For about ten minutes, it was glorious chaos.

Then it became actual chaos. The stronger, faster kids started dominating the game. Many kids lost interest and stopped playing. Someone usually got hurt. Arguments broke out. Eventually, we'd sheepishly go back to regular rules (or one of the teachers would make us) because, well, it turned out the game was more fun in the long-run when everyone knew what they could and couldn't do.

Most of us learned this lesson on the playground and moved on, but some never did.

When CEOs Play "No Ref, No Rules"

Much of Silicon Valley has spent the last few decades running the adult version of "no ref, no rules." Mark Zuckerberg's famous motto "move fast and break things" was basically the corporate equivalent. The ideology has been intoxicating: rules are for the slow and bureaucratic, disruption is always virtuous, and speed equals progress.

And just like on the playground, it’s exciting… until reality catches up.

Theranos moved fast and promised to revolutionize medicine. Elizabeth Holmes hired lawyers who would say yes to anything, and when David Boies finally started asking uncomfortable questions, she just got rid of him, lest he reveal the technology simply didn't work. FTX moved fast and promised to democratize finance. Sam Bankman-Fried surrounded himself with people willing to play fast and loose with the law, collectively perpetuating one of the most scandalous financial frauds in recent memory. Remember WeWork’s irresponsible finances and toxic leadership, or Humane AI peddling $700 snake oil as revolutionary AI? The list goes on. In the name of moving fast, they all broke rules and norms, but also investor confidence, customer trust, and in many cases employee lives.

The patterns are easy to spot once you’re savvy to them: legal teams are labeled "cost centers," dissenting voices are marginalized, and everyone is expected to find ways to say yes or step aside. And when things turn upside down, the “no ref, no rules” crowd insists on shirking any responsibility.

These examples aren't merely business failures. They’re moral failures with real human costs by the thousands: from patients getting false diagnoses, to investors losing billions, to employees losing their livelihoods and even future employability. But hey, at least the companies moved fast!

When the Stakes Turn Deadly: Pete Hegseth's Pentagon Playground

We’ve now seen this same mentality creep into places where the consequences are life and death.

Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top Judge Advocates General (TJAGs) in the same week. These are the military's top lawyers, the people whose job it is to make sure our armed forces operate within the law. Hegseth, who once reduced military lawyers to the epithet, "jagoffs," apparently decided that legal oversight was cramping his vision of a more “lethal” military.

His reasoning sounds familiar: Rules are holding us back from victory. We need to return to the "warrior ethos," unencumbered by all this “legal friction.” Why should we waste any time consulting legal experts to confirm the world’s most powerful military is aligned with the rules of engagement, Geneva Conventions, or Constitutional rights? It’s the same "no ref, no rules" mentality, except this time in the context of war, where human lives and sometimes even the world order are at stake.

It’s worth acknowledging that adversaries can certainly exploit adherence to laws and values for strategic advantage. Sure, a soccer player can gain an edge by diving for penalties or time-wasting when the ref isn't looking. But abandoning rules doesn't even the score — it forfeits the game.

Even front line officers understand this. In 2010, Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. Army, revised the rules of engagement in Afghanistan to ensure the protection of Afghani civilians during hostilities. Petraeus wrote: "We can't win without fighting but we also cannot kill or capture our way to victory. … That's exactly what the Taliban want. Don't fall into their trap." He understood that skirting legal and moral constraints creates insurgents, destroys alliances, and undermines mission success.

Hegseth apparently has a different endgame in mind. In his worldview, "move fast and break things" on the battlefield appears to be an end itself, which ironically risks undermining what the military is presumably fighting for in the first place.

Constraints Fuel Progress

Here's what those kids on the playground, Silicon Valley disruptors, and now Pentagon leadership, failed to wrap their heads around: constraints don’t stifle progress, they enable it.

Consider the artificial constraint of Twitter's 140-character limit. It initially seemed arbitrarily restrictive, but it forced people to be creative and concise in ways that revolutionized communication. New forms of expression were born: hashtags, threads, new levels of wit and pithiness. They became cultural phenomena that only seem mundane today because they’re so ubiquitous.

Or think of SpaceX, which faced head-on the physics, engineering, and economic constraints that make rockets insanely expensive to build, only to be discarded. SpaceX used these very constraints as the foundation for breakthroughs that have reshaped the entire space ecosystem.

We can also look to the defense sector: U.S. military strategies requiring accurate tracking and precision strikes to minimize unintended casualties led to the invention of GPS. These constraints imposed by military strategy not only enabled the development of specific solutions like GPS-guided munitions, but a technology that has become integral to our modern infrastructure.

This principle even extends into the arts. Janan Ganesh (incidentally, one of the most delightfully pithy writers of recent vintage) explained in a piece called, “Why Oasis won in the end,” how the lack of constraint has curbed artistic innovation:

Creative breakthroughs have tended to happen as rebellions against governmental, religious or academic rigidity. Hence Monet, and Johnny Rotten. Now that almost everything is permitted, there is correspondingly less frustration and desire to strike out in new directions.

Constraints, whether rooted in nature (like physics) or devised by humans (like laws), have sparked incredible advances spanning food security, health standards, government design (like the US Constitution!), reliable infrastructure, and on.

And sure, testing boundaries is a critical part of discovery and progress. But there's a difference between testing boundaries and disregarding them entirely. Those who disregard the rules just because they're inconvenient may think they’re unleashing potential, but in reality they’re just ruining the game for everyone and leaving others to clean up the mess.

