Birth of a Political Activist

Tevis.net › At the Kansas Caucuses

After reading Sean's most recent blog, I suddenly feel like I have nothing interesting or amusing to talk about. Funny how your life can seem so interesting and adventurous until you peek over the cubicle and see what the next guy is doing....I really gotta get out more often!

I just started a new book last night - "There's no Such Thing as Public Speaking". So far, it's a really good read focusing on the "physics" of public speaking and the similarities between one-to-one and one-to-many conversations. The basic premise is that there should be no difference between speaking in public and public speaking. Which, not surprisingly, is a simply stated observation made by one of the fifth graders in my son's class last month (refer to my "Signals of Change" entry). I'm pretty sure I'll use this book as a reference in my future presentation skills courses - it covers many of the exact points. More to follow on that - I need to work all the way through it and make sure it doesn't do anything ridiculous like advise you to "imagine that the whole audience is in there underwear" as a tactic for overcoming nerves. I don't know about you, but an audience full of business associates in their skivvies is not an image that conjures up feelings of relaxation! Not sure if you've ever tried that tactic, but I just don't see it working for me.

I - It :: I - You

In the early 90's, Daniel Goleman published the best-selling book "Emotional Intelligence". As an officer in the military, facing frustrations with the limitations of stereotypical military leadership styles and attitudes, reading this book gave me great hope and insight. At least I wasn't the only person that believed that being in touch with human emotions was critical to success - especially in a leadership role. Have you taken an emotional intelligence lately? I did OK on mine - although I obviously have room for improvement in a couple of areas...Goleman's latest book - "Social Intelligence" is equally eye opening. One theme he explores in his latest work is the personal versus impersonal mode of human interaction. He introduces the I-It concept as a common behavior in which we overlook the human aspect of people we meet in certain settings. This is especially prevalent in the medical and service industries. How many times have you treated another person as an "it"? I see it every week when I travel - so many airline employees, from ticket agents to flight attendants, passengers and customers showing utter disregard for the fact that they are interacting with another human being. The alternative approach - the I-You interaction, involves an awareness of the other person, including sensitivity to their emotional state. The I-it is certainly more convenient in many situations, and it requires a whole lot less stress and effort - when I stop at Starbucks, I just want a cup of coffee, I’m usually not prepared to hear the latest emotional ills of my neighborhood barista... But how often do we choose the I-it style when we really don't have to? Try this - next time you're out for a meal at a restaurant and the waiter/waitress refills your water glass, take the time to look them in the eye, smile and extend a warm "thank you". Hold the gaze long enough to measure their reaction. At the same time, assess your own internal reaction to the 2-second gesture - you may be surprised. The brain responds to this sort of social interaction in milliseconds - you'll be amazed at what that 2-second pause will do for you. Invest about 3 minutes in a day, in two-second increments, to these random acts of I-you and let me know how it turns out...

The Blue-Green Message

My favorite Blue Man Group skit is "internet cafe". It's a commentary on today's cyber connected society who stays in touch electronically with people all over the world while failing to acknowledge the human being occupying the seat right next to them. I've taken this philosphy into account when I travel - or even go out in public for that matter. Ever notice the competitive nature in which people board airplanes? I fly a lot (almost every week), and I've taken to people watching and social observation. Observe yourself next time you travel - what do you see? It's amazing how much better the trip can be when you travel compassionately and not competitively. I caught myself a couple of weeks ago:

I travel so much that I even know which 3 or 4 seats I can comfortably occupy on any given aircraft. In a way, I've become a bit of a seat snob - I insist on having a seat where my legs are not bruised by the seat in front of me...I like to have my elbows clear of other peoples' rib cage as well. (Apparently, when airline seats were designed, they chose not to use my frame as the design point.) On a recent flight from Houston to Kansas City I was booked on a Continental Airlines regional jet. Now, on a Continental (or Express Air) regional jet, there are exactly two seats that can reasonably accommodate me - 1A and 12A. My alternate choices are 3B and 12B, with hopes that 3C or 12C are not occupied by a large individual. On this particular flight, I had to fall back to my alternative - 12B. Sitting in the departure gate of the airport, I noticed another man, about my size, preparing to board. I chuckled to myself thinking - "just my luck, he'll be in 12C". As he walked by, I noticed the boarding pass protruding from his shirt pocket - you guessed it - 12C. I immediately was overcome with a burst of negative energy, anticipating a cramped ride with little room to even hold a book open.

That's when I caught myself and decided to take contol of the situation and steer it in a different direction. As we boarded the plane, I settled in and assisted my seat-mate in stowing his bags, with a warm smile and friendly gesture. Rather than comment on the small size of the seats, I focused on the generous amount of leg room we had in the exit row. We struck up a conversation about the books we were reading, consultatative selling and public speaking. It was one of the more pleasant flights I have had in a while. Just to think - it all could have been different, if I chose to maintain the status quo and remain disconnected with the human being sitting next to me....fly compassionately - not competitively.

I really like Blue Man Group, by the way.

Influence without Authority

I remember my first major matrix management project. In 1993, still a Lieutenant in the US Navy, I found myself leading a volunteer effort to design and build a catapult to launch a 450 lb pumpkin. Sponsored by a local radio station in Los Angeles, it really started out as a joke. Listening to the morning show (Kevin & Bean), Scott Wilson & I heard a caller suggest that he could build a catapult to replace the crane that they had used at the annual Oingo Boingo Halloween Concert pumpkin drop. This launched a slew of rebuttals from so-called experts claiming that a pumpkin of that size could not handle the forces required to launch it. Naturally, Scott and I had to perform a couple of quick calculations on our own and decided that it could be done. Not expecting to get through, I picked up the phone to call the radio station - when an intern actually answered the phone, I was shocked..and felt somewhat obligated to go through with it...




