I Got Mad Flows!!! The Happiness Formula

Image via Wikipedia
I’ve heard it hundreds of times while listening to my favorite rap artists - a proclamation of the supremacy of their “flow.”  In that context, the artist extols his personal talent at using verbal skill to connect audience and idea in a way that is both entertaining and enlightening.  Lil Wayne, one of the current kings of flow, may not realize that the process of tapping into that “flow” may hold the key to a human’s happiness.

Allow me to take a step back from iTunes to discuss a different influence.  I’m working my way through “The Happiness Hypothesis,” by Jonathan Haidt, a very readable discussion of the intersection of neuroscience, psychology, spirituality and  an individual’s search for greater happiness.  Its ideas have equally fascinated and discomfited me.  While it is illuminating to understand patterns of seemingly irrational behavior I have observed in myself and others, it also disappointing to reduce once romantic notions of self-determination and relationship development to simple, biological terms.

Related to that notion of biological or hereditary destiny is the concept of the “happiness formula” outlined in Chapter 5.  In it Haidt quotes research by psychologists Martin Seligman, Sonja Lyubomirsky, Ken Sheldon and David Schkade and their advancement of the simple formula which governs one’s ability to achieve happiness: H = S + C + V.  According to the research, “H”, or happiness, is a function of a pre-determined level of happiness (“S”).  This level, really more of a range, is inherited from your parents, and determines whether you see the world through an optimistic or pessimistic lens.  While most people fall somewhere in the middle of the optimist/pessimist continuum, where exactly one falls determines how great a level of happiness one can ultimately achieve.  “S” is beyond any individual’s control.

Now, before you lock yourself in a dark closet with a bucket of pint of Haagen Dazs because your inherent pessimism will relegate you to a life of sorrow, don’t forget about “C” and “V”: the two external factors over which individuals may exert control.  “C” represents the conditions of your daily existence, and evidence suggests that the removal of certain conditions can markedly increase your happiness.  According to the four scholars, removal of noise (especially noise that is variable or intermittent), commuting (especially in heavy traffic), perceived lack of control over your time and tasks, shame and negative relationships (to which one can never adapt in a way that makes them even stress-neutral) can vastly improve one’s happiness.

The final external factor, “V,” is the one I found most intriguing, and which harkens back to hip-hop luminaries.  “V” is the voluntary activities in which we engage, presumably to seek pleasure.  The best way to describe the optimal set of activities for any individual is through Mihalyi Czikszentmihalyi’s “Flow State” concept. Czikszentmihalyi’s research draws a distinction between the pleasure people derive from the physical (from chocolate, sex, etc.) and the gratification derived from “total immersion in a task that is challenging yet closely matched to one’s abilities.” Haidt further describes “flow” as the following: “There is a clear challenge that fully engages your attention; you have the skills to meet the challenge; and you get immediate feedback about how you are doing at each step.  You get flash after flash of positive feeling with each turn negotiated, each high note correctly sung, or each brushstroke that falls into the right place.  In the flow state the elephant (automatic processes) and rider (conscious thought) are in perfect harmony.  The elephant (automatic processes) is doing most of the work, running smoothly through the forest, while the rider (conscious thought) is completely absorbed in looking out for problems and opportunities, wherever he can.” The benefit of pleasure is undeniable, but ephemeral.  The benefit of the “flow,” or “being in the zone,” compounds over time.

What’s particularly interesting is that flow is about engagement in the task, and not necessarily achievement of a particular outcome.  Unlike the old axiom that one’s journey is equally important to the ultimate destination, the suggestion is that in achieving happiness the destination is actually less important than whether or not the journey requires full concentration of one’s abilities.  Interestingly, Lil Wayne has been a misunderstood figure in music because of his preference to spend most waking moments in the studio recording extemporaneous “flows”(and for a few legal reasons too).    While he has become rich through the commercialization of his work, he has also been criticized for creating too much content and simply throwing it out into the market.   Perhaps the rhyming savant has figured out the “V,” and has simply chosen to achieve an almost constant “flow state” by finding his flows as often as possible.  If the point is to be engaged in the process, then perhaps the result of the process is truly less important?

The concept of flow, and the example of Lil Wayne, makes me wonder how often, either through vocation or avocation, I achieve that level of engagement.  An honest assessment tells me that I should spend more time dropping Mad Flows too.

Related articles

• WATCH: The Surprising Science Of Happiness (psychworld.com)
• WATCH: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi: Creativity, fulfillment and flow (YouTube)
• Joe Robinson: The Hidden Key to Happiness: Participant Experiences (huffingtonpost.com)
• The Art of Work (FastCompany.com)

Don’t Hate the Player, Hate the Game: Lessons from David vs. Goliath

I just read a fascinating article from the archives of “The New Yorker”, “How David Beats Goliath: When Underdogs Break the Rules" by Malcolm Gladwell.  You may recognize Gladwell as the best-selling author of the books "Outliers," “The Tipping Point” and “Blink.”

Gladwell features the stories of victorious underdogs in many contexts, but spends the majority of his time chronicling the ascendance – in one season - of a basketball team of 12-year-old girls, from not knowing how to dribble or shoot, to runner-up national-champions.  (Hint: the success does not involve convincing a depressed basketball savant to join the team, as it did in the movie “Hoosiers.”) The key to success: insurgent strategy.  Before attacking the opponent, attack the “game” itself.  Through his stories of unlikely success, Gladwell offers a simple set of instructions for informing your competitive decisions when facing a “Goliath” opponent.

First, recognize that the “rules” of most competitions are established to reinforce the dominance of the incumbent order. For example, big armies attempt to draw opponents into head-to-head battle because big armies have an advantage in these conflicts.

Second, recognize we have the choice to play by conventional terms, or to redefine the competition in a way that suits our abilities - not those of the incumbent.  We often impose a set of “rules” upon ourselves, which are defined by convention rather than law. Before any competition, consider whether your strategy is based on what is expected, or what is to your advantage.

Finally, assuming you elect to compete in a way that defies convention, you must recognize what is required to achieve success under the new terms of engagement.  Changing the terms of the game will inspire the antipathy of an establishment that wishes to reinforce the old standard.  It may also require significantly greater effort than losing “honorably” under the standard terms of competition.  If the point is to do more than compete, then you must recognize the cost of success, and accept these costs.

Like most people, I love a good underdog story.   If you read the article for only that, you’ll come away happy.  More than this, it served as a reminder that we are complicit in establishing many of the impediments we perceive in our lives.  We choose what we strive for, we choose how we prosecute the campaign to achieve it, and we choose what is an acceptable price to pay for that achievement.

“Switch” Off Your Fundamental Attribution Errors

I’m not nearly as smart as I think I am.  I’ve been hearing that from people close to me for as long as I can remember, and a recent read of “Switch,” by Chip and Dan Heath, reminded me of that fact.  In particular, their focus on the human tendency to make Fundamental Attribution Errors reminded me to break my habit of drawing character conclusions without considering the context in which I’m observing the behavior that informs those conclusions.  In other words, I'm in the habit of making dumb decisions about people based on bad information.

