Famous Daily Improvisers: Ted Williams

In my recent articles, I've noted Matthew Syed's descriptions (in his book Bounce) of the way in which champion athletes adopt an almost irrational confidence in the inevitability of their success on the playing field. As I read Syed's accounts of the ways in which athletes mentally prepare themselves for matches, I was immediately reminded of a story concerning one of the greatest baseball players of all time, Ted Williams.

In his 1970 book Ball Four (one of the best and most influential baseball books of all time), ex-pitcher Jim Bouton describes an anecdote related by a teammate who had played with Williams on the Boston Red Sox.  (Note: Since this is a family blog, I've cleaned up some of the language.)

"In the bullpen tonight, Jim Pagliaroni was telling us how Ted Williams ... would psyche himself up for a game during batting practice, usually early practice before the fans or reporters got there."

"He'd go into the [batting] cage, wave his bat at the pitcher and start screaming at the top of his voice, 'My name is Ted Williams and I'm the greatest hitter in baseball!'"

"He'd swing and hit a line drive."

"Then he'd say, 'Here comes Jim Bunning! Jim Bunning and that puny little slider of his!'"

Wham!

"He doesn't really think he's gonna get me out with that junk!"

Blam!

"I'm Ted Williams!"

Sock!

Williams - or "Teddy Ballgame," as he used to refer to himself -  was a two-time American League Most Valuable Player (MVP) winner who led the league in batting six times. He had a career batting average of .344, with 521 home runs, and was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1966. He is the last player in Major League Baseball to bat over .400 in a single season (.406 in 1941).

Hmm ... well, maybe in his case, his confidence wasn't so irrational after all!

Mindsets: "Fixed" or "Growth" - or Both?

Let's consider two different attitudes that an athlete might adopt as he approaches a competitive match:

1) "I am great, the greatest performer in this field, the greatest performer in the history of the world!  There is no way anybody else is going to beat me! I am absolutely incapable of failure!"

2) "I need to be hyper-aware of how well I'm doing so that, if I fail, I can pinpoint my deficiencies.  Then, before my next competition, I can devote whatever amount of purposeful practice it takes to improve my performance!"

The first attitude reflects what Carol Dweck calls the Fixed Mindset.  A person with a Fixed Mindset focuses on what he "is," as if his skills and capabilities were unchanging and inalterable.  His regard for himself is thus completely dependent on maintaining and defending this facade of infallibility.  It follows that a person with a Fixed Mindset cannot allow himself to admit his deficiencies - to himself or to others.  And if he can't admit them, then he can't correct them.

By contrast, the second attitude reflects the Growth Mindset.  A person with a Growth Mindset focuses not on what he "is" but on what he can become.  He believes (and Dweck cites research to support this belief) that a person's potential is boundless, limited only by the amount of passion, toil, and training he brings to developing his skills.  To a person with a Growth Mindset, achieving performance excellence requires a continual awareness of the gap between where he is and where he needs to go.

Dweck sets up these two mindsets to be mutually exclusive - that is, you can have one mindset or the other, but you can't have both.

Or can you?

Well, recall my prior article on Matthew Syed's book Bounce, in which he notes how champion athletes can - and in fact must - deliberately hold two seemingly contradictory beliefs at the same time: One that focuses on his invincibility (so he can "enter into battle" with the complete confidence that he'll succeed) and one that acknowledges his shortcomings (so he can identify where he needs to improve).

The implication of Syed's observations about "manipulating beliefs" is that a performer must maintain both a Fixed Mindset and a Growth Mindset throughout the performance cycle if he wants to reach the top of his game!  He has to focus both on what he is (call it "saying affirmations" or "psyching himself up") and on what he has yet to become.

So, again, what seems like an inescapable dichotomy can be resolved by the Daily Improviser through the application of the Improv Mindset, which seeks to find the seamless connections between apparently irresolvable contradictions.

"I Am Invincible (I Think)!" - The Daily-Improviser Leader Manipulates His Beliefs

In recent articles, I've been describing my quest to resolve (seeming) contradictions. In doing so, I've been drawing on one of the central components of the performance improviser's art: The integration of incongruous elements (as pitched by the audience) into a seamless whole.

