www-mooreleadership-com-new

“COACH, I GOT THIS!”: The Human Advantage No Model Can Learn

Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:37:33 GMT

“To ‘train a human’ — that is, to live a life — is to struggle and to accept the possibility of failure. Generative AI is all about cutting out that process and making any pursuit as instant, efficient, and effortless as possible.” — From “Sam Altman is Losing His Grip on Humanity” by Matteo Wong

Sam Altman talks about humans and machines as if they operate on equal terms. That assumption, now common in the AI industry, feeds the long-standing humans-as-replaceable-resources corporate paradigm — casting humans as systems to be trained rather than people shaped through struggle, choice, and lived experience.

Optimization only works in stable environments. In an AI-accelerated world defined by volatility, the impulse to eliminate friction becomes a liability. Machines thrive on efficiency and pattern matching. People bring value by asserting themselves when the model fails — when ambiguity and moments of struggle demand judgment rather than execution.

As a coach of teams that defied the odds to win national championships, I’ve witnessed what is possible when humans “assert themselves” in “moments of struggle.” Our teams had to make significant improvements to challenge more accomplished rivals. This was made possible when each member of the team committed to continually stretching beyond perceived limitations. Growth doesn’t happen without struggle.

One moment of growth still gives me goosebumps. It happened during the 1995 NCAA National Championship final.

We were on the brink of losing to Florida, the #1 seed. Momentum had swung decisively against us. Most of our athletes had never experienced the pressure of an NCAA final. Our singles lineup included two seniors, one sophomore, and three freshmen. Only one player in the singles lineup had experience in this kind of environment.

Our freshmen who had shone so brightly in the semis suddenly looked like deer in headlights. We went down 4–1 quickly in the singles. Our #1 player, Kelly Pace, pulled out a tense 3-setter, winning four straight games after being 3–2 down in the third. Now it was 4–2. We had survived the singles. But Florida only needed one more point to close it out. We would have to pull off something extraordinarily difficult under any circumstances: sweep all three doubles matches. It had never been done before in the history of NCAA championship finals. There was a sense of inevitability in the air.

But I felt good about our chances.

During the regular season, we had encountered an unusually high number of rainy days. Our only option on those days was to try to grab the one indoor, multi-purpose tartan court on the 5th floor of Bellmont Hall — before the students who wanted to play badminton showed up.

If we were fortunate to get there first, we would pull a dusty old tennis net out of the storage closet and jerry rig it to stanchions that were designed to hold volleyball nets. To hold the stanchions down, screws were driven into holes in the floor that were all, but stripped. I had to hustle down to the third floor to borrow some free weights to hold the stanchions in place. When there were no weights available my assistant and I would have to stand on the stanchions to keep the net from collapsing. Tartan floors are slick, but this particular tartan floor was old, worn and splotchy. The ball would skid erratically especially if it hit one of the many bare spots.

How could we possibly get anything out of practicing under these conditions? How could we possibly be ready to compete for a national championship in May?

I could have complained about not having indoor courts like so many of our rivals, then have our athletes hit some volleys, maybe hit against the wall a bit, and call it a day. But on a rainy day in March I wasn’t thinking about winning in May. During each practice I was focused on how our athletes could become better competitors — on that day! I saw this as a tremendous growth opportunity — an opportunity to create an environment that challenged each athlete to execute in very difficult circumstances.

In high-level doubles you do not want to let the ball touch the ground on your side of the court while doing everything possible to ‘find the ground’ on your opponents’ side. The conditions in Bellmont provided every incentive to do this. The frictionless surface created plenty of friction!

I challenged our athletes with “Find the ground, close, and finish!” To emphasize “finishing,” we did a drill called “Crazy Overheads,” making them hit overheads off of lobs fed to them at a quick clip and at ridiculously extreme angles and trajectories. They had to hit every ball as an overhead, even balls that they would normally let bounce or hit as volleys, as I screamed “Finish!” Being forced to contort your body to hit overheads while scrambling randomly up and back, side to side, and diagonally forward and backward definitely created “moments of struggle!”

When May arrived, Bellmont was with us.

But Florida was pumped. Our athletes had a big mountain to climb. They needed a jolt. After giving them some space and time to hydrate, I pulled them together. “Eyes here. You can do this! Go out and compete the way you have prepared to compete. Remember Bellmont!”

All 3 teams stormed to early leads. Our #1 doubles team, Pace and Cristina Moros, dominated and finished quickly. At the outset, prospects for our #3 team, Ashley Johnson and Lucie Ludvigova, were not promising. Johnson had been hit with food poisoning the night before. During the singles she was flat on her back in the clubhouse. But she had always found a way to rise to the occasion in tough situations before and Ludvigova, who along with Pace was a team leader, was a stubbornly relentless competitor. After a slow start, they went on to win their match.

Suddenly, the score was tied: 4–4. The national championship came down to one match. Our #2 doubles team: sophomore Farley Taylor and freshman Anne Pastor. They had struggled all season just to stay above .500 and they were facing two Florida upperclassmen — one of whom would go on to become a top-20 player in the world.

Because Taylor and Pastor had been so up and down, I decided to become Coach Optimizer and call every serve — like a catcher calling pitches. They cruised in the first set. Returns were finding the ground and after all, why not? A true bounce was heavenly after struggling with the splotchy tartan in Bellmont. They were also serving effectively. In baseball lingo they were “pitching to contact” by jamming the Gators or making them stretch, forcing them to hit weak returns. The server’s partner would then poach to pick off the “pop ups.”

Then reality began to set in. They tightened up and dropped the second set. The third set went back and forth. Optimization was starting to break. At 3–3, 30–40, I felt that Taylor absolutely had to hold her serve. I barked out: “Serve T!”

Instead of nodding in compliance, Taylor paused, turned, locked eyes with me, and barked back:

“Coach, I got this!”

I was stunned. But I didn’t react with something like “What makes her think she can speak to me like that?! I’ve gotten them this far.” I was thrilled! I turned to one of my assistants, Kimm Ketelsen, and said “I think we got this!”

Taylor saw something I didn’t see. She served wide — and hit an ace! She and Pastor went on to close out the match, securing a historic upset for the team.

It still gives me chills to reflect on the explosion of growth unleashed in front of me that day. In crucial moments, our athletes decided to shape circumstances rather than letting circumstances shape them. In “moments of struggle” each athlete made a personal decision to stretch beyond what they perceived to be their limitations. What distinguishes top performing teams is mutual respect, earned by demonstrating a strong relationship to self — the willingness to step out of comfort when optimization breaks.

In an AI-accelerated world, workers experience “moments of struggle” every day. Business leaders must understand that treating people like human resources on a balance sheet doesn’t work anymore. Human development is about becoming someone, not just producing something. When it comes to ‘humans,’ business leaders must let go of the “if you can’t measure it, it’s not worth doing” mindset and learn how to create an environment that unleashes the true value that ‘humans’ can offer.

AI cannot grow. It can only churn through patterns it has already seen. Inefficiency becomes something to eliminate. Inner struggle becomes weakness. But much of what matters most emerges precisely because life is inefficient. People grow when challenged to stretch beyond perceived limitations in moments of struggle — the human advantage no model can learn.

Jeff Moore is a leadership coach and CEO of Moore Leadership LLC. He is the author of “Strive Together: Achieve Beyond Expectations in a Results-Obsessed World.”

Hiring During Liquid Times

Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:52:09 GMT

“We’re living in ‘Liquid Times.’ Our environment is in a constant state of change, operating without fixed, solid patterns. We must learn to adapt our beliefs so that we are able to ‘walk on quicksand,’ adapting constantly to rapid change. We can no longer rely on the beliefs that were a feature of our relatively stable and more certain past.” Colin Strong

No one understands how to ‘walk on quicksand’ better than Tony Capasso. Our unstable, disruptive economy is a world of ambiguity. There are no “fixed, solid patterns” to guide people. Tony has an impressive track record putting together teams built for these “liquid times.” He understands what qualities workers must possess to thrive in ambiguity. These qualities align with Thomas Friedman's discovery while researching Reid Hoffman’s “The Startup of You.” Friedman reported that employers are looking for “people who can invent, adapt, and reinvent their jobs every day.”

The “Startup of You” was written back in 2012, and Tony Capasso has been building teams that thrive in “invent, adapt, and reinvent” mode for at least that long. It’s 2024, and hiring and retention rates continue to lag! The problem? While companies are fully aware of the disruptive economy they’re operating in, they still struggle to effectively deal with it. This disconnect was revealed in a 2009 IBM Global Study. 1500 CEO’s were asked to describe the biggest challenge they were facing. To the surprise of many, instead of citing a corporate go-to like management discipline, they said their most daunting challenge was “successfully navigating change in an increasingly complex world.” However, after correctly assessing the challenge, they seemed to be at a loss as to how to confront it!!

This disconnect persists in 2024 because executives continue to identify the wrong people to navigate. At the core of this misidentification is the notion that every problem must be solved in a way that is tangible and measurable. This causes them to view people as resources on a spreadsheet. The goal is to maximize the output that can be derived from human resources? When making decisions about hiring, the question becomes, “What does the data tell us about which job candidate is most likely to produce tangible results?”

The problem with this thinking is that humans are messy, complicated beings. They cannot be (intrinsically) motivated through actions that are “tangible and measurable.” The mere thought of this notion makes data-obsessed executives very nervous!

Tony understands that finding the right people requires focusing on the intangibles, the qualities that drive people to “produce tangible results.” He recruits Strivers, people who embrace Strivership, an ethic of continuous improvement based on the origin of ‘compete’, ‘to strive together.’ The essence of what it means to compete has become grossly distorted in our current results-obsessed culture. Competing was never meant to be a strictly zero-sum endeavor. The modern definition “to outdo another” is a better fit for the term “cutthroat.” Strivers are driven by a purpose that transcends winning. They understand that you can’t control outcomes. You can only put yourself in the best position to achieve (or exceed) outcomes and this is done by focusing on what goes into winning.

Strivers excel in rapid-change environments because they build healthy competitive relationships. The most important relationship they build is their Relationship to Self. Strivers understand that every action they take begins with this internal conversation. They thrive when challenged to move out of their comfort zone and persevere while tackling difficult issues that require unconventional problem-solving. Instead of looking outward to manage their brand, they look inward and decide to lead. Achieving a goal is like passing a milepost in route to a destination they never expect to reach. They use the momentum from achieving a goal as motivation to take on the next challenge. They are always reaching beyond their grasp. Strivers are never satisfied with who they have become. They are driven by what they can become.

Strivers also demonstrate a competitive relationship with the team. They’re always thinking, “What can I bring to the team?” instead of ”What can the team do for me?” Strivers demonstrate support for their teammates, but not with a torrent of empty, obligatory way-to-go’s to simply ‘get along. ’This creates a sense of harmony that’s superficial at best. Strivers support teammates by demonstrating a willingness to challenge them and to be challenged by them. They’re also committed to communicating directly with them when a serious personal issue arises because triangulation is a disease! This approach engenders respect. When there’s a commitment to earning respect, a more meaningful kind of harmony evolves, one that creates an unbreakable bond.