Why a Culture of Accountability Wins in the End

Funny, the people most eager to remove accountability are often the ones who most need it. They mistake the absence of constraint for freedom, but what they're really choosing between is accountability versus chaos. Thomas Hobbes understood this centuries ago when he observed that life in the absence of rules and norms is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Consider economics: The rule of law creates the predictable framework that makes long-term investment and innovation possible. You can't build a thriving economy when contracts are meaningless and property rights are arbitrary. Hobbes again:

In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death….

Venezuela’s drastic economic collapse is a recent example of what happens to a nation that’s abandoned legal accountability. The judiciary became an arm of the regime, paving the way for electoral fraud, human rights abuses, and major crimes – gutting the institutional safeguards that underpin economic stability and make growth possible. Venezuela's opposition leader María Corina Machado commented in a recent podcast interview: “[H]ow would anybody invest in a country that is absolutely in the last place in terms of rule of law…literally the last place, out of 140 countries evaluated around the world?” She has a point.

Or consider the consequences when accountability breaks down in war. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, marked by deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and widespread atrocities, has not just cost it on the battlefield. It has cost it legitimacy: “Russia’s actions in Ukraine earned the nation pariah status, which will ultimately be disastrous for accomplishing its military objectives and could also have real long-term economic impact.” Even though Russia remains formally powerful, its global standing has cratered, sanctions have deepened, and its allies tread cautiously. The images from Bucha and Mariupol outraged the world and entrenched Russia's isolation.

It should go without saying, but following in Russia’s footsteps should not be a goal of the Pentagon. Yet Hegseth seems a bit too comfortable making light of rules and norms: pardons for convicted war criminals, contempt for rules of engagement, disdain for the Geneva Conventions, the sudden firing of the top military legal officers. As reporter Hafiz Rashid summarized, “It seems that [Hegseth] thinks that there is no problem with U.S. soldiers committing war crimes, as long as America is ‘tough.’” But you can win every battle and still lose the war, if you lose legitimacy.

And yes, of course rules and their enforcers can go too far. Many a dystopian novel has been penned about police states or over-engineered societies gone wrong (classics like 1984, Brave New World, and The Giver, for instance). Some of us might even remember the tyranny of the overeager hall monitor from grade school.

But that’s not what I’m talking about. When companies shrug off responsibility, they tend to collapse — or worse, position others to absorb the inevitable wreckage that follows. When states dilute or altogether disregard the rule of law, as convenient as it may seem at the time, they ultimately become unstable, hollowed out by corruption, violence, and fear. And it’s people who pay the price.

The "no ref, no rules" crowd will always be with us, convinced they're too important for rules. But the rest of us learned on the playground that the game is more fun, more fair, and more productive with accountability.

We'll always encounter leaders who want to play without referees. I suppose it’s up to each of us to have the courage to insist on better. After all, we figured this out when we were kids. We can figure it out as adults too.

What’s your experience with the "no ref, no rules" attitude in your workplace or industry? I'd love to hear from you.

Thanks for reading callmemapo! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

“I’m just curious…”

How many times have you heard someone start a question with these three words, knowing full well that what they’re about to say has nothing to do with curiosity? What follows is less a question and more a veiled opinion or a challenge disguised as innocent inquiry.

“I’m just curious… why would you choose to do it that way?” The judgment and I-know-better undertone are palpable.

This type of faux-curiosity is everywhere these days. And ironically, it evinces the opposite of what curiosity requires: humility.

Today, curiosity is the star feature of business articles and personal development blogs. It’s praised as a driver of innovation, a secret to success, even a cornerstone of good leadership. And it’s all true. In fact, curiosity is a core value I myself try to live by. Curiosity has opened my eyes to diverse perspectives. It’s exposed me to new connections and learnings. It’s made my world bigger and more interesting. And it’s helped me to grow as a person.

But humility is a prerequisite to curiosity, and it’s usually mentioned as an afterthought, if at all. Real curiosity — the kind that’s generative, connective, transformative and does all the things it promises to do — is impossible without humility.

Absent humility, curiosity is performative. It ceases to be about learning and becomes all about showing: showing what we already know, showing how sharp our questions are, showing how right we are. (I’ll admit, I’m guilty of this sometimes!) That’s how you get panel discussions where panelists talk past each other, or a workplace where team leads never really come together because each thinks they know best, or “thought leadership” that amounts to confident speculation (how many “AI experts” can you count since the launch of ChatGPT?).

This is partly the result of living in a culture where humility isn’t rewarded. Most of us have experienced a work setting where incompetent leaders are elevated, volume trumps substance, and that one loud and over-confident person gets recognition, deference, and promotions. And practicing humility can be hard. It feels like a risk — to our ego, our reputation, even our self-confidence. We’re wired to want to be right. To wit: studies show that people routinely overestimate their knowledge or abilities, like the (in)famous stat that about 30% of adults (interestingly, 50% when considering only men) believe they could safely land an airliner in an emergency. So in environments that prize decisiveness, action, and expertise, admitting “I don’t know” can feel like shooting yourself in the foot.

For all these reasons and more, humility doesn’t get much airplay. It isn’t loud. It isn’t sexy. But humility is what allows us to say, “Maybe I don’t know enough yet and would like to learn more.” It’s what creates room for listening and for the possibility of change.

Practicing humility doesn’t necessarily mean selling yourself short, though. It’s the courage to ask the so-called “dumb” question that everyone else in the room is too afraid to ask. It’s letting go of the need to be the smartest person in the room and empowering others to contribute. It’s recognizing that your perspectives are incomplete and inviting someone else’s to help deepen your understanding. It’s being willing to say, “I was wrong, and I’d like to learn from you.” Admittedly, it’s not always easy. And women in particular face a double bind: appear confident, or be dismissed; admit uncertainty, and risk being overlooked.

