Gracious Investigation

“Happy is your grace that can translate the stubbornness of fortune into so quiet and so sweet a style.”

Shakespeare, As You Like It

“Let us be just to him”

Dickens, Dombey & Son

A particular human quality enhances the otherwise emotionless rigour of analysis.   When this quality is present, we get to understand matters more completely, make better-informed decisions and increase our chances of getting agreement.  When it’s absent we get an incomplete perspective, weakly informed decisions, and maybe grudging agreement.  The best word I can muster for this quality is graciousness.

I promise I’m not going to preach, pontificate or pretend that I embody graciousness.  But I hope what I’m going to say is relevant to clear thinking and good decisions, and maybe even insightful.

First, here’s what I mean by graciousness: being generous to another person’s perspective if it sits uneasily with our current one.  I’m not talking about thoughtlessly accepting someone’s opinion or pacifying pretend agreement.  I am talking about allowing someone else’s position to challenge ours.

I’m not advocating graciousness as self-sacrificing altruism.  I truly believe that graciousness benefits the thinking of the person being gracious.  By giving a fair hearing to arguments against our initial suppositions we can grow beyond the constraints of our conscious and unconscious beliefs.  When doctors believed “bad humors” caused disease, they didn’t wash their hands after handling cadavers.  Sometimes, their next task would be delivering a baby.  They changed this fatal habit only when they allowed germ theory to usurp their old mindset.  This ultimately gracious acceptance of a challenging view made them better doctors.

The self-serving benefit isn’t entirely inside our own minds.  Graciousness can help us have more constructive debate.  If we graciously welcome other views, conversations become more of an open dance than a defensive fist fight.  Counterparts might even want to dance with us again, and not duck away from us like when were a stubborn, self-justifying, graceless smarty-pants.

I haven’t been able to find any scientific studies to back up my assertions about graciousness aiding understanding; but the process of science itself is a convincing example.  You know the approach: start with a thesis; challenge it with different perspective, an antithesis; then look at the evidence and logic for each; and finally come up with a new thesis, a synthesis, that’s better than the one you both started with.  Continue repeating the process for the betterment of humankind until the end of your particular golden age.

Try taking this approach without being gracious about the antithesis.  Oversimplifying the extremes of history, we seem to have a choice: gracious consideration of challenging views (golden age, renaissance, freedom of expression, democracy), or defensive dismissal of those challenges (dark age, reaction, broadcast dogma, dictatorship).

Graciousness also helps us better turn our analysis into action.  We become better company: more accepting and more acceptable.  We’re good to bear when proven right, and happy when proven wrong.  And when we make decisions, others will more likely embrace them.  

Anecdotal evidence is everywhere for how graciousness makes good company and acceptable leaders.  Think of the people whose personalities you most admire, whose company you would seek, and whose advice you would follow.  I’ll bet they’re gracious.  It’s not entirely for his insights that Mandela is invited so many dream dinner parties.

Everyday evidence about the consequences of lack of grace is also plain.  Look at the ranting graceless nitpicking comments below many online articles, and see how quickly the discussion deteriorates into defence, attack and ad hominem attacks.  I’ll bet you don’t respect the ranters, that you find it difficult to accept their good points.  I’d guess there’s about zero chance you’ll follow their advice.  Even the excellent Socrates, clinical but graceless, ended up with a choice of exile or hemlock.

That’s enough about not being defensive.  I also want to clarify that being gracious isn’t the same as defensiveness’s opposite: being a doormat.  Graciously accepting challenge gives us permission to graciously challenge others.  We can then occupy the firm ground of listening, considering and agreeing or disagreeing graciously, rather than the easy, low extremes of shutting up shop or murmuring martyrish acceptance.

Though I’m convinced it’s worthwhile, I find it a tough quality to adopt: emotionally harder than defensiveness, and mentally harder than pretending to agree.  I find it even harder the more heated the situation.  Maybe this required wherewithal is our biggest self-imposed barrier to enjoying graciousness’s merits.  I’ll let Hemingway make a final emotional appeal that works on me:

“By ‘guts’, I mean grace under pressure.”

Performance Goals – Great If You Use Them Wisely

 

Goals are as Valuable as the Care You Put Into Them

Goals can be powerful things.  When used well, they can produce startling increases in performance; used badly, they can damage and destroy; used half-heartedly, they typically have hardly any effect at all.

