sometimes, I'll admit, it's good fun to just throw yourself around irresponsibly. I completely get it when someone purposefully does it despite consciously knowing how full of crap you are at that moment. But most of the time it's not a conscious decision. One the more memorable interviews I've had with a candidate went something like this: Me: "Why did you apply to be an Employee Experience Manager?" Candidate: "Because it's a management position." Me: "OK. Given that you have no previous experience as a manager, what have you done to prepare yourself for this role?" Candidate: "I worked with my manager and I read a book." Me: "Which book did you read?" Candidate: "Elon Musk's biography." Me: "What have you learned from it?" Candidate: "Oh, I didn't read the whole thing, it's too long." We said our goodbyes shortly after. Turns out that there's other factors in play than simple, blinding arrogance. We can hold only so many ideas in our head at the same time. Short-term memory generally limits us to between 5 and 9 items. When you're thinking about a task, you have less capacity to think critically of anything else - including your own competence. More than that, most situations have too many variables to consider and we simply cannot consider all of them equally well. Another key factor is feedback. Being in an environment where someone with a clarity of distance can help calibrate your confidence is paramount. Vice versa, if you're in an environment where you get non-critical encouragement consistently exacerbates the overconfidence (e.g. talent show contestants who just aren't ready for it because no one told them the truth). This is where healthy relationships are once again proven as invaluable. Another way to get feedback is by tracking data. For example, in our company we measured our initial lead conversion probabilities against actually realized conversion. That's how we found out that we're three times more optimistic than we should be. Teach yourself to recognize early when you're underestimating a task. Understand why it's happening and create countermeasures like actual measurement of your confidence vs accuracy and receiving feedback from people ready to keep you honest. Make it a habit to read overconfidence as a red flag, rather than a "GO" signal.
Perhaps the most important rule of all. If something has a solution, there is no need to worry about it. If there's no solution, worrying about it won't help. Every time there's a situation, use these three questions to guide you through: 1) Is it true? 2) Can we change it? 3) Can we accept and continue forward despite/because of its presence? This really is it. I learned this lesson when dealing with some severe anxiety. How I ultimately dealt with it isn't getting rid of it. You can't do that. What you can do is to learn to understand what it's trying to tell you. Without anxiety, we'd just constantly get ourselves into trouble. Things can look awfully not OK, but often your fight-or-flight mechanism is overreacting. Things are never fully OK, in fact only things guaranteed in life are pain, uncertainty and constant work. None of them are fully OK. Make peace with this idea and you'll never feel overwhelmed again. And don't panic.
The character traits you tend to cringe or get upset about are the best tell-tale signs of what it is that you don't like about yourself. Cheaters are jealous, imposters are sensitive to fakeness, and weak characters are bullies. If you're serious about coming to peace with yourself, you should use these signs to know where to start. In my case it was people acting fake. After a lot of soul-searching, I slowly started realizing why - the many personas I've been putting on throughout the years. The problem wasn't so much "wearing" those personas. It was about accepting that it's the normal thing to do. Next step was learning to forgive myself for doing it. Lo and behold, soon enough instead of getting upset I started becoming empathetic and trying to understand why someone is behaving in such a way. A lot of times it's insecurity. I even started admiring people who turned up their alter ego to eleven when in the public eye (David Bowie's Ziggy Stardust being a prime example). I think it's a huge benefit to have this tool at our disposal. A route to our individuation, integration of our subconscious and conscience self. So, what is it for you?
They are merely short-term feelings of greatness or insufficiency, and some memories to keep. Both are inevitable and the important part is simply doing better next time. There's nothing intrinsically good or bad about them - it's just feelings and lessons. Both of which are under your control. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to win - that's part of the experience that you shouldn't miss. Here's some other things to focus on when competing: - Making each other better - Using the common experience to build a community - Understanding that when a tide comes in - it raises all the ships - Promote healthy competition for everyone's sake - Enjoy the process, because you want to live through a meaning-providing experience like marking an achievement or overcoming an adversity. It took me too long to start enjoying playing sports fully. I found joy in being on the basketball court alone and learning my body to perform a shot in unison. I also didn't care if it went in (although it did start going in more than ever before). I didn't care if I lost a game or won it, it was about the experience of playing with others. The final score didn't make me more or less of a player, learning new things did. It also teaches you how to reach the "flow state". I learned that when shooting the basketball I am more successful when focusing on the movement (the process) than getting the ball inside the hoop. My personal best of 31 free throws in a row happened exactly like that. Today, I am less enthusiastic about the number than I am of actually being able to achieve that state - that's the real triumph.
Whether it's cleaning up communication, fixing a problem, getting into the right mindset or starting a big change - rather than blaming circumstance or others, starting with yourself. As they say, best direction to point that finger is at your forehead. What's great about making this a habit is not only that it gets you to a tangible result the quickest but also does so in the least frustrating way. And only because it depends on you, your biggest ally (instead of adversary). If there's one thing I'd like my kids to internalize it's to place the locus of responsibility within the borders of their own self. This prevents turning yourself into a victim or an agressor. It's also the safest way to resolution or acceptance.
Whatever you’re doing, at some point there was a reason why you started. You felt a sense of purpose, a benefit for someone or something. There was a very specific problem you were trying to fix. Since your journey started a lot of noise and baggage accumulated around you. You got sidetracked by "side quests", someone's feelings, or starting a different journey all-together. Put that aside and return to your original purpose. We knew why we agreed to get acquired. When integration commenced it became clear early on where we needed to align people, platforms, process. But then came the "details" - cultural differences effect on policies and communication, key team interests for autonomy and/or remit, balancing between profitability and employee interests. Then the unknown unknowns started appearing - forgotten skeletons in the closet, market changes (new buyers), etc. So why had we agreed to join forces? Oh right - to broaden opportunities for employees by moving from a regional to a global business. Mass communication got flooded with details. Slides and promises got bigger and fancier, while substance got left behind. It became clear that a lot of it had to stop. We needed to (and I love the word we came up for it) - "dewankify" the messaging and the ever-growing to-do lists and focus on the purpose. Had we remembered the "why" earlier and more regularly, we probably would have saved ourselves a lot of trouble. What inspired you to take your job? What is your team's mission/purpose? What problem was your company intended to solve? What brings you a sense of fulfilment and joy?
You need them both. Analytics and imagination. Dreaming big and planning a realistic next step. Illusion of grandeur and sensible idea of capabilities. Idealist worldview and pragmatic choices. Lifetime aspirations and humble, everyday actions. Money makes the world go around, but art makes it worth all the spinning. Try to give enough time in your life - every day, every week. They inform, support and inspire each other. Some skills are acquired faster when dealing with one or the other. For example, teamwork is an immediate takeaway in theatre. But having no rehearsal schedule you won't ever get to the stage. Play with your kids, let your imagination go loose and learn to let go, but no presentation you ever improvise will be as good as it can be without sweating out the research and extracting the essence through multiple revisions. We don't have two halves of the brain by accident. Wonders happen just before you fall asleep or wake up when both work in unison.