We’ve probably all done it  - write someone off based on a limited set of unfortunate interactions.  I must admit that I’m one of the worst offenders.  Unfortunately, I’m known among my friends and family for the intensity with which I offer detailed descriptions of a perceived offense, and the extensive character indictments I raise against those who have transgressed.   There is no doubt that select members of our society are, in fact, reprehensible figures and deserve the full fury of my indignation; however, the Heath’s have reminded me to consider the broader context, or remember the bias inherent in small sample sizes.  After all, given what I just wrote, someone with limited exposure to me might conclude that I’m no sweetheart (a few ex-girlfriends would probably agree).  However, I’m confident that in the broader context of my life, I average out to a pretty decent guy.  I would hope when I act like a jackass, I’m given the benefit of the doubt; and I’m going to extend the world the same courtesy.

As for the rest of “Switch,” it offers some interesting insights into behavioral change, and our inherent nature for finding or sabotaging motivation.  The central theme of the book is that we can understand human willpower using the analogy of a trained elephant walking through the woods.  What determines the elephant’s course: the rider on the elephant’s back (rational thinking), the elephant itself (emotion) or the path the elephant walks (situation/context)?  The answer, according to the Heaths, is all three, and through understanding of how each interacts with the other one can elicit sustained personal or organizational behavioral change.  The book only scratches the surface of some deeper research from psychologists at Stanford and other schools, but it’s a quick and interesting read that offers practical advice for making change.

Break on through to the other side of complexity (Amended)

What's the difference between complex and complicated?  Must they necessarily be related to each other?  According to Eric Berlow, an ecologist and network scientist based at Yosemite National Park, the answer is "no."  I recently stumbled upon this short video of Berlow's presentation at TED, during which he outlines his method for using visualization tools and isolation of first and second degrees of influence within complex systems to find solutions.  I'm not yet sure how this will help me bring order to the complexity in my life, but I found it interesting to watch him derive order and logic in even the messiest networks.

ADDENDUM: I received some feedback suggesting disappointment in the video based on expectation of an immediately applicable solution.  The following is some additional commentary that seems to have helped.  Feel free to push back if I'm still off base.

I guess if you were hoping for a "plug and play" solution, then the video came up short.  I found it interesting more as a metaphor for deriving order from apparent chaos.  As I understood it, what he said was that in complex problems, there may appear to be myriad moving parts which may influence your desired outcome.  If you just think about the apparent complicated nature of the mess, you'll get lost.  However, if you focus on understanding the 1st, 2nd and 3rd layers of influence on that desired outcome, and exclude anything that you cannot control or change, you'll be able to isolate the area likely to have greatest efficacy on the outcome you want.  I agree that not everyone has the tools to build a computer-aided visual model of a problem, but I think most problems are sufficiently less complex so as not to require one.  I think if you simply listed all of the potential points of influence in a complex set, and then highlighted the ones that touch your outcome - and that you can actually control or influence - you'd get pretty close to the same process, and an "actionable" solution set.


The video lasts approximately 3 minutes.

Related articles

• How complexity leads to simplicity: Eric Berlow on TED.com (ted.com)

Focusing on Winning Is for Losers!

As a San Francisco resident and stalwart football fan, the local media constantly reminds me of the San Francisco 49ers sorry state.  Once favored by the press to win their conference, the team has begun the season by losing each of its first five games.   The team’s coach, Mike Singletary, is one of my all-time favorite players.  He was the captain and inspirational leader of the Super Bowl-winning 1985 Chicago Bears, the first football team to capture my attention and the inspiration for my devotion to the sport.  Given the 49ers’ disappointing start, many are curious about what a leader in his position says to a group that has so spectacularly failed to meet expectations.  Just before kickoff for Sunday night’s game on NBC, sideline reporter Andrea Kremer asked Singletary, “What do you tell the team to focus on after an 0 and 4 start?”  His response, “Win. Win.”  The 49ers lost the game by 3 points.

I was struck by the brevity and severity of his response.  Not blocking, not tackling, not assignments.  Not focus on any part of the game, but rather the outcome of the game itself.  Something about the response seemed odd to me.   It reeked of a desperation that in this case was very public, but not unique among those whose backs are against the wall.  In retrospect, I shouldn’t have been surprised.  Focus on the outcome is pervasive in football.  The Oakland Raiders of the 1970’s espoused the “Just Win Baby!” philosophy, which dictated that as long as the Raiders were victorious, all means necessary to achieve the victory were warranted.

Reaching further into the annals of football lore, the most famous testament to the importance of winning is attributed to Vince Lombardi, the Hall of Fame coach of the Green Bay Packers in the 1950’s and 60’s.  In his famous speech (famous among football fans and players, anyway) “What It Takes to Be #1,” which, according to ESPN, was quoted just last week to the New York Jets by their running back LaDanian Tomlinson, Lombardi offers that, “Winning is not a sometime thing; it’s an all the time thing.  You don’t win once in a while; you don’t do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time.  Winning is a habit.  Unfortunately, so is losing.”  He continues, “I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour – is that moment when he has to work his heart out in a good cause and he’s exhausted on the field of battle – victorious.”

I’m going to risk excommunication from the congregation of football by suggesting that the Lombardi scriptures are wrong, or at least the popular and selective interpretation of them is.  I believe the 49ers, and anyone else who hopes to do something great, should take a page from the Stoics’ philosophy, focusin on what one can control, not on the outcome.

By virtue of having been exposed to the ideas through William B. Irvine’s great book, “A Guide to The Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy,” I suggest there are two reasons for doing this – the second of which I think is the heart of Lombardi’s real message to football.  First, by focusing only on winning, you limit the level of performance you can attain through any one competition, and thus the maximum level of performance you will ultimately reach.  Second, winning is too abstract a goal to warrant focus.

Limiting Your Performance Through Winning
I’ll use an overly simplified example to illustrate the point.  Let’s say I want to be the best swimmer I can be.  I go down to the local “Y” to work out, and I’ll find many swimmers against whom I can race.  If I focus only on beating them, I’ll focus on swimming just fast enough to achieve a win against what I can see.  Maybe the fastest guy at the pool, the one with the sweet body suit and custom kickboard, will beat me at first, but after some diligent work (and maybe an equipment purchase) I’ll eventually win.  Great.  Now I’m a winner, but that doesn’t make me the best that I can be… I’m just the best in the pool.  I have no idea how good I could be if I achieved perfection, and perhaps more important, I’m not well prepared for the inevitable contest against someone who’s better...  I’m just good enough for now.  Let’s consider the converse of this: Michael Phelps.  He is already the best in the world.  There is no one he can train with who is his equivalent.  What does he focus on?  It can’t be just winning because, for the most part, that’s a forgone conclusion.  He continues to set records because he and his coach focus on what he can do to achieve the best performance of which he alone is capable.  Because of his effort and execution of technical mastery (two things he controls 100%) and his physical talent (which he does not control and is ephemoral), this usually results in win, and almost always a sublime performance.

