Do What You Dread

Getting Things Done is a great system, but it’s not always clear what your priorities should be. I had an experience when I was 12 years old which has helped me set priorities ever since.

I grew up on a small farm in eastern South Dakota near Lake Campbell. One cold, windy spring day I was fooling around by the lake and I spotted an old tire someone had discarded on the ice about 20 feet out from the shore. This tire really bugged me; it was right around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and my environmental consciousness was running high, I guess. So, I decided to retrieve it.

I knew, of course, that this was really stupid. The ice had already melted further out, and it was open water about 20 feet past the tire. Every year there was at least one story of a kid falling through the ice and drowning.

I inched out on the ice, testing its strength with each step before I put my full weight down. In a few minutes I was almost to the tire, when I heard a cracking sound and felt the ice move. I hadn’t fallen through; the entire section I was on had broken off and was drifting out into open water.

I scuttled back to the edge of my floe closest to shore. There is no photographic record of this event, but this was my situation: 

The wind was rapidly pushing me out in the lake; already the gap was 10 feet and visibly widening. I knew that jumping in the water and trying to swim to shore in my heavy winter clothes and boots might be fatal, but I could see my situation was worsening every second. I might have hesitated a moment, but I don’t remember that; I remember knowing what I had to do, and I did it.

I also remember the physical feeling of dread; I really, really did not want to jump in that icy water. I often get that same feeling when I have to do something I don’t want to do; for example, when I think about an unpleasant call I have to make to a client, or when I need to confront a coworker about an issue. When I get that feeling I think back to my experience on the ice, and ask myself if the situation is going to get better by putting it off. The answer is almost always no, and so I go ahead and get it over with.

There are a couple of reasons to move these kinds of tasks to the top of the priority list. First, if the situation is such that it provokes a physical feeling of dread, it probably is really important to deal with it. Even more importantly, if the situation is not resolved at some level your mind will continue processing it, and it will pop up again and again provoking the same bad feelings until you finally do deal with it.

Give Me a Plausible Story and I'll Believe You

There is a great, illuminating mind game in Robert Burton's On Being Certain: Believing You're Right Even When You're Not. Read this paragraph, and as you read think about what you're feeling:

A newspaper is better than a magazine. A seashore is a better place than the street. At first it is better to run than to walk. You may have to try several times. It takes some skill, but it is easy to learn. Even young children can enjoy it. Once successful, complications are minimal. Birds seldom get too close. Rain, however, soaks in very fast. Too many people doing the same thing can also cause problems. One needs lots of room. If there are no complications it can be very peaceul. A rock will serve as an anchor. If things break loose from it, however, you will not get a second chance.

Irritating? Frustrating? I can fix that with one word - kite. Reread the paragraph, and notice how everything fits. Feels better, doesn't it?

Humans are problem solving machines. Give them a puzzle and they're frustrated if they can't solve it, satisfied if they can. This is deeply wired in us at a physical and emotional level, and the drive to solve problems is what keeps us moving forward.

But, there is a potential problem with our wiring. Try rereading the paragraph and recapture the feeling of not knowing what it is about. You can't; your brain says "kite" with every sentence. What if I told you the paragraph is not about kites, and to reread it to find a different solution? You almost certainly will not be able to do that either. Once your brain "knows" an answer it is very difficult to dislodge that answer and consider alternatives.

Bank executives took excessive risks out of greed - plausible, but true? American car makers are on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of capitulating to unions in the past - plausible, but true? Teaser rates were an important contributor to subsequent mortgage defaults - plausible, but true? Honestly, how much actual evidence have we seen supporting these propositions? It's frightening to realize how much we accept as true simply because it's plausible.

Expert Performance: Journaling Meets the US Military

One of the recurring themes of this blog is to become an expert at something, you not only need to practice; you need to think about how it went and make adjustments. Doing something 1,000 times the same way does not make your performance better, but doing something 1,000 times and thoughtfully varying how you do it over time will.

Kevin Eikenberry (hat tip Stephen Smith) suggests a way to do the "think about" part is to keep a journal:

"Asking yourself the right questions – and answering them – creates the lessons and insights; writing them down in your journal solidifies them and makes them yours forever. Ask yourself questions like:

• What happened?
• Why?
• What is the lesson?
• How can I apply this to another situation?
• What could I do differently next time?
• How could this problem/challenge/issue be solved/removed?"

You may, as Kevin notes, think that journaling is something teenage girls do. If it makes you more comfortable, these questions are very similar to those used in an After Action Review, a debriefing approach originally developed by the US Army and now used throughout our Armed Forces. If the technique saves lives, it can probably improve your performance too.

Listening Like Your Life Depended On It

You might like Thomas Friedman's columns and books , or not, but he's a very interesting guy. Ian Parker has a profile of Friedman in the November 10, 2008 issue of The New Yorker (synopsis here) which I highly recommend. Here's an excerpt:

In April, 1982, Friedman became the Times bureau chief in Beirut. Two months later, Israel invaded Lebanon. He reported on the invasion, the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, the suicide bombings of the American Embassy and the Marine headquarters. "The biggest survival mechanism, being a Jewish Times correspondent in the Arab world, is listening," Friedman said. "It's a sign of respect, and if you will just listen to people and let them not just vent but say what's on their mind it's amazing what they'll let you say back."

Listening is a sign of respect, and even if your physical survival does not depend on it, the survival of your relationship with that person is always at risk. It's also hard work given our genetically wired short attention span. When you catch your attention drifting, think of Friedman's situation, and refocus on the conversation. You'll not only gain the respect of the speaker, you'll probably learn from what's being said.

Say It. Do It. Repeat.

