Sniff for Myth

The mantra of modern business decision-making is often tied to the basic concept of data-driven reasoning. If you hold a leadership position within an organization, you know that understanding data is a mandate. Data is the foundation for supporting a thesis, building consensus around a point of view, or building an argument for change. Data won’t tell us everything we need to know, and data can easily be misinterpreted, but if we aren’t looking at objectively collected data in forming an analysis, we might be better off buying lottery tickets than investing our company’s money in a resource-heavy plan.

If we know that data is essential to our success, and we know that critical decisions are better informed with data than without it, how is it that so many myths creep into the workplace? By myth, I mean a widely shared belief in a set of rules that a company has adopted without a sufficient test or challenge. In the worst of all circumstances, that myth may have no foundation at all.

As companies grow and practices become routine, repeated behaviors can be handed down from one generation of managers to another. I’ve often written about the notion of “but we’ve always” to point out the routines we come to follow without question, long after the reasoning for those practices has become obsolete. Most companies are guilty of this in one form or another. The good ones find a way to eliminate obsolete practices before they do real damage. Failed companies often find themselves immersed in a death spiral because they stopped questioning what made them successful and found it more expedient to repeat the same actions long after their relevancy left the playing field.

Each year in our cycles of strategic planning, we ask ourselves what is working and what isn’t. Data is often a great indicator in both directions. When we see metrics trailing downward and don’t ask ourselves why, we allow passive behavior to perpetuate itself. Often when we dig into that data, we find there are reasons something that was working no longer is creating the value that was expected. Several things could be going on: a once solid practice has become obviated, a proven practice that was working is no longer ardently being followed, or a practice has emerged from grassroots innovation to replace an existing practice because the people who created the variation come to believe it works — without proper data to support it.

Any of these cases for decline are possible, as are a host of others. All of them allow myth to replace math. When myth in a company takes over workflow, nothing good is likely to happen. It is always our job to sniff for myths — to question existing practices when data reveals a negative trend that must be corrected. Bringing deliberate change is what effective leaders do. Allowing myth to perpetuate is how once-great companies join the dead brand graveyard.

We are always fighting myths. We discover practices we put into place a decade ago were never updated for new technology. We discover a practice we reinvented to drive better results is quietly being rejected by staff members who either don’t like it or don’t understand it, but are sure they are helping matters by covertly sticking to the old practice.

Perhaps we observe a decline in KPIs and temporarily conclude something must be wrong with raw materials because we know the processing methodology we put in place is sound, only to discover that methodology has been misunderstood by the team members utilizing it. We may discover that a team’s interpretation of methodology widely differs from the guidelines developed, not because the guidelines are unsound, but because they have been explained poorly.

In each instance, a myth of what we are doing and why we are doing it overtakes what should be standard operating procedure. It could be an honest set of mistakes. It could be a misunderstanding. It could be a lack of rigor in reevaluating once-proven practices. Regardless of cause, data tells us if we are winning or losing in the form of metrics and dollars. If those signals are getting worse and we fail to delve into the practices behind the decline, we let the myth of proper functioning triumph over the innovation required to unseat the myth.

Company culture is highly efficient at enforcing rules. Veterans in companies are eager to tell rookies “how things are done here.” Sometimes rookies learn existing processes, immediately convince themselves there is a better way, and think they are doing us a favor by doing things that better way without a proper framework for evaluating results. Sometimes company culture is our ally and creates peer reinforcement of best practices. Sometimes company culture invents its own set of operating principles assuring the peer group everything is going as planned when that is not true.

Organizations function from an agreed set of rules, but often the origination of those rules is long-forgotten while the perpetuation of those rules lives on. Myth-busting makes old rules go away, ad hoc rules become exposed, and misunderstood rules become clarified. If we’re looking at data that tells us something is wrong, our intuition in identifying wrongness is only a first step toward correcting it.

Ask yourself if there might be a myth undermining your success. Then go look for it, and without embarrassing anyone, quickly build a consensus to reveal the misapplied rule. Do this often enough and the myths you sniff will be systemically corrected. No company can eradicate all its myths, but companies in constant learning mode can shorten the longevity of misconceptions and revitalize broken practices by reconciling conjecture with data.

That’s how teams get past myth and win together with shared understanding.