In the beginning, to visit a different office all you needed was to get an OK from the boss, collect your receipts and get reimbursed. Fast-forward two decades and now you needed to have it planned and approved months in advance as part of the budget, get approval from the People & Culture team, local Managing Director and Finance Director, same from the host location, fill out a form for travel, for transportation and accommodation arrangements, and for temporarily working from a different location, and ideally sign a legal disclaimer (which doesn't hold up in court). And all you wanted was to spend some much-needed facetime with the team. Now, these process components are there for a reason - keeping costs in check, informing relevant parties, abiding by local legislation and mitigating any libel risk. So, it's not pointless. However, the cumulative cost of the process overhead ends up outweighing the benefits it's meant to provide. This is when good things happening become unlikely. By the time everyone's had their way with a process - it becomes unmanageable. Costly to set up, explain and maintain. So, something's got to give, and it may very well be keeping the process as is and the "give" ends up being the benefit you're trying to offer. Just try to be sure that it’s a conscious decision rather than the consequence of your inability to manage. What's the answer? Clarify process ownership and hand it to someone whose interest aligns with the benefits it's meant to provide. Make it clear to all stakeholders their role is to be informed, consulted or to support the process rather than co-own it. A painful realization. Establish balance and trust between stakeholders by building a system of processes where everyone owns part, understands the difference between an owner or a consultant and has a clear point of escalation. Set up annual checks for your process (cost/platforms/roles) for optimizations. Challenge your past decisions and expectations. Challenge others' current decisions and expectations. Remind yourself of the "why". Worst case is a giant "python of process" that will suffocate your organization and everyone within it, ultimately making any fixes, let alone bigger maneuvers nearly impossible. Best case is to avoid having a process at all, if you can afford it. For that to happen you need to be able to tolerate mistakes, trust no bad actors will get involved and count on optimizations to happen regardless. I think this is absolutely possible in small, well-synchronized and experienced teams.
In music there are no wrong notes. If you play the right note after a wrong note - you turn the wrong note into a right note. Life is the same. If you play your cards right after you've made a mistake - you'll have made the best out of it. Over 99% of people wouldn't turn back the worst experience of their lifetime. Why? Because of what it helped them learn, the people it helped them become. Test it out yourself? Now, what you can certainly do is keep repeating the same mistake. Go to meetings unprepared, hold your emotions locked deep inside, take crap from your boss... But it's the repeating of it that makes it wrong - nothing else. Instead of fearing them, believe in the power of mistakes. Remember - they're the only reason we've evolved, i.e. copying mistakes during the genetic material transfer between parents and offspring. Same happens as you're learning a skill, establishing rules and processes, or growing up and maturing as a person (a lifelong process to be sure). The bad mistakes are the ones that are left undiscovered or unchallenged. The ones you haven't respected enough by granting them due attention. A favorite example is the story of how the Greek translators chose to interpret the Hebrew word usually used for a young, unmarried woman (almah) as "virgin" even though the commonly used word for that would have been "bethulah". So that's how a deity ended up impregnating a young lady and starting quite a bit of a kerfuffle. A mistake that billions refuse to challenge millennia later.
Top-down is informed by experiences from the past that guide plans and actions. Bottom-up is current experience asking for actions that don't care about relevant former experiences. Top-down thinks about the future. Bottom-up cares about the now. Top-down talks and loses sleep over the big picture that propels us all forward. Bottom-up talks and loses sleep over immediate impacts on its experience which could break things now. Top-down can be management, parents, teachers, and leaders. Bottom-up is employees, kids, students, and followers. It's obvious now that top-down and bottom-up need to talk. It's obvious one cannot do without the other. Yet, how often is that line broken because we're preoccupied with our own thoughts and views. Ideally you will have experienced being both. If you're a natural leader - try to be a follower once. If you've been a follower most of your life - take responsibility for something and follow it through. Then don't forget where you came from and have compassion for the other. Where it became clear to me is the integration process. Both sides were trying their best, but the real battle was to keep them connected and with a common understanding. We didn't do a perfect job, but we gave it a chance and slowly it started working. The second integration, bigger size, less contact, less connection - an unnecessary failure.
Hiding our emotions happens for so many reasons: fear of being perceived as weak, not wanting to burden others with our troubles, believing our emotions aren't important, etc. But sometimes showing a bit of your own humanity can go a long way. I'm not advocating radical or uncontrolled emotional reactions - those aren't helpful. But sharing genuine emotions that show understanding or vulnerability can lower tension, inspire honesty and compassion, as they add a whole new dimension of how we perceive each other. Showing emotions isn't weakness. To be done mindfully it takes quite a lot of strength and courage. Moreover, communicating negative emotions de-escalates them, sharing positive emotions multiplies them. In those moments you are basically realizing that you matter, but also you open yourself to others' being just as important. I bet that the conversations you will always remember were the ones where a friend displayed a vulnerability or decided to let you in on their sorrow. Or the presentation where you could see the speakers’ lower jaw trembling with sadness, eyes watering up. A top sportsperson breaking down at the end of a high-stake competition, hugging their family. It's all about seeing a fuller version of a human being, forgetting about their role or persona they'd decided to put on previously. In these moments special things happen, and you shouldn't lock yourself of from gifting them to others.
If you're going to talk about a person who's not present - do it as you would if they were in the room. The opposite also holds true: best tell the person in the room what you would otherwise say behind their back. Or say nothing at all. Without them being present you're not changing anything, or even worse - changing it for worse. You're either missing out sharing a compliment or pitting people against each other while half of them isn’t there to even defend themselves. Sticking to the "empty chair principle" you keep yourselves and others aware, accountable and honest. It's clearly far more challenging, but that's usually a good sign you're onto something worthwhile. Just because you wouldn't do it, doesn't mean many other people wouldn't either. There's a very true saying: "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu." If you're not part of the decision-making group, you'll have no control of the decisions. The same applies whether its team captains decide who's on which team, the setlist being decided for your band's next concert or the management discussing redundancies. Investing an effort to become part of that group is very much worthwhile. Whether you invest the effort or not is often what separates leaders from the rest. You'll even create a chance to introduce the "empty chair principle" into the group's collective mindset multiplying your impact significantly for the benefit of everyone. Same rule applies for compliments. If you have something nice to say about someone - tell them. When was the last time you paid a compliment to someone not expecting to get one?
If you feel shitty in your skin, you'll see other people as shitty. And vice versa. Being kind to others but not being kind to yourself inevitably takes you into "savior" or "victim" mode. Being kind to yourself, but not others bring you into "aggressor" mode. None of these are productive or healthy, especially in the long-term. What they say is that once you start misunderstanding your parents - you're an adolescent. Once you start empathizing with your parents - you've become an adult. Once you start empathizing with yourself - you've become wise. We need to forgive ourselves as we do to others, because sooner or later we'll take out that repressed negativity initially aimed at ourselves on others. Similarly, if you're treating yourself in all the best ways, but not being as generous to others - it drags and keeps you down, because we're engineered as social, compassionate beings. Going against our nature is never wise. Ultimately, what lets you sleep well at night is doing something nice each day for yourself and others. There's no separating kindness.
The toughest part of coaching training for me was learning to refrain from sharing advice. Perhaps this list of rules illustrates it best. The temptation to offer an answer we're convinced will solve the other person’s problem can be irresistible. And sometimes it may work. But here's the problem: - What worked for me doesn't necessarily have to work for others because we all think and feel differently, and have a bespoke value system, at the very least. The book of life lessons should be a bespoke suit, not a one-fit-all fast fashion impulse buy. - Conclusions you come to yourself get engraved in your brain durably, because of the effort you put in. Just count the advice you can remember and then count the takeaways you've come to yourself. It's proven that when a teacher lets the students guess the answer no matter how wildly wrong, before revealing the answer, the knowledge retention is much higher than if the answer had directly been revealed. - The worst thing you can do for someone you care for is to rob them of doing something they could accomplish on their own, because you rob them of building a thought process, gaining confidence, and understanding that even wrong decisions are still useful and completely OK to make. One of the greatest wow moments in my life was doing practice coaching sessions. I was sweating like crazy keeping my advice-spewing mouth shut, but then something beautiful and unforgettable happened. By sticking to asking questions and letting the coachee sew that perfectly custom-tailored strategy made my eyes all teary. We keep in touch and remember that moment together. Try it sometimes, for your own sake.