The video above includes dubs of some of the radio conversations over the one month period before the event. The video below is a highlight reel just showing the three launches of the catapult:

The Crystal Ball

"Crystal Ball" is actually a software program that is quite useful at analyzing future events. Keep in mind that "useful" does not necessarily mean "accurate". It's actually a statistical and analytics package, using mathematical methods to predict the probability of certain outcomes based on prior system behavior. Getting back to yesterday's conversation - I can't say that I would use a computer program to assess the potential success or failure of a potential candidate, but the underlying methodology is the same. The big question is this: are you an interpolator or an extrapolator?

An Interpolator only predicts future data that is within the bounds of historical observances. For example, if an interpolator were predicting the exact hour of sunrise, he would need observations from the begining of a month and the end of a month to predict the time of sunrise on, say, the 15th of the month. An extrapolator, however, recognizes trends and patterns and makes a few assumptions. So he may observe the time of sunrise on the first few days of the month and, based on this, predict the time of sunrise later in the month. From an uncertainty or "risk" standpoint, the interpolator is more certain of the correct answer.

So, what does this have to do with predicting success of a new leader? The primary data available to assess the future success of a leader is past experiences. The assumption is that the individual will perform under a similar pattern (interpolators can't be bothered assuming improvements or learning on the part of the leader). So, if I can find someone who has performed a similar or identical job function in a similar or identical company with a level of success, it doesn't take much analytical power to predict a high potential for success in the new job. Interpolators look for the "been there, done that" candidate.

Extrapolating, however, takes a bit of work and gets decision-makers a lot more nervous. Just like in statistical modeling and prediction, extrapolating human performance requires a thorough understanding of the inner workings of human motivation and team dynamics. It takes as much intuition as analytics to come up with a reasonable estimate. Going back to yesterday's conversation, this is where the discussion of learning from mistakes versus never making mistakes comes into play. What does the extrapolator use as a modeling assumption? Do you assume that the person has learned a lot from their mistakes and will be effective at avoiding similar mistakes in the future? Do you assume that someone who has made mistakes in the past is more likely to make mistakes in the future? Do you prefer someone who has a seemingly unblemished record, assuming that they are smart enough to never make a major mistake? It's always a lively discussion.

Fill a room with a combination of interpolators and extrapolators, each with a different set of experiences. Have them all interview a candidate for a newly created position in a unique matrix organization (one that has few, if any, direct parallels in peer companies), and sit in the room and listen to the debate about who is the best candidate. You don't need a crystal ball to determine the outcome of that exercise....

Celebrating Failure

Our lunchtime question of the day (Bill Wurtz contributing): which candidate would you hire; (1) the candidate with no business failures listed on her record, only a string of successes, (2) the candidate that has a mixture of failures and successes on his record, but has a good explanation for the external factors that led to the failures, none of which were his own mistakes, or (3) the candidate with a mixture of success and failures, admittedly having made mistakes along the way that contributed to the lack of success? Be careful asking this question in public - it can lead to a long and unfriendly lunch time conversation, depending on the personal experiences of the group. Personally, I think there is a right and a wrong answer on this one, and the answer "it depends" can't be used in this game. Of course, how you rationalize the right and wrong answer depends upon your understanding of human learning, self awareness, integrity and conflict management.

In the Navy, there always seemed to be those "golden boys" - the ones who somehow managed to be assigned to the perennial top-performing organizations. They were leaders in high performing and successful organizations that were high performing and successful before they arrived for their 2-year tour and long after they departed. Then there were others that somehow managed to draw all of the turn-around situations, continuously assigned to organizations with poor performance, with the assignment of turning them around. In which of these two groups would you expect to "learn" more about leadership? As a 12-year member of the latter group, I certainly have a strong opinion on the subject...

Does anyone actually "celebrate" their mistakes? What about "celebrating" their failures? To be sure, let's isolate our discussion of mistakes and failures to those that came out of honest efforts to succeed. Obvious illegal or unethical activities are excluded from this category - that's a different level of learning. Let's assume, for a minute, that after the fact, we are able to analyze and understand the faults in our logic and decision-making that led to the failure. Let's also assume that we have the insight to use this analysis to drive our decision-making in future situations with similar circumstances. We've just accomplished something called "learning" - couldn't this be cause for celebration?

I know, I know...you can learn just as much by making the correct decision the first time, right? Well, think about it...how much time to you spend dissecting the every move when the outcome was a success? I'll bet you do a lot more thorough post-mortem analysis if things did not turn out the way you expected. No one likes to be wrong - and you're much more motivated to prevent this situation in the future.

So, back to our candidates and my pointedly unfair question. Candidate #1 (aka "golden boy") has fewer learning opportunities - or alternatively, is not being forthright about his mis-steps. Not admitting to mistakes rarely works in a corporate setting. Candidate #2 (aka "the blamestormer") has everyone but himself to blame for his mistakes. While uncontrollable circumstances have a lot to do with success, the pattern of placing fault elsewhere can be very disruptive. So, in the absence of any other information - my preference is for candidate #3.


Of course, I would never hire anyone based on what they have already done. A new leader is brought in based on what they are going to do after they arrive. Which leads to the next emotionally debated topice: how do you predict success when choosing the "new guy"???