Winning Is An Abstraction
No matter how much you prepare, no matter how smart you are, no matter how hard you work, you cannot control the outcome of a “fair” competitive encounter.  Consider two perfectly evenly matched competitors.  They are equal in talent, intelligence and preparation: equal in every way.  In a contest with no ties, chance or fate (things beyond the control of the participants) will decide the winner.  Even in contests between unevenly matched opponents, chance can create unlikely outcomes.  Accordingly, if you have no control over winning, there is really no sense in naming it as your goal.  Are you really a failure if something outside of your influence creates an outcome?

I’m not suggesting that winning is meaningless.  After all, coaches and players are measured on wins and losses.  Perhaps that’s not a fair standard against which to measure them, but that’s a subject for a different piece.  I suggest that in order to maximize the odds of winning, which is not something they can control, people should focus on achieving what they can control.   I also suggest that this is consistent with the heart of Lombardi’s forgotten message.

The second half of the second sentence of Lombardi’s speech starts, “you don’t do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time.  Winning is a habit.”  For the moment, let’s reframe “winning” as achieving a personal best performance, which I have argued is the best one can hope for.  If you assume that performance improves marginally with each repetition, then each time you do something correctly, you do it faster, stronger… better.  In other words, achieving your best performance in any one instance is a product of the habit of achieving your best performance each time.  You cannot control winning, but you can control the habits that allow you to achieve your best performance, and continuing to achieve that is the best to which a team or individual can aspire.

What does this mean for the 49ers and the rest of us? Perfection in what you can control will, at best, put you in a position to win, then the chips will fall where they may.  If you are not focusing on and optimizing the things you can control, and you lose, then you have no one to blame but yourself; you are, in fact, a loser.   If, however, you execute perfectly on what you can control, only things outside of your influence will dictate the outcome. If you win, it’s only because of chance or because the opponent was over-matched – an outcome hardly worthy of praise.  If you lose because of chance or your opponent was somehow advantaged, you cannot rightfully be blamed for the loss.

If not winning and losing, from what can I derive satisfaction?  I believe that when Lombardi said, “Any man’s finest hour – is that moment when he has to work his heart out in a good cause and he’s exhausted on the field of battle – victorious,” he did not suggest we define victory merely in terms of a scoreboard.  Rather, it was victory in the battle for any individual to achieve self-mastery, the battle against the temptation to take a shortcut, to curb ones effort, to shirk a responsibility.  It is from this victory, which affords the best possible opportunity to achieve a win, that a competitor should derive satisfaction.

Coach Singletary – instruct your team to focus on preparation and execution, not winning.  Focusing on winning is for losers.

If You Aren’t Getting Rejected On A Daily Basis, Your Goals Aren’t Ambitious Enough

This blog post from Business Insider - by technology entrepreneur and angel investor Chris Dixon - reminded me of a friend I used to visit the bars with when I first lived New York.  He was seemingly fearless in his willingness to approach perspective female acquaintances.  Before going out, my roommate and I would watch clips from "Glengarry Glen Ross" to psych ourselves up for the evening, usually only to sit in a booth, sipping from a bottle of vodka and watching our buddy chat away with someone lovely.  Why did we just sit there?  Like many of us in the bar scene, and in many other situations, we feared rejection, and that fear led to inaction.

Luckily for my social life, my perception of new encounters and the meaning of any "rejection" experienced therein changed.  Accordingly, my tolerance for risk expanded - this was certainly fueled by the knowledge that almost nothing was remotely as unpleasant as fear made it seem it would be.  Well, now I'm a married man, and aside from the occasional attempt to inspire a single friend, this "wisdom" might seem of limited purpose.  Not so, says Chris Dixon.

Sure, his post is self-aggrandizing.  It details his success in securing a great position at a noteworthy VC firm after braving myriad rejections on a daily basis.  However, I was reminded of some worthy takeaways from the post.

First, there is no point in setting a goal that you know you can achieve.  That behavior is better characterized as making a to-do list.  Setting goals is about charting a path to attain something you're not 100% certain you can make happen.  There is personal, ego-related risk that you might fail, but the benefit gained from succeeding - or learning along the way - is usually much greater than any ego risk associated with failing.

Second, if you aren't taking risks, getting your hands slapped occasionally (figuratively, or course), or finding yourself in a situation that causes you to ask yourself, "wow, what do I do now?" then you aren't stretching, you're probably not learning anything new or doing things that will give you memoir-worthy stories.

Third, hearing "no" is really no big deal.  The more you hear it, the less painful it becomes.  I just finished "Just Listen" by Mark Goulston, who suggests that a "no" is really the best opportunity you can have to learn more about someone - assuming you're willing to hear the hard truth about what inspired the no.  In that sense being told "no" can actually help much more than it hurts.

Putting yourself in a position to be rejected is like going to the gym after a hard day.  Once you start the process even the worst outcome is no big deal, you often find it turns about to be a very positive experience, and either way there is some benefit derived from the exercise.

I have included the afore-mentioned scene from Glengarry Glen Ross.  It's 7 minutes long, and I hope you find it amusing.  Beware that it features some questionable language.

F*&king Management Lessons from Rex Ryan, Head Coach of The New York Jets

Rex Ryan has been earning a good deal of heat due to his vocabulary during the taping of HBO's series "Hard Knocks," which documents the New York Jets pre-season training camp. The language won’t surprise anyone who has spent time around football coaches or training camps; however, many members of the football community have called Ryan's Head Coach position into question because of his use of profanity. While his method of expression might not be worthy of emulation, a recent profile in the New York Times Magazine indicates that this football lifer and graduate of the vaunted Southwest Oklahoma University can teach executives some valuable points about leadership.

Points of note derived from the article:

1. "How great is this!" Ryan is known as the most enthusiastic member of the coaching staff.  He offers constant encouragement and positivity.  His belief in the team's ability to achieve is infectious.
2. "We call him Marino."  Ryan is intimately involved in the day-to-day existence of his reports.  He doesn't sit behind a desk and scheme; rather, he walks among his players and throws passes during drills.  He knows what's going on with the team, because he's constantly exposed to the team.
3. "We expect to win the damn Super Bowl."  Ryan sets huge, visceral goals that everyone can get behind.  The team has a mission that everyone can articulate, and everyone, from the grounds crew to the Quarterback knows how their task influences the achievement of the collective goal.
4. "I'll always tell you."  Ryan is willing to have the difficult conversations.  He doesn't believe in personal attacks - unless you're an opponent; rather, he believes in telling people what he expects of them and how they measure up to those expectations.
5. "Rex loves to isolate particular players so just for a moment they’re a star."  Ryan seeks to find the unique talents offered by each of his players, and surprising ways to feature and exploit those unique talents.  Each player feels that Ryan will always place them in the best situation to ensure personal success.
6. “Guy worked hard, got thrown around, but he showed up every day, and Rex played him."  This relates to a story from Ryan's days coaching at the University of Oklahoma.  He respected a former equipment manager who turned into a practice squad player.  Playing that kid rewarded behavior that Ryan wanted to see in the scholarship athletes - commitment, relentless effort, and courage.  It set the example that on his team there are rewards for exhibition of these traits, even for the equipment manager.