Tony believed that unless everyone in a company was prepared to ‘walk on quicksand' the company would eventually get swallowed up by it. Unfortunately, his perspective wasn’t always shared by others. He watched colleagues who were Strivers gravitate toward hiring Arrivers, candidates they called “A Players.” Arrivers hesitate to “reach beyond their grasp” because success must always be within clutching distance. They’ve arrived at a tangible level of success. They’re afflicted with Results Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (R.O.C.D). Any result that will enable them to compare favorably will do. They work feverishly to promote who they have become. It’s all about embellishing and protecting their personal brand.

In one of the startups that Tony was involved with, there was a particularly strong movement to hire Arrivers. The company had developed a product that was ready to go to market. Tony had to build a sales team quickly. He wanted to hire Alan, who he knew from his previous company. Alan didn’t have as much experience as others, but Tony identified him as a Striver. His colleagues were pushing him to hire Bill, a veteran of the sales industry. They promoted Bill as someone who would “turbocharge” the sales team. “He’s killing it in his current job,” they said. “He’s the complete package!”

Tony was skeptical. He had Alan take my Strivership Quotient (SQ) Assessment. The SQ evaluates one’s willingness to strive together in relationships to Self, Team, Boss, and Direct Reports. It serves as a catalyst for my work helping leaders identify, recruit, and develop people for rapid-change work environments. Most assessments attempt to identify who you are by measuring discrete personality traits. The SQ evaluates where you are by measuring performance attributes, providing insights that are truly actionable.

Certain attributes on Bill’s SQ Profile threw up red flags, including a lack of willingness to:

Challenge and be challenged.
Communicate directly with the source when a serious issue arises with the boss.
Project an accurate self-image (How much of what you see is what you get?).

Tony used these results to design questions for the interview. Bill’s response to one particular question pretty much sealed his fate. Tony asked, “Have you ever worked for a boss who micro-managed you to death?” Bill nodded his head. Tony followed up with “What did you do about it?” The first red flag was Bill sitting back in his chair for what seemed like an eternity, pondering how to respond. Finally, Tony leaned forward, locked eyes with Bill, and challenged him. “Bill, I’m your boss. I’m in your business 24-7. I’m literally micro-managing you 24/7. What are you going to do about it?!” Bill’s response: “I would do my best to diffuse the situation. I would respond in a way that calmed the waters.” “That’s not going to work!” Tony said. “If you have a serious issue with me I would expect you to break down my door and communicate right away.” Tony had been down this road before. He’d submitted to hiring Arrivers and it had stymied his team’s growth. He knew that Bill wouldn’t respond well in a rapidly changing environment. He was determined to protect his status as the complete package. The only thing he was prepared to “navigate” was company politics.

Too many executives remain stuck (often unwittingly) in the Industrial Age, a “relatively stable and more certain past,” a time of incremental change. Employers could get away with hiring Arrivers then because workers were expected to simply do their jobs. It was all about “the grind.” But these are “liquid times.” There is nothing “stable” or “incremental” about today’s economy. A “nose to the grindstone” mindset must be replaced by a “head on a swivel.” Companies must start looking for Strivers, people who will “invent, adapt, and reinvent their jobs.”

Tony ended up hiring Alan, and his team thrived. He knew that Alan would never be ‘scheduled for arrival.’ He knew that he would never be satisfied with what he had become. Alan viewed himself as incomplete. He was driven by what he could become!

Leadership Lessons from Oppie

Tue, 23 Jan 2024 18:59:35 GMT

We’re in a leadership crisis now. Executives often put “leadership” at the top of a list of qualities they’re looking for, and yet in the next breath they talk about the ability to “manage” people. Management is crucially important when applied to processes and systems, not people. In our disruptive, unstable world we’re desperately in need of leaders who demonstrate the courage to move out of their comfort zone to tackle the impossible. As Thomas Friedman found during research for, “The Start-Up of You,” employers are now looking for people who can “invent, adapt, and reinvent their jobs every day.” Why do we continue to cling to the Industrial Age concept of managing people? The answer: leading people is ‘hard.’

This is a story from a period in our history when leadership was not considered to be a ‘soft skill.’

In 1942 General Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project chose J. Robert Oppenheimer to lead a team of scientists at the Los Alamos Weapons Laboratory whose goal was to build an atomic bomb before Nazi Germany could build one. Few people in our history have been tasked with a more daunting challenge. Failure could result in existential consequences for the world! There was little evidence from Oppenheimer’s past to indicate that he was up to this challenge. He had never led anything more than a small group of graduate students and he was being asked to transform a large group of strong-willed individuals into a high performing team.

Oppenheimer was a world renowned theoretical physicist known for his towering intellect and eccentric behavior, which at times bordered on the bizarre. He was extraordinarily curious, but had little interest in areas that involved practical application. As Bird and Sherwin wrote in “American Prometheus,” “Oppenheimer’s approach to learning physics was eclectic, even haphazard in that he would focus on the most interesting, (typically) abstract problems in the field, bypassing the basics.”

Why would General Groves select Oppenheimer to lead this enormously challenging project? He and Oppenheimer were from different planets! Groves had an impressive resume, having supervised major projects including the construction of the Pentagon. He was a quintessential manager who viewed his people as human resources to be procured, allocated, and deployed. Managing people can work in fixed work environments where a script is provided, making repetition and efficiency the keys to success. Groves' approach was simple: “Follow me and do your job.” As his former aide, Col. Kenneth Nichols said, “Men serving him grudgingly admired his ability to get things done. He is the most demanding. He is most critical. I hated his guts and so did everybody else, but we had our form of understanding.”

Groves’ decision to hire Oppenheimer precipitated a clash of cultures. Many of Groves’ like-minded peers in the military pushed back on the decision. Why did Groves resist the entreaties of his like-minded peers and select Oppenheimer to lead this enormously important project? How did a lifelong manager come to identify and value leadership qualities?

Groves was impressed that Oppenheimer could relate to his managerial challenges. Bird and Sherwin wrote that “Oppenheimer was the first scientist Groves had met who grasped that building an atomic bomb required finding practical solutions to a variety of cross-disciplinary problems.” He was also impressed by Oppenheimer’s suggestion that “the new lab should be located in some isolated rural site rather than in a large city – a notion that fits nicely with (his) concerns for security.” But Groves also understood that the complexity of the task confronting scientists at the Los Alamos Weapons would require creating a fluid work environment, an environment where scientists could sustain an “invent, adapt, and reinvent” mindset. He was convinced that Oppenheimer could create this kind of environment.

Oppenheimer struggled in his new role initially. Bird and Sherwin recounted that Oppenheimer had to “conjure up skills he did not yet have, deal with problems he had never imagined, develop work habits entirely at odds with his previous lifestyle, and adjust to attitudes and modes of behavior that were emotionally awkward and alien to his experience.” Despite these obstacles Oppenheimer made the transition quickly to the astonishment of those around him. As one of his colleagues recalled, “The once eccentric theoretical physicist, a long-haired, left-wing intellectual (became) a first-rate, highly organized leader."

How was Oppenheimer able to evolve from eccentric professor to first-rate leader? What fueled his dramatic transformation was his ability to connect. Oppenheimer was not just curious about ideas. He was also curious about people. He was a relationship-builder. As a professor his relationships with students involved engaging them in wide ranging theoretical discussions. At Los Alamos he would have to build relationships with a team of scientists who were charged with developing a weapon that could change the course of history.

Oppenheimer began by building personal relationships to earn trust. He made an effort to connect with everyone working at the laboratory – from Nobel Prize winners to the janitors – conveying that he cared about them as people. And he refused to micro-manage their work. During visits to the experimental sites, he took a keen interest in the work the scientists were engaged in, but never got involved in the performance of experiments.

Once Oppenheimer earned trust he leveraged it, but not like managers who try to squeeze as much as possible out of their people. Leaders empower his people to get the most out of themselves.

Oppenheimers challenged his ‘followers’ to lead by competing. To ‘tackle the impossible’ they would have to channel the origin of compete: ‘to strive together,’ Oppenheimer lived in a time before the essence of what it means to compete became distorted. The 21st century incarnation is ‘cutthroat.’ Competing is feared because it is now viewed as strictly zero-sum. This has led us to resuscitate the Industrial Age concept of “working together” (aka collaboration), a time of incremental change when fixed work environments sufficed. Fear of competing has kept us from doing big things (unless they can be monetized).

Leadership is hard and messy! Oppenheimer created an environment where scientists were motivated to embrace the mess and produce something novel – quickly! He cultivated in them the willingness to build competitive relationships, but he understood that before you can build competitive relationships with others you have to develop a competitive relationship with yourSELF. He knew that every action a person decides to take begins with an internal conversation. When the pressure was on, instead of asking himself “How can I avoid taking responsibility for this to manage my brand,” he looked inward and chose to lead. He relished being challenged to move out of his comfort zone, solve problems unconventionally, and persevere through inevitable setbacks. This could be what Groves gleaned when he said he was struck by Oppenheimer’s “overweening ambition.”

Oppenheimer was willing to “tackle the impossible” and his people fed off of it. He was able to challenge them to bring their best selves to the team. He held colloquiums, bringing scientists together to debate. When the military pressured him to “short-circuit the debates,” he insisted that the scientists had to be “free to argue.” He considered this to be crucial to the process of solving the novel problems they were confronted with. Oppenheimer rarely viewed a problem as unsolvable. He pushed his people to look at different ways to attack a problem until they found a solution. Occasionally he brought groups from different fields together to do collective problem-solving. When a team’s experiments failed or when their theories hit a wall, members of other teams could get involved and offer their ideas. Oppenheimer created a competitive cauldron. Scientists did not hesitate to challenge each other and, just as importantly, accepted being challenged! But it was never meant to be personal. Outside of work hours he arranged for dinners where scientists could relax and socialize. What happened in the cauldron stayed in the cauldron!

Bird and Sherwin shared the perspectives of many of the scientists who worked at Los Alamos. “His mere presence seemed to galvanize people to greater efforts,” said one colleague. Another “marveled at how often Oppie seemed to be physically present at each new breakthrough in the project” and how “his continuous and intense presence” motivated them. Yet another colleague said “He made you do the impossible.”

People managers promote company culture. Everything must be tangible and measurable. Procure, allocate, and deploy – rinse and repeat. Squeeze the turnip! Oppenheimer cultivated a spirit, the sense that everyone involved was excited about getting better together every day!