Nevertheless, it’s the humble ones we ought to be celebrating and emulating. And they’re out there — exemplars like Warren Buffet, Mary Barra, and Nelson Mandela. So if we want to be truly curious, we also have to practice humility. We have to be willing to admit we don’t know everything. To learn from people we might have underestimated. To be open to changing our minds.

Curiosity without humility is ego with a question mark at the end. And maybe that’s the question worth asking ourselves next time we say, “I’m just curious…”

Are we?

Employee A: ...but shouldn’t the what influence the how?

Boss 2: Here, we prioritize execution.

Employee B: ...even if we don’t know what strategy we’re supposed to be executing against?

Boss 3: At this company, it’s important to get everyone aligned around a common strategy.

Employee C: ...even though we haven’t delivered or executed a single thing in months?

I really could go on, but I won’t. This is but a tiny fraction of the black-and-white thinking I’ve encountered over the years in the working world. (Scroll down to check out my non-exhaustive ‘this vs. that’ list. Recognize any?)

Singular examples like these seem innocuous, meriting no more than a dismissive shrug, maybe an eye roll — or even a nod of agreement from some of you. In fact, there are many useful reasons we separate ‘this vs. that’: anthropological, social, psychological.

For example, French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss found that a uniting factor across humanity was our tendency to see the world in terms of binary oppositions. German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel structured dialectics to enable productive inquiry and discourse based around two opposing sides. German sociologist Max Weber defined ‘ideal types’ as heuristic tools designed for understanding and modeling the real world. As with all heuristics, ideal types simplify real-world complexity, in their case by essentializing what is being examined. For example, you have likely come across an ideal types analysis of leaders: the charismatic leader, the quiet leader, and so on.

The common thread? ‘This vs. that’ is helpful analytically — but it is not reflective of reality.

Best illustration of Levi-Strauss’ binary oppositions, IMHO. And complete with a little motivational bonus from Merlin:

You must set your sights upon the heights Don't be a mediocrity Don't just wait then trust to fate And say, "That's how it's meant to be" It's up to you how far you go If you don't try, you'll never know And so my lad as I've explained Nothing ventured, nothing gained

But we love simple answers to complex problems. Resorting to black-and-white thinking is a tempting way to confront complexity and accompanying messiness. But black-and-white thinking isn’t all good. Here is an excerpt from the WebMD entry on it:

Black-and-white thinking is a thought pattern that makes people think in absolutes. For instance, you may think you are either always right or the world’s biggest failure. Psychologists consider this thought pattern to be a cognitive distortion because it keeps you from seeing life the way it really is: complex, uncertain, and constantly changing.

And what we do within organizations is incredibly complex: collaborating across disciplines, teams, and often timezones to build products; managing and leading diverse teams of people; navigating dynamic and unpredictable market and political environments; responding to changing customer demands.

The thing is, exchanges like those in the introduction aren’t typically one-offs. They tend to reflect broader organizational narratives — which in turn reflect and/or shape organizational mindsets and cultures. To illustrate one way this might come to be, imagine:

A respected senior leader makes an organization-wide announcement meant to create a sense of urgency and motivate everyone to beat a quarterly deadline. In a rhetorical move, that leader makes a rallying cry: “Execution eats strategy for lunch!” Over the next several months, every employee on every team is all-in on prioritizing all things execution, and the organization beats the deadline — hooray! The senior leader celebrates along with the team, praising excellence in execution and enjoying congratulations from the C-suite.

With all that success and positive reinforcement, each person on the team — including the senior leader — begins to internalize that execution always matters more than strategy. Prioritizing execution over strategy makes decision-making around things like allocation of budget and headcount much simpler. “Execution eats strategy for lunch” imperceptibly morphs from rallying cry into a credo.

Fast forward six months, and the same team is producing a ton of stuff, but the value of that stuff is questionable at best. People who were hired to do research and strategy work for the company feel lost and underappreciated. There is no strategy to execute against. The lunch tray is empty.

Therein lies the problem: When black-and-white thinking becomes an organizational driver, the organization itself becomes less capable of operating in the complex, messy real world. Although ‘this vs. that’ can be a helpful analytical and decision-making tool, the separation can also become overly formalistic and neglect the interrelated nature of most binaries. The heuristics that help us process complexity may also eliminate depth of thinking and lead us astray. H. L. Mencken captured it well: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

Moreover, ‘this vs. that’ can quickly become ‘us vs. them.’ This happens because some of the binaries that emerge within organizations align with particular teams or departments. Sprinkle in organizational power dynamics — like more funding and headcount, higher salaries, greater decision-making authority, easier access to executives, sometimes even blatant cronyism — and over time, the teams focused on ‘THIS’ becomes favored over the teams focused on ‘that’. I’m sure you can extrapolate how that plays out.

So what are we to do with all of this?

Are we to abandon categories, models, heuristics, and analytical tools? (A fun aside: Statistics are one of those useful tools for making sense of the uncertainty around us. Check out one of the more interesting articles I’ve read recently, authored by David Spiegelhalter, emeritus professor of statistics at the University of Cambridge, UK. He concludes the piece, “In our everyday world, probability probably does not exist — but it is often useful to act as if it does.”)

No. I’m not suggesting that at all. Approaching everything as fluid and category-less breaks down quickly, stymying decisions, fostering overwhelm, and generating excessive confusion.

But I am suggesting that as we come across black-and-white thinking at work, we stop for a moment and:

* Acknowledge that the black-and-white thinking is simplifying something far more complex.

* Appreciate which assumptions we may be making, or glosses we may be applying, to land on the black-and-white model.

