Leaders Are Readers -- December 2024

APPLIED AI & ANALYTICS

Hat tip to one of my Gartner teammates, Johnna Torsone, for sharing this month's first piece. This is also, to my recollection, the first time I've read (and therefore included) something from EY. Fairly lengthy?piece with some additional areas to click for detail and definitions (as is usually the case with McKinsey pieces we read here). This covers, as the title imparts, six pillars for AI success. While targeting Executives, who generally are the key strategic decision-makers (I know, duh!), I contend leaders at any and all levels thinking about using, or are using AI, are well served to explore the six. They are: 1) Establish an AI control tower; 2) Reimagine future business models and functions; 3) Ensure confidence in AI; 4) Address talent and technology gaps; 5) Develop an ecosystem of alliances; and 6) Drive focused data maturity to be AI ready. We've read about all of these areas in prior pieces. As is often the case here, I read and read to reinforce and recall the key tenets around subjects. Two key things from my perspective, particularly as an HR executive, and longtime strategic-level leader are to ensure the workforce is properly skilled to harness the technology. That is quite often the piece we spend the least amount of time, and / or resources, on addressing. Too often, there is a "buy or build it, the team will learn to use it" approach. As this piece points out, 80 percent of those surveyed in their analysis said they would be comfortable using AI, 73 percent of those people also said they weren't being trained (the piece specifically shared "coached"), but suffice to say, they aren't getting the support they need to really make more quick use of the AI. The second area top of mind for me is what often seems to be driving the problems in the first I highlighted; the ecosystem of alliances is not as strong as it should be. In a number of organizations, I've seen where the CIO, or another executive simply dictates the use of AI without building the appropriate alliances with, for example the CHRO. An analogy that comes to mind, perhaps a poor one, is allowing a car salesman to tell me what to buy, without asking me what my needs (or wants) actually are. I need a family-sized vehicle to carry all of them and our various accoutrements as we get around town day-to-day, and I'm told to buy a two-seater sports car. Sure, the performance might well be great, but it doesn't deliver what I really need to support my "customers". Regardless of how applicable my analogy, there are good details herein:?Six pillars of AI success for the C-suite | EY - US

This is a great piece! Love the original take on how to think about AI. The link is to a LinkedIn connection's page. If you're not on LinkedIn, you should still be able to read it. What would Carl Jung, Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, William Shakespeare (Billy Shakes to me), among other historic notables, think about AI? What question, or questions, would they ask? Led to some very interesting, and insightful, questions posed in this short piece.?Humanity, Machines, and Meaning: Questions from History’s Greatest Minds to Guide Us in the Age of AI | LinkedIn. The piece inspiring this particular post is linked within but can also be found here:?(3) Ancient Wisdom, Modern Machines: What Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates Would Say About Artificial Intelligence (AI) | LinkedIn. The author ponders what the preeminent?ancient Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, would think about AI. Notably: Bias and fairness: Socrates’ questioning reminds us to critically examine the data and assumptions behind AI models. AI experts today focus on eliminating biases in training data, ensuring that AI serves all of humanity fairly. Transparency and accountability: Plato’s ideal of truth aligns with the need for AI systems to be transparent. Modern ethicists argue for explainable AI, so that decisions made by AI systems can be understood and scrutinized by human beings. Human agency: Aristotle’s emphasis on moral responsibility supports the call for AI systems to remain tools under human control, never autonomous agents making decisions without human oversight.

We've explored the question, "how GenAI affects highly skilled workers" (in short ... can lead to both anxiety and burnout) in previous posts. The LinkedIn link here is to MIT's Sloan School of Management feed, which I follow. Quick insights in three associated areas. There is a quote shared at the bottom of the post from Matt Beane (an MIT Initiative of the Digital Economy Fellow). He shares; "The way we’re handling most intelligent technologies blocks healthy challenge, complexity, and connection instead of enhancing them. On average, we’ve started a war between technological productivity and human skill, and skill is losing. Going back to good old-fashioned apprenticeships isn’t often a good option in our increasingly hybrid, digital, and fragmented workplaces. But if we continue to undermine healthy challenge, complexity, and connection and sever the traditional expert-novice bond with no new one in place, we’re going to find ourselves in a world of trouble.”?(1) How generative AI affects highly skilled workers | LinkedIn

Interesting to note, there are a number of research pieces I've read over time that hit or hint at this same thing the following piece explores, albeit in sometimes different ways. One of the executives within this piece notes that only 3 out of every 10 ideas for applying AI make sense. Perhaps that is the case for his company versus a universal truth. Here, I didn't see underlying research or analysis across differing organizations, but assuming some accuracy in this assessment, the premise comports with what I've seen in research from Gartner, and others. That AI-related hype led to CEOs pushing really hard for AI use in 2023, which waned some in 2024 due to how that hype overstated or oversold what AI can do. Regardless, AI is here to stay and will become more and more present and prevalent within many, if not most, organizations. In part, because what does currently work, and the evolutional promise, will lead to more organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Here comes the "but", AI isn't ubiquitous. It need not be used for everything! Gartner, for example, has open-source shared that some organizations are adopting AI alongside humans where the humans are actually more accurate and drive better outcomes than the AI being adopted and applied to undertake that formerly human-completed work. Why, because organizations are answering CEO calls to "do something with AI so we don't fall behind our competition." Like many other tactical, operational, and strategic decisions, understand what outcomes and objectives are desired, then carefully consider whether or not AI (Traditional or Generative) is the best way to advance toward those desired achievements.?Don't 'wash everything in AI': HR leaders chart realistic course for AI - WorkLife