As Hans Bethe, head of the theoretical division at Los Alamos, later said, “Los Alamos might have succeeded without (Oppenheimer), but certainly only with much greater strain, less enthusiasm, and less speed. As it was, it was an unforgettable experience for all members of the laboratory. There were other wartime laboratories of high achievement. But I have never observed in any one of these other groups quite the spirit of belonging together, the urge to reminisce about the days of the laboratory, quite the feeling that this was the great time of our lives. That this was true was mainly due to Oppenheimer. He was a leader.”

Shed Your Performing Self

Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:10:11 GMT

During an episode of HBO’s “The White Lotus,” a young woman named Portia was staying at an upscale resort in Sicily working as a personal assistant for a wealthy guest. During breakfast one morning she broke down. While another person at her table takes smiling selfies with the gleaming ocean in the background, she glanced across the terrace at her boss. “Is everything boring?” she asks, her voice trembling. I just feel like there must’ve been a time when the world had more, you know? Like mystery or something. And now you come somewhere like this, and it’s beautiful, and you take a picture, and then you realize that everybody’s taking that exact same picture from that exact same spot and you’ve just made some redundant content for stupid Instagram.”

People who live in the virtual world operate from the outside-in. They lack a strong relationship to self because they’re conditioned to look at the world through the eyes of other people who they imagine are looking back at them. In We’re Already Living in the Metaverse, Megan Garber writes that ‘social media has made each person into a ‘performing self.’” In the virtual world people perform within their limitations because their goal is simply to compare favorably with others. Self-worth is based on the number of ‘likes’ received and the pressure to be ‘liked’ is so intense that even posting ‘redundant content’ can meet the need. “The world’s a stage’ was once a metaphor,” Garber says. “Today, it’s a dull description of life in the metaverse.”

During my work with companies I have met plenty of young people who long to experience more ‘mystery’ in their lives, but they’re too immersed in the virtual world that Portia describes. They struggle to form meaningful relationships. Most importantly, they struggle to build a strong relationship to self, the internal conversation you have with yourself. Every action that a person takes begins with this conversation. If you possess a strong relationship to self, you operate from the inside-out. There’s a flame burning inside of you that can’t be extinguished. You thrive when challenged to move outside your comfort zone and you know no limits.

Young people are particularly vulnerable to becoming a ‘performing self’ because they have also been pressured to perform in the real world. For many young people a personal branding campaign is launched on their behalf beginning at birth. Their lives become a marketing strategy, choreographed to avoid any (perceived) wrong turns. This leaves them ill-equipped as young adults to handle the wrong turns that they will inevitably experience. Many young adults are stressed about living performative lives. They are ready to experience uncertainty, adventure and self-discovery, things that make life worth living. They just don’t know how to access it. “In a functioning society, ‘I’m a real person’ goes without saying,” Garber says. “In ours it’s a desperate plea.”

I help companies build championship teams. Championship teams are built from the inside-out. You can’t build strong relationships with others unless you build a strong relationship with yourself. I challenge people to ignite their inner flame and wrestle with the concepts of ‘real person’ versus ‘performing self.’

It was fascinating to watch this unfold during a recent workshop I did with sales development teams at Auctane. I took the teams through an exercise that involved having each team member think about a project they were part of that failed and how things might have gone better if they had been more self-accountable. I urged them to ask themselves questions like: “Could I have been more willing to tackle particularly gnarly problems? Could I have persevered through some of the more difficult patches? Should I have spoken up when things started to go downhill?”

Tracy Ekeocha’s story was one of the exceptions.

Tracy was an honor student with a nearly perfect attendance record at Little Elm High School. He was the starting point guard on the highly rated basketball team and he was voted Homecoming King. Little Elm was a big school and Tracy was a big man on campus.

Going into Tracy’s senior season it looked like the basketball team had a chance to make a deep run in the playoffs, but things had not trended in that direction during the regular season and tension was building as the playoffs approached. It came to a head unexpectedly in the middle of an otherwise routine practice.

The coach abruptly stopped the action, got in Tracy’s face in front of the whole team, and screamed “This team will only go as far as you take it! You need to step up! You need to become a leader!” There was a stunned silence in the gym. You could hear a pin drop. The coach, known for his laid back demeanor, had suddenly erupted. Tracy was in shock. Did his coach fail to understand all that he had achieved? “I don’t deserve this!” he thought.

But instead of pointing fingers at teammates or complaining about how his coach handled the situation, Tracy told his Auctane teammates that he wished he’d responded to his coach’s challenge. He focused on what more he could have brought to the team. In hindsight, he recognized that he had become a high functioning “performing self” with an impeccable personal brand and that his coach wanted to see more of Tracy, the ‘real person.’

On a championship team leaders don’t want their direct reports to simply follow directions. They empower their direct reports by challenging them with questions like “What do you see?” Similarly, the best point guards are an extension of the coach on the court. Tracy wasn’t seeing much because he was unwilling to assert himself by finding ways to get to the rim to force the defense to collapse, creating more openings for his teammates. He had settled into a safe role as ‘facilitator’ so as not to imperil his brand. He wished that he had been more of an instigator. He was good at identifying cracks in opposing defenses, but he wasn’t willing to fully commit to acting on the intel.

A point guard’s inner flame must always be burning hot. Tracy’s had been on low heat.

By being so openly self-accountable, Tracy and a few of his teammates helped ignite an inner flame in several of their teammates who had held back. Things got real quickly. There was tension in the air. I could sense that wrestling matches between “real person” and “performing self” were breaking out all over the room. It was exhilarating to watch team members shed remnants of their ‘performing self.’ They were no longer prisoners to what other people think. They were well on their way to becoming a championship team.

Most companies are built from the outside-in. They don’t just brand their products. They brand their people by promoting their culture with stock pictures of people climbing a mountain or leaping over a crevasse captioned by a catchy quote from a trending pundit, content that Portia might describe as “boring” and “redundant.” There is no mystery about what they do. They perform within their limitations because their goal is simply to compare favorably with The Competition.

Championship teams have a mystique about them. They exude a spirit, the sense that everyone involved is excited about getting better every day. You can’t describe what they do in words. It’s just a powerful feeling.

You never know what to expect from them because they know no limits. Their inner flame is always burning and it can’t be extinguished!

What They Don't Teach You In Leadership Class

Thu, 09 Jun 2022 19:06:43 GMT

I was suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias. I was picturing a room full of quants immersed in a world where everything, including people, can be measured. Rob Delaney, CEO of Infinia ML, had asked me to conduct a leadership workshop with his executive team. Infinia ML is a machine learning company, headquartered in Durham, North Carolina. They have developed a platform that uses machine learning to analyze unstructured text and content, enabling their customers to streamline workflows and uncover fresh insights.

Leadership is an art based on relationship-building. I was convinced that this concept would be too messy and inefficient for a group that would seek to quantify everything. Surely they would prefer a more scientific approach to people matters. Wouldn’t they be more comfortable with a management consultant, someone who is fluent in the language of systems and processes? Managing people is a lot cleaner. You can measure their performance by reducing them to numbers on a spreadsheet.

If my modus operandi was to provide teams with a path of least resistance I would probably get more business, but it’s not in my DNA. I help executives transform from ‘manager’ to ‘leader’ by challenging them to embrace discomfort, not avoid it. Making this transformation is challenging for every group I work with, but with this group, I expected to run into a wall.

There are two ways to lead: leading self and leading others. Everyone on a championship team accepts the challenge of leading themselves. It’s impossible to effectively lead others if you are not leading by example. This is achieved by constantly working to build strong relationships to self, team, and boss. Relationship to self - the conversation you have with yourself - is the most important relationship. Self accountability is the foundation of a championship team. Before you can build strong relationships with your teammates you must develop a strong relationship with yourself.

I started the workshop with Team Infinia by facilitating an exercise that addressed relationship to self - the conversation you have with yourself. I asked each team member to take notes about a project they were involved in that failed and reflect on their role in the process. Then I broke them out into pairs and asked them to tell their story to their partner. After letting those discussions play out, I asked if anyone wanted to share their story with the entire team and include thoughts about how they could have been better in their role. When things go south there is a human tendency to look to others to assume responsibility. As with most groups, members of Team Infinia initially resisted the notion that when adversity hits the team the first place for each team member to look is inward, but in the end, they definitely got the message.

After finishing our discussion about the relationship to self, we moved on to a session on relationship to the team. Going into it I was convinced that members of Team Infinia would have no conception of the personal qualities required to build strong relationships with teammates. I had bought into the stereotype of a quant that every challenge a company faces can be solved with an algorithm. Most business teams struggle with the intangibles involved in relationship building, but at least they understand it. With this group, I was expecting blank stares.

I was in for a big surprise!

I started the session with an open-ended question: “What attributes are essential to building a strong relationship with a team?” One of the executives quickly made the first offering with a single word: “Tension.” I was stunned. I asked him why this was the first attribute that came to mind. He said that his team is regularly confronted with difficult problems and that quite often there is no clear path to a solution. Other times there are multiple solutions and the team must select one of them. He said that this can create tremendous stress because team members often have very strong, divergent opinions about which direction to take. In these situations, he said, everyone must contribute and when necessary, challenge each other. I was shocked by his insight. Usually, it takes several follow-up questions to get teams to this place that he landed on right off the bat.

I wanted to build on the momentum that he had created so I quickly followed up with: “What if a meeting becomes especially contentious and two of your teammates leave the meeting angry at each other?” Again he was right on point. He said that it is their responsibility to clear the air without involving others. This executive had zeroed in on two key attributes - assertiveness and communication - that separate championship teams from the rest. He had provided a level of insight that I had rarely encountered during engagements with head sport coaches and had never experienced before with business leaders.

When I ask most groups “What is the key to building strong relationships with teammates, ‘supporting teammates’” is typically the first response. Supporting teammates is crucial, but if you are not being assertive and directly communicative with teammates you’re not truly supporting them. And when support is offered unconditionally it eventually becomes fake and empty. This creates a catch-22. The “Way to go!” and “Atta boys!” become knee-jerk responses and praise becomes meaningless. Teammates become dependent on receiving kudos for every single micro achievement. But if the flow of empty praise recedes for some reason everyone goes into withdrawals.

A championship team is not like a family in the literal sense. Family members can have goals that are conflicting, but support is unconditional because “We’re family!” Members of a championship team are aligned with a common goal. The road to achieving that goal can be filled with obstacles that must be confronted openly and directly. Team members must stand up for their positions, not hesitate to challenge each other's viewpoints, and remain open to being challenged. They must also communicate directly with the source when a serious issue arises with a teammate. On a championship team triangulation is a disease.

A quest for harmonic bliss within a company is a recipe for disaster. To the outside world, everything is hunky-dory. Every day is a pep rally. But the flow of positivity in this kind of environment is superficial. Behind the curtain, issues are not confronted and communications become increasingly triangulated as conversations are brokered by third parties. Eventually equivocation and back-stabbing become pervasive breaking bonds that were held together by a thread, to begin with.