Marketing Failure by American Express

I just returned home from a wedding weekend in Lanai, HI, a weekend paid for with an American Express card. As I sorted through our mail, I discovered among the magazines, catalogs and other items a horribly targeted direct marketing offer from American Express.

As a "free gift", American Express was very pleased to offer me a complimentary 2011 Executive Appointment Book and Executive Pocket Organizer. If I would only be willing to pay $4.95 in shipping, per item, and an additional $3.00 for monogramming, they would be happy to send my gifts ASAP. One additional note, the offer may only be redeemed via mail.

Let me take a moment to review what basic information American Express should know about me.
1. I haven't received physical bills from them in 4-5 years. My billing notices arrive via email.
2. I haven't sent them a physical check for payment, or corresponded with them in a non-electronic manner, in at least 5 years.
3. Since virtually every purchase I've made in the last 10 years was with my AmEx, AmEx should know I've purchased multiple iPods, Blackberries, Apple laptops, home networking devices, etc.
4. I'm 34-years-old and live in San Francisco, which is arguably the most wired city on the West Coast.

I'm amazed that AmEx, if they actually were interpreting any data, could conclude that I am the appropriate candidate to eschew Gmail, Google Calendar and Outlook for a reverse migration to the old "black book" school of organization. A goof like this makes me scoff at the personal relationship AmEx says they value with me every time they ask me to upgrade to the next tier of service - and annual fee level. I should definitely write them a letter to voice my displeasure.

$2,000 or Less - Launching Your Startup Isn't As Hard As You Think!

Thanks to TechCrunch, I just found an interesting presentation by Adeo Ressi, founder of The Founder Institute (FI).  The Institute is focused on empowering budding entrepreneurs to turn ideas into actual businesses.  The premise is similar to that of StartingBloc, a non-profit for which I once served on the Board - namely, aggregate a network of inspired individuals, give them access to the techniques and advice necessary to build sustainable entities, and watch the magic happen.

I've been reading a lot lately about the explosion of "bootstrapped" startups, Ressi's talk may serve as an illustration for how this trend has happened.  For $2,000, utilizing crowd sourcing for design, cheap or open-source software for mock-ups and basic web development, and limited budgets for AdWords or Facebook Ads, you too can create the appearance of a viable business.  Perhaps more importantly, you can also test whether or not it's likely that your skeletal idea will actually turn into something worth investing more time and capital into.

Fans of The Four Hour Work Week will be familiar with some of the suggestions for testing ideas and creating a simple web presence; however, I find Ressi's process for "ghetto launching" a more practical plan.  If you have 5 minutes, flip through the slide deck I've included below.  It works fairly well as a stand-alone presentation.  If you have 25 minutes, watch the video.  Please be warned: Ressi's language is foul enough to raise eyebrows in some locker rooms I've been in.  Despite my Grandmother's admonishment that profanity is the sign of a weak mind expressing itself, I think Ressi's suggestions are strong.

Adeo Ressi on Product Development 08/19/2010 from Adeo Ressi on Vimeo.



FI Mentor Talk: 10 Steps to Launch Your Startup for under $2,000

Culture by Netflix CEO Reed Hastings - Wow!

Culture by Netflix\'s Reed Hastings

I just read this PowerPoint Deck by Reed Hastings, the CEO of Netflix.  It first caught my attention while I was reading another blog, which mentioned that Netflix' culture is founded on the basic premise of freedom, and that this freedom is embodied in the company's lack of a vacation policy.  What an oversimplification of the subject matter!

Take 10 minutes to flip through the deck.  It's written to be read - not presented -  so the ideas will be easy to follow.  Within the broader context of culture, Hasting provides details on the Netflix approach to company values, employee high performance, freedom and responsibility, context vs. control, team structure, paying at the top of the market and promotions and development.  Any tenet taken out of context might seem foolhardy, but as an integrated approach to identifying, retaining, challenging and empowering "stars," the plan makes total sense to me.

Upon objective analysis, much of corporate culture seems designed to deal with the lowest common denominator of professional society.  This reflects a pattern that's common to healthcare, education, and probably most of our personal lives.  Rather than deal with a true underlying problem, we'd prefer to create conditions or apply therapies to treat the symptoms.  If this deck is an accurate reflection of what actually happens at Netflix, then they've taken a higher path and been able to dispense with most of the rules and regulations that other corporations need - and which "stars" hate. 

Unwitting Participant in a Bohemian Social Experiment

Katie and I enjoy our new neighborhood because it offers stark cultural and economic contrasts within the span of only a few blocks.  I like to tell people that no matter which direction you walk, you'll be asked for money.  If you walk down the hill to Haight Street, you'll be asked to finance some food, alcohol or more elicit fare.  If you walk up the hill to Cole Valley, you'll be asked to support some form of political or charitable activism... either way, the various denizens of the neighborhood are not afraid to ask for the sale.

The other day I turned the corner at Haight and Masonic on the Southwest side if the intersection, as I've done many times to make the final push up the hill toward home.  As to be expected, I was asked for money by one of the youth that invariably sits below a graffiti mural on the Masonic side of the corner.  Normally I don't give these kids' requests a second thought.  I usually acknowledge their request with a smile and a polite "sorry," but I never give them anything.  Surprisingly, this turn was different.

As I rounded the corner, I just happened to be holding a quarter in my fingers.  I had just received it as change for my coffee at The People's Cafe, and for some reason it provided me with momentary amusement.  As I came even with the group of kids, one of them asked, "hey man, do you have a quarter you could give me?"  I took another step, stopped, looked at the quarter, and tossed it to him.  The gesture was followed by a cheer from his polluted pack.  As I resumed my climb up the hill, another of the group called out, "Sir, out of curiosity, can I ask what you do for a living?"  Without a thought I replied, "I'm currently unemployed."  This elicited an even greater cheer than the original toss of the quarter.

The episode was amusing to me for two reasons.  First, it proved a point raised in the book "Yes!," referenced in my last post.  If you think compliance with a bigger request is unlikely, establish your relationship with the person you're asking by making an initial request that's small and specific.  Once you've established for them a pattern of investing favors in you, they're unlikely to reverse the pattern.  He got me on the small and specific.

Second, a related point from the book now means that I'm unlikely ever to toss a quarter to one of these kids again.  As walked into our apartment, I was fixated on the meaning behind the second cheer.  I concluded that I had - as an unemployed guy - upheld some beat-culture stereotype that he who has little, and should ascribe greatest relative value to even small sums of money, is likely to be more generous than someone who is prosperous.  As the new psychographic researcher on "Mad Men" recently said, "no one wants to admit they're a type."  As Cialdini might expand on that point, if someone thinks you're labeling them in a way they don't agree with, they will reject the label and the entire persuasion process will backfire.  I believe that I'm currently equally generous, or parsimonious, as I have been at any other time in my life.  Accordingly, I reject the label, and my available change is now virtually unattainable by all wayward-looking youth.