AI Guardrails, in my novice and nascent view, and ethics go hand in hand. Here, McKinsey developed a framework for analyzing, addressing, and advancing AI-related guardrails. Through their thinking, they determined (at least for now), there are five different types of guardrails; 1) Appropriateness; 2) Hallucination; 3) Regulatory-compliance; 4) Alignment; and 5) Validation. The piece goes on to explain the four ways in which McKinsey thinks guardrails work and also share six ways organizations can deploy AI guardrails at scale, completely agnostic about the type of organizations (e.g., private, public, profit, non-profit). Taken together, my thinking here is these details thread through the four pieces above. If / when well-applied, these guardrails can help guide organizations to making the best decisions about (in no particular order of either right sequencing or importance) where to apply AI, ensuring the tools are in keeping with the organization's purpose(s), minding for, caring about, and developing the workforce who will wield these tools, asking pertinent and probing questions about using AI ahead of buying and implementing it.?What are AI guardrails? | McKinsey

BOOKSHELF

Only one book off the shelf this month. Hat tip to another of my Gartner teammates, Gene Schrecengost, for recommending Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen. It is described on Amazon in the following way:?In?Nuclear War: A Scenario, Annie Jacobsen gives us a vivid picture of what could happen if our nuclear guardians fail…Terrifying.”—Wall Street Journal.?There is only one scenario other than an asteroid strike that could end the world as we know it in a matter of hours: nuclear war. And one of the triggers for that war would be a nuclear missile inbound toward the United States.?Every generation, a journalist has looked deep into the heart of the nuclear military establishment: the technologies, the safeguards, the plans, and the risks. These investigations are vital to how we understand the world we really live in—where one nuclear missile will beget one in return, and where the choreography of the world’s end requires massive decisions made on seconds’ notice with information that is only as good as the intelligence we have.?Pulitzer Prize finalist Annie Jacobsen’s?Nuclear War: A Scenario?explores this ticking-clock scenario, based on dozens of exclusive new interviews with military and civilian experts who have built the weapons, have been privy to the response plans, and have been responsible for those decisions should they have needed to be made.?Nuclear War: A Scenario?examines the handful of minutes after a nuclear missile launch. It is essential reading, and unlike any other book in its depth and urgency. Given my military background, Gene rightly thought I would be interested in the reading recommendation and also asked for feedback. In short and sum, I told him the book was exceedingly well-researched and written. I found it both fascinating and frightening at once. The author gets the data and detail right about what would happen in such a scenario. I pray we never engage in this madness because as the author correctly concludes, no one wins a nuclear war. It is truly the only man-made thing that has the power to destroy the entire human race in mere minutes.?

CEO CORNER

My Gartner teammates have shared a lot of great reading recommendations this past month. Hat tip to a third Gartner teammate, Padma Thiruvengadam, for sharing the following linked report,?The CEO Response: Expecting Massive Change Ahead, Business Leaders Weigh-In. Readers will have to sign up to download the 24-page report. Don't let the length scare you from?downloading this no cost, a quickly digested report. The report asks nine questions of 472 global CEOs. The introduction shares:?Our latest global CEO study reveals definitive and unexpected insights. The overwhelming majority of CEOs believe that significant, far-reaching changes lie ahead in economics, politics, energy, and technology. What is striking is that they embrace their responsibility to collaborate with governments and other stakeholders to solve challenges such as climate change and in equality, even if the final destinations are not yet known. Our findings suggest that the world is entering a new era of leadership. Many CEOs are envisioning identities that extend beyond leading their business and are repositioning themselves to help shape new realities across society. The research suggests a new mindset among CEOs, who are both curious and confident, exploring where they can exert their influence most effectively. CEOs are certain they can have a greater impact on climate protection and AI than on geopolitics. While they are careful to avoid noisy rhetoric and extreme positions, they do not sidestep the critical issues facing the world. Common ground is emerging among CEOs, even if it is not yet fully visible; it is being forged by leaders who take on social and political responsibilities within and beyond their business roles. Participating CEOs emphasize the importance of selecting the right talent, developing those employees and themselves, and—most importantly— creating a culture in their organizations where curiosity and openness are the new norm. Key choices and focus in these areas are expected to help CEOs lead through increasing complexity. This aligns with our observation that CEOs are investing more than ever in their personal development. They are among the most attentive observers of a world that is reordering itself. In the face of far-reaching societal shifts, CEOs today face an historic opportunity to step beyond being mere witnesses to change—and to embrace the role of architects for a better future. We are making the results of this study available to you now, at a time when many CEOs are considering whether, when, and how to contribute to global and national conversations on the most pressing socio-political issues. What is clear is that global CEOs are waking up to a new world and want to help shape it.?Revealing Insights - The CEO Response - Egon Zehnder