* Consider how the black-and-white model is helpful, in what context, and for what purposes.

* Accept that the black-and-white model has limitations and commit to questioning what they are early and often.

* Ask whether explicitly embracing complexity, messiness, and uncertainty may be more useful for a particular situation.

Put more simply: let’s not create misunderstanding using the very tools we’ve invented to help us with understanding.

Non-exhaustive list of ‘this vs. that’ at work

* Management vs. leadership

* Substance vs. process

* What vs. how

* Engineering vs. science

* Execution vs. strategy

* Operations vs. core business

* Create vs. protect

* Product envision vs. product discover

* Revenue generation vs. cost center

* Technical vs. nontechnical

* Science vs. art

* Subjective vs. objective

* Qualitative vs. quantitative

What would you add?

Pour your heart into making sure every member of your team feels empowered to be their best. Invest in them. Develop them. Then watch them soar. -Howard Schultz, Starbucks former CEO

Great teams are comprised of ordinary people that are empowered and inspired. -Marty Cagan, Silicon Valley Product Group Founder & Partner

Leadership is about shaping a vision, aligning people, and empowering them to go beyond their perceived limitations. -A.G. Lafley, Procter & Gamble former CEO

As we look ahead into the next century, leaders will be those who empower others. -Bill Gates, Microsoft co-Founder & former CEO

But what exactly is an ‘empowered’ team? It’s quite the buzzword! 

Thanks for reading callmemapo! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Like with most buzzwords, we may have some intuitive sense of what it means — but have you tried describing an empowered team concretely? I did recently, and it was harder than expected. My conviction was definitely stronger than my understanding. 

Team States

In my attempt to remedy that, here’s what I’ve come up with so far: Just as water can exist as a solid, liquid, or gas depending on temperature and pressure, I propose that teams can exist in various Team States. ‘Empowered’ happens to be one of those Team States, with its own set of Inputs, Markers, and Conditions.

* Inputs. To shift a team into an empowered Team State, you need to apply the right heat and pressure — things like assigning ownership over outcomes, scoping purpose-driven efforts, designing strengths-based work, encouraging cross-team collaboration, fostering psychological safety, role modeling desirable behaviors, investing in the team’s professional development, etc.

* Markers. Accountability, initiative, fearless decision-making, seamless collaboration, effective communication, continuous learning, etc. — these are observable behaviors indicating that a team has achieved an empowered Team State.

* Conditions. What enables Inputs to translate to an empowered Team State? How can we be sure observed Markers actually belong to an empowered team? The tricky part is getting the environmental Conditions just right to ensure our Inputs induce, and Markers correspond, to an empowered Team State.

People have written extensively about Inputs and Markers (notably, using different terminology), but Conditions are conspicuously missing from the conversation. This was my big discovery and where I spent the bulk of my efforts diving into this empowered teams concept.

Team Phase Diagram

You may remember seeing a phase diagram for water in high school chemistry or physics illustrating the environmental conditions required for each state of matter. (Though you probably didn’t see this XKCD version!) So what’s the equivalent for Team States? 

Here’s a crack at it. In a nutshell, two variables primarily set the Conditions for a Team State: context and license to operate. The right combination of these means you get an empowered Team State. Get the balance of these wrong, and your empowered Team State evaporates! 

Here is a more detailed illustration, styled as a Team Phase Diagram: Instead of showing the conditions under which water becomes ice or steam, it shows the Conditions under which a team becomes disenfranchised, compliant, chaotic, or of course, empowered. 

Context: The Awareness Factor 

* Has anyone ever asked you to travel somewhere without telling you where you’re going, why you’re going there, or how to get there? Low Context is a lot like that. Team members neither understand the ‘why’ behind their work nor how their collective efforts fit together. In some cases, they’re not even aware of each other’s contributions. 

* High Context means team members understand mission and strategy with extreme clarity. Everyone understands not just their piece of the puzzle, but the whole picture, including impact on users and other stakeholders, productive team dynamics and orchestration, and how individual contributions roll up to collective success. 

***Ideal Condition for empowered Team State: High Context! We want people to deeply understand the what, why, and how behind their efforts.

License to Operate: The Autonomy Factor 

* No License to Operate is like a team in a straightjacket. Whether it's explicitly forbidden or implicitly discouraged (“Remember what happened to Bob when he tried to make that happen?”), proactive measures and autonomous decision-making are rare or nonexistent. 

* Unlimited License to Operate is more like the wild west, with unfettered initiatives and activities and no one to reign them in. Sometimes an unlimited license is explicitly granted, and sometimes it just happens when no one stops the chaos.

***Ideal Condition for empowered Team State: Moderate License to Operate, i.e., autonomy with guardrails. Note, however, as Context increases, so must License to Operate expand to yield an empowered Team State.

So there you have it — the (pseudo)science of team empowerment! I’d love to hear what you think about this model, or about empowered teams generally.

Thanks for reading callmemapo! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Isn’t it tiring? You either end up swimming in self-doubt or cultivating a superiority complex — or some paradoxical combination of the two. 

In the "woe is me" version, you become subsumed by imposter syndrome and blind to your own talents and strengths. You look at others and think, "If only I had their [insert enviable quality here], I'd be unstoppable!" Then there's the "entitlement" version: You've worked harder than anyone you know, but somehow the corner office or promotion still eludes you. You find yourself thinking, "I deserve that [insert coveted thing here] as much as they do!"

None of these are good outcomes.

Rest assured: we've all been there. In fact, it’s natural to compare yourself to others. Among other things, it’s a tool for self-evaluation and self-development. Anthropologically, comparisons are critical for navigating social hierarchies. 