We have the vessel we ride and the thoughts and emotions inside it. That's it. But that is truly ours. We can’t do much about all the external commotion but try to change or, if change is impossible, accept it. Hence, we should focus exclusively on learning how to drive the vessel and appreciate it in all its wonder. The only one responsible for how you feel, and act is yourself. Whenever you blame it on others or circumstances, you're just plain wrong. It's not easy, but that's just another excuse. And when you fail, don't be hard on yourself, just learn from it and move on to the next play. Because that's what you control. Everything else leads you away from true joy, calmness and keeping your vessel on course to wherever. This also implies that you shouldn't necessarily worry about others' reactions to your actions. This is their responsibility. But it's critical to emphasize that this shouldn't be read as "do whatever you like and don't worry about the feelings of others". This happens often. The key is first and foremost to do the right thing, guided by values of justice. Having the wisdom to define it and the courage to act on it. If this is what guides you - then indeed others feelings shouldn't be a factor. For example, you're breaking up with someone or giving them negative feedback. If you've thought it over and decided that this is your stance, then by all means you have to do it and not let the disappointment of others stop you from doing the right thing. It's a very critical distinction, quite different from proposing inconsiderate, self-centered and erratic behaviour. Remember, you control only your actions and reactions, but you influence everything and everyone.
As Newton's First Law of Motion states, a body remains static or in motion with constant speed until a force is applied to it. In much the same way, we tend to stick to our habits and established behaviors until something forces us to change them. The force can be internal and external. However, external forces are out of control, hence it’s immaterial to focus on them. However, we can control internal forces and if we want to change anything we must not only embrace but provoke them. Anything outside of the known, established pathway causes fear and anxiety, which is a normal, survivalist response tempting us to stay where it’s safe and warm. But given the above, this is not where anything in our control can bring about a wanted change. Conversations are a good example. If you wish to improve your relationship with anyone, sticking to chit-chat won't accomplish much. Either you need to step out of your comfort zone and start bringing up topics that could potentially elevate the relationship, or you should provoke the other party by asking fewer ordinary questions. There's the risk of breaking something, but it's the only way. Rewind your life. Without sacrificing the sanctity of the status quo, you wouldn't have won your friends, significant others, family, career paths, skill, knowledge, and any other resources which bring you the comfort you have now. So why stop?
Once you've made the choice to initiate an engagement with another person - professional or personal - it is at that moment that your only practical path forward is to trust them. Second-guessing and doubt will open a crevice whether there's a basis for them or not. If there's a basis, then it's clear that trust issues will begin, but why would you inflict this often-irreversible damage beforehand? The trust that your giving should come as you, at your own responsibility, decide to engage. No contract or promises will guarantee anything. Then as you give opportunities for that trust to be justified, you build up respect for the person's behavior, values, and capabilities. If the trust is broken, obviously respect won't be there either, but it won't and shouldn't be there immediately. Hence you shouldn't expect it to be easily gained or granted. This requires time. Let's take the example of a new hire in your team. They've gone through your selection process and have been approved. This means the responsibility is now on you. And you owe them your trust. It's OK to talk to them and observe their behavior to help them grow and improve. But it's not OK to covertly track their behavior or spy on them. Of course there's a risk you've made the wrong decision, but that decision is yours to own with all its rewards and punishments. Seeds of doubt will be there, but each time you're provoked you make that choice again. Making that leap of faith will help you build up mutual respect and gratitude much faster. And it will remain with you for a lifetime. This works both ways, if you've chosen to accept a job offer or an invitation to date someone - it's no longer a trust test. It is now a respect and relationship building operation. Again, trust can be broken, but pulling the devil by the tail will almost certainly make him turn on you.
Becoming a manager of any operation, you have one job - to make it run without your involvement. And move on. A manager needs to take care of three things: the business, the team and themselves. You should optimize the processes end-to-end making it flexible and scalable, develop a growth mindset and necessary skills in your team, and get yourself ready for the next level challenge as a human and a professional, if possible. Once these are done, you will naturally make room for the business, your team and yourself to grow. Outstaying your welcome, on the other hand, by grabbing hold of your position and comfort, making it your mission to preserve rather than develop is a lose-lose scenario. There came a time in our business when the entire management team after two cascading acquisitions realized it's time to move on. The first impulse was to believe that things will fall apart given that "the core" of the business will be moving out of the company. However, lo and behold, the next generation of leaders emerged to carry the baton and bring an energy and a perspective which the "old guard" simply couldn't. The good news is that this granted the "old guard" solace, because now they finally knew their job was done and done well. They were obsolete and all the conditions were there for the business to move on without them.
Perhaps the most famous quote by Bruce Lee is: "Be like water, my friend". Amicable, multilayered quotes resonate and persist. This one without exception crosses my mind whenever change as a topic comes up. What the quote illustrates beautifully is that adapting to new circumstances is a dance, not a weightlifting exercise. Letting go of established beliefs and practices is tough. It feels unwise, as a betrayal to yourself even. But we needn't look back too far to find a plethora of examples where we thought we had figured out but completely didn't. Fundamental disruptions happen regularly in physics (the inexplicable weirdness and logic of the quantum realm), medicine (discovering new organs or functions of organs we would throw away in the past), business (latest obvious example is the AI bomb), etc. As always, all you can control is your actions and reactions. It seems logical that sticking to the old actions and reactions in ever-changing circumstances is unwise. Successful applications of being like water are all around us, too. Best basketball players change their plan of attack depending on what defense gives them. One new and able player at a poker table should make you rethink your style of play. A big new account for your business disrupts everything from operations to structure. Being a parent to a pre-teen and an adolescent a few weeks later calls for a rethink of your language, approach, role, etc. I'm still waiting to see a 5- or even 2-year plan pan out as expected. Truth is we all change as people. The you of today is not the same you as yesterday. Sometimes it's short-term factors like mood, energy level, context of location and social setting. But it could also be long-term factors like maturing or developing traits through experience. That goes for each of us. Try to talk to the person who's in front of you today and not burden the conversation with past judgements. You absolutely have the choice of sticking to what you know. Choosing your unchangeables. And for some I think you should. Finding them is actually a great way to discover universal truths that were valid millennia ago and will, therefore, remain valid for the millennia to come.
The first part I realized early on and I'm assuming the same goes for most of us. An angry text or a passive aggressive e-mail reply incorrectly feels good now, but no sooner do we come to our senses and realize it got us nowhere. Nowhere good for sure. Turning the realization of this bad practice into a habit of restraint took much longer. I salute and envy all who achieved the new level of self-control early. The other side of the coin I realized much later - not committing to anything in the moments of exaltation. It's not so much about regretting donating for a cause in moments of emotional bliss - you don't regret those. It's the promises you couldn't keep that come back to haunt us. Whether it's a drunken promise to definitely get up tomorrow morning and go for a hike, or a commitment with a more profound emotional meaning to another person - learning to recognize the moment and follow-up with a heightened sense of self-control is a worthwhile effort.