_______________

Image: Pixabay

David Coon: An Appreciation

The end of each year is a time for reflection. We often look back on the past year and try to summarize our milestones. Sometimes we set New Year’s resolutions with the best of intentions. At the moment I’m thinking about someone who won’t be part of the new year.

That is the way of things, perhaps the hardest part of being human, knowing almost as soon as cognition forms that there are bookends on all of us. That inescapable awareness is in many ways the essence of our humanity. We have no choice but to internalize it with relative calm. It doesn’t make it easier when we say goodbye, but it does give us a chance to express thanks for the lives around us who change the course of our own.

The Reverend David P. Coon was the head of the school I attended through middle and high school. He officiated at my wedding. I dedicated my second book to him. It is difficult to record in words what he meant to me because I would be looking for the kind of words it takes to summarize five decades of character-building.

Certainly the earliest of those years were more concentrated, but those took place at a time when I was least likely to understand the transformation he was causing to occur in my mindset. In those days he was Father Coon and I would literally tilt my head up to be able to look into his eyes. He walked the halls of our campus with a magnificent physical presence, a baritone voice that reverberated in the corridors, an embodiment of pure confidence, and a sense of authority that never needed to be asserted. He could be questioned on matters of intellectual curiosity, but not on matters of expectation. He expected we would take our education seriously, our shared community seriously, the mandate of maintaining humility seriously, and the place we would come to take in the world seriously.

He was a serious man and he endeavored to help us see the seriousness in the paths before us. He also laughed as loudly as anyone I’ve met and made us laugh, mostly at ourselves at the times our seriousness crossed into counterproductive meandering. We could ponder the world, obsess on this philosopher or that scientist, but we always needed to be moving forward. Laughing at ourselves moved us forward. It helped us frame ambition appropriately in service to others. It was okay to be on a reward path, but it was not okay to think that material rewards meant a hill of beans compared to healing our world. To gain his respect, we would be required to commit our gifts to the continuum of that healing.

I would not be exaggerating to share that without Father Coon’s influence, it is unlikely I would be typing these words. Our teenage years are a crapshoot at best; mine were a casino where the odds were daunting. Somehow this stranger, this teacher of the impossible, got me to stop betting against myself. He mopped up a mess and caused me to believe everything ahead of me was more important than everything behind me. How much of that did I understand? Come on, I was a teenager, none of it. Yet I remember it now, and it works even better with fewer years left ahead of me than there are behind me.

Was he a visionary? He would just say he was a teacher. I’m going to stick with visionary.

His career was remarkable, but I am going to let others write about the expanse of that. He took an all-boys school built on the ancient tradition of recital and transformed it into a modern coeducational place of learning. He initiated change that broadened the paradigm of “sage on the stage” to embrace peer cooperation that put the whole of the student body above the celebration of any single student. One Team, we called it. He elevated ‘Iolani School to global recognition as a laboratory of exemplary process and a trusted model for lasting outcomes.

He took the tragic lessons of the Vietnam War and opened the minds of a diverse audience to the possibility of peace. His sermons beckoned the beauty and unlimited empowerment of embracing one’s opposite. He was a theologian who could preach with the best of them, but he was a pragmatist who knew declarations without substantive action were the fast track to cynicism. He was not a cynic. His faith was unwavering, a boundless reservoir of resilience and optimism, ardently tested, joyously unshakeable.

If you needed food, water, a quiet moment of prayer, or a reinforcing nod of encouragement, you didn’t have to ask. He was always showing us how kindness and strength were compatible. He was an inspirer of unusual aspiration. The highest order of ourselves is of course never achievable, but that didn’t mean he wasn’t going to make it our life’s work to try.

Later in life, when he presumed I had reached adulthood, he insisted I call him Dave. That in his mind was one of the least difficult challenges he presented to me. If only he knew.

My wife, Shelley, there with Dave and a few family attendees at our wedding with a little New Testament and a little Old Testament, likes to talk about planting seeds. This is her spirituality, and she immerses herself in it as a matter of routine. When I mention the five decades of Dave, it is just these seeds that he planted that have blossomed in different expressions over the years. At our wedding, as I broke the glass, this Episcopal priest belted out the words “Mazel Tov” with such resonance they probably echoed in Jerusalem.