On championship teams earning ‘respect’ is more important than being ‘liked.’ When I coached teams where the athletes prioritized getting along over earning respect the team always underachieved. When I had teams where the athletes were committed to earning each other’s respect the team overachieved. On championship teams that I was fortunate to be part of the athletes pushed each other relentlessly and confronted personal issues directly and openly. Often at the beginning of the season, the ‘respect factor’ was high,’ while the ‘like factor’ could be tenuous. But in the end, the ‘like factor’ caught up and teammates established an unbreakable bond that remains strong well beyond their sports careers!

Until we meet again, Strive On!

Competition, Refreshed - There is An "I" In Team!

Tue, 12 Apr 2022 19:14:08 GMT

You don’t have to win a championship to be considered a championship team. In certain years at Texas our team won the conference championship simply because we had far superior talent. To me championship teams are teams that overachieve. It’s not about a trophy. It’s a mindset - and it brings goosebumps!

Mike Noonan is known in college soccer as a builder of championship teams. This past fall, in his 12th season at the helm, his Clemson Tigers won the NCAA Championships. But Mike would be considered a “builder of championship teams” with or without an NCAA title on his resume. I first met Mike in 2016. He had listened to a presentation I gave at Clemson earlier in the year. His team had just come off a run to the NCAA finals, but he had lost some key leaders from that team. He called me about coming to help him with his new challenge which he summed up in one sentence, “My guys are good students and they’re great in the weight room, but they won’t engage fiercely on the pitch!”

Working together was not an issue for Mike’s athletes. They did fine in situations where they were provided with a roadmap - a syllabus or a list of tasks to complete. Striving together on the other hand was a struggle. They feared scenarios in practice that compelled them to compete. These scenarios were uncomfortable for them because they were challenged to problem solve without a roadmap - and soccer is the ultimate problem solving sport!

I had tremendous respect for Mike so I was thrilled about the opportunity to contribute to what he was building at Clemson. By the third day of my visit things seemed to be headed in a new and positive direction. I had some very productive meetings with athletes and coaches and Mike also made some changes that brought more of a sense of urgency to practice. His athletes were beginning to learn how to compete. They had started the process of transforming from “soccer player” to “soccer competitor.”

But before leaving I made sure to press them about how they planned to continue to build on the progress they’d made. Any momentum generated during my visit would dissipate quickly unless they made a commitment to own the transformation process. In my final meeting with them I asked: “How are you going to build on the momentum you’ve generated? What are you going to do to ensure that you continue to get better?” I fully expected a lively discussion featuring a whole range of diverse views. Instead, “We need to keep each other accountable” was the dominant viewpoint. This shocked me! They were essentially suggesting that the way to sustain their new-found momentum was to outsource personal accountability!

I had been hearing “We need to keep each other accountable,” from other teams in both athletics and the corporate world. It had always struck me as odd, but in this context it really struck a chord. “I understand that support from your teammates is very important,” I said. “But when you face adversity, why is your first impulse to look for someone else to keep you accountable? How about taking this approach instead? The next time things get tough for you and you want to look for a teammate to keep you accountable, look inward and ask yourself “How can I be accountable? What can I bring to the team? How can I make a difference?’”

The entire team was sitting in front of me across 2 long benches. I walked slowly down the line, pausing to lock eyes with each player and asked each one the same question: “When the going gets tough will YOU be accountable? What are YOU going to do to make a difference?”

Self-accountability is the foundation of a strong relationship to self, defined as the internal conversation you have with yourself. Every action you take begins with this conversation. You can’t build strong relationships with others until you build a strong relationship with yourself. Members of (self-proclaimed) “winning teams,” avoid self-accountability. When confronted with a difficult challenge they hold back to protect their image. Just the thought of moving outside of their comfort zone is terrifying. They feel pressured to portray themselves in a way that enables them to compare favorably with others. This feeling is exacerbated by leadership theorists who push the notion that the ideal teammate seeks to “fit in.” An obsession with comparing favorably is not only ineffectual. It can be harmful. Extensive research confirms that “keeping up with the Joneses” is associated with anxiety and even depression.” (Arthur Burns, “How to Want Less,” The Atlantic, March 2022).

Members of championship teams exude a strong sense of self. When confronted with a difficult challenge they look inward and ask themselves “What can I bring to the team? How can I make a difference?” I’m sure that most people would agree with San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich when he says that being a good teammate requires “getting over yourself.” But by “getting over yourself” he doesn’t mean abandoning your “sense of self.” Spurs players are not simply cogs in the machine. Each player brings a distinct assertiveness to his role on the team. Some are vocal and others exhibit a quiet strength, but all of them are committed to making a difference. They “fit” because they stand out!

On championship teams everyone must be self-accountable including the boss. One of my clients is Powwater, a purpose-driven, early stage company with lofty goals. They are endeavoring to solve the private water market by providing access to clean drinking water to 2.5 billion people worldwide through data insights. During a recent call the CEO, Jack Hartpence, was expressing his frustrations about a serious issue with accounting. A lack of attention to detail had set the company back and there was plenty of blame to go around. I let him vent for a while then interrupted and asked “How are you accountable for this issue?” He was shocked by the question. It was a real jolt to his system. But then it hit him. “I’m going too fast,” he said. “We’re growing too quickly. I need to slow down.”

Jack began his next leadership team meeting by taking responsibility for his part in this company-wide issue. He is learning that to effectively lead others he must first learn to lead himself. To build a championship team everyone involved must demonstrate self-accountability.

Until we meet again, Strive On!

Mike’s athletes may have had a desire to win (because after all who wants to lose?), but they were not committed to winning. They did not yet understand that what distinguishes a championship team from a winning team is a willingness to compete. Championship teams embrace Strivership, an ethic of continuous improvement based on the origin of compete, ‘to strive together.’

Brainz Magazine: Competition, Refreshed - Bring Back Your Edge!

Fri, 11 Mar 2022 19:15:41 GMT

"As head tennis coach at the University of Texas I knew that to contend for national championships our athletes would have to exceed expectations...."

Thriving in Ambiguity: Part 5 of 5 - Lead By Being Led

Mon, 20 Apr 2020 21:30:00 GMT

As we enter yet another week of lockdowns, skyrocketing unemployment, paralyzed supply chains, and grim death counts, world leaders are considering how and when to return to business as usual.

As we enter yet another week of lockdowns, skyrocketing unemployment, paralyzed supply chains, and grim death counts, world leaders are considering how and when to return to business as usual. There is a growing realization, however, that “normal” has been forever changed. Globalization and the rapid advancement of technology had already forced most businesses to embrace uncertainty in ways that past generations couldn’t have imagined. But we are just now starting to understand how vulnerable our new world is to things like disease and weather phenomena. It seems like the only thing we can count on regarding the future is that we have no idea what the future will hold.

The coronavirus pandemic has stopped us in our tracks and provided us with an opportunity to reflect on how we can come out of this better than we were before. We have become accustomed to finding the path of least resistance to solve problems. If the path to a solution is unclear, we tend to avoid it altogether because venturing down a road less traveled risks damaging our personal brand. This attitude is holding us back. We live in a world of ambiguity – a world where many of the problems we face do not have solutions. Issues like climate change, a crumbling infrastructure, health care, and inequality threaten to endanger the lives of future generations. Tackling these extraordinarily complicated issues will require moving out of our comfort zones to engage in unconventional problem-solving. To thrive in ambiguity we must stop managing our brands and summon the courage to lead .

Leadership is exhibited in two ways. People who have direct reports are in a position to lead others, but everyone can lead by example. In the past 3 entries of this blog series, I have used this matrix to talk about how individual contributors – people who do not have direct reports – can lead by example by striving together in relationships to Self, Team, and Boss.

In Relationship to Self, individuals lead by example when they make a personal commitment to move out of their comfort zone and take on projects that offer no guarantee of success. They commit to tackling issues that require being in constant invent-adapt-reinvent mode.

In Relationship to Team, individuals lead by example when they assert themselves by challenging their teammates in meetings – and are willing to be challenged in return. These individuals believe that by holding back to protect their brand they would be robbing their team of learning. However, when they leave meetings, everything that happened in the meeting room stays in the meeting room and they support their teammates to everyone outside the team unconditionally – no exceptions. And if they have a problem with a teammate, they communicate with them directly.

Much like the team relationship, individuals lead by example in Relationship to Boss when they demonstrate the willingness to challenge the boss with new ideas, trust and support the boss to everyone outside the team, and communicate with them directly when a serious issue arises between them.

Unfortunately, companies with workers who are truly empowered to lead by example are extraordinarily rare today because bosses often fail to seize the opportunity to lead others, and instead choose to manage their direct reports. Managers feel threatened by the very notion of empowering the people in their charge to lead by example. In their Relationship to Direct Reports, managers primarily seek compliance. They want all ideas to flow in one direction - from the top-down.

Companies that are managed can succeed in times of incremental change. But they cannot succeed in a world of ambiguity. Managers often possess strong ego drive, but they lack empathy. Their inability (or unwillingness) to put themselves in the shoes of others creates a blind spot. They fail to see and understand the power of the human capital possessed by their direct reports.

Managers know where they want the company to go, they’re set on exactly what it’s going to look like when they get there, and they’re going to (micro) manage you every step of the way. In a world of ambiguity, where most roads are less traveled, they are lost.

Leaders, however, possess both a strong ego drive and empathy. They know where they want the company to go, but they’re not set on exactly what it’s going to look like when they get there, and they want you to lead them there. When there is no road map they thrive because they know they’re not traveling alone.

Leaders inspire and empower their direct reports to stretch beyond their perceived limitations by imbuing Strivership, an ethic of continuous improvement based on the origin of the word compete: to strive together. In essence, striving together is not about winners and losers. It’s about becoming immersed in the process of getting better by moving out of your comfort zone to wrestle with difficult problems.

Managers seek the comfort of being perceived as winners. They are desperate to compare favorably. Leaders understand that you cannot control winning, but you can control your willingness to compete - to strive together. Managers lecture their people about the importance of stretching beyond their perceived limitations. They want people to simply follow them. Leaders artfully cultivate a willingness to achieve things that seem unimaginable in their people. They seek to lead by being led.

Dwight Eisenhower was a great example of what it means to lead others in times of crisis. As Commander of the Allied forces during World War II, he understood that leaders needed to motivate their people to stretch beyond what they perceived possible.

Eisenhower believed that leadership didn’t come from barking orders or mandating action. He never viewed his men as push-pins on a map. “Leadership,” he said, “is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.”

He displayed empathy for his men by refusing to set himself apart from them. At one point during the war, while on a cruise around the Isle of Capri, he learned that a large villa had been designated as his quarters. He inquired about the neighboring villa as well, and learned that it would soon belong to General Spaatz, a member of his staff. “Damn it,” he said. “That’s not my villa and that’s not General Spaatz’s villa! This is supposed to be a center for combat men, not a playground for the brass.”