But just because it's natural doesn't mean it's always helpful. How does something so natural end up being so counterproductive? There are many reasons, but two stand out in my view.

First, you're unique, as is everyone. Sure, that sounds cliché. But it’s important to note that your collective life experiences are one-of-a-kind. The same is true of each person you’re comparing yourself to. So making an apples-to-apples comparison between you and someone else is a flawed idea from the get-go. Your path and their path may have some similarities, but they are ultimately going to have fundamental differences. 

Second, people’s public personas are curated versions of themselves. Social media has done nothing but amplify this fact. For every public thing you see about a person, there are endless learnings, epiphanies, struggles, sacrifices, failures, decisions, etc. you don’t see. So comparing yourself to someone’s public persona is misleading at best, and unnecessarily destructive at worst.

Stop going down these unhelpful comparison paths already, and do these four things instead:

1/ Follow your curiosity.

Dive into something that sparks your interest. But take caution! Don’t choose something because you think it will impress others or somehow give you an edge. Focus on something you’re genuinely excited about. Learn about it, immerse yourself in it, create something out of it. Whether it's learning to play jazz flute, designing a new fitness regimen, or decoding the mysteries of quantum physics, follow your curiosity. Start small: Read a book, watch tutorials online, or take an online course. Then challenge yourself to create something with your new knowledge, shifting from passive consumption to active creation. This will move you into a growth mindset oriented around generative opportunities and away from the irrational scarcity mindset where you see opportunities as a limited resource in this world.

2/ Celebrate a personal accomplishment.

For a moment, think of yourself as a time-traveling biographer, carefully observing your past self. Pick a skill or aspect of your life and look back on it six months, a year, or even five years. Maybe you've gone from burning water to making a Michelin-star worthy cassoulet. Perhaps you've evolved from awkward small talk to holding engaging conversations. Or you've progressed from writing a ‘Hello World’ program to building a full-blown app. Whatever it is, acknowledge your journey. Write about it, create a before-and-after chart, or simply give yourself a gold star. This exercise will reinforce your sense of agency and self-actualization, reminding you that you're capable of development and achievement.

3/ Help someone out.

Find a friend, colleague, or family member who could use a hand with something you're good at — and help them out. Maybe you’re a spreadsheet wizard and help a friend with their budget. Or maybe you’re quite handy and assist a neighbor with their wobbly fence. Perhaps you’re a talented writer and edit a colleague's important email. As you offer help, take note of how your skills, which you might take for granted, make a difference. The point is to get out of your own head and constructively redirect the energy you’ve been using to compare yourself to others. This practice will not only boost your confidence but also cultivate a sense of gratitude for your abilities and the opportunity to use them positively.

4/ Identify and emulate an admirable trait.

Now that you've reinforced your growth mindset, agency, confidence, and sense of gratitude, it's safe to proceed with constructive people-watching — subject to strict guardrails. Start by thinking of someone you admire: what specific trait or skill do you find inspiring? Maybe it's their public speaking prowess, their knack for diffusing tense situations, or their ability to explain complex topics simply. The key is to keep it specific! Once you've identified the specific trait or skill, brainstorm ways to develop it yourself. Don't be shy about asking for advice; reach out to friends or mentors for their insights. If you're feeling bold and it's appropriate, you might even approach the person you admire. A simple, "I really admire how you [insert trait or skill]. Any tips on how I could work on that?" can spur valuable conversations. Remember, the goal isn't to become a carbon copy of someone else, but to use their example as inspiration.

In taking these proactive steps, you'll find yourself too busy taking charge — notably, of the things you actually have control over — to worry about going down the destructive comparisons path. Before you know it, you might just become the person others are inspired by.

And anyway, life's too short to spend it wishing you were someone else. You're the star of your own life — make it a good great one!

Thanks for reading callmemapo! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Now, first things first: I’m not a founder, and I don’t pretend to know the founder’s experience. But I do know teams and organizations, and I’ve worked with many founders. So with a lot of humility, and openness to feedback that I’m missing something here, below are some thoughts on the essay.  

I think I understand Graham’s core point: that creating and growing—not just an idea but a group of people—into a successful organization requires an approach quite unique from running an established company. Conventional wisdom is unlikely to help founders realize their vision, and many of the people giving advice don’t get how different these early days actually are. We need a better understanding of ‘founder mode,’ so that founders are better set up for success. This all makes sense to me!

But that’s where my nodding along ends, and the crinkly lines of confusion on my forehead begin. Though I’ve not fully refined my takeaways, in the interest of not totally missing the moment, below are three points that initially jumped out, plus suggested reframes for each.

Confusion 1: What the heck is ‘manager mode’? 

In the essay, ‘manager mode’ apparently refers to hiring “professional managers” to run a company. But what is a professional manager: someone with an MBA, someone with experience in management roles, something else? This is just a guess, but perhaps Graham is getting at the folly of hiring a bunch of bureaucrats. And I think we all agree that bureaucrats and dynamic environments (like startups—or most companies, frankly) don’t mesh. I suppose we could stop there, but it’s worth digging deeper. 

Moving the professional managers category from the abstract into reality, I don’t think the notion of ‘manager mode’ holds up. Given my work experience (over a dozen orgs of different shapes and sizes), I can confidently say that most people in management positions aren’t “taught to run companies” as Graham suggests, let alone taught well. I’ve seen managers who unfortunately practice something akin to “the principle that the CEO should engage with the company only via his or her direct reports.” Those managers learned that principle from somewhere—but where? Probably not an MBA program, and probably not from another good manager. 