The evidence of the benefits of well-set goals is hard to ignore.  Studies comparing goal-users against those with no goals or “do your best” instructions show consistently better performance by the goal users.  This is true for individuals, teams, and enterprises.  Studies of athletes regularly show improvements of 50-100% in the best responders.  Locke’s original landmark review of goal-setting studies in enterprises showed that 90% enjoyed material performance improvement from using goals.  The same review identified an average 40% performance improvement when goals were combined with monetary incentives.

The disastrous effects of badly-set goals are also hard to ignore.  Ordonez et al’s “Goals Gone Wild” gives an attention-grabbing selection of negative case examples of gaming, conflict, irresponsibility, and issue blindness from poor goal-setting.  These include Sears’ auto repair sales goals, which resulted in company-wide behaviour of overcharging and making unnecessary repairs.  The paper also includes the inevitable Enron example of sales targets that ignored profitability measures, with results that we all know.

Goals applied half-heartedly are just a waste of time.  Long-term goals have no performance enhancing effect if not combined with more immediate goals.  Goals, of any time frame, have no material performance-enhancing effect if not combined with feedback on results.

In a nutshell, the effort and thought you put into goals is rewarded in proportion.

How Goals Work

A major effect of goals on the mind is to focus the attention, something I’ve talked about before (here) as being critical to performance improvement.  Done well, goals help you direct your attention to what’s important, at the expense of what’s unimportant.

Studies that record multiple aspects of performance consistently show improvement in the aspects with goals, and little or none for areas where no goals are set.  This is as true in day-to-day life as in corporates: one study of collegiate rugby players showed between 26% and 118% improvement in pre-selected goal tasks over a season with negligible improvement in non-selected tasks.

Done badly, goals direct your attention, possibly inadvertently, onto damaging or unproductive work, which Goals Gone Wild illustrates at length.  

Without goals, you don’t just flounder; but you are more likely to get drawn into a range of nice-to-haves and ought-to-dos, with no prompt to choose how to prioritise your limited time, money and energy.

A second effect of goals on the mind is mobilising increased effort and persistence.  In observed field experiments, when people are allowed to control time, they prolong effort to hit goals.  When faced with tight deadlines, they increase work pace.  

Hard goals produce higher effort even than people’s self-directed attempts to work as hard as they possibly can.  In a study of cyclists, participants given hard goals actually performed at higher levels than those asked to cycle until they literally couldn’t pedal any more.

A third observed effect of well-set goals is to stimulate use of new or more productive strategies: prompting the mind to work smarter as well as harder.  This is a characteristic of planning, which I’ll cover in a separate set of future posts.

My favourite characterisation of the extremes to which focused attention and persistence exhibit themselves in pursuing a critical goal, and how ingenious strategies become, is from the documentary March of Penguins.  Natural world examples aren’t for everyone, so I’ve summarised this separately here.

Good Goal Habits

Given the enormous potential benefits involved, it’s worth investing some time to set and use goals well, taking on board the lessons that enterprises, sportspeople, scientists and others have learned and captured over the years.  The commonly-espoused SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable/Agreed, Relevant/Realistic, Time-based) goal-setting protocol is a good start; but it misses some critical steps, without which you’re wasting your time.

I’ll therefore use the next series of posts to lay out some Good Goal Habits, which summarise much of the accumulated knowledge of what works and what doesn’t.

Areas I’ll cover include: whether and how to use longer-term and shorter-term goals; how difficult should goals be; whether to use outcome goals or process goals; where to use multiple goals, and how to manage them; how explicit goals should be; the role of feedback and evaluation; the importance of goal commitment, and how to increase it; who to include in goal-setting; special characteristics of group and visionary goals; and characteristics of a top goal-setting and goal-hitting environment.

Next post, starting with the big picture: using long- and short-term goals together for an excellent goal structure.

Sources

Locke & Latham, 2002.  Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal-Setting & Task Motivation

Ordonez et al., 2009.  Goals Gone Wild

Locke & Latham, 2009. Has Goal Setting Gone Wild, or Have Its Attackers Abandoned Good Scholarship?

Mellalieu et al., 2006.  The Effects of Goal Setting on Rugby Performance

Dimitrova, 1970. Dependence of Voluntary Effort Upon the Magnitude of the Goal and the Way it is Set in Sportsmen

Botterill, 1977. Goal-setting and Performance on an Endurance Task

Copyright Latitude 2011. All rights reserved.

Latitude Partners Ltd
19 Bulstrode Street, London W1U 2JN
www.latitude.co.uk

Penguins & Performance

How Goals Work (Briefly)

This post is an add-on to my introductory post [here], which was about the consistently major benefits of well-managed goals, and about how goals work.  Well-set difficult goals work because they (1) focus attention onto what’s important and away from everything else, (2) motivate greater effort and persistence than simply doing your best, and (3) stimulate use of better strategies to reach them.