Although the strength of Eisenhower’s ego drive was clearly evident through the expression of strong convictions, he understood that leadership is not about simply pushing your own ideas. He understood intuitively that leadership is the art of cultivating in your people the willingness to take on challenges that have no guarantee of success. Instead of constantly issuing orders, he circulated among his troops as often as possible asking questions, making observations, and even injecting humor.

Eisenhower's leadership won him the national respect that propelled him to the White House. In the American people, as with his men in the Army, Eisenhower cultivated a spirit of Strivership, pushing the nation to move past its perceived limitations and to emerge on the world stage as a leader. Through the formation of NATO at the start of the Cold War, Eisenhower held firm that America should stand for its convictions the world over.

I've focused a lot on national leadership in this series because the pressures and uncertainty that leaders in these roles must endure are enormous. They made decisions that changed the course of history. In many ways, it feels like we are all living in such a moment now. We need leadership like never before at a time when too many people in leadership positions settle for managing expectations. Great leaders move out of their comfort zones and seek to lead by being led. By modeling vulnerability, they earn the trust of their people, and can then ask them to lead by example. And right now, whether it's in a business being run remotely, in an emergency room, or at the supermarket checkout, we all need to lead -- we all need to strive together.

Thriving In Ambiguity: Part 4 of 5 - Relationship to Boss

Mon, 13 Apr 2020 21:26:36 GMT

In previous posts, we have discussed what it means to strive together in relationships to Self and Team. Now let’s examine what it means to strive together in Relationship to Boss.

The Coronavirus Pandemic has forced businesses to confront a world of unprecedented ambiguity. When will things to return to normal? And what will ‘normal’ look like? Before the onset of the pandemic, business leaders faced a world that was already steeped in ambiguity. Now, however, that sense of uncertainty has amplified to almost unimagined levels. We are in uncharted territory.

To succeed in such a world, leaders need to know how to thrive in ambiguity. I help leaders do exactly that by creating an environment that imbues their people with a spirit of Strivership - an ethic of continuous improvement based on the origin of compete: ‘to strive together.’ In previous posts, we have discussed what it means to strive together in relationships to Self and Team. Now let’s examine what it means to strive together in Relationship to Boss.

Studies show that a whopping 68% of the workforce in the U.S. is disengaged at work, and the leading reason for this is that employees have issues with the boss. “People don’t leave their job; they leave their boss,” has become a popular refrain in corporate America. What is at the root of all this discord? This was already an important question before the pandemic hit. But in this new world, it is absolutely imperative that we find answers.

Let's take a look at the Strivership Matrix and discuss what the attributes that people are really looking for in a boss.

People who prefer to Work Independently don’t want to have a boss in the first place. They do not like other people weighing in on what they do or they when to do it. They are most content in their comfort zone, working alone, on their own schedule. If they have to have bosses they want them to be flexible.

Some individuals prefer a Work Together dynamic with their bosses. These are individuals who are most comfortable being given reachable goals, and who thrive on constant praise. They don’t want to be push, and they in turn do not challenge their bosses. They value harmony above all else.

Most people, however, struggle with bosses who want them to simply Work Together. These bosses ascribe to a collaborative model of work designed for the Industrial Age, when efficiency was the key to success. Their mantra is, “co-labor to attain a reachable goal, rinse and repeat.”

This type of boss wants all ideas to flow in one direction – from the top. They make their people feel like they can’t offer new ideas unless they affirm them. As an employee with such a boss, you always have your guard up. If you have a personal issue with them, you’ll put off communicating with them about it. That’s because this type of boss has to be in control of setting all goals and everything that goes into achieving them. Some people do very well in this environment, at least in the short term, because the boss entices them to comply cheerfully through rewards systems. But a focus on rewards creates an addiction to results, and the incessant benchmarking that fuels this addiction takes its toll. Eventually, they hit a wall and either become disengaged (sometimes actively so), or leave.

Although many may not be able to articulate it, people are looking for bosses who will Strive Together with them. They want to work for bosses who know what they don’t know, and who expect their direct reports to challenge them with new ideas. These types of bosses create an environment of complete transparency. People do not hesitate to communicate with them when a personal issue arises.

When we think of the type of boss people are looking in times of crisis, an oft-cited modern example is John F. Kennedy, who led us through the Cuban Missile Crisis. In the New York Times, Jon Meacham recounts Robert F. Kennedy’s appraisal of his brother’s leadership:

“President Kennedy,’ Robert F. Kennedy wrote, ‘wanted people who raised questions, who criticized, on whose judgement he could rely, who presented an intelligent point of view, regardless of their rank or viewpoint.’ And, when it was time to go public, the president trusted the people. There was no happy talk, no mixed messages, no self-pity.”

In the same article, Meacham quotes JFK:

“Let no one doubt that this is a dangerous effort on which we have set out. No one can foresee precisely what course it will take or what costs or casualties will be incurred. Many months of sacrifice and self-discipline lie ahead.”

That Kennedy’s quote could so perfectly fit our crisis today emphasizes that as much as the world has changed, the principals of leadership have not. During uncertain times people are searching for bosses who understand that thriving in ambiguity requires all hands on deck.

Ambiguity: a state of being vague and unclear.

Thriving In Ambiguity: Part 3 of 5 - Relationship to Team

Mon, 06 Apr 2020 21:23:56 GMT

Our economy was disruptive before the onset of the pandemic. Now the sense of uncertainty has been taken to another level.

The Coronavirus Pandemic has forced businesses to confront a world of ambiguity. We are in uncharted territory. When will things to return to normal? And what will ‘normal’ look like? I help leaders thrive in ambiguity during the best of times. Our economy was disruptive before the onset of the pandemic. Now the sense of uncertainty has been taken to another level.

The best companies thrive in ambiguity because they are led by people who imbue a spirit of Strivership, an ethic of continuous improvement based on the origin of compete: to strive together. Today’s definition, ‘to outdo,’ narrows and distorts the meaning which is why people fear competing. It is viewed as a zero-sum endeavor where one is destroyed and the other is victorious. That‘s cutthroat, not competing. Ultimately, true competitors view competing as striving together - an opportunity to make each other better. Striving together is not always about winners and losers. It’s about becoming immersed in the process of getting better by getting out of your comfort zone to wrestle with difficult problems. You cannot control winning, but you can control your willingness to compete.

Leaders imbue Strivership by cultivating key attributes in four relationships: Relationship to Self, Team, Boss, and Direct Reports. In part 2, I discussed Relationship to Self, the conversation you have with yourself when challenged to move out of your comfort zone. When an individual decides to take on a challenge that offers no assurance of success, that individual is leading by example. Now let’s take a look at the Strivership Matrix again, and discuss leading by example in Relationship to Team.

People who prefer Working Independently do not function well in a team setting. It takes them too far out of their comfort zone. They crave the certainty that comes with the opportunity to work alone.

People who settle for Working Together – collaborating – struggle on teams that operate in rapid change environments. Collaboration worked perfectly during the Industrial Revolution when companies focused on the mass production of large quantities of standardized products. In this kind of linear, task-oriented work environment, it made perfect sense to recruit people who were good fits. Achieving and maintaining harmony on teams was a top priority.

Unfortunately companies are still searching for people who fit, despite the fact that the economy no longer operates in “rinse and repeat” mode. The key to success in a 21st century economy is productivity, not efficiency. Product cycles have shrunk dramatically. As the saying goes: “Last year’s products are last year’s dollars.” In this disruptive environment where workers must be in constant invent-adapt-reinvent mode, companies must begin searching for people who stand out – people who are willing to Strive Together .

Members of teams that strives together assert themselves by challenging their teammates in meetings – and they are willing to be pushed in return. They understand that by holding back to protect their brand they would be robbing their team of learning. However, when they leave a meeting, everything that happened in the meeting room stays in the meeting room. They support their teammates to everyone outside the team unconditionally – no exceptions. Internally they support each other as well and one of the most important ways they demonstrate their support is to communicate directly with a teammate whenever a serious issue arises. In companies that embrace Strivership, triangulation is a disease that compromises the sanctity of the team relationship.

People who embrace the tension that comes with striving together prioritize respect over like. When I had teams where getting along was the #1 goal, we always underachieved. When I had teams where respect was valued over having to like each other, we almost always overachieved. When achieving harmony is prioritized the respect factor never truly catches up. When people demonstrate respect for teammates that they do not like and that respect is reciprocal both parties the like factor eventually catches up. This display of empathy results in the creation of a powerful bond that is far stronger than any social bond.

Abraham Lincoln understood this dynamic intuitively, as evidenced by the selection of his cabinet. Pulitzer prize-winning historian Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote an entire book on this subject titled, Team of Rivals. The book examines how Lincoln brought his most vocal and ardent political rivals into his cabinet, and how this impacted his presidency. Lincoln’s ability to embrace this tension enabled his team to strive together to lead our nation through its most dire test. To tackle the seemingly intractable problems facing the country, Lincoln could not afford to put together a group of people who simply fit together nicely. He needed to assemble a team of people who stood out for their expertise.

In Lincoln’s cabinet, relationships were built on respect. This became clear when upon Lincoln’s passing, his Secretary of War, Edward Stanton, once a bitter adversary, said: “Now he belongs to the ages.”

Ambiguity: a state of being vague and unclear.

Thriving in Ambiguity: Part 2 of 5 - Relationship to Self

Wed, 01 Apr 2020 21:19:45 GMT

The ability to thrive in ambiguity will be imperative to the success of companies in this ever-changing environment of heightened risk and vulnerability.

In the introduction to this blog series, I discussed how with the onset of the Coronavirus Pandemic, leaders are now confronted with a world of ambiguity. The crisis has crippled supply chains and forced the shutdown of many businesses. The ability to thrive in ambiguity will be imperative to the success of companies in this ever-changing environment of heightened risk and vulnerability.

Unfortunately many companies are not prepared for heightened risk and vulnerability because they are built from the outside-in. They only compete externally. For these companies competing is actually “cutthroat” - strictly a zero-sum game. All decisions are driven by how they compare with The Opposition. People in these companies are managed. They’re viewed as cogs in the machine. Taglines like “people are our greatest asset” are essentially part of a marketing strategy designed to embellish their brand. These companies struggle with ambiguity.

By contrast, companies that are built from the inside-out thrive in ambiguity. Their workers are too immersed in the process of getting better to spend a lot of time worrying about how they compare with The Opposition. These companies are led by people who understand the value of building relationships with their workers. Relationship building is an item that never appears on their spreadsheets, but it is the key to their enduring success during ‘normal’ times and equips them to thrive during uncertain times.

I help leaders channel the power of relationship building to imbue a spirit of Strivership in their companies. Strivership is an ethic of continuous improvement based on the origin of the word ‘compete’: to strive together. True competitors do not view competing as a zero-sum game. They view competing as an opportunity for everyone involved to get better. Striving together is not always about winners and losers. Ultimately it is about getting out of your comfort zone to wrestle with difficult problems. The best companies focus on striving together internally so that they’re ready for anything The Opposition throws at them.