CREATIVE COMMENTARY

Trust is critical to leadership?! I know, that's something every Reader and Leader here already knows, and practices. Here, The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) not only defines trust, they dive a bit into the two sides of trust, and why in today's continuously changing environment (or what I refer to as continuous environmental evolution), and the six paradoxes on both sides of the trust equation. As is often the case with CCL materials, they "advertise" their Leadership Development Program, which I went through at their Colorado Springs campus in May 2017. The real reason for sharing here is, even in the absence of going through that five-day developmental program, simply understanding the basic things that?you, as a Leader, should be sharpening and strengthening, is useful. We've explored the fact that leadership, like many other things, is something that must be continually refined, renewed, and re-energized. Like learning, it is a never-ending journey rather than a destination. CCL shares the six Structural Side of Leadership traits, or skills as: 1) Capitalizing on strengths (requires constant self-evaluation); 2) Self-reliance; 3) Optimism; 4) Being tough; 5) Sense of Urgency; 6) Catalyzing change; and the six People Side of Leadership traits, or skills as: 1) Coping with transition; 2) Realistic patience; 3) Being empathetic; 4) Realism / openness; 5) Trusting others; 6) Going against the grain. Certainly, these are the things CCL advances, but this list, at least I submit, is not meant to be all-encompassing. We all know that trust is earned rather than something leaders' demand. I shared with a teammate recently, when discussing resilience, we build up those accounts a penny or a nickel at a time but pay out in the tens and twenties. That analogy applies here as well. We develop our trust banks with our teammates in the same manner. A leader can lose a huge amount of credibility credit with an incorrect, inappropriate, or insensitive response to change. I don't mean we won't make mistakes, rather when things don't go well, our ability to appropriately apply the skills we continuously hone, will make a huge difference. As I work with my Gartner clients, most will be directly impacted by the changing Presidential Administration. I'm recalling four years ago the breakneck speed at which we were making policy and program changes in The Pentagon required being able apply a suite of skills to keep trust with my teammates. Whether or not we agreed with the changes was immaterial ... that is another skill we must be able to apply ... Prudence (or sound judgement).?Why Leadership Trust Is Critical, Especially During Change | CCL

Connected to the thought-piece above, how should leaders prepare and position themselves for a "polycrises"? CCL defines polycrises as?a situation where multiple crises interact, creating a web of interconnected challenges that amplify each other’s effects. It is characterized by numerous simultaneous crises, feedback loops, unexpected interactions, and difficulty in defining boundaries. I posit and present, polycrises are a routine thing these days. In my own experience, it well predates the COVID pandemic. I faced such an environment over and again across my career. The circumstances were different from the Pandemic, but nonetheless, amidst and among several crises?interacting. The key thing for me, and the primary point of why I prepare, and post?Leaders Are Readers, is precisely because learning and leadership go hand-in-hand in a continuum.?6 Key Leadership Capabilities to Navigate Polycrisis | CCL

Fairly certain I've shared this piece previously. It popped back into my CCL feeds recently and given this is a topic about which I engage a number of my clients, resharing again this month. This piece shares the eight things leaders should be doing to create a psychologically safe work environment. For me, this is a good reminder that creating, cultivating, and curating such an environment is like gardening; leaders need to consistently tend the garden. Pull the weeds, ensure the soil remains fertile, and work deliberately to yield good fruit. This piece also shares the four stages of psychological safety, which serves as a good way to ascertain where our respective work teams and environments are. One way to determine current state or status is to reframe the eight things leaders should be doing into simple questions across, for example, a five-point Likert Scale, and using something like Survey Monkey (for whom I am not a paid spokesperson ... rather sharing this is what I did in my last organization to?create a baseline from which to improve). This is entirely subjective vice quantitative survey or assessment analysis, but is a good, and easy, place to start.?How to Build Psychologically Safe Workplaces | CCL

HARVARD YARD

Starting this month's walk around the Yard with a shorter collection of Today’s Tip(s) than we usually read. In part, because many of the daily offerings are things we've already covered in prior monthly missives because they were republished as "best of 2024".

Across many years now, I've been thinking through the ideas around "triggers". My intention here isn't to simply or solely dismiss how things evoke responses in and from us; that is natural. What I'm aiming for here is to determine what is actually appropriate in response to such a statement, sentiment, or series of occurrences, rather than allowing them to be a reason or rationale for walling ourselves off from others, or worse, demanding communication and conditions that must comport with my particular preferences. In some respects, it's akin to, if you don't like the show on your television, radio station, or SiriusXM channel; you can simply change the channel, so you shouldn't demand the show to be taken down. That isn't to say or suggest that some things are just flat not good. Again, driving into, what are the most reasoned and rational responses? I think the questions posed here addressing times of uncertainty, can be applied to most anything that evokes an emotional?response from us. Wondering aloud if we should also ask a couple of other questions such as "How does this actually impact me", "What are the most likely outcomes", "What is within our (or my) ability to affect"?

3 Questions to Guide Your Leadership in Uncertain Times by Laura Empson and Jennifer Howard-Grenville

In a world full of instability and political turbulence, feeling unsettled or anxious has become the norm. As a result, many of us are having “liminal experiences,” which involve a prolonged separation from normal ways of being and doing. As a leader, you can use these three questions to anchor yourself and your team in uncertain, liminal times.?

What do you value? Use this moment to revisit your core values. The events around us highlight what truly matters. Reflect on what triggers strong emotions in you—it’s often a signal of your deeper beliefs. Knowing your values will ground you in times of flux.?

Where do we stand? Reassess your organization’s purpose and principles. This isn’t mere introspection; it’s crucial for clarifying your direction. Your team looks to you for stability and understanding where you and your organization stand will help you unite your team.?

How can we move ahead? Liminal periods can lead to feelings of cynicism or helplessness, but they’re also opportunities for growth. Avoid the urge to retreat. Instead, view this as a time to innovate and discard outdated assumptions.

----------

Some good insights being offered here. First, it must be stipulated that providing constructive feedback is essential to organizations operating at their best. Unfortunately, too few leaders or managers are deliberately developing these skills. Might be because their organizations don't invest time or resources in honing these skills or overthink how they use forms or formulaic ways of delivering the feedback, or they conflate developmental?feedback with performance feedback. Developmental feedback is about identifying the skills and competencies that need maintaining and/or improving. It is separate and distinct from evaluating and providing performance feedback, which should be done against specific performance planning at the beginning of each evaluated period. I'm not trying to suggest a form, or some manner of applied format isn't necessary, rather, driving into the heart of ensuring we separate the different kinds of feedback.?