Salience matters. The spotlight analogy always resonated with me, because it vividly describes what's going on in our mind. We can only pay attention to so little. It's like that video where you're asked to count the number of times people pass the ball to each other. While you've been counting, a gorilla passed through the crowd, and you didn't even notice. Same thing happens to important things we forgot, weren't aware of or stopped paying attention to. It can be simple things like paying full attention to the whole of what our conversation partner is saying, how they're saying it, their intentions and body language, but it can also be things like your subconscious which while hidden is actively running your conscious life. Similarly you cannot work on improving multiple skills at the same time. Focus on one or two. Personally, when playing role-playing games, the first skills I always go for is the ones that help me gain experience and learn new skills the fastest. In real life I tried to do the same, i.e. focus on mindfulness, self-management, and similar skills which catalyze the development of other skills. Again, your spotlight can only handle a limited scope of things that interest you, but the good thing is that you can have full control of where it's pointed. Finally, remember that people and the world around us are always changing. If you use your skills - you'll improve; if you don't - you'll regress. Moving the spotlight away before you've accomplished your goal takes you back a few steps. Don't swirl the spotlight around and finish what you've started.
I talk a lot about mistakes and the value of mistakes. But this one really is about an attitude that you can make part of your identity. Loving the bomb comes from improvisational theatre, it's not related to the Dr. Strangelove love for the bomb. It's about not simply feeling comfortable with things going wrong - but actually relishing it. Making it a habit is like unlocking a superpower. You replace paralysis with invigoration. Panic with optimism. Problems with solutions. And you'll enjoy every second of it. It's the ultimate "Yes, and..." approach. Making something beautiful when provided with nothing but junk. In performing arts you can experience and learn this the fastest. That's why I'd always recommend doing it, especially live performances. Wrong guitar tuning while warming up for one of the biggest bands ever, canceling a gig on the spot as the venue's value system clashes with that of the band, forgetting lines in front of a full theatre... Only through experience do you learn to enjoy these moments. Recognizing them quickly and shifting the mindset from panic to creative mode. Laughing about it as the first step. Trusting and empowering a supportive, "all for one, one for all" team with the same mindset. Looking back, learning and truly cherishing the growth it gave you is the final wrapping. In business it can be perceived as more difficult to achieve, but I would always choose and/or build an environment where it's not. Because why wouldn't it be? Same goes for dealing with family, friends, personal issues... Just love the bomb.
Frequently used phrase, but nowhere nearly as frequently considered as a factor in decision making. What do we miss? The cumulative effect, the power of habit, the trust building and other effects that bring long-term rather than short-term benefits. The other side of the coin is just as important - make the wrong or one exception to many and the tide will bring all the ships down. Your choice. One example was introducing the home office policy. I have nothing against it. During the COVID pandemic it was a necessity, clear enough. But lack of facetime kills rapport, empathy and inevitably trust. Force people to come to the office without proper communication and you're on the downward trust spiral again. Fully regaining the old office spirit was a lost cause. But we salvaged what we could because we consistently and persistently promoted coming to the office and making exceptions for valid reasons only. Lo and behold, most of the days the office felt lively and everyone won. Coming to the office a few days a week eventually re-became the norm. Kudos to our CEO who came to the office every day. Another example is becoming part of a local community where maintenance fees weren't even collected, because "some weren't paying, so why should we?” In a matter of two-three years, again through persistence and consistency neighbors saw the fixed roof (30+ year issue), replaced doors and windows, access control system, regular meetings where every opinion is heard. Collecting the fees isn't even a question anymore. People do it proactively. Focusing on the immediate, smaller problems, e.g. resorting to legal action to collect the fees wouldn't have created the tide. Just like some people not paying eventually lowered it. Mind the bigger picture. Once you have a big win, everyone will want to be on the team and help propel it forward.
When everything runs smoothly it's easy being a partner whether it's in business, marriage, friendship or any type of relationship. On the other hand, a person may seem disengaged or disinterested. But only when things go ballistic do you get to see one's true level of dedication to your common goals. Are they going above and beyond to solve the issue and acting compassionately for the common cause? If so, you've found the right partner. In our company, when things went awry on a client project we always opted for honesty as the best policy. Sometimes it would hurt in the short-term (admitting a mistake), but in the long-term we established ourselves as a trusted partner. Trust that all parties' share common values. If not, then you've eliminated an incompatible long-term partner. And almost always you will have gained one - in our case, people on our team. It doesn't always have to be a crisis. You can draw the same conclusions with "micro crisis" or in environments where the level of emergency is perceived as high, although the actual stakes aren't that big. For example, when playing sports (always teaching you tons about a person's character), a simulation at a professional training course or a piece of office equipment gone missing. Another good application is to ask a candidate at a job interview about a situation where things went wrong. Don't ask immediately how they handled it - the answer to that will almost always be sugarcoated. But the way they describe and relive the situation will give off enough information. The main thing is not to rush to conclusions in times of peace (whether positive or negative) and to pay attention to behavioral patterns in crises.
Most have by now heard the story of the Andon Cord in the Toyota Production System. Basically, any worker at any point can stop production to notify everyone of a problem. It's an empowering principle enabling continuous improvement regardless of whether it starts bottom-up or top-down. What I would do to extend this within the team was to invite people to notify about issues not just in their area of responsibility, but any area. The idea of sharing responsibility for any part of our work was essential. Statements like "that's not my problem/not a part of my job description" were very unwelcome. Again, the value of "I am because we are" needs to be clear and present. Surely it wasn't automatic. Especially when applied across teams where members of different teams (production, marketing, management, etc.) would inevitably butt heads. But the way out of those situations was always providing full transparency into why a decision has been made and setting egos aside to make room for constructive feedback. This is where culture helped - everyone's priority being not the protection of their interest or, even more disastrously, their position in the company, but the good and the betterment of the whole. Be it on team or company level. Same applies to bands, sports teams, families, etc. Hence Pull the Cord is just as much about process, as it is about the values, mindset and culture.
Our shared responsibility is to rediscover the all-but-lost of art of differing opinions not standing in the way of civility and friendship. A big challenge given the increasingly diverse spectrum of beliefs coming from unprecedented exposure to ideas. Yet, we don't have much choice but to compromise as puritan and inflexible leads to even more rigid, unforgiving systems where ultimately choices do become binary. Latest example is corruption and captured states becoming common around the world because of people retreating from debates and tiring of compromises. I do believe in consensus. Most of us share common goals and values, with notable exceptions. But in most cases, you don't have the luxury of time and the clarity of an outsider's perspective for a "Twelve Angry Men" reenactment. So, consensus needs to be replaced by compromise. You see it every day in traffic as drivers change lanes. You go, then I go - or we all stop. It's instinctive and usually challenged not because you're an asshole, but because circumstances made you less tolerant on a given day. After being acquired as a business and being thrown into the lower circles of change management, "disagree and commit" became a daily phrase. The pressure of time and ongoing parallel processes needing to merge before considerable damage was done dictated to it. And we sure did disagree, and sometimes we even committed. And although individual battles were often lost, because of our aligned values and bidirectional willingness to compromise in the long term we all won. A few years later, after the second acquisition, we saw the other scenario at work - misaligned values leading to disagreement, committing and quitting. Practice shows that it's not about winning arguments, it's about finding the common values. And if you can't - you change business, bands or marriage partners. Compromises and hard work are all that's guaranteed.