In retrospect, I guess that's twice that I played to type.

Perhaps I Can Persuade You to Read This Book?

I just finished "Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive," by Noah J. Goldstein, Steve J. Martin and Robert B. Cialdini.  Over 250,000 copies of the book have been sold and put to use by people from all walks of life.  Cialdini, in particular, is famous for his work studying the science of influence. His book "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" is a staple for negotiation classes, and was one of my favorites from Kellogg.

"Yes!" is a slightly less science-intense discussion of the various ways people are predisposed to persuasion.  I found its lessons useful because they offer new tools for creating links between people and my point of view.  They will also allowing me to recognize when those tools are used to exploit the heuristic flaws I share with all humans.  To that end, the epilogue admonishes readers not to use its lessons to unethical ends.  Having read it - and taken about 20 pages of notes - I can imagine some people being tempted to drift toward the persuasion dark side.  Not I, of course...

Read it if you're curious about how we're all subject to the following persuasion tools (or how they might be used against you):

• Social proof
• Consistency and similarity bias
• High and low value framing
• Reciprocity
• Behavior mirroring
• Emotional valuation discounting

You will be amused, or possibly dismayed, to recognize situations in which they may have clouded your judgement.

Socrates and The Entrepreneur

The most basic tenet of Socrates’ personal philosophy was to “know thyself.”  This, he believed, was the point from which all understanding begins. This concept, simple in expression but more difficult in execution, lies at the heart of “The Tribe,” an infoChachkie blog post by John Greathouse concerning the assembly of successful startup teams.

“The Tribe,” suggests that startup success is more a function of proper “Core Team” cultivation than the idea upon which the venture is based.  In fact, it likens the core organization of successful teams to that of the most basic human social organizations; hence, “The Tribe.”  The article outlines five basic roles – the definitions of which I have included below.  According to the theory, no one role is more important to the survival of the unit than any other, and without any of them, the unit is not likely to succeed.

The roles are the following:

Hunter - The Hunter defends the Tribe and literally ‘brings home the bacon’. These individuals are highly autonomous, independent and thrive on frequent recognition. When their efforts feed the Tribe, they want everyone to know that it was their efforts.

Skinner - The Skinner makes the Hunter look good. When the Hunter brings back the kill, it is the Skinner who dresses the meat, tans the hides and cures whatever is not initially eaten for the Tribe to subsist upon during the lean times of winter.

Chief - Every tribe needs a Chief, just like every adVenture needs a CEO. The Chief defines and communicates the Tribe’s strategic direction, such as a new valley to forage or a mountain retreat to escape the dog days of summer. The Chief listens to the opinions of the other tribal members, makes decisions that impact everyone and ensures an adequate level of acceptance of such decisions to facilitate their ultimate success.

Shaman - Shamans invent new tools and processes that improve the overall quality of life within the Tribe. For instance, a Shaman will spend his days thinking of a better fishhook, a new tool for cleaning skins or searching for new medicinal plants to cure the Tribe’s ailments.

Tribal Elders - The Tribal Elders spend most their time sitting by the fire dozing off. They cannot be counted on to do any ‘heavy lifting’ nor are they in a position to execute the day-to-day tasks necessary for the Tribe to thrive. However, they occasionally offer bits of sage advice that allow the Tribe to avoid hardships and reap windfalls. As such, the wise Chief knows when to solicit their counsel and when to allow sleeping Elders to lie.


Know Thyself.
How many budding entrepreneurs know themselves as well as they know the industry they’re entering?  Few entrepreneurs that I’ve worked with have spent any time investigating their own capabilities as a fundamental tenet of business plan development.  What problems result from this?

• Entrepreneurs assemble a team of people just like them, leaving the organization devoid of required skill sets and personality types
• Entrepreneurs create organizational bottlenecks by trying to perform too many roles, ultimately doing none of them well
• Entrepreneurs avoid vital tasks for which they are not well suited, fail to recruit someone who is well suited to them, and fail to complete them

The lesson to be learned?  If Greathouse is to be believed, one must apply the same due diligence to oneself as one would the business plan under development. Greathouse includes some self-reflection exercises at the bottom of the blog, which are useful for deducing which role one is best suited to play.  Use the conclusions to drive the strategy for assembling your start-up team – not just targeting education, experience or technical expertise, but also role in the new Tribe.

"Endurance" - A Real Story of Leadership and Survival

Survival has become a hot topic for pop culture.  “Man vs. Wild” has made Bear Grylls an international television star by featuring his ability to extricate himself from any hostile geography.  Grylls makes fans swoon – or wretch – by eating whatever plant or bug he stumbles upon.  They marvel at the tools he whittles out of foliage he finds along the way.  Sometimes, when he’s lucky, he scores “a bit of protein” through cooking small game he captures.  He always makes it to the chopper pickup, the highway or train tracks.  Grylls’ skills are certainly impressive, but let’s paint a bleaker picture.

Strip away Gore-Tex jackets, insulated hiking boots, merino wool long underwear, cell phones, GPS devices and Swiss Army knives.  Do that in your day-to-day life, let alone stranded in a remote place, and life becomes unpleasant.  Now imagine operating in that condition in an environment where there are no plants or bugs, where the only wood comes from the ship which carried you there (which was crushed by ice) where the average temperature is 20-below zero, and where the only thing to eat is a 1000-pound bull seal that you need to kill before it eats you instead.   Imagine there is no civilization for 700 miles, and 600 of that span is the most dangerous sea on the planet.  One final thought, you’re responsible for the survival of all 28 members of your party, yet no one else knows where you are, so there is no hope of any rescue.  Now you’re beginning to understand the situation in which Sir Earnest Shackleton found himself on the ice of the Weddell Sea off Antarctica in January 1915.

While rummaging through our bookshelves I scavenged “Endurance” by Alfred Lansing.  The blurb at the bottom of the cover reads, “One of the great adventure stories of our time.”  I wouldn’t argue with the statement.  The book details the 18-month struggle the crew of the Endurance endured as they attempted to rescue themselves from a seemingly impossible situation at the pole of the earth.

Given how well publicized the excursion was, I don’t think I’m spoiling anything by sharing that the entire party survived and returned safely to England.  What I won’t share are the many trials the crew experienced between being stranded and reaching help.  The book is an amazing story of the strength of human will, and our ability to adapt to virtually anything.  Beyond the adventures and hardships, the book is remarkable in its portrayal of Shackleton, who proved himself not only a hero, but also, more importantly, an astute organizer and leader.   While his method for selecting company members was questionable, his ability to steer even problematic crew toward achievement of the team’s shared task was inspired.  With few exceptions, he is the model for the leader I aspire to be, and I wish I had encountered more like him in my life.