Give More Valuable and Engaging Feedback by Rocki Howard

Do you dread giving feedback? You’re not alone—many managers feel anxious about these conversations. However, your feedback is crucial to helping your team grow—even your highest performers. Here are five actionable tips to ensure your feedback is valuable and engaging.

Don’t hold back on constructive feedback. Instead of vague praise like, “You did great,” offer specific insights like, “Your detailed analysis helped us make a decision. However, try to engage with team questions to enhance collaboration next time.”

Avoid all-or-nothing language. Skip exaggerated statements. Replace sweeping declarations like, “You always contribute XYZ” with specific observations like, “Your questions in the last meeting opened up a vital discussion.”

Don’t get too personal. Focus on skills rather than traits. Instead of saying, “You’re a joy to work with,” try, “Your clear communication improved our pitch.”

Be extra mindful of negative framing. Position your feedback constructively—especially to avoid reinforcing racial or gender stereotypes. Instead of “You’re difficult to work with,” say, “I noticed you shut down ideas quickly. Let’s work on fostering open dialogue.”

Map out clear paths for growth. Offer specific next steps by saying something like, “You excel in client communications. Let’s set a plan for you to lead the upcoming project.”

----------

Those having spent a full career in the military know they have to navigate leaving many years of stability, at least in the sense that the job was still there, even though there are usually lots of moves to new assignment locations, deployments, and other upheavals. When I was hurtling towards retirement, I thought very specifically about openings and opportunities before me, which included moving not only from the public to the private sector but also leaving the military behind. It would have been fairly easy to take the uniform off on Friday and don a dress shirt the following Monday as a Department of Defense civilian. Or, as many I know did, move to a Defense Contractor. In this context, a big change was necessary and there were, of course, external pressures as I left behind a life of the past 30 years. Could I do something successfully that wasn't military affiliated or adjacent? I did take time to think through what doors appeared before me and took time to talk with others, including those where I went to work this past January. Flexibility was key! In part, because the team I joined at Gartner needed time to work out details around my inability to start immediately when an offer was extended. That was largely due to the fact that I was still on Active Duty and could not go to work at that time, and I'd asked to delay, allowing me to take a couple of months off following military retirement. Lastly, I absolutely did some research, read a bunch of articles, a couple of books, and talked with many people I trust, and also with people at the company that I knew. Admittedly, my transition from the military to civilian life, and to the private sector, was much, much easier than many others who've made the same transition. Truly could not have been smoother, and my anxiety never rose as I had great confidence everything would come together. Adding, also give yourself grace if the first, second, third, or more options don't come together; prepare and plan for what's next; and know you might have to hustle hard to make the switch.

Is a Big Career Change Really Necessary? by Irina Cozma

It’s tempting to think a career overhaul is the solution to feeling stuck at work. But before you make the leap, pause. A radical change is a significant investment of time and energy—and often, it’s not even necessary. Here’s how to figure out your next step.

Understand your context. Life’s upheavals, like personal challenges and workplace uncertainty, can amplify dissatisfaction. Before deciding to make a drastic change, ask yourself: Is this a normal period in my life, or am I reacting to external pressures? Give yourself time to reflect and revisit the idea after the dust settles.

Stay flexible. Career decisions are usually complex and ambiguous, not straightforward. Explore multiple options and consider where they might lead—for example, to upskilling, switching jobs, or staying the course. Ambivalence can lead to surprising insights.

Make an informed decision. Excitement for a new path can be blinding. Take time to gather real-world data. Talk to people in the field. Investigate the lifestyle. Avoid big commitments until, you’re sure. Most fulfilling transitions are built on months of exploration, not impulsive leaps.

MARVELOUS MCKINSEY

This next piece is a little dated as it was published in May 2023, but the information is every bit as applicable now as it was a year and a half ago. This ten-page article, in my view, doesn't really advance anything we haven't been reading about for some number of years. In fact, we read about some of these same leadership shifts all the way back in 2019 when I shared notes and nuggets from John C. Maxwell's book, Leadershift: The 11 Essential Changes Every Leader Must Make. Resharing the hat tip to one of our Readers, Sonya Miller, who was a teammate when I was at the US Air Force Academy. She gifted me a signed first edition as I was leaving that assignment in June 2019. Regardless of the "newness" of the concepts, I completely agree on the five shifts McKinsey offers are essential herein. Those are from 1) A manager and preserver to a visionary about possibilities; 2) Planning in scarcity to architecting in abundance; 3) Directing with authority to catalyzing partnerships; 4) Controlling with certainty to coaching through discovery; and 5) Being professionally conforming to being a human with authenticity. (I've paraphrased the five shifts a little differently than in the article). Reaching even further back than 2019, many of these same leadership mindsets are advanced in John Wooden's Pyramid of Success. While he doesn't, necessarily, use the same words as in the five phrases McKinsey advances here, when one reads Wooden's thinking about each of the 15 blocks in his pyramid, many of the same effects are delivered. Wooden fixed on those 15 blocks, by the way, in 1948. I found in my own career, using these same five approaches, even if I hadn't defined or deliberated about them in the manner shared here, is how teams and organizations can deliver success time and again.?New leadership in an era of thriving organizations | McKinsey