Starting any task has a high initial cost. Much like in physics: static friction is generally higher than kinetic friction. Meaning that starting is costly. Then there is an ongoing maintenance cost as tasks typically turn into continuous parts of regular process. A few examples: deciding to go to the gym, introducing a benefit for the employees, measuring sales performance, opening a social media page, etc. Each initiative started without a clear intention and option to finish or, more commonly, maintaining it turns into a waste of time and effort. Logic dictates that you will only be able to properly complete a few tasks. As it's finishing a task that really makes a difference, you should become more conservative in starting them and once committed - finishing them. A few useful questions to ask yourself: - Is it necessary and why? - What will the initial and running cost be and can we afford it? Is the total expected cost lower than the expected gain? - What is the definition of done, i.e. how will we know we have successfully completed our goal? - Can we clearly define the task owner and the deadline? As these continuous efforts accumulate - you need to either optimize, delegate or kill them. All legitimate options which should not only be on the table, but part of your regular conversations. We're creatures of habit and stick to what we do and how we do it largely without thinking. Again, this is where "assholes" asking uncomfortable questions challening the status quo are invaluable. But the best way to win a war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
A senior manager in our company planted a post-it note on a fellow manager's display with just one word: "NO". The goal was to remind the latter colleague that it's highly advisable to use the word, especially as you grow in responsibility. There are many reasons why we find it very difficult to say "no" to a colleague, but most of them are wrong. I would place the fear of being judged and the power of habit as the top contenders. Yet so many great things can come from it - practicing mindfulness of what's important, creating space to focus, protecting your well-being, etc. All beautiful and necessary goals. The wonder of creating a culture of saying "no" is that it ultimately becomes a widely accepted practice. Meaning that now not only are you protecting your personal time, to-do list and health, but so is everybody else. The fear of being judged dissipates and the habit of "yes" gets turned on its head. More things get done with less fuss because now people are more mindful of not only their time, but others' also. Like becoming part of a secret club, where the secret is simple and wonderful.
What if we expand the "start less, finish more" principle beyond our to-do's and into our habits, principles, possessions, relationships, emotions, thoughts, values...? Personally, just the thought of decluttering life feels liberating and like a breath of forest-after-rain air in the lungs. Eliminating the unnecessary we create more space for what truly matters. But just as importantly, sometimes we can feel that space with - nothing. The greatest luxury of them all and, according to some, the key to happiness in the shape of lack of desire. How often have you said: "And I just sat there. Doing nothing. And how blissful it was"? And how often have you intentionally sought after it? Tranquility is a blessing, but it also circles back to creating space to realize what is and is not essential. It's a valuable habit to be applied in just about any aspect of our lives. Like most habits it’s transferable to other aspects. Start where you feel like it's most comfortable and work from there. You'll thank yourself for it. Because you'll finally find the time and the space to do it.
Also known as "Rome wasn't built in a day". A statement as cliched as it is difficult to apply. I surely lose track of it on a regular basis as I wonder what incomparable, unforgettable miracle to create with a conservative one-time effort despite never having won the miracle lottery in close to half a century of life experience. For some reason, I often realize the truth behind this in retrospect. There are several accomplishments I take pride in which, as it turns out, all have come to be through consistent, daily baby steps - kids, marriage, friendships, business, band, communities, these rules as debatable as they are... Why then given the overwhelming evidence, is it difficult to find motivation on a zoomed in part of life’s timeline? Personally, often it’s losing sight of the larger purpose or identifiable prosaic causes like low dopamine levels. Whatever the cause, I believe it's one of life's important missions to push through the obstacles and keep moving forward. One sleepy, tired and self-resentful step through the door in morning cold weather at a time. These small wins against our worst, momentary selves are the secret to our proudest achievements.
A side effect of the massively influential cognitive bias known as "availability heuristic". We lean towards the familiar, instead of what's often the wiser choice. Frequent examples I've witnessed involves people sticking to their old ways of working despite new tools, knowledge and resources available to them. The ways to make your life easier are countless and widely accessible: shortcuts, fast typing, Excel formulas, YouTube tutorials, any new AI tool... If you're doing the innovating and swimming against the availability stream, remember the MAYA principle: most advanced, yet available. It invites us to take the best of both worlds. A strong example was how Spotify realized that including familiar songs in the music discovery playlist increased user engagement dramatically. You can't leapfrog humanity from the wheel to AI and fusion, just as you cannot teach your accounting staff to skip from basic Excel sheets to making smart dashboards in Python. Generally, you'll hear about the availability bias in another still practical, but less applicable context. We base our quick judgement on factors like recency, vividness and hype. Examples like plane crashes taking up more media coverage than car crashes, hence more people worry about flights than travelling by car. Or a recent trauma. Or believing that all people suffering from the Tourette syndrome swear - it's just one of the many ticks they could have, but perhaps the most prominent or socially shocking one. Or just about any hype that came and went. As always, awareness of the throught process behind our decisions is just as important as the decisions themselves. We ask it of AI, may as well require it from ourselves.
Nothing derodes trust like saying one thing and doing the opposite. It's effectively lying. People just won't follow if they're filled with doubt. Bulshitting smells from afar and people are exceptionally good at detecting inauthenticity. Especially in the long-term like in a team. The other side of the coin is that even if you don't explicitly explain some "rules" - people will still learn from the way you behave. Are you late for work or meetings like I often would be? You can't request or expect to instill punctuality as a value. So the saying shouldn't be "only way to lead is by example", but rather "you lead by example whether you know it or not". The goal should be to internalize this early and use it for the benefit of the group's purpose. You can only change things by changing yourself. See something you don't like taking root in the group's way of working? Start with yourself. The best thing about it is that will create the value of malleability. We're not "just the way we are". With all that said, leading by example is not the best, but the only way to lead. Otherwise you're just fooling yourself.
In 2018 it became clear that the a C-level executive of our university was up to no good. Details aren't important. He had to go, but wasn't willing to do so voluntarily. It starting getting ugly. Quite a few university's trustees stood up for him. It even got political with embassies and media getting involved. Naturally, we grew very unfond of the CFO's person because he could have spared the university from all the damage by - right or wrong - putting the university before himself. Which he didn't, obviously. In the midst of all this chaos at a conversation with one of the "good" trustees, a seasoned entrepreneur, I heard and permanently learned a valuable piece of advice: "Do not focus on the person, focus on the process." The resolution ultimately came not from repeated, although valid examples of inconsiderate and egotistical behaviuor, but on how to establish a lasting process which would not only solve the specific conundrum, but prevent it from happening again. The board was reformed, processes set up and unsurprisingly - the university is thriving. And no one has to worry any longer about the personality or morals, just the process. The lesson was incredibly useful at work whether it was problems with clients or colleagues. A big bonus is that putting personality-related emotions aside clears your focus and saves a whole lot of energy for all the right reasons. If you have a strong instinct to look for someone or something to blame, I offer you this: in every situation there's you, me and the circumstances, sometimes circumstances are to blame. For example, in large corporations a lot of things are done a certain way "just because". A problem that cannot be fixed quickly or easily, or perhaps ever. People and teams silo away from each other. You worry and interests begin and end at your own part of the assembly line. You're priority is to keep your bosses happy to avoid friction. Hence, the system grinds to a self-perpetuating hold of little to no added value. The sick behemoth isn't your fault or mine. It's a set of circumstances that we can try to fix - a common enemy, for the fans of the approach.