Those echoes live in me today. I’ll carry the octaves of his voice with me until my inescapable fate is the same as his, the same as us all. The learning inside me is without end because he made that important to me. The questions in me are more important than the answers because he showed me why the questions are eternal but the answers get rewritten by the centuries. Judgment is for the certain, and how many of us can be that certain with so little knowledge? Reflection takes us forward, always forward, because it requires systemically removing our ignorance. Forward is a path to wisdom, where humility is not a choice, but a necessity.

Demonstration of awe and honor is common among theologians. Dave knew that, likely early in his life, no problem. Would you expect less of a kid who grew up boxing in Flint, Michigan only to become a man of the cloth in Hawaii? The trick wasn’t that he knew it. The trick was he got me to know it, a highly unlikely candidate for that sort of unnerving alchemy.

And the next kid. And the next kid. And the next kid.

Those were the seeds he never stopped planting. They flourish now in every part of our world, across languages and borders, wherever there is a need for healing. The lives he inspired carry forward hope, breathe aspiration, and most of us try to remember on occasion to laugh.

Earlier this month I received our usual Christmas card from Dave and his wife, Joanne. In it was a printed note that said it would be their last, that they were going to spend their remaining time focused on each other and their family. I immediately put our card in the mail to them, telling them I would frame their photo and keep it on my desk forever. That card came back undeliverable. Of course, I didn’t know he was in hospice. That makes this almost our last Christmas together.

I end the year incomplete. Timing is everything and we seldom get to say goodbye to everyone we lose. I enter the new year a little more alone, a little less formed, but in knowledge that those seeds were well-planted if not fully seen and understood a half-century ago. Our character is tested daily, our mistakes are endless, and our learning is forever incomplete. Each of us should be so lucky as to have a few people who guided us forward and never let go. If you enjoy the good fortune to have been so inspired by a person of such wisdom, there aren’t enough ways or words to say thank you. We can only offer a humble appreciation.

Dave, this appreciation is eternal, as are your teachings, as is your incomparable love.

_______________

Image: Dave & Joanne Coon, Christmas Card 2023

Weak Thinking

I’ve been a student of philosophy for most of my adult life. It’s a passion, it’s an indulgence, at times it’s an obsession, and it’s a driving force in many of my most consequential actions. Digging through the canon of thousands of years of argument — hundreds of thousands of pages of dense text — can be vastly unsatisfying. It’s not for everyone. It becomes obvious there are far more questions than answers, and the answers that emerge do so largely to be impeached and reconsidered.

One of my key takeaways from this often senseless pursuit of the abstract is that the difference between reasonable inquiry and fabricated drivel is discipline. A noble premise or argument usually embraces long periods of study, focused meditation, and incorporated strings of historical context. Saying stuff because it happens to occur to you is not the same as constructing a point of view built on the readings of diverse schools of thought.

Weak thinking seems to be thriving these days in our universities. While I am fully in the camp of maintaining free speech on college campuses, praising the right of individuals to speak their minds is not the same as celebrating poorly articulated points of view. I also think some of these students better learn to get a thick skin and learn to hear words that are objectionable without expecting institutional protection. If students think they are graduating into a world where their feelings are going to matter to their adversaries, they better understand that there are few anointed referees handing out self-esteem shields.

So let’s assume we all have a right to weak thinking, we all will be exposed to it, and almost no one is going to protect us from it. Does that leave us in a world where all opinions are valid and to be polite we should smile and nod when we hear garbage thought? We should not. When we fail to incorporate proper intellectual discipline into our viewpoints, we should be knocked back to sensibility.

When Sam Bankman-Fried said he would willingly flip a coin if he knew that heads would make the world twice as good and tails would enact its destruction, he wasn’t expressing a valid philosophy. He was expressing the kind of stupidity that results in dangerous consequences, even beyond the absurdity of the abstraction. Imagine if he had retained wealth and power with this worldview. He would have made even more bad decisions that affect too many of us. The world should be spared this dose of weak thinking while he contemplates his theories in prison.