The following information can be consumed either by listening to the linked podcast or reading the transcript. While I don't necessarily think HR is getting "tougher" per se, it is something many of my HR clients have similarly shared they think is happening. Rather than viewing this as a "getting tougher" lens, I flip that to, "HR is finally becoming more and more understood as a strategic partner". Meaning, far too often, HR and HR leaders are not at the proverbial "adult table". Sometimes CHROs are the last of the C-Suite to hear about something, even though they are often the ones that will own the new policy, program, or process. At least a couple of my HR clients have successfully sought, and net, seats at the adult table for the first time. I also think HR, not just because it is a huge part of my experience and expertise, is the strategic link between everything in an organization. Why? Simple ... because organizations are comprised of people! I know, could it be any more a duh, no kidding statement?! If most other Executives already saw CHROs as their equally important partners, I would not be writing these notes, might not be doing the work I currently do at Gartner, and this McKinsey article likely would not have been published or podcasted. Another underlying theme or thing I hear (and experienced for many years) is, when something goes "bad", like flagging or failing recruiting efforts, HR takes the blame. Yes, the past five years have introduced a suite of new challenges, like telework, hybrid work, increasing (and good) focus on workforce and workplace resilience. Here again, my emphasis is that those things have long mattered and existed. The past five years have shined more of a direct light on HR's importance in any or all areas. There are challenges, I'm not papering over those, rather sharing part of the challenge is that HR professionals create some of their own churn and challenges by the language we use, and how poorly we often communicate things in ways that our internal customers can easily comprehend. Have shared in these missives that many Executives don't trust HR data. Why? Because far and away too many HR professionals fail to translate jargon and language into actionable recommendations. Who cares if it takes X number of days to onboard a new hire? We need to explain the cost implications and provide sound recommendations for how to drive that timeline down. Costs are not just about direct dollars; also time, disruption to ongoing operations, impacts to team dynamics, and on. We need to be better about how we both visualize the data we're collecting and analyzing, and also how we tell the story with that data. Provide the "so what" in resonant and relatable ways. In summation, HR professionals can break-through by being more present, persistent, and pertinent.?Why being in HR is getting tougher—and how to break through | McKinsey

Tons of information and insights that resonate with me here! I hear myself saying and sharing a number of the points shared by McKinsey in this piece, including fully understanding the mandates of my position(s), constantly preparing for "moments that matter", doing only the things I can do (and delegating the rest), and more (or most) effectively managing my time. Like all of our Readers being on a lifelong learning journey, we need to accelerate our learning the higher up we climb our career ladders. Similarly, it is a good idea to update our operating model every so often. That doesn't mean annually, or every other year, rather in a periodicity that meets and matches the needs of our current roles and responsibilities?AND also thinking forward to the next thing to which we aspire. Like athletes practicing prior to each game, that must be done in advance. I referenced John Wooden's Pyramid of Success in the first Masterful McKinsey piece above. He told his players, while coaching basketball and UCLA, to practice towards perfection. While it is unattainable in reality, practicing as though it is possible?will make us perform all that much better during the actual game. Military members train often at a level beyond what they are likely to experience in crucible conditions with the same thing in mind ... if we prepare for the worst possible scenario or situation all the time, our conditioning will allow us to perform either at peak, or as close to peak, as possible. In effect, the "real" situation will seem much easier. Reminds me, I need to call the coach of the Buffalo Bills to ensure he's pushing them to be perfect so maybe we can actually win a Super Bowl in my lifetime.?Warning: Upgrade your personal operating model | McKinsey

Several things struck me reading this piece ... being open-minded; giving myself permission; knowing yourself; and being?transparent. We often hear (and read) about this idea of being a vulnerable leader, but how do we become comfortable with the idea? This piece offers a couple of pertinent points. For me, vulnerability, transparency, and authenticity all have to work in unison to being able to do this "well". For some leaders, being vulnerable, while avoiding the TMI-trap, is natural. They don't have to work at it as hard as other leaders. I fall into the latter camp, more so because when I was coming of professional age, as the article shares, Jack Welch was the epitome of executive leadership. He was THE example ... for a time. As markets, demographics, relational dynamics, and other factors have evolved over time, we know that way of leading fell out of favor. My own sense is, we aren't better than he was, rather, as things shift, so did some of what makes leaders successful. I worked hard at giving myself permission (another thing the article points out) to be more vulnerable (read -- open) with my teammates about what I was thinking about rather than trying only and ever to give and gain confidence solely based on my demonstrated competence or ability to get things accomplished. Trying to be the "strong silent type". Part of that breakthrough, almost 25 years ago now, was performance feedback from my then-boss. That feedback was less about how many things we were accomplishing, rather it was more about being a "human" rather than a "machine". At the time, and I shared this over again since then, I did not appreciate the feedback. Setting it aside and allowing myself time to reflect and see what my boss was trying to tell me, my perspective changed, and I got to work on those recommendations. It was a couple of years after that, when I recognized, and took action, on being growth-mindsetted (the article calls this being open-minded). While Dr. Carol Dweck was researching just this principle back in the 1980s when Welch was in his preeminence, the term itself, at least in my circles and spheres, did not materialize as a regular discussion topic until sometime in this century. I came to understand how important that mindset is to remain successful, both professionally and personally. One slight criticism about this piece is, as we briefly touched on in the first walk around Harvard Yard above, is this "trigger" thing. While I don't think the authors are thinking about the term in the same manner as we see in politically or socially charged situations or scenarios, my criticism is simply to find a better word. A better word is "reaction" or "response". My thinking here is, triggering, seems to me, allows for an excuse. We choose how we react and respond, even when something bothers, concerns, and frustrates our thinking or sensibilities on any subject. That little thing notwithstanding, the authors advance good insights herein about why vulnerability is important, and again, a couple of thoughts about how to create that in our leadership styles and profiles.?How leaders can tap the power of vulnerability | McKinsey