Horrible things happen to us, many done by others. The first instinct is to retaliate. All desire to hurt comes from hurt done previously. Quickly and easily vicious cycles of hurt are formed. At times endless, in some cases passed on for generations. What's in our control? To prevent our own actions from doing further harm. Looking deeper into the retaliatory insinct, it's a matter of pride more than anything. An imaginary construct, unlike real harm. However, I would argue that even when it comes to pride - there is much to be had in restraint and conscious awareness of the greater picture. Self-control is power, power without control is chaos. Acting on nothing but raw emotions is pure weakness in the face of an impulse. During the Yugoslav civil war many attrocities were committed. A corp from my hometown was responsible for vicious brutalities in east Slavonia. Decades later with the war behind us (unlike it's reverbations), my parent's car with my hometown's license plates clearly visible broke down in that same area. A local who likely himself suffered through the violent ordeal of the war was the only person around. He helped with the luggage and gave them a ride across the border back to their home. Does he still feel hurt by what transpired decades before? I'm completely certain. Did he let it guide his judgement and actions in the now? No, although many would understand it. My father included. "I'm not sure if I'd have done the same", he said. Which story's character acted wisely, bravely and justly? Values to be upheld above all. A vicarious example, but hopefully it translates well into your thought process in the every day. Driver cutting you off in traffic, neighbor making noise at an odd hour, competitor telling a lie to gain an advantage, opposing player pushing you from behind after losing the ball... Both short-term and long-term consequences of possible retaliation aren't difficult to calculate. It requires a breath and some empathy to recognize that those regrettable actions came from weakness and powerlessness demanding compassion, rather than a position of power. A reappraisal. A retaliatory act would bring you down a few levels, not raise you. Ultimately, you can only worry about yourself and your level. Forgiveness and understanding raise you. This doesn't mean you shouldn't protect yourself and push back under threat. You need to respond, but it shouldn't be for the sake of retaliation, but rather protection of your integrity. By all means justice and courage to act are values to be upheld, as always.
How much would a field worker accomplish if they didn't know about the shovel or how to use it? It's a guaranteed high ROI venture to learn which tools can help you and best to use them. Certainly AI will be doing much of the work for us all, but that too is a tool. And you will still need to know how to evaluate the AI's work. You will still benefit from knowing how to type (for those arguing for voice commands as being the answer, I challenge you to fill in any form requiring large numbers by speaking only). Moving from 50 to 90 words-per-minute can save you years over a lifetime. Learn how to present your ideas, how to tell stories. Learn languages. Find the best sources of information and learn to use them. Figure out the physics behind your guitar's sound or the physiology of your singing voice, it will unlock your creativity. Which chair won't cause back pain? What's the best way to take a sharp turn safely or drive down a steep hill? And, for the sake of everything good and holy - learn how to REALLY use spreadsheets and word processors.
Curiosity is the fuel that drives our growth. We've all heard how the best investment is to invest in yourself, but what does that actually mean? I tend to rewind to the three sources of meaning as defined by Viktor Frankl: 1) purposeful/creative work; 2) experiencing other people; 3) overcoming an obstacle. All three provide not just a sense of purpose, but an expanded horizon on top. We do it all the time: traveling to a new destination, moving into a leadership role at work, learning how to play an instrument, joining a new community of people, tasting a new dish... What you may not have noticed is that each of these apart from the immediate effect also broadened your worldview - never the reverse. We must actively seek such opportunities. And seek to provide them for those we can. As business leaders, parents and friends. I will never forget how back in highschool a friend who'd never had the chance to be abroad (a common thing in 1990's Balkan countries) and then he got to visit his brother in Sweden. The way he viewed our city and our people changed. More critical of our society, but also more appreciative of what we had. Once you've seen waste-free streets - you're less likely to drop bubblegum wrappings on the pavement. Another example is the visits we would get from our colleagues in the UK. Always curious to find out more, the ones who did come absolutely raised their level of understanding with their counterparts. Same happened with people from our Sofia office travelling to meet the teams in Skopje and Prishtina. Nearby geographically, but quite different cultures in many aspects (e.g. working hours, commuting, lunch rituals, etc.) As a civilization, we're closer to each other than ever before and, despite temporary setbacks and the poisonous effects of de-individuization happening online, overall we're becoming more progressive - or let's call it accepting of our inevitable differences. A great trick to opening a mind to a new idea is through being open-hearted and funny. It relaxes the brain, lowers your guard and like a Trojan horse slips in knowledge. For example, self-irony opens a door for someone to view you less critically or a witty cultural reference could unlock a next level of acceptance between relative unknowns. In short, being less afraid to open yourself to others helps us develop ourselves and our relationships with others. Bringing a sense of meaning, on top of all the other benefits. as a path to unlocking new knowledge.
Countless days I'd come back from work wondering where the time went and what the hell I actually accomplished. Then I received a piece of advice - do three things every day. They could be small tasks taking no more than several minutes, or a result of a bigger effort, but you should be able to realistically bring them to 100% completion. Writing an e-mail, completing a client request, checking in on a person or a group, etc. You will likely accomplish much more than three of these in a day, but the difference is that now you're doing them purposefully and with full awareness. This time they will not escape you. And you will have moved the needle and know about it. The difficult part is really sticking to the plan, that's why it's critical to keep the tasks bite-sized, manageable and meaningful. A day is short. Our perception of how much we can accomplish in a day tends to be optimistic. Failing big plans can be demotivating. Mindfully accomplishing tasks is uplifting. With time we get a better understanding of our true efficacy. We learn how to provide better estimates - one of the most common errors less experienced colleagues make. Hence, it's even more important to learn this lesson early. And why stop at a day? Apply the same to your week, month, or year. Keep it simple, not overly ambitious. I guarantee you won't let a day slip by ever again (unless you want it to, which is OK - especially if done on purpose). With accumulation and focusing on putting one foot in front of the other is how you accomplish the big things which a day, month or even a year won't fit.
I suck at multi-tasking. Many people claim there's no such thing, but I've personally witnessed it. For example, my daughter can successfully be unbeatable in a weekend sleepover debate and do her homework. Meanwhile, I'm at the office, people are talking to me and I'm not even registering the voices. No matter how hard I try, I will only ever marginally improve my multi-tasking. And that's OK. Because I've figured out that I'm also able to focus deeply on the task at hand and maintain continuity by effective interruption handling. You cannot escape your weak points completely - embrace them, turn them into advantages. On the other hand, strenghts you can rely on and develop thanks to your predisposition. The trick, as it often is, lies in being self-aware. Deeply analytical people won't and needn't wow your clients with flashy slides and Broadwayish presentation skills. However, if the client brings in their CTO - by all means get your "charmless" nerd in the room and see them build rapport at quantum realm speeds. Conversely, inviting the colleague who cannot contain their inner Zsa Zsa Gabor into a sensitive 121 with a troubled employee where the key is listening actively may not be the best idea. But if you need someone to get a frosty team building event crowd going - look no further. Life's too short, skill trees too broad and circumstances to varied for Supermen. Even they've got cryptonite to worry about. Find out what "your thing" is. It's more than one, usually, but never all. Stick to that and learn not to manage alone.