These characteristics are personified in the extreme by the stars of the documentary “March of the Penguins”.

A Difficult, Important Goal – Keep the Chick Alive

Emperor Penguins choose a breeding ground on ice that is solid year round.  At the beginning of the Antarctic summer, the breeding ground is only a few hundred meters away from the open water where the penguins can feed. By the end of summer, the breeding ground is over 60 miles away from the nearest open water, and gets further away every month.

The female lays a single egg each breeding season, and the goal is to keep the chick alive for eight months in one of the most hostile environments on earth, miles from food sources, until it can fend for itself.

Focused Attention – Chick First; Food and Everything Else Second

The males and females are together on the breeding ground for two months after mating until the eggs are laid.  If the egg is to survive, it needs to stay warm.  So after the female lays the egg, she transfers it to the feet of the waiting male, minimising exposure to the intense cold that would kill the developing embryo.  The male tends to the egg while the female returns to the sea, now even farther away, both in order to feed herself and to obtain extra food for feeding her chick.  For an additional two months, while the female make the return trip to the sea, the males huddle together to stay warm enough to incubate their eggs.

(Just Unbelievable) Persistence

The females have not eaten in two months by the time they leave the hatching area, and have lost a third of their body weight. They then need to travel 50 miles to reach the open ocean.  The males meanwhile endure temperatures approaching −62 °C (−80 °F), with falling snow their only source of water. By the time the females return, the males have lost half their weight and have not eaten for four months.

When mother penguins come back and feed their young, the male penguins take their turn to go to the sea, now 70 miles away, to feed themselves. 

The parents continue this shuttling back and forth to the sea for an additional four months, until finally the parents can leave the chicks to fend for themselves.

Ingenious Strategies to Survive and Keep the Chick Alive

The Emperor penguins have devised a multitude of ingenious strategies to keep the chick alive in this crazily hostile situation.  In addition to the female-male-female tag game and the keep-warm huddle, memorable strategies include the males taking turns on the cold outside of the huddle and, in desperate near-starvation circumstances, feeding eleventh-hour nourishment direct from the father-penguins' throat sacs.

Here’s my point in this example.  If an important goal can stimulate this phenomenal focused attention, persistence and ingenuity in a penguin, I would hope that goals can be helpful for us too.

Copyright Latitude 2011. All rights reserved.

Latitude Partners Ltd
19 Bulstrode Street, London W1U 2JN
www.latitude.co.uk

Want To Be Excellent? Then Stop Doing So Much

Miss Melbury's view of the doctor as a merciless, unwavering, irresistible scientist was not quite in accordance with fact.  The real Dr. Fitzpiers was a man of too many hobbies to show likelihood of rising to any great eminence in the profession he had chosen, or even to acquire any wide practice in the rural district he had marked out for the present.

The Woodlanders, Thomas Hardy

One critical characteristic of individuals and companies who excel in their fields is their ability to focus every bit of their attention on what they yearn to do extremely well.  Part of this deal is that they do less of everything else.  This is the decisive step for many of us: not doing more of this or that, but removing the innocent-looking things that rob our attention.

In my investigations into this, I’ve noticed two reasons for our inability to shut out the non-essential.  First, we find it hard to say no to additional things that seem valuable or interesting.  Second, we don't understand the massive hidden damage that the distractions and dissipation ultimately cause to our potential.

Damage Caused by Distraction

Evidence abounds of this damage caused by distraction.

At a high “where should I focus my business/career/talent” level, spreading talent across a wide range of activities is shown time and again to result in lower performance.  Examples range from the excellent Billy Beane’s disdain of under-performing baseball all-rounders, through to regular academic reviews showing the negative effects of business diversification.

Distraction is damaging at a day-to-day level too.  Studies of multi-tasking individuals reveal consistent reductions in performance, versus control groups who are forced to focus.  This is true even where the multi-tasking is intended to help performance.  One study of students showed that those allowed to look up recommended online information during lectures fared considerably worse than those only allowed to listen to the lecturer.

The distraction doesn’t even need to be present in the room to hurt performance.  Damage to performance by life stress is well-reported, with evidence even extending to performance deterioration in teenage ice-skaters caused by issues at home.