MEDIUM MUSINGS

During my second assignment to the Pentagon, I worked for the Assistant Secretary or the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. Prior to that assignment, while I'd heard of the office, I really did not have a full appreciation for everything for which that office has oversight. That small office oversees all personnel matters, medical matters, The Air Force Academy, and everything in the Air Force Guard and Reserve components. My own oversight portfolio included billions of dollars of assets, scores of regulatory documents, and a wide array of disparate program areas. Following one year in that first role, I moved to "the front office", essentially becoming the Chief of Staff. The position was actually named "Director of the Action Group". Best way to describe it to Readers who are unfamiliar with what that position does inside the Department of Defense is as the Chief of Staff. Like most, if not all Pentagon staff positions, you're a one-man band doing more than one professional should have on his or her plate. Most days, I hit the office between 6:00 and 6:30 AM, and most usually didn't leave before 6:30 or 7:00 PM. Very long days and those 12 hours or more each day usually were packed and pressure-filled. Most days, I left with things undone. To say I was exhausted much of the time is an understatement. Not a complaint, rather sharing how overwrought I was by the time I'd been in the seat one year prior to taking another assignment away from DC. Sharing all of this, because as I read the following piece, it reminded me that I once recommended to the Assistant Secretary (a four-star general equivalent political appointee) that we should promulgate a policy allowing for a 20-minute daily siesta for all Air Force personnel. I meant it. I could have used a short nap in the afternoon! He had the authority to do it, and I was happy to write a single page policy outlining the practice and approval authorities. Of course, we did not take any action in this direction. There is sound science behind taking breaks, some of which the following piece points out. During my third (and last) assignment to the Pentagon, I made it part of my daily practice to take a walk every day. The Pentagon has 17.5 miles of corridors. If one walks the outer ring, the largest of the five rings comprising the bulk of the building, it is about one mile around. The innermost ring is about a half mile around. Often around mid-day, you can see people with walking shoes on, doing a lap around the outer ring. While this isn't a siesta in the napping sense, it was a deliberate decision to push away from my desk, ignore my screen for 15-20 minutes, get the blood flowing a bit and just move. While the time changed depending on my daily schedule, this practice helped me refresh, reframe, and refocus on the rest of the day. So, "doing nothing" isn't just for non-working days. And, yes, as an Executive, I did this! Now that I primarily work from my home office, I have to remind myself it's ok to push away from the desk, ignore the screen, and go take a walk.?The Sacred Art of Doing Nothing. Why Doing Nothing is Doing A Lot | by Dan Foster | Backyard Church | Dec, 2024 | Medium

SEED KORN

We often read and review information about Psychological Safety, which led me to read about Psychological Richness. Wondered if there was a new or novel way to think about the former. Turns out, that's not what the latter is. As defined within this very short read, it means:?A life that is psychologically rich involves seeking and embracing challenging, novel, and complex experiences—experiences that engage us mentally and emotionally while fundamentally shifting our perspective on the world. We should not be surprised, then, that research highlighted also within this piece underscores the importance of developing our teammates, and that by doing so, 93 percent are more likely to remain inside our organizations. This isn't about pressing or pushing people well outside of comfort zones, or creating unhealthy tension or trepidations, rather, stretching people's capacities, competencies, capabilities, and career opportunities. In reflection, there are many reasons why I served in the Air Force for 30 years. Among them is the opportunity to tackle a new post or position every one to three years. In fact, I know I would have been bored if I'd stayed in the same job for too long. Was less about chasing the next thing, rather, I sought options to continue developing, growing, being challenged and having the opportunities to craft and curate myself more fully.?In Search of ‘Psychological ‘Richness’

Another very short piece follows. It is, of course, important for leaders to work to address and assuage our teammates' "worries". Most of what human beings worry about never actually comes true. There are some loose connections to our first walk in Harvard Yard above. What are the things that we can actually control during uncertainty, and how do we best respond to that? In leadership terms, fear, uncertainty, doubt, anxiety, or worry, are all real, and often, raw emotions. Leaders need to carefully calibrate our responses such that we are authentic, empathetic, assuring (or reassuring), and attuned to the worries while also not allowing a metastasizing?menace in our organizations.?A Worried Workforce

STUDYING STOICISM

Conspicuous consumption. Keeping up with the Joneses. He who dies with the most toys, wins. And on. Simple and short message here, but a philosophy I've come to try living out over many years. When my wife and I were first married (now 30 years ago!), we made a conscientious choice to not chase the newest thing. Be that the newest car, television, or later, newest iPhone. We didn't take trips on credit. We walked away from more than one opportunity or another because it didn't fit with what we thought was best, whether or not it was a risky, or riskless, move. Borrowing from the idea that having "stuff" was a key to happiness, that thinking never made sense to us, not just because when we were first married, many of the things we had in the house (furniture, pots and pans) were borrowed items. Just as a practical matter, why go into debt to obtain stuff. Yes, our financial position has changed over time, and I think in large measure, because we chose deliberately not to simply have more things, or the newest things. Also, I think a home mortgage is a different matter as homes trend towards increasing in value over time. Therefore, that is a long-term investment rather than buying an expensive car (even if one can actually afford it) doesn't make all that much sense given the moment you drive it off the dealer's lot, it is worth less than what you just paid. Not that we all have to, or should live entirely spartan or simple lives, rather, find value and happiness in the simple things that cost little to nothing. We often read about how wealthy people, whether reasonably?wealthy (or powerful) by general population comparison, or insanely wealthy (or powerful), are among the most unhappy people. Find the simple things that bring you happiness, if not joy!