When viewers on TikTok recently discovered the manifesto of Osama Bin Laden expressing his fanatical Letter to America, some decided that this was a hidden revelation that pointed to an alternative point of view on terrorism. Are there two sides to the tragedy of 9-11? Does the weak thinking of a handful of younger citizens not yet born when terrorists took the lives of thousands in the attack on the World Trade Center warrant further discussion? No, this is not serious inquiry, not a valid call for plurality of opinion, it is rubbish. It is appalling and they should be told as much.

When a prominent business leader like Elon Musk decides to publicly acknowledge that an antisemitic rave is the “absolute truth,” is this just another opinion from a high-profile individual who has deeply considered the implications of his political expression? No, it’s lazy, spur-of-the-moment madness from someone who has convinced himself that success in some aspects of his career translates into broad intellectual authority. It is essential that we separate Musk’s technological accomplishments from his broader persona. He is a philosophical lightweight with an attention span disorder and grotesquely poor manners. His weak thinking is glaring, tone-deaf, and hateful.

These are but a few examples of the power of weak thinking to undermine civilized discourse and lead masses astray. Too many people still gravitate toward iconic figures to do the hard thinking for them. They also choose to invest unlimited time in scraping the surface of summarized ideas rather than focus on the detailed construct that might or might not support the idea. Said another way, if you want to buy into an idea, you can’t read enough about where it came from, how it’s been argued, and what it might really mean.

You might be left wondering who I think gets to be the arbitrator of weak thinking. Each of us has this specific right as well as the power to exercise it as it applies to our own opinions. The amount of energy we invest in considered thought is a choice. In my current observations, weak thinking is becoming endemic and putting our shared interests at risk. If you agree, read more, listen more, and at the risk of producing more unnecessary conflict, apply the discipline necessary to separate debatable philosophy from buckets of bull.

_______________

Photo: Pixabay

Be In The Room

Over the past weeks, several major companies have announced various return-to-office policies. That means a requirement to be in an office some number of days each week. Thus far I have resisted sending a similar memo because I think for the most part this is best left to the judgment of department leaders who understand their goals, More than that, I am counting on the good judgment of individuals to make sense of advancing their career horizons.

Let me offer this one bit of advice: If you have the opportunity to be in the room and are not taking it, you might be doing yourself an enormous disservice. The time you spend at home may make your current life easier. I have significant doubt it will make your future more successful.

In my experience, there is no substitute for being in the room. It is where true bonds are created. It is where you can see in person how difficult challenges are met. It is where your gifts can be shared and recognized not just by your peers and boss, but by your boss’s boss, and anyone up the chain who might poke in their head and see you in action.

That’s not office politics. That’s reality.

Willingly giving up a chance to be in the room is a choice you make at your own risk, to the extent you have the choice. If you still have that choice, consider what you might be giving up in exchange for those nasty commute hours and a refrigerator full of your own preferred food.

Several decades ago, I was a recent college graduate desperate for an opportunity. I offer the word desperate quite deliberately. Despite a bachelor’s degree in the humanities from a known college, a string of paid jobs and internships, and a resume filled with extracurricular projects, I was just another unknown job applicant in a huge pool of recent college grads. The economy was in rough shape. It seemed no one who mattered even wanted to talk with me, let alone hire me.

All I wanted was to be in the room.

Like so many others, I ceaselessly kept at it and eventually got interviews. After many of those I got hired into a lousy job, then another lousy job, then several other lousy jobs, then finally a good job that I believe started my real career. At no time during that arc or any subsequent arc did the notion of willingly working remotely ever cross my mind, although one of those jobs happened to be such four out of five days each week because they had no desk for me. Any time I was able to be at work I considered it a catapulting privilege to be among accomplished, ambitious colleagues.

I never forgot what it was like being in a small apartment waiting for the phone to ring for an invitation to be in the room. I also can’t imagine doing what I do today without those many decades of watching other people perform their jobs across the spectrum from expertly to incompetently.

Every chance to be in the room for me has been a chance to learn. At the same time, it has been a chance to collaborate, creatively engage, and be a part of innovation.

Have I taken solo work home to review evenings and over the weekend regularly? You bet.

Do I believe there are times when telecommuting makes sense? Absolutely.

Do I see the internet as an unrivaled tool to share ideas globally among people who might never have the chance to gather under the same roof? Without question.

Would any of it convince me that forgoing an opportunity to be in the room for comfort, convenience, or an alleged increase in productivity was a reasonable trade? Not on your life.