Companies that embrace Strivership are comprised of people who strive together in 4 relationships: to Self, Team, Boss, and Direct Reports. I developed the Striver Quotient® Assessment Tool to evaluate one’s willingness to demonstrate key attributes in each of these relationships. This matrix provides a conceptual overview of what the assessment measures. People fall into one of three categories in each relationship.

The most important relationship is Relationship to Self. This is the conversation you have with yourself when challenged to move out of your comfort zone. The way that you respond to that question directly impacts the other 3 relationships. With more companies working in teams, people who insist on Working Independently can struggle to make a significant contribution to their company’s success, particularly during uncertain times. Giving of themselves and trusting the contributions of others takes them too far outside their comfort zone. They are not leaders or followers. They’re just flying solo.

People who fall into the Work Together category are followers. They hesitate to take on projects that do not offer at least some assurance of success because they do not want to risk damaging their brand. They rely on others to take the lead. While they may be able to cope with some uncertainty, they cannot thrive in it.

People who are committed to Striving Together lead by example. They thrive in ambiguity because they’re willing to move outside their comfort zone to accept challenges that have no assurance of success. They excel when challenged to persevere while tackling problems that do not have clear solutions. As a result they exude an authentic self, not a branded self.

In modern times, management challenges—strategy and planning—have become infinitely more complex, but the principles of leading have remained constant throughout our history. George Washington, our nation’s first leader, set the tone for us! He accepted the challenge of forming an army of untrained Americans to face down the most powerful empire the world had known—a challenge that had absolutely no assurance of success. For the first two years of the war, he was dealt defeat after defeat. But Washington embraced the uncertainty of his predicament by persisting until he found novel solutions to the complex problems he was facing. The courage he displayed in the face of pervasive ambiguity not only inspired his army to win the war, it made him the only man the people trusted to lead the newly forged nation.

Ambiguity: a state of being vague and unclear.

Thriving in Ambiguity: Part 1 of 5 - Introduction

Sun, 29 Mar 2020 21:12:41 GMT

In my book, Strive Together, I wrote about our rapidly changing and uncertain world. Now it seems everything has been amplified and accelerated.

The Coronavirus Pandemic has shutdown entire countries, crippled supply chains, and left leaders of all types scrambling. “Uncertainty” does not adequately describe our world right now. We are now living in a world of ambiguity. No one is sure when this will pass, how soon we will be able to get back to normal, or what will “normal” look like.

Ambiguity: a state of being vague or unclear.

In my book, Strive Together, I wrote about our rapidly changing and uncertain world. Now it seems everything has been amplified and accelerated. The Coronavirus Pandemic has shutdown entire countries, crippled supply chains, and left leaders of all types scrambling. “Uncertainty” does not adequately describe our world right now. We are now living in a world of ambiguity. No one is sure when this will pass, how soon we will be able to get back to normal, or what will “normal” look like.

The good news is that we will pull through this. The bad news is that this will not be the last time that we face a crisis of these proportions. Experts predict a rise in infectious disease pandemics in the future, and we will also likely see a rise in weather-related catastrophes. We have erected a gigantic, interconnected world economy. This comes with innumerable benefits, but it also comes with increased risk and uncertainty. To succeed in this new world of constant disruption, people in leadership positions must get comfortable with ambiguity.

Many of my clients lead companies that are in constant-change industries. People who work in these companies understand that they must be in continuous invent, adapt, and reinvent mode. Their last product may have been a hit, but to stay relevant, they need to constantly go back to the drawing board. Now, with the onset of this pandemic, all companies must live in this reality.

To succeed in this new reality, companies will have to be led, not managed. There is a huge difference! Management is about process. It’s a science. Leadership is about people. It’s an art. Designing an effective strategy and impeccable planning is crucial. But during uncertain times the process will always be compromised unless the people involved are inspired to stretch beyond what their perceived limitations.

Do you want to simply cope with ambiguity or thrive in it? In this series of blogs I will discuss how Leaders inspire and empower their people to stretch by imbuing a Spirit of Strivership in them. Strivership is an ethic of continuous improvement based on the origin of compete, ‘to strive together. I will provide you with a framework for thriving in ambiguity whether you are working onsite or remotely. We will discuss how leaders engage with their direct reports to cultivate key attributes in 3 other important workplace relationships - to Self, Team, and Boss. It is important to note that while these blogs are aimed primarily at those who lead others, in these times, we are all leaders! Strive On!

Strive Together

Jeff's new book offers a fresh, provocative, and challenging approach to leadership for business leaders, coaches, and educators.

Buy Now

What's Passion Got To Do With It?

Mon, 19 Aug 2019 21:32:52 GMT

For over 200 years the dictionary has defined grit as: “unyielding courage in the face of hardship.” Angela Duckworth, based on research she conducted at the University of Pennsylavania, changed the definition to: “perseverance and passion for long-term goals.”

For over 200 years the dictionary has defined grit as: “unyielding courage in the face of hardship.” Angela Duckworth, based on research she conducted at the University of Pennsylavania, changed the definition to: “perseverance and passion for long-term goals.” What did Duckworth find that compelled her to add “passion for long-term goals” to the definition? Why does demonstrating grit now require being “passionate about long-term goals?” Does Duckworth understand what having a passion for something really means? And should people really be thinking in terms of long-term goals in today’s world where the only constant is exponential change?

Jerry Useem addresses these issues in “Is Grit Overrated?” written in The Atlantic in 2016. He explains that “When you are truly passionate you are pushed along by your desire to the point where you are willing to endure pain and suffering.” I don’t think that members of the Greatest Generation were pushed along by their desire to get through tough times during the Great Depression. They did not choose to make it their passion. To survive, they simply had to channel the original meaning of grit: “unyielding courage in the face of hardship.”

Useem also challenges Duckworth’s emphasis on long-term goals. Most of her research was done in groups that operate in stable, unchanging environments. Only a couple of the groups she surveyed involved a workforce. “How well does (Duckworth’s) approach — pick one long-range goal, keep your head down, and don’t take a step sideways—hold up in an economy where career paths can twist and even vanish with little warning?’ Useem asks. “Shouldn’t you keep your head up, ready for the next pivot? Or have many irons in the fire, as the champions of ‘career agility’ suggest?”

A lot of Duckworth’s work was done in schools. Education has been our most change-averse institution for over a century. Students may be challenged to “pivot” in extracurricular activities like Maker’s Space, but the main focus in our schools remains “keeping your head down” to grind for grades. How are students supposed to turn on the passion switch when schools continue to adhere to the dreaded “absorb information and regurgitate it on the test” model? What if young Johnny wants to “regurgitate” every time he hears the word “Algebra?” How are you going to motivate him to develop a true passion for Algebra in the current environment? No wonder learning never metabolizes!

Duckworth admitted to Useem during her interview that she had “not thought of these issues.” He suspects (as do I) that this could be a result of “her own roots in education (where the paths to success have clear signposts) and her position in academia, one of the last truly guild-like domains.” There is a tremendous disconnect between schools and the real world. I know first hand how working in a linear, “absorb and regurgitate” environment can shelter you from the outside world where being ready for “the next pivot” is the key to success. As Lazlo Bock, Google’s first Chief People Officer once said: “People who succeed in academic environments are conditioned to succeed in that kind of environment. (In the real world) you want people who like figuring out stuff where there is no obvious answer.”

Jerry Useem recently wrote another article in The Atlantic where he expanded on these issues. In “At Work, Expertise is Falling Out of Favor,” he talks about how Duckworth’s concept of Grit “traces an intellectual lineage that can also be found in Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers, which explains extraordinary success as a function of endless, dedicated practice—10,000 hours or more.” Useem contends that in the relatively stable environments that both Duckworth and Gladwell draw from a “rigid adherence to routine can no doubt serve you well. But in situations with rapidly changing rules and roles, a small but growing body of evidence now suggests that it can leave you ill-equipped.”

Catchy, narrowly conceived concepts “Grit” are not a panacea for the challenges that people face in today’s unstable, disruptive real world. To thrive in an environment where the only constant is exponential change you must be willing to demonstrate “unyielding courage” when confronted problems “where there is no obvious answer.”

So instead of keeping your head down and plugging away - stay agile, keep your head up and be ready for the “next pivot!”

Strive On!

Are You A Player Or A Competitor?

Tue, 30 Jul 2019 21:36:53 GMT

My challenge with leaders in all industries is to help them develop teams that have an edge. I often begin my work with head coaches by asking their athletes: “Are you a player or a competitor? There’s a big difference.

Players are energetic and they work hard. Competitors thrive when challenged to solve problems.

Players are like cheerleaders. They generate energy for energy sake. They celebrate loudly after every positive outcome even when the opposition essentially gives in with a horrendous “unforced error.” It’s as if they’re on auto-repeat. No outcome is truly amazing because all outcomes are deemed amazing. Players’ exhortations are so constant and aimless that they become pointless.

Players also pride themselves on simply working hard. Hard work is all that’s required to be successful when engaged in linear, task-oriented activities – like grinding for grades in the classroom and pumping iron in the weight room. Players bring this same approach to practice. They prepare for games by cooperatively engaging in (seemingly) endless, mind-numbing repetitive drills.

Grinding for grades can lead to academic success and pumping more iron will make you stronger. But the classroom and the weight room are relatively controlled, predictable environments. Grinding in practice does not prepare athletes for the unpredictable environment they face in games. In live competition there is no syllabus to follow. You may go into a game with a plan, but invariably you’re going to have to make adjustments. Athletes are stressed in 3 dynamics during competition:

The Physical Dynamic - technique and fitness
The Mental Dynamic - problem solving
The Emotional Dynamic – impulse control

Competitors engage in practices that are designed based on the Mental Dynamic. They thrive when challenged to problem solve. Competitors are constantly seeking to make opponents uncomfortable with purpose-driven execution. Their energy is focused on making opponents suffer – and they are prepared to respond in kind when opponents make them suffer! In the process both the Physical and Emotional Dynamics are stressed purposefully – just as in live competition. They are compelled to apply technique to a tactical context and they become frustrated because they are compelled to actually exercise their minds!

Players are only comfortable engaging in practices based on the Physical Dynamic because there is no problem solving required. They are simply programmed to play certain patterns. When opponents force them to adjust they are often at a loss as to how to respond. And the only emotional challenge they face is enduring the boredom that comes with robo-drilling.

Bob Knight once said, "The key is not the will to win. It is the will to prepare to win that is important." I would take it a step further by saying that your will to win is determined by your willingness to prepare to compete. You cannot control outcomes, but you can control your willingness to compete. And remember, competing in essence is about striving together. It’s a shared purpose. True competitors make each other better.

The top performers in every industry ignore (energy-sapping) empty positives and focus their energy on problem solving. They also understand that hard work is important, but tackling intractable problems head is what gives them an edge!