We often convince ourselves that happiness lies in having more—more money, more power, more recognition. We set our sights on the perfect house, the perfect career, the perfect partner. The list of “must-haves” feels endless.

But here’s the truth: those things might be nice to have, but they’re not what we truly need.

For centuries, the wisest among us have echoed this sentiment. In Meditations (our favorite translation here), Marcus Aurelius reminds us: “Very little is needed to make a happy life.” Nearly two millennia later, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe offered a simple, profound prescription for contentment:?“One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable words.”

Seneca took a similar view, advising that each day should include a meaningful story, a thoughtful conversation, or a good quote (our Daily Stoic Page-A-Day Calendar can help with that). This, he believed, could arm us against the struggles of life—poverty, death, and other inevitable misfortunes. It’s not about abundance. It’s about nourishment, inspiration, guidance, reassurance, clarity.

So if you want a more fulfilling life, the formula is simple. Start your morning with a good quote. Let a little music energize your workday. Pair lunch with a poem. Admire a beautiful image. And, at day’s end, share some thoughtful words with a friend or loved one.

Do these small things each day, and you’ll find that happiness doesn’t demand much. It’s not in the more. It’s in the enough.

----------

Nike would say, Just Do It! The Little Blue Engine in the children's folklore, The Little Engine That Could, repeatedly said, I think I Can! Henry Ford is often cited as having written,?Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right.?There are any number of like sentiments and statements from advertisements, self-help slogans, quotes, books, etc. Again, like the prior Studying Stoicism input, this is similarly short and simple. If we believe we can do something (within reason ... I will never fly like Superman however much I want that superpower), we can do it. Much more often than not, it is our own doubt that creates conditions leading to our failure.??

It’s too much. Not another thing. Not another problem. Not another person. Not another piece of bad news.

You. Just. Can’t. Handle. It.

We all feel that way.

But that doesn’t mean it’s true.

Athletes learn that your body is a liar. That when you feel like you’re at capacity you’re actually not even close to your physical limitations (Courtney Dauwalter talked about this in an amazing episode of the Daily Stoic podcast). This is partly why Seneca talked about treating the body rigorously—so we can learn to triumph over those limitations, so that we get good at asserting who is in charge.

“I can handle/Way more than I can handle,” Bon Iver sings. And it’s true. We all can. You have so much more in you than it feels like you do. And how do you know this? Because the load you’re handling today dwarfs the load you could have carried at other times in your life, the things you are handling calmly today would have freaked you out just a few years ago.

You have so much more capacity. Your inner citadel is strong.

You got this.

SUPER SLOAN

Here we go yet again! More about Return to Office (RTO). The following links to a 12-minute interview with an MIT Sloan Management Review columnist. He covers some good data points for relevant and recent research.?RTO Mandates: Hard Truths for Leaders. The liner?notes for this material are?CEOs at organizations like Amazon and Dell are implementing return-to-office mandates with an eye toward boosting productivity and pursuing stock market gains. However, current research foretells a different, more likely outcome: RTO mandates can actually cause a short-term productivity lag and fail CEOs hoping for a financial win. Worse still, RTO mandates are driving away top performers, who see mandates as a clear message that top leadership doesn’t trust them, says MIT SMR columnist Brian Elliott. Elliott first explored RTO mandates in what has become one of our most popular articles this year. In this video, he revisits RTO mandates, bringing fresh data and company examples to the debate about the effectiveness of return-to-office directives. He also offers his predictions for the high-profile companies that have announced or implemented these mandates, and he shares alternative, evidence-based strategies that forward-thinking leaders can use to boost productivity without hurting employee trust, engagement, or talent retention.?Much of what is covered here, are similar data points we have read and reviewed over the past couple of years, including Gartner research (which is noted in this interview as well).

WINNERS WISDOM

Completely agree! Likely everyone reading this would far and away prefer to spend quality time with one or few people with whom we really enjoy spending time. Perhaps my life and career has been a unicorn vice more universally what is experienced. Meaning, most of the teams I've been on, including the two primary teams on which I professionally serve and support now, are people with whom I enjoy spending time. That hasn't always been true. I've, of course, been on work teams where my "accounts" (spiritual, mental, physical, and social) were overdrawn nearly all of the time. The work itself was meaningful, but a few of the working relationships were fractured, frayed, and flawed at best. Toxic or terrible at worst. Some of the disconnect and discord likely came from my side of the equation. In the particular post and position I'm referencing here, and I won't divulge where or when that was, other than to say, I was greatly relieved when I left that assignment. Looking back across my multiple decades long career, that stands above and apart as the least liked location. Again, it was because a couple of my companions were so difficult and draining to be around. Those couple or few took so much more out of me, than the?greater balance of people around me with?whom I enjoyed working. I've reached a space and station in my professional life where I have a lot more choice about what I do, and with whom. There are a number of reasons for that, but being in a place where I continue with the teams because I enjoy their companionship is more by my personal choice and choosing than during my Air Force career. Make no mistake, I loved my time in uniform, excepting for the time period I noted above (and one or two other shorter time periods). I would not dissuade or deter anyone from choosing a life of military service, rather emphasizing just how important it actually is to our overall well-being to spend time with people with whom we enjoy. The prior covers the professional. In the personal, like Jim shares below, being married to the best human being I know makes all the difference!

Companionship?by Jim Stovall

The longest-running, active research into human behavior and happiness has come to be known as the Harvard Study. This research, which has spanned several generations of individuals and their families, has revealed that one of the key components to happiness, satisfaction, and longevity is quality relationships. You can only assess the long-term quality of your relationships if you know what the connection means to the other person involved. Just spending time with people does not necessarily correlate to a great relationship.

