At the recent WEF summit in Abu Dhabi and on the New Models of Leadership Council on which I serve, my favorite sports coach, Ralph Krueger, shared a thought that has bugged me ever since Malcolm Gladwell published that piece on the 10,000-Hour Rule. The notion of “practice makes perfect” is a good one because it reinforces another phrase I like which is “good luck is hard work.” But while the *why* of practice makes good sense, I’ve wondered about the *what* to practice that isn’t often easy to choose. Because there’s a lot of *what*s out there …
Coach Ralph shed light on the answer to this question I’ve had when he described how after a game is played, Ralph will review two types of moments during the game: Fors and Againsts. And he will set up practices to drill into the player the best response to those two types of moment so that he can embody in his players the actions to take so as to harden into … intuition: repeatable and unconscious embodied knowledge that can kick into act without thought at the decision points that matter most during a game.
Fors are opportunities the player has created for his team to score a goal. Againsts are opportunities the player has created for the OTHER team to score a goal. The beauty of Ralph’s approach is that he doesn’t care about the number of goals scored or goals lost. Ralph only cares if his players are constantly nudging opportunities in the direction of winning while nudging opportunities away from the direction of losing.
Ralph’s elegant design of team performance enhancement made me wonder if the performance evaluation process in work environments misses the point around metrics of success and failure that focus on the outcome versus the process. Better processes can more reliably deliver better results — the goal isn’t the result, but rather the quality of the skills that deliver the results. This approach of course doesn’t say that we need to ignore results; it speaks to where we want to place our emphasis when coaching the teams that we lead.
Okay, my blogging break time is up. Now back to the hockey rink for me. -JM
I recently gave a talk on leadership to the socialmedia.org folks with the intent of learning more about social media. Sometimes I think of social media as a new word for “customer service in public” — which isn’t easy by any means. The link above, to me, represents the kind of lower-level challenges that social media folks get into on the Web. If you note, there never is a point of resolution achieved on the strand. The higher-level challenges of social media for a leader beg all kinds of new questions. I wanted to keep a link to the above URL so that’s what this post is for (a note to myself). -JM
Recently I have been running my Cabinet meeting in a manner that is different than in the past five years. My two senior executives now sit at the head of the table, and then proceed to open and run the meeting per the agenda that we have agreed upon. In running a meeting this way, as the overall leader but not as the leader of the meeting, it affords the ability to observe your own meeting — rather than to lead it. In doing so, I find it possible to hear everyone’s positions and opinions better because I am spending less time trying to “lead to produce value” and more time on “participating to produce value.” This of course depends upon having two excellent senior leaders — like I get to have in my CAO and COO — who are thankfully open to my experiments. Because what can occur from time to time is that I do need to step in and lead the meeting as the heat turns on — but I can recede into the background just as easily as well. As I progress along this track, I’ll share more thoughts about the pros and cons of this approach. -JM
I dropped by the lab of my old colleague Professor Hiroshi Ishii at the MIT Media Lab and was wowed by one of his new projects. Hiroshi is the Doug Engelbart of our generation — a true user-interface pioneer that keeps inventing the next paradigms for manipulating information remotely. But even more importantly, Hiroshi is that special kind of leader who when you say to him, “Great job, Hiroshi” he is always quick to say, “I didn’t do this. My students made it happen. I’m proud to get to work with such great students.” I know for certain that his students hold him in high regard as a truly unique, creative leader. -JM
I’m keeping track of a few things coming out there in telepresence and remote collaboration — it’s a pet interest of mine. Starting this log so I don’t forget what I find:
- Perch: iPad-to-iPad portal that turns on when a face looks into the iPad.
- Sococo: Multi-virtual-room parallel reality with lots of bells and whistles.
- Sqwiggle: Simultaneous video-portals making it easy to interrupt each other.
I’m more than aware that face-to-face is *way* better than any of these solutions. That said, it seems like in certain situations we should be able to imagine a better future than all being in the same room together “studio style” given that we’re in this strange global interconnected world and all … at least that’s what I read on the Internet. -JM
Click on the image above to view the presentation that Red would give to welcome incoming classes at ITP.
Yesterday I got the sad news that Red Burns passed away. She was the warmest (when you needed it), the meanest (because you deserved it), and the smartest (without making you feel stupid) leader around. Red was also the most non-academic-y of the academic leaders I have known, and she always made me question the nature and stereotypes within the academy. Red fit no stereotype I knew of — and for that reason she was a beacon of uniqueness and possibility for us all. This old video from a few years back gives a great taste of the special person that Red was to all of us.
You will be missed, Red. Thank you for telling us all the truth — because we definitely needed to hear it. Your advice to me was always consistent, and because of you, I know what to do and not do. What not to do, is to not let you down. Red, thank you.
Leadership doesn’t have to always be creative. There’s lots to shamelessly copy and emulate out there. I try to collect all kinds of smidgens of knowledge from other leaders that I encounter, and scribble my notes in some illegible scrawl. This is one of them, which I can’t remember who I heard it from.
The notion is that you need to first be able to survive — which is based on having core skills and knowledge. Then you get to compete — which requires specific strengths and competencies. And if you’re lucky enough, you get to aspire to lift the entire field that you represent upwards. Aspiration is less of a check-off-the-box assault at making it to the top, and instead is the magical, emotional part of something — grounded in a set of values — that embodies a sense of possibility. It gives you the *feeling* that you can make a difference. Because you can feel it in your gut. -JM
Joe Gebbia (co-founder of airbnb) and I did a short on-stage conversation for DLD 2013 about creative leadership. -JM
Ever since I did the piece for Wired on videogames, I see so many more now that make me scratch my head and ask questions about the nature of interactive space. This is my start of a random log of links … -JM
Story of a textile:
A place to visit and live among pixelated creatures:
Interesting rotations through dimensionally:
My father never said much to me as I was growing up. He was a doer, more than a thinker. Because my father could only speak Japanese, many people thought I could speak Japanese too. Nope. I could understand a lot though, as he was often giving instructions on what I should do. So if I knew a few spoken words in Japanese as a youth in my “conversations” with my dad it was an obedient, “Yes. I’ll do it.”
There’s one thing I learned from my father, by watching how he’d interact with everyone around him, that had nothing to do with language. Or about thinking. Just doing. And it was doing nice things for other people. He was always someone to go the extra mile for a friend. And he never asked for anything in return. This always struck me as odd — having observed the world outside of his sphere (ie “the real world”) in comparison year over year growing up — wondering to myself, “What was dad’s doing … giving everything he had … away?”
When we think of strategy, we usually think of managing scarcity. Or, choosing the best outcome among other alternatives. Dad never seemed to act from a position of “strategy” in his business, and in his dealings with non-business friends and people. He seemed fully comfortable giving away whatever he had, and just assuming he would always make more. Of what?
I now realize that he created massive amounts of generosity. If I may be more specific, he inspired me to believe that generosity was something that you *do*, and not something that you think about doing. Otherwise it isn’t being generous at all.
Dad loved the confidence he embodied in himself — to be generous, for generosity’s sake — with no particular reason why he *could* be generous at all. He was enigmatic in his ways. Instructive as a doer. Doing is a way of thinking out loud too. That sounds right. Now I get it … it’s always helpful to think out loud.
Okay, my ten minute doing-as-blogging break is over … thanks for visiting. -JM