But the most worrying result I have found from research into distraction is this - people don’t realise how much it damages them.  In one study of medical students, participants were distracted with questions during simulated surgery, and had a consistently higher miss rate than a control group that worked in silence.  The frightening insight from this study is that only 9.5% of these under-performing students thought the distraction had affected them!

An Everyman Path of Focusing

There is a well-trodden path for achieving this ability to focus, and free ourselves from distraction.  This is to transport the person or team to an environment where everything is already set up for single-minded focus.  These environments can be permanent, for example elite academies and institutions, or temporary, like training camps and business war rooms.

Most of us can’t practically transport ourselves from our families to these tailor made centres of excellence, other than the odd trip to La Santa or business off-site.  A more realistic option is to do the hard work of transforming our own environment, company or working day.

“How-to”s aren’t to everyone’s taste, but if you’re interested in a basic exercise as a starter-for-ten in deliberating what to cut out, here are some simple questions:

What is the minimum I need to do, to be as good as I want to be at (...)? 

This minimum includes not just today’s work and output, but the development needed for tomorrow’s capability.

If you don’t know what this minimum amount is, then it’s a critical and sobering step to understand just how much this is.  Even if you think you know how much attention you need to commit as a minimum, it’s worth reviewing anyway, because you’ve probably under-estimated it.  One way to do this assessment is to identify a person, company or team whose performance sets the benchmark for you.  Then investigate how much accumulated time, effort and resource they have put in over days, months and years to get down the experience curve to where they are.

If you’re ambitious about how good you want to be, and investigate thoroughly what it takes, the minimum you need to do will be a very great deal indeed.  It will possibly be more than your entire available time or budget.  You’ll likely realise that your initial target was too broad or too soon; and you will need to focus further, to cut your minimum down to something feasible.

What are the distractions to my time and attention, which stop me getting down to this and doing it consistently?  How much of this could I take away if I really needed to?

I’m asking this question at both a high level and a day-to-day one.  High level distractions include non-core lines of business, passing interests, peripheral talents to practise, and major obligations.  Day-to-day distractions include everything that takes away your attention, time or hunger to perform, from the task at hand – elite performance academies are spartan places with clear tables and no pop-up email alerts!

What do I need to add, so that I can focus my attention properly?

The critical things to add in here, from which high performers really benefit, are relaxation and support systems.  I’m not aware of any real-life high performers who aren’t also great at making time to relax and reflect.  I’m not aware of any high-performing individuals or management teams that don’t also have great support systems.  As with many important and non-urgent things, we need to set aside time to invest in these, so they don’t get lost in the melee.  If we ignore them as peripheral, we can count on their consequences to come back to bite us very hard later.

Have I got plenty of slack left for the inevitable changes, delays, surprises, crises and over-runs?

If not, return to “1”.  If you think you’ve got too much slack, see how things go for a week.

If you try the exercise and have a look at what you’re giving up as a result, my guess is that it will consist of a lot of things that previously seemed useful, or at least harmless, but ate away silently at your potential by stealing your attention:

·         Interesting projects that have genuine potential, but are peripheral to where you’ve chosen to focus

·         Profitable projects or sidelines that aren’t critical to your core business

·         “Ought-to-dos” and “nice-to-dos”, which if you’re honest are more about being polite or following form than providing or receiving something of value

·         Other people’s priorities that you have just reacted to, without working through whether or how they fit in your plans

·         Tasks that any number of people could do just as well as you could, or services that any number of companies could provide

·         A plethora of regular day-to-day background distractions

Now look at what you’re adding to replace it, which will be more of this:

·         Much more time and resource to devote to the small number of things you want to be extremely good at

·         Activities that build your future capability

·         Time to reflect and even relax

·         Investment in your support systems

·         Slack time, so that inevitable sidewinders can be accommodated without chaotic triage

In summary, we now have a lot more time and attention spent in and around what’s really important, and a lot less to distract us from it.

Here’s a couple of tests I use with clients and observe in others, to see if this chosen focus is sustainable.  First, the prospect of focusing so much of attention on one or two things needs to be exciting, so exciting that it can fuel countless hours of relentless commitment.  Second, other people – customers, sponsors, backers and supporters – need to value it sufficiently to pay more than enough for the performance we’re providing in return.

How other people have got to this sort of exciting focus, one that is also productive and sustainable, is part of a whole new subject.  But I’ll cover that another time.  I want to stop this article from doing too much.

Copyright Latitude 2010. All rights reserved.