Pick up the book if you find yourself in need of a good weekend read, or if you’re contemplating doing something that you’re not sure you can achieve.  After reading this I believe people – myself included – are long on excuses and short on understanding of their potential to endure.

Lessons from the Garbage Can

My wife Katie and I recently moved to San Francisco.  We're now entering our 2nd week as residents of the city, and it's been an easy transition... with one exception.  San Francisco has some of the most amazing residential sanitation rules one could conceive.  On the threat of a ticket for erroneously sorting our detritus, we've been forced to learn the difference between what is recyclable, compostable and merely trash destined for a landfill.  We now sort items from each of these categories into separate garbage bins in our apartment, then placing them in separate cans for weekly collection.  We actually had to print the city's rules and tape them to our trash bins in order to keep the process working.

Initially, I was annoyed that our waste required so much of my attention, but gradually my attitude has changed.  I've been surprised that more of my trash can be reused than I originally thought.  However, I also generate a lot of stuff that I thought could be recycled, but can't.  For instance, Katie and I are receiving a few wedding presents these days; they are always packed in tons of Styrofoam.  San Francisco recycling won't touch the stuff.  They also won't take plastic bags, which are EVERYWHERE.  Good luck getting through the day without someone handing you a plastic bag.

I'm sure this was the intention of those who drafted the law, but dealing with the stuff that I think should be recycled, but can't, is both frustrating and depressing.  It's forced me to really think about what I generate and where it goes.  This is certainly an interesting case where forced behavior modification has resulted in increase awareness and a change in perception.  I've never been a big fan of legislative interference in people's lives, but this illustrates it can be a powerful tool if used correctly.  

The Stockdale Paradox

My future father-in-law recently gave me the book "Good to Great,".  Because he and I often talk about business, I choose not to interpret the gift as a statement about my candidacy as his daughter's future husband... i.e. "you're good husband material, but not great."  I think it's a subject he thought I would find interesting.  He was right.

The most compelling passage in "Good to Great," which details conclusions derived from a study of the short list of companies that outperformed the market for 15 years or more, concerns the philosophy Collins and his team named, "the Stockdale Paradox."  

The name relates to Admiral James Stockdale, who you may remember was Ross Perot's Vice Presidential candidate in the 1992 Presidential election.  Unfortunately, most of the country never understood that Stockdale earned his bona fides in the Navy, and specifically as "the highest-ranking United States military officer in the 'Hanoi Hilton' prisoner of war camp during the height of the Vietnam War.  Tortured over twenty times during his eight-year imprisonment from 1965 to 1973, Stockdale lived out the war without any prisoner's rights, no set release date, and no certainty as to whether he would even survive to see his family again."  During imprisonment Stockdale assumed the yolk of command, created conditions to increase the number of US prisoners who survived imprisonment, and even beat himself with a chair to avoid being used in a propaganda video as an example of a well-treated prisoner.  Stockdale, who died in 2005, was made of granite.

In describing his ability to withstand the ordeal, Stockdale said the following: "This is a very important lesson.  You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end - which you can never afford to lose - with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."  The paradox: you know you will succeed no matter what, but you also confront the brutal truth about what stands in your way.

Who did Stockdale say died in the "Hanoi Hilton?"  "The optimists.  And they died of a broken heart."  What a profound lesson for life.  Dare to believe you can achieve something great, but don't believe it blindly.  You don't get big wins from simply wishing they will happen - the power of positive thinking, so to speak.  The way to realize the goal is to thoroughly believe that it can be achieved, no matter the odds, but also to recognize and devise strategies to navigate the myriad obstacles which may prevent success.

Why Instead of What - How Leaders and Innovators Inspire Action

According to Simon Sinek, ethnographer, marketer and author of "Start with Why," people don't follow what you do, they follow why you do it.  People purchase, experiment and follow because they find meaning in the act that coincides with their own beliefs or identity.  In his speech from the 2009 TED Puget Sound Conference, Sinek suggests that most of us have it backwards... we tend to lead with "what and how" while completely ignoring "why."  This oversight prevents us from winning enough customers or converts to achieve big results.

Why do you do what you do?  Watch his 18-minute talk and you'll be inspired to put your work, or your leadership efforts into a different context.

"Too Big To Fail" - 540 Pages of Non-Fiction That Reads Like A Crime Novel

I just finished reading Andrew Ross Sorkin's "Too Big To Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System---and Themselves."  I cannot remember the last time I found such a long (540 pages) and comprehensive historical depiction so compelling.

Sorkin's skill in explaining - in layman's terms - the esoteric financial instruments at the center of the 2008 crisis, and the intersecting political, macroeconomic and financial interests surrounding the exploitation and/or regulation thereof, turns a subject-matter morass into a "page turner."  

Sorkin's storytelling ability is matched by his seemingly unparalleled access to the top levels of finance and government.  Time and again after reading about some top-secret negotiation I wondered, "How the hell did he get that information?"

The books covers a great deal of territory outlining the events leading to the rescue of Bear Stearns, AIG and a few other institutions you might not realize were on the precipice.  It details the personalities and organizational cultures that influenced the actions taken, and does so with a critical detail.  Sorkin did not trade access for editorial kindness.  Some finance stalwarts are made to seem all too fallible by Sorkin's characterization of events.  It is to their and the story's credit that they allowed themselves to participate in an unabashed account of the events.

This is not a weekend read, but it is definitely worth working through.  If for no other reason, it provides  insight into the irrationality of the economic crucible that is the capital markets, and the extraordinary measures required to halt the next Great Depression which could stem from it.

It Takes A Village

This weekend I accompanied my fiancée Katie to the christening of her Godson, Declan Heil.  An afternoon I expected to be ripe for satire was actually a profound “religious” experience.  No, I’m not ready to convert, but the ceremony reminded me of the tenet of my former religious practice that I miss the most – community.

Strip away the doctrinal aspects of the christening, and you’re left with a moving testament to the bond between family and friends.  As Declan was held before the gathering of his parents, godparents, extended family and a collection of friends, each made a commitment before their God and each other to help raise the child.  This commitment served as not only an affirmation of their elation at Declan’s birth, but also of their commitment to one another.

In an age when people manage relationships via texts, facebook messages and the occasional IM chat, the christening was a nice reminder that a deeper connection still exists in the hearts of family and friends.

Are you sure you want to ask yourself these questions?

I just finished reading “The 4-Hour Work Week” and “The Alchemist.”  I may never “work” again.

To assuage any concerns my fiancée will have at reading that statement, I don’t mean that I’ll never earn any income.  I simply mean that reading these two books has reminded me that there is a clear distinction between how I earn money, and who I am.   According to Timothy Ferriss, author of "The 4-Hour Work Week," understanding that, and organizing your life accordingly, will lead to greater experiences and a fuller, happier life.  I’m not sure it’s as easy as he suggests, but I’m very intrigued.