James Kouzes and Barry Posner have conducted extensive surveys looking for the characteristics employees consider important in their leaders and coworkers. For leaders the top four attributes, in order of importance, are:

• Honest
• Forward Looking
• Inspiring
• Competent

Kouzes and Posner combine these characteristics into one; credibility:

"We want to believe in our leaders. We want to have faith and confidence in them as people. We want to believe they can be trusted, that they have the knowledge and skill to lead, and that they are personally excited and enthusiastic about the direction in which we are headed. Credibility is the foundation of leadership.”

While I agree this is what we want in leaders, I think putting excitement and enthusiasm under the credibility umbrella is stretching the meaning of the word. Some of the most credible people I know are dry as dust, and in my experience the level of enthusiasm with which a statement is made is inversely proportionate to its truth. So, in my formulation honesty and competence are the foundation of credibility.

Back to Kouzes and Posner. The four top characteristics employees look for in their coworkers are, in order of importance:

• Honest
• Cooperative
• Dependable
• Competent

There are two that overlap – our friends honesty and competence. So, in the work world (actually I think the entire world, but we’re focusing on work) if you can nail these two characteristics you are more than halfway there regardless of your role (especially since you’re unlikely to be viewed as inspiring or dependable if you’re a dishonest incompetent).

How does one come to be viewed as honest? You say things, and they turn out to be true.

How does one come to be viewed as competent? To the extent your job is to report on current conditions or project the future, it’s the same process as establishing honesty; you say things, and they turn out to be true. If your job is to produce something (for example, a report or a widget), you produce it as and when it’s expected.

This seems very simple, but every day, almost everyone screws it up:

• You say you will get back to someone, and you don’t
• The meeting starts at 9:00 AM, and you show up at 9:10 (even worse if it’s your meeting)
• You promise numbers to someone today, and give it to them tomorrow

To you, these are minor things, and the other people involved might think so too. How others react depends in large part on your history with them. If over time you’ve demonstrated you’re dependable and competent, an occasional lapse is not a big deal. But, if you don’t interact with the person often the event looms much larger. Fundamental attribution error is the tendency by people to attribute explanations for behaviors to personality explanations rather than situational explanations. You say you were late for the meeting because traffic was bad, and they think you were late because you’re disorganized, don’t respect the time of the other attendees, etc. If you haven’t already established a credible track record, it’s much harder to overcome this effect.

There are a couple of very simple things you can do to increase your success rate in “say it, do it.”

Don’t Say It. Before you open your mouth to say you’ll do something, take a breath and think hard about whether or not you’re going to perform. Offering to do something and then not doing it is much worse than not offering at all.

Say You Won’t Do It. Ironically, often the fastest path to building credibility is to tell someone you won’t or can’t do something. Note such a statement fulfills all the requirements for credibility building; you’ve said something (“I can’t do it”) and it comes true (you don’t do it). It’s obviously preferable to do things for other people if you can, but if it’s not going to happen you might as well build your credibility by saying so rather than undermining it by promising what you can’t deliver.

A final thought; if you just do it without saying it, no credibility is built. Too many highly capable people just handle problems as they arise without anyone being aware of their effectiveness. If no one knows what you are doing, you’re not establishing credibility. Of course, you can take this too far by grandstanding or manufacturing problems to solve. But, letting people know you’re handling things is good for you (it’s an essential step in building your credibility) and good for them (when something difficult comes up, they will be better able to assess your ability to take on the task).

Daniel Mudd, Richard Syron, and Kerry Killinger are not Stupid, Greedy, or Crooks

An article in today's Seattle Times says "Washington Mutual suffered an ugly death, leaving thousands without jobs, homeowners facing foreclosure, a civic crater in Seattle and a 100 year old institution flushed away by miscalculation and greed...Shareholders are also appalled by what they see as incompetence, and worse, by executives in their failure to protect the company...The Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Board of Canada, a major shareholder, has filed a securities class action complaint against Washington Mutual and some officers, including former Chief Executive Officer Kerry Killinger." Daniel Mudd, former CEO of Fannie Mae, and Richard Syron, former CEO of Freddie Mac, have been similarly lambasted (see, for example, His Name is Mudd) and the subject of calls for criminal investigations.

First, let me make clear that I don't know these men; they actually could be stupid, greedy and crooks. But, I think that's unlikely; my guess is they're probably really smart guys, and as honest and ethical as the rest of us (here are a couple of interesting posts arguing the elite really are elite, and the difficulty of assessing the ability of those at levels above our own). I think there is a much simpler explanation for the decisions which blew up their companies:

They tried to earn what they were being paid.

It's admirable, of course, to earn what you're given -if they didn't try to do that, they would be justly criticized. In 2007 Mr. Killinger's compensation was $14,364,883, Mr. Mudd's was $14,231,650, and Mr. Syron's was $14,497,981. What should they have done in 2008 to earn that money?

Lenders compete on price (interest rates, fees, processing costs), execution (speed and certainty of delivery of the promised transaction), and terms (leverage, documentation, covenants). By all accounts, all three companies were very competitive on price and execution. That leaves terms. As long as there are lenders willing to lend more aggressively (higher LTV loans, lower income ratios, less documentation, fewer reserves and covenants) conservative lenders will lose market share. You do not get paid $14M to lose market share.

In the old days (1970's and '80s), savings and loans were called 3-6-3 businesses; pay depositors 3% interest, extend mortgages at 6%, hit the golf course by 3PM. WAMU, Fannie, and Freddie were all stable, well run companies that could have made a good return making/buying secure loans, and their CEOs could have been on the golf course by 3. But, that would not be worth $14M. So, they tried to earn it by competing for riskier business, and they failed.