To illustrate a real-world application of resolving contradictions, I cited the example (from Matthew Syed's book Bounce) of an athlete who must absolutely convince himself that he'll succeed while simultaneously noting his performance gaps if he fails so he can correct them later. As Syed notes, an athlete must be able to "manipulate his beliefs" across the performance cycle - even to the point of maintaining contradictory beliefs of invincibility and fallibility at the same time - if he ever wants to reach the top echelon of performance.

I can see the same effect at work in an organizational setting. Vance Packard once defined leadership as "the art of getting others to want to do something you are convinced should be done." To achieve this, the leader has to project absolute confidence in the vision and the course of action he sets before his intended followers. Yet at the same time (as scores of historical examples show), if the leader turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to all signs that suggest a need for a course adjustment, he'll quickly lose touch with reality (and, except for the most rabid true believers, will lose most of his followers as well).

So, to borrow an old cliche, if she wants people to follow her through a brick wall, the leader must first approach the wall with complete certainty that she'll break on through to the other side. Yet, rather than continuing to bang her head against the wall if she fails, she better also be looking for the doors.

It seems, then, that to be truly effective across the performance cycle, a world-class leader must take a page from the champion athlete's playbook and learn to "manipulate his beliefs" to alternately shape reality and respond to it. If you want to grow as a leader, you must develop the capacity to both "influence and be influenced" - sometimes doing one, sometimes doing the other, often doing both simultaneously.

And here, I think, is where we can resolve another seeming contradiction I described in an earlier article. I'll reveal this next time.

John Wooden - 1910-2010

Last year I wrote an article about the famous Hoosier basketball legend John Wooden.  It is with sadness that I note that Coach Wooden passed away yesterday at age 99.

I can't think of a life more fully lived. For all his achievements, he never focused on the standings or the final score - his credo was, "Do your best, that is success." He may be known primarily for his great UCLA teams, but Indiana will always claim him as its own - as a player, a coach, and an example of the power of living one's values.

Should We Focus on Problems or Solutions? - Part Two

In a previous article, I noted the seemingly contradictory advice given by some prominent change experts regarding where to place focus when influencing others through organizational change. On one hand we had William Bridges, who essentially said, “Sell the problem!” On the other hand, we had Chip & Dan Heath, who said, “Sell the solution!”

How do we resolve this apparent lack of agreement among the experts?

I think the answer lies in a common model called the Change Cycle. The Change Cycle reflects the idea that we experience change in much the same way we experience grief, as set forth by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross in her groundbreaking book On Death and Dying. Kubler-Ross’s five stages of grief (Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance) track very closely to the stages of the Change Cycle as set forth by Bridges and others. In essence, people who experience change must first go through a process of relinquishing the past before they can start looking ahead to the benefits the change might bring in the future.

When people first enter the Change Cycle, they often try mightily to keep things the way they are, to maintain the status quo. If allowed to, they’ll quickly rush back to the old ways rather than cast their fate to the promises of the (uncertain) future. To move across the starting line, they need a good answer to the WIIFM (What’s In It For Me?) question. At the early phases, then, “selling the problem” is usually more effective than “selling the solution,” since people are not yet convinced that anything needs a “solution.”

However, as the Heaths point out in their book Switch, once people have been prompted to move across the line, a steady drumbeat of problem-problem-problem will only serve to scare them, demotivate them, and wear them down. This might work fine for changes that require quick, specific, short-term action. Yet most organizational changes are bigger and more complex, requiring (as the Heaths put it) “creativity and flexibility and ingenuity.” To do this, you have to enlist people in the search for ideas and implementation strategies.

In fact, these organizational needs track well with the typical progress of people through the Change Cycle. As they work through the initial process of letting go of the past, they become more open to the possibilities presented by the future. At this point, “selling the solution” becomes a more effective way to inspire and motivate people to commit to the change so that they’ll lend their hearts and minds to sustaining the change over the long haul.

So rather than constituting another “either-or” choice, the question “Do we focus on the problem or on the solution?” can really be seen as a matter of not whether to do one or the other but when to do each.

Can You Manipulate Your Beliefs?