Most managers are placed into their roles with little-to-no training in management or leadership—and yes, I’m lumping management/leadership together because they are intertwined, even if not explicitly, in the essay and in real life—and then left to fend for themselves. More often than not, their managers have had a similar experience. Hard skills, like finance, might be an exception. But even there, formal training must be followed with on-the-job learning. 

It turns out that learning management skills remains somewhat of an apprenticeship (oy vey), so—unless you’re lucky enough to work with a leader who received quality on-the-job training and/or exposure to effective management in practice—we’re all stuck with perpetual cycles of under-developed managers and no meaningful standards of performance. That’s why I think managers are less the “professional fakers” Graham alludes to and more like poorly prepared individuals trying to get by in this world. (Anecdotally, I’ve never worked with a manager who doesn’t also contribute IC work. I’m not saying Graham’s parasitic manager caricature doesn’t exist, but it’s more likely that underperformance—managerial and otherwise—can be linked to other causes, two of which I get into below.)

To be clear, this implies that in addition to non-founders offering unhelpful advice and underwhelming performance by so-called professional managers, former founders themselves are likely spouting suboptimal advice on effective management. 

Potential reframe: Think of management skills and org design as potential tools. 

I’m not suggesting that founders shouldn’t be skeptical of managers and “black box” org structures. Very much the opposite. Founders should think critically about the skills and roles they need to accomplish their goals, hire people to meet those needs, and use org design to enhance workflows, communication, and that sort of thing. 

But distilling the roles you actually need in the context of org structure isn’t always straightforward, and advice to overhire runs rampant (in early stage and mature companies alike, by the way). For example, as a company grows, the volume of “stuff” to manage (coordination, communication, finances, etc.) also grows. Should a founder hire people to manage the “stuff,” distribute responsibility among existing employees to manage it, or allocate resources toward designing processes and tools that help streamline it? 

There is no right answer, of course. The key is for founders to understand (and receive help in understanding) what they need, while acknowledging the reality of management skills today, and make hiring and org design decisions accordingly. I think where this leaves us is that ‘manager mode’ probably isn’t a thing—but hiring ineffective managers is. 

Confusion 2: Delegation and micromanagement are not binary opposites. 

The essay seriously mischaracterizes delegation: “You tell your direct reports what to do, and it's up to them to figure out how.” Agreed—that is terrible advice! But delegation isn’t tossing responsibility over to someone and hoping it all works out. It involves much more: understanding the capability of the delegatee and scoping the delegated responsibilities accordingly; conveying relevant context to them; aligning on outcomes; providing clarity on practicalities like timing and resources; potentially providing training, tools, and ongoing support; etc. Feedback loops are important so that the work doesn’t end up in a black hole, along with wasted efforts. Another way to put it: Effective delegation is a lot of work.

In addition, the essay implies that the only way to be involved in the details of what your team is doing is to micromanage: “But you don't get involved in the details of what they do. That would be micromanaging them, which is bad.” This statement also suggests that conventional wisdom considers micromanagement to always be wrong. 

Neither of these claims is true. Hands-on management through working sessions and coaching is just one way to stay involved in initiatives without micromanagement; there are many other approaches. And sometimes, you absolutely do need someone to execute what you need and how you need it because you simply don’t have time to do it yourself or take the time to delegate properly. This is normal and most would agree it’s 100% appropriate.

Potential reframe: Delegation and execution each have costs, and founders must weigh the ROI of delegating vs executing tasks themselves.

In reality, the space between micromanagement and hands-off delegation is vast. Instead of thinking in (what I would consider false) binaries, founders may get more value out of identifying the things they must or want to be actively involved in vs those they are comfortable merely keeping a pulse on. 

For the former category, founders could take various approaches ranging from leading an initiative outright to participating in working sessions, to reviewing work product, and so on. For the latter category, founders could consider potential candidates to take on those responsibilities and, exercising solid delegation skills, stay more or less involved depending on performance, experience, and trust levels. Over time, appropriate levels of involvement would likely shift, perhaps decreasing as trust grows, or perhaps increasing during critical moments for the organization.

By the way, for what it’s worth: all of these skills are core management and leadership skills!

Confusion 3: Founders are not victims. 

The most confusing element of this essay was how it portrayed founders as victims of sorts. Without discounting Graham’s point that founders get bad advice from people who don’t know what they’re talking about, he paints a picture in which founders have little agency, and everyone is out to get them. Just glance at the language in the essay: 

professional fakers

let them drive the company into the ground

founders … being gaslit from both sides

everyone telling these founders the wrong thing

C-level execs, as a class, include some of the most skillful liars in the world

headwind of bad advice

It starts to sound like there is a conspiracy founders are falling victim to! I don’t know about you, but all founders I’ve met are courageous—enough to start a company. Not victims at all. The good ones are also humble enough to know when to ask for help, while being capable and smart enough to meet advice with healthy skepticism. 

And the best ones? They own their decisions and assume accountability for the successes and failures of their company. They’ve embraced that being a founder implies overcoming slim odds, while navigating myriad priorities and assembling and leading a team of people (just about the toughest thing to do successfully in life). And while they remain adaptable when the ground shifts beneath them, the best founders I’ve met do their darndest to ensure that the world’s circumstances —including bad advice, poor market conditions, weak hires, resource mismanagement, and so on—don’t cripple them, but rather shape their journeys as leaders of a new venture. 

I 100% applaud and support Graham’s call to more effectively support founders. But I don’t understand the jump from there to blaming others for failures and setbacks.

Potential reframe: Cultivating leadership skills should be a priority for founders, as well as for their advisors and investors. 