During a Q&A session after a "Master The Failure" talk series event I was asked what my biggest personal failure had been. Unexpectedly the answer dawned on me - whenever I was not my best self for my family. I've agreed with it ever since and often come back to it. The reason seems to be that I see it as a duty to be fully present and able for those I care about the most. As anyone who's thought about it will tell you - being your best is awfully hard if you're not feeling good in your skin, i.e. not happy. By happy I don't mean a frantic emotion like being ecstatic, but a quiet, sustainable joy granting calm and flow. Hence, I see happiness, as defined, as a moral obligation towards our family, but also colleagues, friends and partners. And more than this. Emotions are contagious. A 2002 Yale study proved it. Especially the leader's emotions which can either lead a group's dynamics and performance to prosperity, or to failure and burnout. I'm willing to bet everyone reading this has felt it, even if they haven't direclty registered it. A leader I worked with and still see as an inspiration used to say that the first responsibility of any leader is to radiate energy. I couldn't agree more. And as we're all internal combustion machines first and foremost - keeping the inner fire going should be the first order of business as we show up. It doesn't came naturally to all. People with innately high dopamine levels do it without thinking. Worriers find it more difficult. But the good news is that EQ is a skill and, like all other skills, can be developed. Smart people divided the abstract EQ into clear segments: self-awareness, social awareness, self-management and relationship management. EQ and its components are a forever human trait which makes the difference between long-term success and failure. Exactly because it maximizes the value of the group around you, as well as your own.
Diversity is inherently neither good, nor bad. As such, it cannot and shouldn't be an end in itself. However, well-managed diversity will enable a group to outperform a homogenous group. We've all been brought to a room full of strangers and expected to accomplish something, be it a training workshop, a cross-functional company workgroup, 3x3 basketball with random strangers in a foreign country, or a jam session. Bringing different backgrounds, experiences and skills is initially a risk, rather than a boon. So what needs to happen? There's no shortcuts. At all times, if you see that the investment is costing more than the expected benefit - it's always fair to abort. But I believe there is a clear set of three conditions that if created will birth the desired positive effect of diversity: 1) Psychological safety - as always. Invest in creating social collisions with increasing closeness. The scale would be something like: hearing about a person, meeting, spending some informal time, working together, working together for a while, and working together for a considerable time. During this gradual process, remain open-hearted and transparent. But most of all, since we're talking about diversity, expectant and respectful of differences in opinion, values, knowledge and any honest mistakes you or others are making. Show that even if there's a disagreement - it's OK and if all conditions are met, it will improve the collaboration rather than stifle it. Do you roll your eyes when someone says something you deem ridiculous? Are you feeling comfortable making a joke on any topic? Is your way of doing things the only way and you're just waiting for the pitiful alternatives to be listed before you're proven right? 2) Commonality of information needs to exist. Homogenizing the language is a good place to start. Even literally - will we speak English or Bulgarian when Macedonians are present in a predominantly Bulgarian group? When we say "account management" or "people partner" do we mean the same thing? In basketball, does "incoming" mean someone's coming behind you to steal the ball, or someone's cutting to the basket? What's the common definition of "good enough" for a song to be released by this band? So, move from sharing information, to understanding it the same way to making decisions with a common expectations. 3) Embrace the differences, which is what will make you outperform homogenous groups. The first two conditions are in a way necessary, although easier to create, in a group of similar backgrounds. What those groups won't have is the option to see a problem or a solution from multiple angles before making their move. Yes, there's a risk that you start pulling in opposite directions (as mentioned above, it's always OK to abort), but if you've done good work on the first two conditions - you will have done all you can to minimize the risk. Are you considering zone defense, not so common in the US? Does your medical product consider particularities of women's physiology? Is every person in UK and in Eastern Europe going to understand the lingo in your slide deck? If yes, then you have just outperformed a homogenous group that hasn't even thought of these considerations.
Something weird happens when we're placed opposite a person we see (or are told to see) as competition or simply belonging to a different group or team. Suddenly, all our successes are a result of our amazingness and our failures a result of bad luck. And exactly the opposite for the other person. Funnily enough, if you ask them - the situation is reversed. This is the Fundamental Attribution Error. A power-mix of several cognitive biases coming together to protect our ego. Expand this to entire groups of people, name any Us vs Them situation, and you get the Ultimate Attribution Error, i.e. anyone who's part of that group cannot possibly score a basket, perform a quality gig, or create a profitable, well-organized and morally justifiable business unless they get lucky. Draw a line between any two groups for any simple reason like playing a couple vs couple card game or even notice that on your night out half of you are wearing white and the others black shirts - and the attribution reflex fires up. The antidote within your control is knowing and noticing that you're perfectly rational self is succumbing to the lower passions of your caveman ancestor fighting for the survival of his tribe. Only that there's now enough resources for everyone to co-exist happily and even collaborate for a common, greater good. Competition can be healthy, but I've also seen teams working in the same company towards the same goal drift apart for no other reason than this built-in mechanism. The one and only way around this on group level is to bring both groups together, in person (online call won't do) and gradually blur the line between them. Or give them a common enemy... You know, make the cognitive bias work for you, at least for a while. Ultimately, if we learned to recognize the value and humanity of every person we meet regardless of the circumstances - wonderful things would happen. And if they behave like an asshole and see you as an idiot, well - that's just them being human.
Two ends of the people care spectrum, as parents, friends and managers, would be setting high standards and sacrificing the relationship on one end and making it all about the relationship with low standards. We often say people rarely go to extremes, but I've seen many examples of this happening. At parent-teacher meetings where missed opportunities get projected onto kids out of fear of failure. Or parents letting there kids run rampant around the airport lobby. Team leaders fearing not being loved by the people they manage and people managers injecting fear into the bones of their teams having never known love or empathy. In a wonderful book by Frances Frei and Anne Morriss titled "Unleashed" a lot is said about how to empower the people for whose flourishing we're responsible. They talk about how important it is to be authentic, logical and empathetic to inspire trust (going back to the formule of trust = reliability + empathy). But also about striking the balance of devotion and authority. Should your team members know you care about them on a human level? Absoluetly. Does this mean that you need to trade off your standards? Absolutely not. You're not their saviour, not their despot, and not their victim. You're the person mentoring and guiding them on as they forge their own path, their honest, constructive critic who also has her own path to follow. Do not rob them of the freedom to make their own mistakes and teach you about yours. People don't need to be saved from every adversity - on the contrary. Your job is to test their limits and thereby expand them.
Usually when we talk about Orwell's "Animal Farm" we discuss politicial systems, but I see it just as applicable for corporations or any type of organized community. I've always found Boxer's death (well, sending off to the slaughterhouse) due to overexhaustion as the most heartwrenching. A horse whose loyalty and devotion solely dictated his actions regardless of the social turmoil around him. Ultimately, a victim. A victim of the system, but also his own lack of self-preservation. I've seen this happen so often - the most loyal and hard-working members of the team getting squeezed in between a rock and a hard place. One on side, you have their managers delegating tasks indiscriminantly because they know that the shit will get done and get done well. On the other side, the employee's unfaltering will to prove themself and not disappoint. As colleagues, it is our job to notice and break this cycle for the sake of the employee, but also the company. The management needn't even be abusive. All that's necessary is just for them to be consistently too distracted with their own issues to notice - which is often a given. I've been in both situations. One ended with a nasty anxiety disorder. The other ended with a burnout episode and tears at least three days a week. Trust me, I preferred the former. The responsibility is shared and what's under our control should be each person's focus. That's the bottom line. Being diligent and responsibe doesn't imply being open 24/7 only because it makes us feel secure. Avoiding the issue of low performers only because it's a difficult conversation and there's a fluffy, trouble-free solution sitting at the adjacent desk is wrong. As most short-term comfortable ways forward usually are. Until it's too late.