I’ve been reading the fascinating new book Bounce, by Matthew Syed, which investigates the science behind the success of people who have achieved mastery in their fields. Focusing particularly on world-class athletes at the peak of their games, Syed explores the physical and mental preparation that goes into the making of champions – both in the world of sport and in non-sporting contexts.

I was particularly struck by the chapter on the mental self-manipulation that top athletes engage in when preparing for key matches. Syed (himself an Olympic table tennis player) notes that no athlete can achieve the pinnacle of success without “surgically removing doubt from the mind.” To elaborate, he cites the words of Arsene Wenger, a top soccer club manager:

“To perform to your maximum, you have to teach yourself to believe with an intensity that goes way beyond logical justification. No top performer has lacked this capacity for irrational optimism; no sportsman has played to his potential without the ability to remove doubt from his mind.”

But how can a performer improve his game and make necessary adjustments if he ignores weaknesses and “irrationally” focuses on nothing but positives – which, as Wenger notes, are often amplified in the performer’s mind “beyond logical justification”?

What happens, says Syed, is that top athletes are able to “wield different beliefs as part of a cycle.”

“In stage one, the athlete ‘takes the positives’ to protect self-belief; later, when training, he incorporates the insights gained from the negative aspect of the previous match to strengthen weaknesses; then, when the next match is looming, the focus returns to building self-belief once again, so that doubt is eliminated at the point of performance.”

Syed then quotes an extraordinary observation by Wenger:

“Unless you have the ability to manipulate your beliefs over the performance cycle, it is difficult to perform well at anything, sport or otherwise.” (emphasis added)

In sum, Syed and Wenger are saying that a top performer must be able to control his thinking in order to entertain two seemingly contradictory mindsets at the same time: An unshakeable confidence in his own abilities to succeed and an objective evaluation of his actual current situation so that he can course-correct as needed. It’s the type of attitude that leads a champion golfer to feel dead certain about making a putt – while also making sure he hits it so that it won’t roll too far from the hole if he misses.

It’s also the type of attitude that the Daily Improviser needs to adopt in order to resolve the (seeming) contradictions that continually confront her in life! Throughout this blog, I’ve noted several examples of situations where the performance improvisers and Daily Improvisers must keep paradoxical thoughts in simultaneous suspension, including:

• The Stockdale Paradox – “Confront the brutal facts, yet never lose hope!”
• The And Stance – “I’m right and you’re right!”
• The Yogi Berra Paradox – “When you come to a fork in the road, take it!”

And next time, I hope to apply this concept of “manipulating beliefs over the performance cycle” to resolve the paradox I posed last time: In times of change, how can we focus on both the problem and the solution?

Should We Focus on Problems or Solutions?

I’ve developed a hard-earned reputation as a music trivia expert – a status achieved through 10,000-plus hours of passion, toil, and training in some of the grungiest hole-in-the-wall record stores from San Francisco to London.

About ten years ago, in Columbus, Ohio, I ran across one of my best finds – a 1978 UK import cd by Andy Mackay, the sax player for the band Roxy Music. Mackay intended the album as an amalgamation of traditional Chinese music and the progressive rock sound reflected in his work with Roxy. (And, I might add, he succeeded brilliantly.)

I mention the album because its title – Resolving Contradictions – perfectly expresses one of my primary goals with this blog: To show how, by applying the improv mindset, the Daily Improviser can find common ground between ideas, opinions, and concepts that might at first blush appear to be irresolvable. (In this regard, see also my prior article No Contradictions – Just Paradoxes.)

I must admit, though, that sometimes the Resolving Contradictions path can be a rocky one. And I’m currently having to step carefully around two sets of concepts relating to Change Leadership that could potentially trip me up.

On one side, we have the words of Chip Heath and Dan Heath in their book Switch:

“What if [we] had a more positive orientation [toward our world]? …Imagine a world in which after a husband forgot his wife’s birthday, she gave him a big kiss and said, ‘For thirteen out of the last fourteen years you remembered my birthday! That’s wonderful!’ This is not our world. But in times of change, it needs to be. [We have] a problem focus when we need a solution focus…. We need to switch from archaeological problem solving to bright-spot evangelizing…. These flashes of success – these bright spots – can illuminate a road map for action and spark the hope that change is possible.”