Working alone may increase efficiency. I don’t see it increasing creativity.

Covid-19 response was an anomaly. Did it teach many of us a new set of behaviors, that we could accomplish things remotely if it was a necessity? It certainly did. Is the continuing right to work remotely an entitlement that is the result of that learning? Well, not exactly.

I suppose in an employment market where talent has unlimited options, the benefit of working remotely might be a trading card that management can offer to attract team members. Yet if management is only offering this benefit because it has no choice if positions are to be filled, how positive do you think management feels about that? Hiring managers want choices just like you want choices. When anything becomes a mandate, it often does so with a nagging amount of reservation.

One of the things I noticed when Covid first grounded us was how quickly and well our leadership team adapted to remote meetings. In many respects, I think it is the reason our company succeeded and curiously accelerated during Covid. Many colleagues at other companies weren’t as lucky. Some tragically saw their companies in demise, not only as a result of unprecedented business conditions but of the challenges in responding to those conditions with untested practices.

The more I thought about this, the more I was convinced that we succeeded because of the years we previously spent together in the room. Those many years of collaboration established a solid foundation for crisis management we could apply remotely. We were able to talk in shorthand because we had established that shorthand. We were able to use humor because we knew each other’s sensibilities and sensitivities. I couldn’t even imagine the idea of trying to onboard a VP into a remote setting, where I knew others were trying and failing at this.

Our team knew this management paradigm was intended to be temporary and that we would be back in person as soon as practicable. Personally, I couldn’t wait and was back in the office as soon as I could. We also didn’t overreact. We knew that five days a week in person for everyone no longer made sense because it had never made sense. It was obvious that forty or so required office hours was too broad a brush. We knew workplace equilibrium would work itself out, while we counted on individuals to make sense of their careers in tandem with company needs.

Moderation always seems like a better approach to consensus than absolutes. Individual decisions always seem preferable to sweeping mandates when inspiring people’s best work.

I had a sense that every individual would come to understand the value of being in the room. To be in the room is to absorb the skills you will call upon to address the next set of challenges you will face. To be in the room is a gift, perhaps not every day, but on the days that matter and will stay with you for a lifetime.

You may be arguing with me in your head. You may be telling yourself this is a new day, a different generation, a wiser and more inspired collective that embraces work-life balance and knows to mistrust corporations that don’t have their best interests at heart. You might be convinced that because technology advances have made remote work viable, we’d be silly not to ride the horse in the direction it seems to be going. You might be right, but I am always reminded of those very dangerous words that creep up every time I think they are going away forever: “This time is different.”

I have written before about leverage in getting your way. It can be an effective tactic as a matter of last resort, but it is seldom a path to trust, long-term relationships, and compounding progress. If the only reason you are allowed to work remotely is that you think your employer has no other choices, I wonder whether you really want to work for that company. If there is a mutual understanding about workplace arrangements that benefits you and your employer in agreeing to a schedule that helps you with childcare, quiet time to think on your own, and still leaves room for in-person collaboration, that’s one thing. If either side is making a demand of the other, that seems like a shaky platform to advance together.

Some types of professions like software engineering seem particularly well suited to remote working as has been evinced by decades of sharing libraries and contributing to enterprise projects, where most of the engineer’s time is spent on individually created program code that is later assembled with other modules. Even then, when I see software engineers in a room with marketing and finance professionals, I often see exponential progress in shorter windows of time.

Don’t undervalue intangibles. Learning to read a room can help you secure unexpected allies to support a controversial strategy. The most unassuming bits of advice acquired from unfamiliar colleagues in the breakroom can be life-changing. Lifelong friendships emerge and develop from unplanned acts of empathy and compassion. You can say all of that plus mentorship and coaching are available electronically and you’ll be right. The in-person impacts you might be underestimating are tone, degree, and happenstance.

When we are together, we learn from each other. We have peripheral vision that lets us see not just what Zoom or Teams puts on the video screen, but what catches our attention in the corner of our eye. We take in winning and losing arguments and approaches. We have the unique opportunity to establish and build company culture.

My advice: Don’t wait for the company directive, don’t even wait to be asked politely. If you have the opportunity, be in the room.

_______________

Photo: Pexels