Ferriss espouses a lifestyle organized around earning enough income through various pursuits (a job you can perform remotely, largely automated entrepreneurial ventures, etc.) in order to support your pursuit of whatever you’d like to do.  Travel, learn a craft, tryout for the NFL: these are the experiences that will allow you to really live.  The point is that whatever you want to do, you should structure your income generation in order to make the experience possible.  Work to live… don’t work because you are afraid of what will happen wen you try to do something better.

I won’t share how he proposes you do this.  Doing so would spoil much of the book, and I think it’s worth reading.  Even if you don’t reorganize your entire life, the early chapters will dare you to reconsider your regular work and communication practices.  Now that I’ve read the book, I’m left with some questions.
• What is it that I really want to do?
• Of the things I’m interested in, which do I do first?

These are the sort of existential question that an unemployed former actor with an MBA often asks himself.  They don't have easy answers... or do they?  I've often said, causing hundreds of eyes to roll in doing so, "It's hard having the option to do so many things."  I could be an i-banker again.  I could be an actor again.  People say I should write, and that has always seemed intriguing.  I could start a company.  What's the right next move?  I've been having a difficult time arriving at a conclusion.

At Ferriss' suggestion I also read "The Alchemist."  Ferriss wrote, "It is an excellent story to keep on hand and reread whenever you feel lost."  Is it any wonder I jogged straight to Barnes & Noble to find a copy?  Three hours later I finished the book.  I was still seeking answers, but feeling inspired to continue down the path to find them.  Again, I won't share plot details because I wouldn't want to spoil the read.

The essential themes, for me, were the following.  First, what are you meant to be doing? Not what are you educated to do, or what allows you to support your lifestyle, or what your family or friends expect of you.  You must be brave enough for introspection and to respect the forthcoming answers.  You must know your destiny when are stripped of fear, judgement or external influence.

Second, you must bravely pursue that destiny until you have achieved it.  If you don't, you risk living with regret.  What does "bravely pursue" mean?  It means letting go of the accouterments which seem to define you, but which actually only ornament you.

These are not easy subjects to dig into; however, as Socrates said, "the unexamined life is not worth living."

Food, Inc. - I want some broccoli!

Food, Inc. - Hungry For Change?

This movie kept appearing in my Netflix recommendations, and I have been avoiding it for fear of what I might discover.  Last night I finally had the courage to watch.

Left or right-wing, vegan or carnivore, this movie will disturb you.  I was expecting more graphic depictions of the treatment of animals within the "industrial food complex," but there were only a few images like this.  The most horrific part of the story concerns the evolution of food production at the intersection of industry and government policy. The result is that the least nutritious calories are also the least expensive.

No wonder we're so fat in the US.  A poignant scene depicted a family choosing between a father's diabetes meds and fresh produce for the overweight kids.  Talk about a "Sophie's Choice" scenario.  "The Biggest Loser" would have you believe that if the father just spent the $250 per month on better foods, avoided the "Dollar Menu" at Burger King and walked 10,000 steps per day, he could go off the meds.  That an easy prescription to offer from the magic ranch in Malibu.

Watch the film and let me know if it makes you feel uncomfortable about where your food comes from.

Kellogg Class on Innovation - 2.0

One of my favorite classes at Kellogg was an entrepreneurship elective entitled "Introduction of New Products and Services."  The course was concerned with the process of developing new ideas into marketable offerings.  "New Products" was taught by Kellogg's resident innovation expert, Andrew Razeghi, whom I found to be an engaging speaker and a great provoker of thought.

I enrolled in the course because I thought it might provide a platform to merge my creativity with a practical for generating economic gain.  Ideas are great, but doing something productive with them is even better... I am an MBA, after all.  After ten weeks in the course, I became aware that ideas, seemingly derived from a mystical source of inspiration, can really be manufactured from a structured process.  Razeghi had exposed me to something I had prayed for when producing "Play the Game" (soon available via Netflix, by the way), a set of tools to rationalize what is usually accepted as creative, and thus inherently irrational.  I left the course excited to know more, but not entirely comfortable that I grasped all the components.  This was my fault.  I was more focused on the final project than the underlying process.  Live and learn.

In the final weeks of Razeghi's class, he offered us copies of his recently published book, "The Riddle: Where Ideas Come From and How To Have Better Ones."  Two years after receiving the text, I've finally had the time to read it.  I only wish I'd had it before the class.  The book is a quick read - just over 200 pages - and is flush with great insights and interesting anecdotes.  Razeghi's problem-focused methods (distinct from being solution-focused) have my head buzzing with ideas about how to attack "bugs" that matter to me.  I won't spend time detailing the tools because I want people to read the book; suffice it to say, they are instantly applicable.

If you're interested in expanding your problem-solving skills, and especially if you don't think you're creative, read this book.

  

The Best Get Better... With Red Bull?!?!

One of the best things to come from my two years with All-American Heavyweights is my relationship with Dr. Michael Gervais.  Like me, he is fascinated by human potential and helping people achieve peak performance in all phases of life.  Gervais' work is in helping already amazing athletes and professionals push the boundaries of what's possible in their lives through the application of performance psychology.  He recently shared the following video, which documents a high performance camp for some of the best surfers in the world.  Recently staged in Australia, the camp was organized and sponsored by Red Bull, the surfers' corporate patron.  It allowed the athletes, already the most physically gifted in their sport, to reach new levels of performance through enhanced psychological training.

The concept is compelling for a couple of reasons.  First, and continuing one of the themes raised in my "Wishing for More Athletes at Work" post, this is a collection of people who normally compete against one another, and yet they work together to achieve greatness.  It's interesting that these greats realize they can become ever better if they work right next to those they'll later battle.  It's often said that to be the best, you have to beat the best... well, why not compete with them everyday, not just on game day?

Second, this is one of the most talented collections of surfers ever assembled outside of competition.  They're already the best at what they do, and yet they are willing to subject themselves to unorthodox and certainly uncomfortable situations in order to be even better.  When we watch athletes compete, the physical skill (and the physical training and practice that go into earning that skill) is apparent.  What's not always apparent is the cognitive advantage on competitor has over another.  These surfers understand that the performance puzzle is not complete until they have mastered both the body AND mind.  It's cool to see the best trying to be even better.

If you're interested in reading more about what Mike Gervais has to say, subscribe to his blog at The Huffington Post.  Watch the video!

Wishing for More Athletes at Work

The year after I graduated from Northwestern, a handful of teammates organized trips to follow our beloved Cats to away games.  The trips had two apparent purposes.  First, to allow us to support the current Cats, many of whom we had recruited, helped to develop and played with.  Second, these trips to Iowa City, Madison and Lansing allowed us to experience more of cities than we did as players.  When you are the visitor for a Big Ten football game, you don't see much more than the airport, a bus, your hotel and the stadium itself.