Many people work forty hours per week and constantly interact with people they don’t like, appreciate, or consider a quality relationship. On the other hand, some of us are fortunate enough to spend our working days with friends and high-quality companions. One of the benefits of being an entrepreneur is that you can surround yourself with high-quality, productive people with whom you enjoy spending time. This is critical because, in many cases, we spend more time with our colleagues than our families.

Gian Vincenzo Gravina, an Italian legal scholar and man of letters who lived from 1664 to 1718, may have put it best when he said, “A bore is someone that deprives you of solitude without providing you with company.”

The quality and satisfaction we get from attending an event or taking a trip are vastly determined by who accompanies us. Given the choice between traveling to one of the most exotic or desirable destinations with someone I don’t have a meaningful connection with is not as fulfilling as going to a store or running some errands with my best friend.

As my wife and I are beginning our 44th year of marriage on our way to forever together, I will admit that I don’t understand all the elements that someone should look for in a perfect relationship, but marrying your best friend is a great start.

When we consider that we take on the traits and become like the five people with whom we spend the most time, we quickly realize that it is important to cultivate and maintain tremendous relationships with exceptional and authentic people. If you are struggling with bad habits and not being productive in pursuit of your life goals, it is likely that the people you spend the most time with are in the same boat. But if you are pleased about your life today and excited about where you’re going tomorrow, most likely, the people around you are well on the way to their destiny and helping you live your dreams.

As you go through your day today, remember there’s nothing more valuable than a great friend.

Today's the day!

WORKLIFE WISDOM

The opening sentence of this piece shocked me a bit; With people aged 75 and older projected to be the fastest growing segment of the U.S. workforce, HR leaders face an urgent challenge: adapting workplaces to accommodate older employees working past the traditional retirement age. I've been reading and researching about generational dynamics in the workplace for about a decade now, when I first came into contact with the Center for Generational Kinetics. While their research is much more focused on the younger working generations, knowing we have five generations in the workforce, and reading this piece about the Baby Boomers who remain in the workforce well into what we used to think of as their retirement chapter is quite interesting. Note, I didn't say alarming. I'm not alarmed by it, because I may well be working into my 70's or beyond, should I live that long, not because I will "need to" to survive (at least I'm working towards that goal!), rather because I want to remain engaged. There are clearly researched physiological and psychological reasons for remaining active. I digress a little. As this article illustrates, leaders need to be aware of the part of our team that is "aged" and how we should be taking differing needs into consideration. We cannot just focus on Gen X, Y, Z, or now the emerging A teammates. ?Aging workforce calls for a closer look at workplace design - WorkLife

Continuing to read about workforce generations, this piece points out a couple of key considerations. First, the one-size-fits-all or -most models have to be tossed out. Recruiting and retention requires more personalization. Here, I don't mean cater or tailor to every single person's personal preference or predilection. Rather, leaders need to spend more time thinking through the best approaches to recruiting and retention across the differing generations. Second, communication matters and might need to be undertaken differently across generations. I've shared a number of stories about my daughter's challenges finding full-time work following college graduation over the past couple of years. That search is over, and she's in a position and role that she enjoys. One of the things pointed out in this piece is how the lack of communication is being perceived (and felt) by her generation. I saw that over and again in a prior, part-time, position she had. Managers there very rarely shared those openings or opportunities existed. On several occasions, my daughter learned that full-time (and benefitted) positions were available only after the new hire was chosen or in place. Similarly, with many locations in the local area, she was often unaware that openings were at other branches. The hiring is all done centrally, so it isn't as though there aren't communication channels already in place through which these could have been communicated. She moved from the enterprise into a teaching role, which she prefers in any event.?'Broken expectations': Stark generational divide emerges in job seekers - WorkLife

This is one of those times when the WorkLife WTF question is one I knew! Like most, if not all of our Readers, this is a truism. We're more digitally connected, (not connected, necessarily at a human level), have more technologies at our fingertips, and have tools available to make us more effective and efficient than, as best I can surmise, at any point in history. The real point of this piece is the importance of setting boundaries around how and when we work. Where remains an open question (telework, remote work, hybrid, in-person). Between several email accounts, MS Teams chat, Signal chat, cellphone (as a phone!), texts on the cell phone, video chats on MS Team/Zoom/Webex/Google Meets, there are a whole suite of ways I'm communicating across the workweek. Giving myself guardrails around when I'm "online", when I do specific tasks during the day, and across the workweek, are important to helping me focus on the things I need to do day to day. Leaders need to set the same boundaries, and communicate that, so those they lead know they can set boundaries as well. The 25 / 5 rule advanced in this article (work for 25 minutes, then take 5 minutes to check email), is one such idea. Have shared several times my Rule of 7s, where I don't start checking, let alone responding, to any comms channels before 7 am, and no after 7 pm, unless there is something particularly pressing that cannot wait. That's a broad boundary. In Medium Musings above, I shared another boundary that helped me with potential ping fatigue. Think back to primary school, we have specified periods or bells, which was in part because we covered multiple subjects each day, but also because there is sound science to how long our attention can be paid to a particular matter or area, before we need a break. Also thinking about being back in High School, while in class, we weren't distracted by pings. They were analog back then vice?digital, but in a general sense, I was able to focus on what we were supposed to be doing in class, save for the occasional?in-class joke or paper note being passed around. Find what works for you!?WTF is ping fatigue? (and why it hurts productivity) - WorkLife

Read and Lead On!