In 1980 a political science professor Robert Axelrod decided to test Prisoner's dillema strategies against each other in an iterative tournament. Why is Prisoner's dilemma a key game theory scenario? It is an approximation of the real world: animal or human groups in cohabitation, corporations in business relations, biological cells in the same organism, etc. A non-zero-sum setup where both participants could benefit through cooperation. Hence the strategies from the simple game can be translated to practical scenarios. Never losslessly, but as good enough approximations. Typical scenarios included always defecting, always cooperating, tit-for-tat (you screw me over, I screw you over next time), random, Pavlov (if last outcome worked well I repeat), etc. A round-robin tournament with 200 iterations in each match-up. Long story short, turns out that "nice" strategies produced the best results. They didn't just thrive individually, but the overall result including all strategies thrived, as well. Here are the main takeaways: - Don't be an asshole - not trying to defect and test the trust of your partner is mutually beneficial - Don't be envious - just because someone triumphed once over you, do not immediately challenge your kindness and give them a second chance, because you'll both start playing a losing game - Don't be naive - if someone is consistenly taking advantage of your nice-first strategy, you should start showing your teeth sending a signal that you're not simply going to sit and take it - Don't be too smart - don't try to complicate things and make it clear for your partner what your strategy is, i.e. be transparent in good or bad These align beautifully with everything that a moral person would intuitively believe. Except that it's measurable, convincing proof that being "nice" is not a disadvantage, if managed carefully. Believing in evolution picking traits for best survival of our genetic material, perhaps this is why we're predisposed to be trusting and decent. It's not just us. In nature there's plenty of examples of animals doing favors for each other for no direct, selfish benefit (e.g. antilopes removing parasites from each other, squirrels making sounds when seeing a predator, etc.). The strategies work for dealing with partners we're in direct relations with. Expand this to the increasingly interconnected nature of our species - does it still hold true? That's an interesting question. But playing around with the environment (nice and selfish strategy ratios, asymmetric benefits for the two partners, removing knowledge of our partners previous behaviours, etc.) - offers up a lot of space for consideration.
We don't do things for one of four reasons: 1) not knowing what 2) not knowing how 3) not having resources 4) being afraid If you're hesitating on anything - use this checklist to break down the issue and focus on possible solutions. If you don't know what you want to do, what I would suggest is to ask yourself what is it that you really want to do? Because if you really want it (and its realistic, which most goals are) - you will find away. At the very least you will give it your best shot and learn a lot from it. If it seems to big, break it down into manageable components and just trust the process making baby step after baby step while applying the same approach as described here. If you don't know how, it's the cheapest excuse. Especially as of late. There's more learning resources than ever. There's already more now than when you started reading this. Since the introduction of LLMs especially. Look at all the young talent on the social media. Sure, there's a survivorship bias and lots of social engineering at play, but certainly the path to learning, say, guitar playing has changed drastically in the past 20-30 years. Same goes for anything from quantum physics, to investing, to putting on make-up. If you don't have the resources, it can be tough, but knowledge is power. There's resources lying in wait, so you will need to dig for a while before you uncover them, but perseverence can take you a long way. And there's always loans. The trickiest resource is time, the only non-renewable resource as far as we know. But no time spent in a meaningful way (creating, experiencing or overcoming adversity) is wasted, just converted. If you're afraid, use loss aversion. Make it more expensive not to act, than to act. Make public commitments in your justifiable moments of confidence. Invest in resources you will need putting yourself in the situation to have to act because you wouldn't want to waste them. Or just find someone who believes in you and partner up.
A practice which significantly increases kids' knowledge retention in a class goes as follows: when the teacher asks a question they should let kids come up with an answer - wrong or right - before its revealed. The brain sifts through the information, absorbs it in as many ways as solution paths considered, and converts a passive observer into an active learner. It makes so much sense. Same principle applies anywhere, at work especially. Our CEO and I would hold onboarding meetings welcoming newcomers. There were two key messages we were determined get through all the "blah-blah" about company history, policies, values, etc. One was speaking up every time they see an issue. The other was when communicating the problem, they a solution, no matter how imperfect, should also be presented. The depth and breadth of consideration invested in both understanding and presenting the problem changes drastically. Simply by viewing it from different angles, because you'll have to if you wish to the argument compelling. This practice helps one not just make a stronger case, but also be perceived as an engaged problem-solver, rather than yet another grumbler. In the minds of others, but also their own. You're no longer the victim, but a part of the solution breaking the Drama Triangle. This is also the essence of an entrepreneurial mindset. Or rather identity. And this, as we know, is the level at which sustainable change happens. Applying the rule from as the one hearing about problems on a regular basis filters out the noise and helps prioritization. Someone putting their mind to it means they're prepared to get involved - and you will have found your first volunteer for the rescue expedition. It's an inclusive approach reflecting positively on psychological safety aspect of culture. I've been applying it in our apartment building, band and travel planning with friends. Works like a charm.
I almost ruined a friendship once, but learned a valuable lesson. We were still students and two close friends had a conflict which I didn't witness. One shared with me what happened and I felt strongly I should stand up for them. I did so hearing one side of the story. Needlessly to say, the other friend didn't appreciate my taking sides. We still talk. But that event from what feels like another life time looms in the air to this day whenever we meet. I respect that mistake by doing what I can not to repeat it. Mind you, no one had bad intentions in the situation. The conflict between them would have resolved tracelessly on its own, because it really was trivial. The first friend to approach me didn't ask for my involvement. I alone rushed to stand up for what I thought was right. The other friend naturally felt wronged and downgraded the level of trust towards me. And yet, persistent damage had been done by way of judgnig without having full information. Second-hand information represents a large proportion of our sources. Getting quality information takes up a lot of resource while sucking the fun out of it. Being off-guard, unavoidably biased and constantly tempted is bound to lead to misjudgement. At key junctions, however, we should really be mindful of the considerable damage one little spark of assumption could do.
You put 32 pieces on an 8x8 chequered board, create six profiles for how they can move and attack, and get each set of pieces one move per turn and - voila! You've got a game that can play out in more ways than there are atoms in the universe which after 15 centuries of studies by the brightest minds (and AI) is still an intruiging, bottomless phenomenon. You put a few constants together, a few forces and a few dozen laws of physics to govern them - and you have an infinite cycle of endless universes. You create a set of values, a mission, a team of people and several key processes - and you could have a unicorn company established. Could you, similarly, lead a good, long life with a simple set of rules, as well? I think you probably could. The essence is that in order to create a complex working system, you don't necessarily need to come up with equally elaborate set of rules to govern it. Understanding all interdependencies and explaining every possible outcome within the system is a different matter. But for the most part you should be able to recognize if it's functioning sustainably with a decent degree of confidence in a relatively short time. You could also use those rules to simulate a fast-forwarded version, i.e. project outcomes. Which ever system your running, whether it's a group of people or a process, it's good to establish what are the rules that govern it. You will find many which you may not have known existed. Once you understand this, you can tweak and project possible outcomes with corresponding probabilities. You could borrow rules from analogous systems. In any case, this will simplify your problem space because instead of thinking in terms of and dealing with case-by-case events, you will be thinking in terms of processes which are long-lasting and replicable. About that good life? I would pick the following principles: wisdom, courage, justice and temperance. Stoics came up with this one from before chess was invented. Still works.