Latitude Partners Ltd
19 Bulstrode Street, London W1U 2JN
www.latitude.co.uk

Florence Nightingale - A Case Study in Excellence

If I were to choose a list of great people who embody what it takes to be excellent, Florence Nightingale would rank above every single living person I can think of.

The commonly-held view of her is romantic, the archetypal nurturing carer; someone "called upon by God" in her own words to spend her life in nursing despite expectations of feminine nobility.  But beneath this velvet glove, there was a tough and practical nature; which supplemented her passionate side to make her a case study in excellence.

I'll describe her less recognised side in terms of the attributes of high performance I’ve introduced previously.

Constant feedback and measurement of progress

Nightingale was absolutely systematic and rigorous in using measurement to track improvement.  In addition to being a nurse, she was an accomplished statistician, and in her time pioneered graphical representation of information.  She is credited with developing the polar area diagram, which she used to analyse progression of Crimean War conditions.  Examples of these elegant and insightful charts are shown here:

She later used a statistical study of sanitation in India to recommend improvements in public health, and was invited to become the first female member of the Royal Statistical Society.

Honest diagnosis of what is and isn't working, what works best and what to change

When Nightingale first arrived in the Crimea, she was convinced that high hospital death rates - ten times greater than death rates from combat - were caused by poor nutrition and supplies, and by over-working.  In the first year of her presence, despite her efforts, mortality went up to the highest level of any hospital in the region.  Only after analysing evidence that indicated the benefits of sanitation did she turn her focus to this, subsequently pioneering sanitary living conditions in the army and then other hospitals.  Compared to the improved survival rates from Nightingale-inspired changes, the benefits of modern drug developments are a rounding error.

Pursuit of challenging boundaries, constantly reviewing them to be just right versus capabilities

Nightingale started as a nurse with the challenge of cleaning hospitals in the Crimea, but stretched her boundaries consistently over time.  After Crimea, she founded the first school of nursing; she then wrote the first textbook on nursing, then introduced trained nurses into the workhouse system, and then launched trained nursing to the US through her mentorship of Linda Richards, ultimately founding the nursing profession in both the UK and US.

In clarifying her thoughts on the profession, she wrote what would be a seminal work in the progression of feminism.  In applying them, she undertook to statistical studies and lobbied for sanitary reform that supported a quartering of the British Army death rate in India.

Focus only on relevant actions and outcomes that are within your control

She couldn't do much about the Crimean war that caused men to be hospitalised, or the medicines available, but could she sort out the sewers.  Following the Sanitary Commission’s work, death rates fell from 42% to 2%.

She couldn’t do much about the insanitary living conditions of the British poor, but she could send nurses to the workhouses, a precursor to the National Health Service.

De-cluttering of everything else that distracts, and creating support systems to allow such dedication

Nightingale was as single-mindedly dedicated to nursing as Hannibal was to toppling Rome, or as Wylie Coyote still is to catching Road Runner.

She rejected her first high profile marriage suitor, with an explanation that marriage would interfere with her calling to nursing, and rebuffed other approaches regularly through her life.  She had the education, privileges, opportunity and backing to take up legion other causes, particularly the growing feminism movement of which she was in a position to be a leading light; but she chose to focus her time and attention on nursing and the improvement of the conditions of the sick.

She was also fortunate to have support systems that allowed this commitment.  She was from a wealthy background, and her allowance from her family was large enough that she was not distracted by worry about making ends meet.

Relentless continual mindful application for hours and hours and hours

Nightingale was “called by God” to nursing at 17.  She used her time before she could become a nurse to study hospitals, producing her first work on treatment of the sick at 21.  She announced her decision to enter nursing when she could, at 24, which was then the focus of her attention for the rest of her life.

It is hard to think of a more intensive, unremitting, immersion in any profession than the Scutari military hospital of the Crimea where Nightingale made her name in 1854, as far from society as could be conceived, and where 4,077 soldiers died in her first winter.  Her obsession with hospital conditions was relentless throughout her life; even when bedridden with severe brucellosis, she did pioneering work on hospital design that was implemented around the world.

I wouldn’t invite her to my ideal party, because she wouldn’t turn up to anything that wasn’t about improving the conditions of the sick.  But that doesn’t make her less of an inspiration.

To many people, she’s the magical, caring lady-with-the-lamp.  To me, she’s the intrepid, forensic, challenging, realistic, relentless, hard-as-nails, make-it-so Flo.  Today’s performance gurus couldn’t hold a candle to her.

Copyright Latitude 2010. All rights reserved.

Latitude Partners Ltd
19 Bulstrode Street, London W1U 2JN
www.latitude.co.uk