On the other side we have William Bridges, who says in his book Managing Transitions:

“[When you’re attempting to change the organization], you may discover that people have trouble understanding the purpose [behind the change] because they do not have a realistic idea of where the organization really stands and what its problems are. In that case, you need to ‘sell the problems’ before you try to sell a solution to those problems. If that wasn’t done during the ending phase – when it should have been done – now is the time to provide answers to these questions: What is the problem? What is the situation that requires this change to solve it? Who says so, and on what evidence? What would occur if no one acted to solve this problem? And what would happen to us if that occurred?”

So – do we line up with experts like the Heaths who advocate a solutions-focused approach to organizational change? Or do we adopt the thinking of an expert like Bridges and instead clarify and “sell” the problem that the change is intended to overcome? Is this yet another case of “pick your expert”?

Well, like Andy Mackay, I think this is a situation where Resolving (seeming) Contradictions would be a worthwhile exercise. I’ll take us further down this rocky path in future articles.

Puppies, Pizzas ... and Improv (Part 2)

In my previous article, I described the improv game Word at a Time Story, which I conducted as part of a leadership class in Orlando, Florida. The participants successfully (and spontaneously) created a story that made some semblance of sense but left hanging in the air the question: What is a puppy pizza?

Well, as I mentioned last time, improv is the gift that keeps on giving – and in this case it provided me a huge present, neatly wrapped and tied with a bow.

As I drove back to my hotel after Day One of the two-day class, I noticed a storefront by the roadside with a large sign out front: Just Puppies. This being my first time in the Orlando area, I wondered what sort of a business it was - puppy seller, puppy doctor, puppy supply store?

As I absentmindedly considered the possibilities, my attention was suddenly seized by something that immediately revealed the meaning of “puppy pizza”!

The next day, the leadership class continued with great engagement and involvement on the part of the participants – as well as several references to the outcome of the previous day’s Word at a Time Story. As we approached the end of the day (and the session), I launched into a wrap-up speech that I’d sketched out on the proverbial piece of scrap paper just that morning:

“In the last two days, we’ve introduced you to many tools and concepts that will help you be a more effective leader. As you’ve seen, leadership is not about giving orders and trying to seize and maintain control. There’s really no better way to lead than to develop your people, empower them, and then stand back and see what great things they create.

“As we saw with the Word at a Time Story, there’s a lot of benefit to just letting go and seeing what emerges from the combined efforts of a group of people. Even though you successfully made it to the end of the story, though, I know everyone was still wondering: What is a puppy pizza?

“Well, I found out!

“Yesterday, as I was driving back to my hotel, I saw this store called Just Puppies. I have no idea what kind of a store it is – but as I drove by, something very distinctive about the building caught my eye. And then it hit me. Do you know what used to be in that space?”

Immediately the light bulb went on above one of the participants as she answered: “A PIZZA HUT!”

“YES! I’d know an old Pizza Hut building anywhere! So … Just Puppies … Pizza Hut … PUPPY PIZZA!”

As laughter erupted in the room, I concluded by saying:

“So this shows another benefit of letting go and letting things happen: It can just add some unexpected fun to our daily lives! Thanks for a great two days – now go forth and lead!”

So this was really a double gift: One for the participants (to reinforce the points from the previous day) and one for me (to give me the perfect wrap-up for a great two days).

Puppies, Pizzas ... and Improv

I’m always amazed at the power of improv to surprise, delight, and … well, amaze.

Last week I conducted a two-day leadership program in Orlando, Florida. On Day One, I had the 14 participants play the improv game Word at a Time Story. In this game, players spontaneously create a story by taking turns calling out only a single word when their turn comes around. The players keep the story going until one of them feels that it’s reached its logical conclusion, at which time he says “The End.”

In last week’s activity, the first four players had it easy:

“Once”
“Upon”
“A”
“Time”

[Full Disclosure Department: I don’t actually recall the exact words of the story, except for the two key words below, so the following is a re-creation that should still provide a flavor of the experience.]