Although you typically won’t find me referencing Jocko Willink, it seems appropriate to highlight one of his more well-known quotes: “There are no bad teams, just bad leaders.” Leadership is the big, gaping hole in Graham’s essay. He never talks about it; the word leadership doesn’t even appear in the essay. This might be by design; it is, after all, an overused and relatively abstract term. 

And yet a call for teaching and developing strong leadership skills amongst founders, given that this is practically nonexistent across the entire private sector (see also Confusion 1), is the most important message Graham could have, but did not, deliver. Which—and please excuse my sarcasm—is not surprising given the leadership behaviors I’ve seen in the tech sector. 

The thing is, founders aren’t merely developing an idea or inventing a thing and then letting someone else run with it. Founders have made the bold decision to take that idea, nurture it, and invite others to trust them and join the journey. This is first and foremost a massive leadership challenge! So why don’t we set up founders for success by equipping them with leadership skills and supporting their growth as leaders? 

If a founder is letting people “drive the company into the ground” or unable to negotiate less-than-optimal circumstances—harsh as it may sound, that’s a leadership failure. All the best founders I’ve met know this.

First up: an analogy between team and fluid dynamics. If you’re not already rolling your eyes (hey, I wouldn’t blame you!)—or even if you are—I’m hoping this offers fresh insights about team dynamics, along with some fluid mechanics basics for those who are curious. 

Start by closing your eyes and picturing your dream team. How does it feel when you’re in your element: Smooth and well-coordinated? Controlled chaos? A little of both? Perhaps it depends on the circumstances or the interpersonal team chemistry? 

My sense is that people are instinctively biased in favor of smooth workflows (e.g., slow is smooth, smooth is fast). Not to say everyone actually shares that preference, just that many of us are primed throughout our lives to think of smoothness and order as ideal. Paradoxically, I’ve simultaneously seen wide recognition in recent years that turbulent times tend to fuel growth—both individual and organizational—and reveal unexpected opportunities. 

So is one dynamic better than the other? Is there a magic formula we can use to settle the question? 

Well, of course not. That would be too easy. But if you’ve never thought about your preferences around team dynamics, or if it’s been a while, fluid dynamics offer a useful (and fun!) lens through which to explore these questions. Let’s dive in!

Theoretical Team :: Fluid Dynamics

In fluid dynamics, we see two main types of fluid flow—laminar (jargon for smooth) and turbulent—and a descriptive third type called transitional. A ratio called the Reynolds number (Re) turns out to be a helpful indicator of what type of flow we’re dealing with: a low Re points to laminar flow, and high to turbulent; a medium Re may indicate a transitional state.

At a fundamental level, Re compares a fluid’s forces with respect to its external environment (i.e., inertial forces) against a fluid’s forces with respect to its internal properties (i.e., viscous forces). 

Though these concepts might seem abstract, they’re more familiar than you might think. Here are a couple of examples.

* Water (low viscous forces) flows rapidly down a steep and narrow water slide (high inertial forces). The water is foamy, full of bubbles and eddies. This is turbulent flow.[HIGH inertial forces / LOW viscous forces]  →  HIGH Re  →  turbulent flow

* Honey (high viscous forces) slowly oozes out of a jar as you pour it into a bowl of granola (low inertial forces). The honey looks smooth and shiny throughout its journey from jar to bowl. This is laminar flow.

[LOW inertial forces / HIGH viscous forces]  →  LOW Re  →  laminar flow

Bringing this back to teams, we can draw parallels with viscous and inertial forces that illustrate how certain conditions may shape team dynamics.

Viscous forces & teams 

* We might imagine a team with high viscous forces as being steadfast and resistant to change, or tightly-coordinated and acting as a single unit. 

* On the flip side, we might imagine a team with low viscous forces as being quick to adapt and flexible, or loosely-associated individual agents or subteams.

Inertial forces & teams 

* We might imagine a team with high inertial forces as having a high operating tempo, or urgently working toward a specific objective. 

* On the flip side, we might imagine a team with low inertial forces as having a “slow and steady” operating tempo, or directionally aligned around a broad long-term vision. 

Perhaps this is too literal an approach, but drawing these parallels has been helpful for extrapolating different team dynamics in action—and importantly, the pros and cons in different contexts. 

Applied Team :: Fluid Dynamics

Speaking of different contexts, let’s apply these principles to real situations. 

Team :: Fluid dynamics as a design tool

Going back to our water slide example from above, imagine you’re designing a water slide. You make certain design choices intuitively, because even without any formal fluid dynamics knowledge, that intuition is rooted in your exposure to fluid dynamics throughout your life. 

For example, you wouldn’t opt to use a highly viscous fluid, like honey, for the slide because you’d want people to slide down it freely. (I know, I know, it’s called a “water” slide—but work with me here!) If you wanted a fast and exciting slide, you’d aim to increase inertial forces by making the slide steeply angled and narrow. If you wanted a more relaxing and meandering slide, you’d aim to decrease inertial forces by making the slide less angled and wider.

You can use those same intuitive fluid dynamics concepts to make design choices about teams. Here are some examples.

Situation 1

Your team is developing a new product. It’s early days, and although you have a strong grasp of the problem space, you’re still a ways from crystallizing a product vision, let alone landing product-market fit. You absolutely need a high degree of flexibility and adaptability at this point, along with team members who can work independently to explore different directions (low viscous forces). You also want a sense of urgency, along with fast feedback, testing, and iteration cycles that collectively bring focus to a still-fuzzy picture (high inertial forces). Yup, you guessed it—these are turbulent times! And that’s a good thing. The light chaos that comes from rapid ideation and learning is more likely to yield creative, differentiable, and valuable product ideas than a slow and steady trek through familiar territory.