A third purpose behind the trips didn't occur to me until I shared a beer with Mike McGrew one night in Iowa City.  It was late at night, and I was marveling at the Hawkeye bacchanalia underway in the wake of our Wildcat's loss to Iowa earlier that day.  Needless to say, we didn't have bars like this or celebrations with this abandon back in Evanston.  "Grew" seemed to be depressed about something, and I assumed he was watching the ragging Hawkeyes and seeing what could have been if he'd chosen to play college ball at one of the other Big Ten schools that had recruited him.  I shouldn't have been surprised me when Grew, a team captain and one of the few consummate leaders I've known, turned to me and said, "I wish I could find a job where I had the same kind of people around me that we had on our team.  The people I work with don't get it.  I wonder if we'll ever find that again?"  That moment revealed the third purpose of the trips: to revisit, if only for a few fleeting hours over the weekend, the greatness that we had achieved together as teammates a few years prior.  The trips were to remind us of the trust and faith we had in each other, which allowed us to defy expectations again and again.

That question, "I wonder if we'll ever find that again?" has been a general theme in my professional life too.  One interesting read, and two recent documentaries reminded me of that question.  In the context of that brief chat with Grew, it would seem we were only speaking about the right collection of people.  It's true; the esprit de corps we experienced was in large part due to who was in that locker room.  However, our unexpected success - well, we expected it... but that's for another blog entry - was a function of multiple variables: first, the right people, second, an understanding of and willingness to play a prescribed role and third, a competitive threat against which to measure ourselves.  Our success wasn't just about having the right people, but also the right purpose with which to apply our talents.

I recently finished "The Tao of Wu", by RZA, the founder and producer of the famed hip-hop group The Wu-Tang Clan.  As it's Amazon.com description suggests, the book is a "hodgepodge of memoir, spiritual advice and poetry, a sincere attempt to impart his accumulated life wisdom through the lens of hip-hop and idiosyncratic personal religion."  Between discussions of Islam, Kung Fu and Mathematics the story of The Wu-Tang Clan's rise to fame unravels.  It might as well have been written by Pat Riley or Mike Krzyzewski.  Eight guys from the same neighborhood with one unified purpose...  despite long odds and too many "haters" to count, they persevered, bending the world to suit their collective vision.  It's a great reminder that when talented and motivated people organize to attack a common goal, there are few things that can resist their will.

"More Than A Game" is a great documentary about LeBron James' high school basketball team winning the national championship in 2003.  The real story starts years earlier, when a few dads from the same Akron neighborhood organize a collection of kids into an AAU team.  At a young age 5 kids embark on a quest to be the best team in the country.  Sure, it helps that one of them may one day be named the greatest basketball player of all time.  The interesting part of the story is how each member of the team learns his role, how the team thrives through various bouts of adversity, and who on the team provides heroics on road to the championship game.

"Magic and Bird: A Courtship of Rivals" is an HBO Sports documentary about the historic rivalry between Magic Johnson and Larry Bird.  There are lot of sub-plots about racial tensions and Magic's HIV announcement, but the really interesting stuff is about how the two define the importance of the other.  Both competitors had different ways to relate to their competition; Magic was open to camaraderie and Bird was not.  However, the two shared one opinion: the presence of the other is what made them both achieve greater performances.  The prospect of losing to a great rival compelled them both to push for greater results.

This recent book and two movies remind me of what I once had as an athlete, and what I seek to find in my career.  There have been two instances when I've been able to create a culture like what we had at Northwestern, and it's no coincidence that they provided some of the fondest memories I have of "work."  I think in the future, I'll use these and a few other great flicks to help illustrate what I expect of my colleagues, and what they can expect from me.  

Where Do Entrepreneurs Come From - Leadership Lessons from The Dancing Guy

I've been reading a lot lately about where entrepreneurs come from.  It seems to be a popular subject among venture capitalists and entrepreneurship professors these days.  Are they made, or are they born?  My interest in the topic was inspired by a blog posting by Fred Wilson, a principal of Union Square Ventures, entitled, "Nature vs. Nurture and Entrepreneurship." Wilson, like many other VC's I've read, falls on the side of genetic predisposition.  To his credit, he does site contrasting opinion from Wharton Professor Raffi Amit, who contends, "there are no unique and defining characteristics of entrepreneurs."  Amit further believes "that you can, in fact, teach people to be entrepreneurs."

As in many other contexts, this nature versus nurture argument over entrepreneurship seems like an amazing over simplification of the subject.  Wilson and other VCs like to define entrepreneurs only as those tech visionaries who started selling lemonade at the end of their driveway and eventually blossomed to launch one product or service after another to legions of adoring disciples (I mean customers).  Professor Amit's position is an interesting one, but also seems too pedagogical a stance.  After all, if he didn't believe one could learn entrepreneurship, what's the point of being a tenured professor of the subject?

The reality of entrepreneurship is in the grey area between the two.  People become entrepreneurs when the serendipitous spark of an idea meets with the opportunity to capitalize on that idea.  Yes, many of them are MBAs who have been taught how to assess and build upon the spark, and many of them have been working for themselves ever since their neighborhood paper route.  I would wager, however, that most simply saw an opportunity to make some profit and went for it, learning what to do, and what not to do, by making mistakes along the way.  I speak from personal experience, that ticking all the boxes on the entrepreneurs personality tests, and having an MBA with emphasis on entrepreneurship will not guarantee the world will understand your vision, nor that you will avoid stepping on a few land-mines along the way.

The video presentation by Derek Shivers, "Leadership Lessons from Dancing Guy" raised a new angle to the debate.  (It's pretty funny, and only takes 90 seconds to watch).  Does it even matter who the "entrepreneur" is?  Is the important position the one occupied by the person trying to start, or by the first person to jump on board afterward, making it safe to join the charge?  Who was more important, Larry Page, Sergey Brin or one of the handful of innovative thinkers who joined them at the beginning?  Read "Googled," by Ken Auletta, and see what you think.  It certainly demystified the roll of the founder for me.  Maybe the VCs and Entrepreneurship Professors should spend some less time arguing about who gets credit for the start, and more time thinking about who builds the movement that turns into the business.

Marine Layer - My New Favorite T-Shirts!

www.marinelayer.com
Start-up men's shirt company based in San Francisco.  Love their stuff for a couple reasons:

1. Great product.  The most comfortable t-shirt I've found in a long time.  Felt like I'd had it for 10 years right out of the box.
2. Safe purchasing process.  Free shipping, free returns.  They have great customer service.
3. Innovative sizing.  The site features interim sizes like "smedium, mlarge and larger" in addition to the standard S, M, L and XL typicall offered.  There's even a sizing tool to help you chose which size is best for you.  
4. Made in the US by sustainable methods.  Even part of the cotton blend is made from recycled wood.

Two points of advice:

1. If want to test drive the fabric, click on the "Cop a Feel" link.  They'll send you a free sunglass lense cloth made out of the same material as the shirts.
2. If you are on the muscular side, you might want to round down on the advice of the "Fit Finder."  It assigns sizes based on weight, so if you're heavier because of muscle, you might be a bit smaller than the "Fit Finder" expects.