Strive On!

It's Time to Start Dreaming Again

Mon, 08 Jul 2019 21:39:41 GMT

On September 12, 1962 in a speech at Rice University JFK challenged Americans to embrace Strivership when he said: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Kennedy inspired us to dream about what was possible. He challenged us to strive together to achieve a goal that would exceed expectations.

In "Managing America to the Moon: A Coalition Analysis," Henry Lambright describes the long-term national commitment required to put men on the moon and return them to earth safely. "What NASA demonstrated through the Apollo Program," he said, "was that great achievement by government in alliance with the private sector is feasible where leadership is present." The leadership was certainly "present," started at the top with JFK and was sustained by leaders both inside and outside of NASA long enough to implement his goal. Today it's difficult to imagine maintaining momentum for any program beyond the next election cycle!

The main person responsible for "sustaining" leadership was James E. Webb, the Administrator of NASA. Webb confronted NASA's daunting challenge by embracing Strivership. "We didn't feel sure that we could win it, but we felt sure we could compete," he said. In other words although he may have felt confident that a "win" could be achieved, he was focused on striving together, empowering his people to move out of their comfort zones to solve extraordinarily difficult problems…most of which did not yet have solutions!

Webb also empowered his people to strive together as a team. Initially NASA did not know what approach would be used to get to the Moon. As Laimbright describes it, "There were three options. One was called direct ascent, via a gigantic new rocket to be developed, named Nova. A second, called Earth orbit rendezvous (EOR) entailed assembling equipment in the Earth's orbit to go to the Moon. The third, lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR), also involved assembly, but in lunar orbit."

The direct ascent approach was soon eliminated so the contest was between EOR and LOR. Webb allowed the debate to rage. He wanted everyone to contribute to what he knew was the most critical decision the agency faced. He realized that if team members did not contribute and challenge each other they would be robbing their team of learning. At the same time he had their back, as Laimbright reports, by "shielding" them from "political interference and financial instability."

Webb also modeled Strivership. One of the most glaring examples was his display of humility. When he was first offered the position as Administrator of NASA he hesitated saying that he did not feel comfortable heading up the agency because of his lack of expertise in the area of space travel. "It seemed to me someone who knew more about rocketry, about space, would be a better person," Webb said in an interview with the LBJ library. And in 1967 when astronauts Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Edward White, and Roger Chaffee were tragically killed during a test of the Apollo 1 capsule , he presented the findings to congressional committees by placing much of the blame onto himself. "While he was personally tarred with the disaster," Laimbright says, "the space agency's image and popular support was largely undamaged."

What has made our country exceptional is our willingness to embrace Strivership. At key moments in our history leaders have inspired and empowered us to take on challenges that offered no guarantee of success. We not only beat the odds to win our independence, we also strived together to construct the first transcontinental railroad and build an interstate highway system.

This type of commitment seems unimaginable in the results-obsessed, instant gratification world we live in now. We no longer compete. We compare. Instead of venturing into uncharted territory to tackle serious problems we circle the wagons to protect the brand. The impression management industry has become pervasive in education, politics, sports, and business. Image is everything. "How do we look?" seems to always take precedence over "How can we get better?"

To break this cycle we must decide to stop choosing the path of least resistance by pouring resources into image building. Instead of managing the brand our leaders must start leading by embracing Strivership - challenging their people to do things "because they are hard."

Who’s going to step up? The moon landing was 50 years ago! It’s time to start dreaming again.

The Vision Thing

Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:44:20 GMT

Rob Campbell experienced Jobs’ inspiration first hand. Carmine Gallo recounted his story in “Steve Jobs and the Power of Vision.” When Gallo interviewed Campbell for the article in the early 2000’s he was the CEO of Voalte, but in the 1970’s he was a young programmer who was excited about the emergence of personal computers. He decided to begin looking for work with companies that were driving the PC revolution.

First he visited Tandy Computers where he asked executives “What is your vision for the personal computer?” Their response: “We think it could be the next big thing on everyone’s wish list for the holiday season!”

Uninspired he decided to visit Commodore, a company that introduced a personal computer in 1977, but was now trading at less than one dollar a share. He asked Commodore executives the same question: “What is your vision for the personal computer?” With great enthusiasm they responded, “We think it could help our stock rise above two dollars a share!”

Still uninspired Campbell accepted an invitation from Steve Jobs to meet for lunch. During the meeting he asked Jobs: “What is your vision for the personal computer?” Jobs’ response gave Campbell goose bumps. He talked at length about how personal computers were going to change the world. He “painted a picture of how it would change everything about the way we worked, educated our children and entertained ourselves. You couldn’t help but buy in. Vision, said Campbell, “was the one thing that separated Jobs from the others.”

Steve Jobs was a leader. Campbell’s search reveals the difference between leaders and managers. Leaders embrace the tension that lies between The Actual and The Possible. They manage The Actual, but they are motivated by The Possible. To lead you must articulate a vision that inspires your people to imagine what their organization can become. You must make it clear to your people know where you want the organization to go without establishing exactly what it’s going to look like when they get there. This will inspire and empower your people to stretch beyond their perceived limitations. But it takes courage. This approach moves you out of your comfort zone in a way that makes you vulnerable.

Most organizations are managed. Managers either completely avoid articulating a vision or they create one by picking from low hanging fruit. A vision like “this product ‘could be the next big thing on everyone’s wish list for the holiday season!” fits the bill perfectly. “Get a win” is the manager’s mantra. Managers avoid becoming vulnerable at all costs. They want to control the process to achieve safe outcomes that reflect favorably on them.

Unfortunately leaders are extremely rare now – at a time when leadership is so desperately needed. A pervasive “get a win” mentality has stymied our ability to solve difficult problems – many of which do not have solutions. We must continually innovate to thrive in what has become a world of ambiguity. And, to quote Steve Jobs once more, “Innovation requires a team and you cannot inspire a team of passionate evangelists without a compelling vision; a vision that is bold, simple, and consistently communicated.”

Next time: It’s been 50 years since the moon landing. When are we going to start dreaming again?

Managers Hype Results; Leaders Cultivate Strivership

jmoore8606@gmail.com (Jeff Moore) — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 20:07:15 GMT

Leaders focus on what can be controlled, seizing every opportunity to cultivate in their people the willingness to compete, to strive together. The people in these organizations are not scoreboard watchers. They thrive when challenged to execute under pressure while tackling difficult problems. Results follow.

Watch until 5:35

Watch until 9:55

Watch until 12:20

Leaders cultivate a willingness to strive together even when speaking to third parties. They use every opportunity to reinforce what they stand for! The "result": A Spirit of Strivership .

Click here to watch the full video

A Legacy of Leadership

Tue, 28 Aug 2018 18:49:31 GMT

Striving together is in our nation’s DNA. It was in John McCain's DNA as well. He channeled the genius of the Founders as articulated by historian Joseph Ellis in this excerpt from “Orchestrating The Second American Revolution."

“...Madison’s most creative insight – the multiple ambiguities embedded in the Constitution made it inherently a ‘living’ document. For it was designed not to offer clear answers to the sovereignty question, but instead to provide a political arena in which arguments about these contested issues could continue in a deliberative fashion. The Constitution was intended less to resolve arguments than to make argument itself the solution.

Unlike most of his colleagues John McCain resisted being sucked in by the impression management industry. He was not afraid to stand up for what he believed in even if it did not fit a brand strategy. He once said "A fight not joined is a fight not enjoyed." But McCain was also able to understand and share the feelings of others. When his legendary temper got the best of him he could insult people. Often when this happened he would apologize for his actions.

John McCain embodied striving together because of his willingness to take stands and challenge others combined with the courage to demonstrate empathy. He had the ability to, as Gregg Popovich might say, “get over himself.”

Drive + empathy = leadership. RIP John McCain!

It Takes Courage To Lead

jmoore8606@gmail.com (Jeff Moore) — Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:00:34 GMT

IBM has conducted several global CEO studies in recent years. They have asked CEO's: "What is your biggest challenge?" Instead of a typical go-to response like "management discipline," the CEO's have overwhelmingly cited "change and complexity" as their biggest challenge. They also say that they continue to struggle to manage the highly volatile, increasingly complex business environment. The IBM studies report that the gap between "expected change" and the "ability to manage it" continues to grow.

Why does this gap continue to widen? The problem stems from the fact that the corporate world treats "performance management" as the umbrella term. Leadership is as a subset of management...when it should be the other way around. In most bookstores you have to go to the management section to find books on leadership. Most of these books offer a version of the same formula. In reality these "leadership books" are offering management advice. You can be taught how to manage, but leading cannot be distilled to a formula. It cannot be "taught." Leadership must be cultivated.

Management is a science . It's been around since the early 1900's. It's about systems and processes, factors that are crucial to an organization's success. But those who are strictly managers also try to manage their people for fear of venturing too far outside their comfort zone. They make certain that all ideas flow from (or are presented as flowing from) the top. Just meet my defined expectation then move on to my next defined expectation.

Leading is an art. Leadership has been around since before there was a thing called "science." Leaders are focused first and foremost on their people. They thrive when challenged to move out of their comfort zone. They engage their people in goal-setting, pushing them to set high, seemingly unreachable expectations. Then they get to work cultivating in their people the belief that they can stretch beyond perceived limitations to pursue those expectations.

All of our institutions are lacking leadership during these disruptive times. Too many people in government and education leadership positions fear moving out of their comfort zone to make difficult decisions. Instead they retreat from discomfort and manage expectations to protect their brand.

Anyone can become a manager. But leadership must be cultivated over time - and the process never stops. A leader is always becoming. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were not "taught" how to lead. They did not have access to leadership "experts." The seeds of leadership were planted over time. Leadership was modeled for them through observation and by reading about the lives of great leaders from the distant past. And it was cultivated in them over time as they continually immersed themselves in problem solving during extraordinarily difficult times.

As my friend and prominent business leader Tony Capasso has said, "Managing is the easy part. Leading is the hard part because it requires courage." Leaders are comfortable with being uncomfortable. They inspire and empower their people to move from The Actual to The Possible.

We can no longer afford to manage change. We must re-discover the willingness to lead change, articulated by JFK in 1962 when he said, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

Leaders Win The Locker Room

Sun, 08 Jul 2018 18:47:51 GMT

70% of U.S. workers are not engaged at work. The vast majority of these workers are disengaged because of their boss. Why is this happening? Results from my Striver Quotient® Assessment reveal the root of the problem. Too many people in leadership positions are managing instead of leading.

The SQ evaluates the willingness to strive together in 4 key workplace relationships - to Self, Team, Boss, and Direct Reports. A championship team is developed when team members continually work to build strong relationships to Self, Team, and Boss. But this process breaks down unless the boss is continually working to build a strong Relationship to Direct Reports. Relationship-building must start at the top and emanate down. When this doesn't happen efforts by team members to build strong relationships to Self, Team, and Boss become compromised.