Each of the next few players then had to come up with words (one at a time, of course) to begin forming characters and a plot:

“My”
“Sister”
“Went”
“To”
“The”
“Store”

[Side Comment #1: By now it should be clear that no individual person can possibly control the direction of the story – it truly has to be a collaborative effort, requiring total presence in the “now” and a reliance on gut instinct to come up with a word. The players with control issues usually have the hardest time just going with the flow of the group and letting the story emerge on its own. Back in the workplace, this controlling attitude can take several forms: unwillingness to rely on the wisdom of the team, failure to delegate, micromanagement, a need to direct and dominate, and a tendency to solve problems for others rather than coach them on how to come up with their own solutions.]

“And”
“Bought”
“A”
“Puppy”

[Side Comment #2: At this point, I figured that some of the next players in line were formulating ideas about what they might say when it became their turn, with a likely focus on playing with the puppy, feeding the puppy, walking the puppy, etc. This reflects a common practice that people engage in during business meetings – i.e., scripting and rehearsing their responses in their heads while they should be fiercely listening to the other participants in order to truly understand the “story line” of the meeting as it unfolds.]

“Pizza”

[Side Comment #3: PIZZA??!! Now the next person has a challenge: To keep the story going in the face of the weird combination the previous player created. This is another workplace lesson from the game: Rather than treating seemingly incongruous ideas, opinions, and perspectives as irresolvable conflicts, proceed with positive purpose and see how you can integrate all the elements into a constructive result.]

“Which”
“Really”
“Surprised”
“Us”
“All”
“THE END”

At this, the participants let out a huge collective laugh at their success in reaching “The End,” at the rough sense of the story that they had collectively created - and at the idea of a “puppy pizza.” (In fact, one woman was laughing so hard that she had to call “time out” and leave the room.)

We then debriefed by discussing some of the points in the “side comments” mentioned above. However, we never did answer the lingering question: What is a “puppy pizza”?

If that had been the end of the “story,” that would have been enough – but improv is the gift that keeps on giving, as I discovered after the day’s session was over - and as I'll reveal in my next article.

The 80/20 Rule and Strengths-Based Development

This past week, as I was reading Howard Gardner’s book Changing Minds, I came upon a description of a commonly held attitude about the way in which people should expend their efforts:

"From early childhood on, most of us have operated under the following assumption: When confronted with a task, we should work as hard as we are able and devote approximately equal time to each part of that task. According to this '50/50 principle,' if we have to learn a piece of music, or master a new game, or fill out some role at home or work, we should spread our effort equally across the various components." [Italics added]

I think this description relates directly to the commonly held belief in business that a person should focus his development efforts on identifying and improving his weaknesses. That is, he should try to raise his skill levels in his weakness areas to reach parity with his areas of proficiency. In doing so (as the belief holds), he should aspire to become well-rounded in his particular job or position.

However, as Gardner notes, this development strategy may be wrongheaded:

"Now consider another perspective on this issue. Early in the last century, the Italian economist and sociologist Vilifredo Pareto proposed what has come to be known as the '80/20 principle' or rule. As explained by Richard Koch in a charming book, The 80/20 Principle, one can in general accomplish most of what one wants – perhaps up to 80 percent of the target – with only a modest amount of effort – perhaps only 20 percent of expected effort…. It is important to be judicious about where one places one’s efforts, and to be alert to ‘tipping points’ that abruptly bring a goal within (or beyond) reach. Conversely, one should avoid the natural temptation to inject equal amounts of energy into every part of a task, problem, project, or hobby." [Italics added]

In this view, the application of equal effort to all parts of your “toolkit” constitutes a misguided approach to a personal development strategy. (To paraphrase the Heath brothers in Made to Stick, if you’re focusing on ten skills, you’re not really focusing on any skills.)

As I read this, it suddenly struck me: The strengths-based development approach is a perfect example of the 80/20 Principle! Placing your development focus on optimizing your key strengths provides you the leverage you need to succeed, while at the same time ensuring that you don’t spread yourself too thin in your development efforts.

And, yes, you could choose to focus your “20%” on your major weaknesses – but the payoff for the effort would probably be only (as Peter Drucker said) the attainment of mediocrity in those areas.

Why not instead be more "judicious" - and strategic - in your 20% focus by placing it on your strengths?