Managers do not build a strong Relationship to Direct Reports. They often possess a strong ego, but lack empathy. Managers know where they want to take their team, but do not engage direct reports in the process of setting the course to get there - beyond obligatory feedback sessions. They rely on simply telling people what to do. Most ideas flow in one direction. This approach creates an atmosphere of distrust, fraying the Relationship to Boss dynamic. Relationship to Team is also damaged as teams become siloed and the strengthening of Relationship to Self - triggered by the willingness to move out of one's comfort zone - becomes stifled. Eventually managers lose the locker room and people begin to show up simply to collect a paycheck.

Leaders possess a strong ego combined with empathy. They have a destination in mind for their team, but engage direct reports in the process of plotting a course to get there. While managers rely on telling, leaders seek to cultivate. I guide leaders through the process of building a strong Relationship to Direct Reports by first helping them cultivate a strong Relationship to Self in their direct reports - the sense that they can stretch beyond what they perceive to be their limitations. This triggers cultivation of strong Relationships to Team and Boss. In the end all relationships flourish!

A championship team exudes a Strive Together Spirit, the sense that everyone involved in excited about getting better...together! The cultivation of this spirit starts at the top. In companies that are led people come to work for more than a paycheck. Leaders win the locker room.

Next time: We are inundated with leadership advice today and yet we have fewer leaders than ever before. How did George Washington and Abraham possibly become great leaders without leadership training?

In An Age of Innovation The Grade 'Em & Rank 'em Model Must Go!

Sun, 24 Jun 2018 18:44:27 GMT

"Were all instructors to realize that the quality of mental process, not the production of correct answers, is the measure of educative growth, something hardly less than a revolution in teaching would be worked" John Dewey, 1916

102 years later Dewey's "revolution" may finally be brewing! A group of independent school leaders have formed the Mastery Transcript Consortium. These leaders are positioned to trigger the first systemic disruption in the history of the education industry by ending the archaic grade 'em and rank 'em model of assessing students. The MTC model of assessment is organized around mastery standards, not grades. The following admonition on MTC's website indicates that they not only understand the problem. They're committed to following through with meaningful change.

"We hear it all the time, particularly from students themselves. School hurts. Too many students leave high school uninspired, under-prepared, and anxious about the world that awaits them. Why? Our schools are tasked primarily with sorting and ranking them, rather than engaging and enlightening them. A complex human being is reduced to simple numbers and letters. We can do better."

During the Industrial Age product cycles were much longer. Problem solving was a more straightforward process because most problems had answers. Student success - good grades based on "What you know" - was considered the key to success in the real world. It was enough to be learned.

In today's rapid-change economy the only constant is exponential change. Product cycles have shortened dramatically. Many problems do not have clear solutions. And knowledge deficiencies, "What you know," can be remedied quickly online! The key to success has become"What you can do with what you know." Young people must become a learners.

Hopefully MTC advocates can influence leaders at the college level to take action. College used to serve as a bridge from adolescence to young adulthood. Now real world success is being sacrificed at the altar of school success. Reducing human beings to "simple numbers and letters" with grades has taken precedence over personal growth. To the chagrin of many professors, colleges and universities are being run like corporations. The credential is still important of course, but the superficial nature of the process (test-taking does not lead to deep learning) leaves students unprepared for the challenges of a 21st century economy.

I have been energized by my work with young people at colleges and universities across the country. Often when challenged to tackle seemingly intractable problems their eyes light up! They feel pressure to compare favorably, but have never been empowered to compete.

If education leaders at all levels can follow MTC's lead by moving away from their transactional evaluation model and create an environment that is transformative our young people will be prepared for a real world that is perpetually transforming!

Next time: We are inundated with leadership books and blogs. Why then do we have fewer leaders than ever before?

Are You Prepared For Roads Less Traveled?

Fri, 15 Jun 2018 18:46:09 GMT

Google is doing something about the huge disconnect between the kind of job candidates they are searching for and the kind of job candidates that schools are seeking to produce. They researched the backgrounds of their top performers and found little if any correlation between the metrics being using to evaluate students and success at Google. They no longer look at grades and test scores for job candidates during the hiring process. When asked why these metrics do not seem to mean much Lazlo Bock, Google's Chief People Officer said:

"Academic environments are artificial environments. People who succeed there are sort of finely trained, they're conditioned to succeed in that environment. While in school, people are trained to give specific answers. But it's much more interesting to solve problems where there isn't an obvious answer. You want people who like figuring out stuff where there is no obvious answer."

Our education system is not preparing young people for a 21st century real world. People who succeed in our rapid-change economy thrive when challenged to solve complex problems without a road map. Unfortunately most educators continue to cling to a linear “grade 'em and rank 'em" evaluation model that is over 100 years old...and this is exacerbated by the fact that 83% of the grades given in college now are A's and B's.

Companies are looking for people who thrive in ambiguity, but they're often confronted with candidate pools of people who are lost without a syllabus. Some schools offer design labs, maker spaces, and think tanks as extracurricular activities, but the prevailing pressure that students feel is to test well on information they've crammed into their heads...even though studies show that they will forget this information within 3 months.

I have worked with young people around the country for the past 4 years. Most of them are fearful of moving out of their comfort zones to taking on projects that do not offer an assurance of success...because they have never been asked to do so! But there is hope. Quite often, when challenged to jump into the fire for the first time their eyes light up!

Next time: The first truly systemic disruption in the history of the education industry is on the horizon.

Who Writes Your Company's Story?

Tue, 29 May 2018 18:40:15 GMT

Most companies are built from the outside-in by promoting a culture. They tell a story that has been crafted to fit the impression they want to create. Their mission statement covers all of the bases... and employees can recite it on cue. Championship companies are built from the inside-out by cultivating a spirit. Their employees write the story because they become the story. They live their mission!

Southwest Airlines is a championship company. Southwest's mission is dedication to the highest quality of Customer Service delivered with a sense of warmth, friendliness, individual pride, and Company Spirit. This is so much more than their mission. It's their purpose. They live it! When you step on a Southwest flight it just feels different.

Southwest puts employees first, customer's second, and shareholders third. They cultivate a Strive Together Spirit by empowering their employees to solve difficult problems that constantly arise in their high stress industry. The power of their spirit cannot be measured unless you consider one glaring "measurable"... profitable 45 years in a row!

Don't Be Fooled By the Shiny Object

jmoore8606@gmail.com (Jeff Moore) — Tue, 22 May 2018 19:53:23 GMT

Why do over 50% of all new hires in the corporate world fail within the first 18 months? Because most companies do not know how to identify top performers. They are not looking for Strivers. They're searching for "A Players."

At first glance this makes sense. I mean who wants to hire a B Player? Right? But what does "A Player" actually mean? Here is what I’ve been able to dig up. An A Player is strong in these areas:

IQ
EQ
Job Skills
Work Ethic

There is no question that this person will get the job done. Many would describe this person as the complete package . But you can't put the qualities of a Striver in a box! Strivers do not view themselves as a “complete.” They view themselves as incomplete . They are always reaching beyond their grasp .

We no longer live in an uncertain world. We now live in a world of ambiguity. Workers are constantly challenged to apply what they know to projects that have unpredictable outcomes. Thomas Friedman reports that today's employers are looking for people who can "adapt, invent, and reinvent their jobs." Top performers in our 21st century economy have a strong Striver Quotient. SQ qualities have become the game changer.

Don't be fooled by the shiny object. Strivers don't shine until you challenge them to 'invent and reinvent." They thrive in ambiguity!

There are 2 types of people in the workforce... Strivers and Arrivers

jmoore8606@gmail.com (Jeff Moore) — Mon, 14 May 2018 19:55:41 GMT

Strivers are competitors based on the origin of compete, 'to strive together.' They are driven by a purpose that transcends winning . Strivers are driven to move themselves, their team, and their company toward higher goals.

They have a whole different take on goal setting. Achieving a goal is like passing a milepost in route to a destination that they never expect to reach. They use the momentum they gain from achieving a goal as motivation to go after the next challenge. Strivers are always reaching beyond their grasp . Arrivers hesitate to reach beyond their grasp…because success must always be within clutching distance. They pour most of their energy into creating a perception of success. Arrivers are masters of impression management . They will develop their product, but only to the degree that it embellishes the impression they want to create. Arrivers are Comparors. They suffer from R.O.C.D. - Results Obsessive Compulsive Disorder…whatever it takes to compare favorably with The Competition.

The late John Wooden, legendary UCLA basketball coach once said: “Your character is more important than your reputation because your character is what you are while your reputation is merely what people think you are.” For an Arriver it’s all about who they want others to "think they are.” Arrivers build their reputation from the outside-in. Strivers build their reputation from the inside-out . Their reputation flows from their character.

An Arriver Mentality pervades every industry right now. Marketing used to be a tool. Now it rules! This outside-in mindset is debilitating in a 21st century economy where the only constant is exponential change. Calling on all Strivers to step up!

Next time: Why are hiring success rates so abysmal? Could it be because companies are looking for A Players?

The Difference Between Winners & Champions

jmoore8606@gmail.com (Jeff Moore) — Sat, 21 Apr 2018 19:45:07 GMT

I help leaders build championship teams…not winning teams…championship teams. By “championship teams,” I don’t necessarily mean teams that win championships. I had teams that won conference championships simply because we had an overwhelming talent advantage. Being a champion is about a mindset...not a result!

There is a huge difference between winners and champions. Everybody’s a winner in today’s world. It’s called personal branding. We are all caught up in the spin cycle. Winning teams are built from the outside-in. Winners are obsessed with results…whatever it takes to compare favorably. It doesn’t matter how low the bar is! On winning teams decisions are made after asking questions like: ”How will this make us look? How will this make us feel?” and most importantly: ”How will we compare with The Competition?"

Championship teams are built from the inside-out. Champions are driven by a purpose that transcends winning. They don’t have much time to talk about results. They are too immersed in the process of getting better! On championship teams decisions are made after asking the questions like: “Does this align with who we are?” and “Will this make us better?” Championship teams exude a spirit! When you’re around them there’s a sense that everyone’s excited about getting better every day…together!

Winners compare. Champions compete. I call them Strivers. How did I come up with that word? The modern definition of ‘compete’ is: “to outdo another for prize or supremacy.” But the origin of the word, from Latin in the 1600’s, is ‘to strive together.’ What does ‘strive together’ mean? Does it mean “Let’s hold hands, skip, and sing kumbaya?” No, when people compete there will be tension, but in the end, regardless of the outcome, competitors make each other better. Tension is required to strengthen a muscle…and it is also required to grow relations hips!

Competition today is viewed as strictly zero-sum. Competing has become a dirty word. “Cutthroat” would be a better term. Although competing may get personal at times in essence it is not personal because true competitors compete to a standard. Competing is a shared purpose. Competitors strive together!