Situation 2

Your team is exploring new ways to optimize the delivery of a well-established product. Business is good. You’re well-resourced, and there are no pressing financial or other issues, so we’re talking next-level optimization here—from solid to elite. However, you operate in a complex and complicated environment where even small changes can be expensive to implement and have unexpectedly outsize impact.Independent, proactive actors are more likely to hinder, not help, in this case. Tight coordination and alignment among your team are necessary, and changes to the status quo require a compelling reason (high viscous forces). At the same time, improving something that’s already pretty good will require openness and thoughtfulness, coupled with careful and methodical analyses (low inertial forces).This calls for a laminar flow state. You’re not trying to disrupt anything, only refine and perfect. Smooth, streamlined, steady are all words that come to mind.

At this point, it might be useful (fun?) to take other situations you’ve faced in your organization and think through how you might design your team dynamics using these fluid dynamics principles. Or starting from the other end: online searching led me to the fluid flow diagrams below, which I found interesting to think about in terms of team dynamics. Give it a try!

Team :: Fluid dynamics as a diagnostic tool

Sometimes, you get the sense that something is off. Your team’s not clicking, or it’s not performing in the way you’d expect. There may be dozens of underlying reasons, but a mismatch between the team dynamics you need versus those you have are a likely contender. To illustrate, let’s revisit our situations from the previous section.

Situation 1, revisited

Your team is successfully generating tons of product ideas, but they are mostly resulting in directionless churn. The team is feeling pulled in a million directions and showing signs of burnout. Diagnosis? It seems the team could use tighter collaboration. Learnings and insights need more synthesis, efforts need to be better coordinated, and decisions need to be aligned. Perhaps it’s time to make the team more viscous by adding more structure and rigidity to daily operations. In parallel, consider reducing inertia by building in processes that require the team to slow down, reflect, and be more focused.

Situation 2, revisited

Your team is hitting a wall when it comes to generating proposals for how to refine product delivery. All you’re seeing is more of the same, analysis paralysis, and no meaningful progress. The team seems frustrated, and engagement is starting to drop.

Diagnosis? Your team might need more freedom to explore the unknown. In this case, reducing viscosity could be helpful. Sure, maintain guardrails to avoid disaster, but creating opportunities for experimentation could go a long way. You could also increase inertia by adding a bit more pressure—albeit artificially—to generate motivation and excitement.

So there you have it: team dynamics through the lens of fluid dynamics! Hope that was as fun to read (or listen to) as it was to write. 

Do you have any favorite tech-to-something analogies? Would love to hear from you!

Why did this surprise me, you might ask? 

I suppose it’s because I thought I was alone on the Expressive Leaders Island. (And no, ChatGPT did not write that sentence. I’m just that dorky.) But it turns out that the rising draw of expressive leaders reflects the rising diversity of our workforce. Yet, the workplace is anything but ready to embrace expressive leaders. Why is this, and what can we do about it?

Let’s start with the notion of being authentic at work. Amidst the rising call to “be your authentic self,” I’ve observed that a license to authenticity is fine, so long as that authenticity stays within the bounds of norms — spoken and unspoken — of your organization. If your authentic self includes snuggling under a fluffy blanket laying down while working on your laptop, I’d venture to guess that part of you is not welcome at the office. But if your authentic self includes a healthy dose of witty sarcasm, the acceptability of that part of you will depend heavily on your organization’s culture.

In other words: be authentic, so long as it doesn’t challenge people’s expectations too much.

The pressure to at least moderately conform is particularly strong for organizational leaders. And for good reason: we need to believe a leader is effective in order to trust and follow them. Whether we like to admit it or not, most of us have deep biases around what constitutes an effective leader. For example, we tend to stereotype leaders as masculine, and associate effective leaders with stereotypically masculine traits. Unsurprisingly, we are more likely to trust and respect leaders who align with these stereotypes. 

That doesn’t mean we can’t learn to trust and respect leaders who deviate, or those who defy stereotypes or even create new ones altogether. After all, for low talking male executives, “quiet leadership” is increasingly in fashion. (I’m looking at you, Tim Cook.) But for most of us, this does not come naturally. We all have biases (yes, even you!) that help our brains make assessments about situations and people more quickly. Working around our biases can be extremely difficult. Even Daniel Kahneman, the late Nobel Prize winning cognitive psychologist, thinks so! 

For funsies, I’ll share one of my biases: I tend to think leaders who spend time on trivial matters, especially matters they should be delegating, are inept. Although this heuristic has typically proven accurate, it’s also pointed me in the wrong direction. In one instance, what seemed trivial to me was actually a marker for a major risk, and the leader in question had previous experience both spotting the marker and mitigating the risk. That case certainly didn’t “cure” my bias, but it did make me more aware of it and equipped me to confront it in the future.

So back to effective leaders: Since many of us are biased in favor of leaders who exhibit stereotypically masculine traits like self-confidence, stoicism, and gravitas — the prognosis isn’t great for the success of expressive leaders whose emotive range and exuberance are above-average. 

As a result, many expressive leaders ultimately subdue their expressiveness at great personal cost. This “authenticity tax” involves “dimming your light a bit, maybe toning down an aspect of your identity, just to fit in and avoid people's unconscious (and sometimes conscious) biases.” Women tend to fall in a much higher authenticity tax bracket, and women of color in the highest, in part because we are primed to perceive women as emotional and fragile (remember when female hysteria was a thing?) — quite the opposite of stoical and steadfast. This in turn undermines the perceived ability of women to be effective leaders. 

The resulting dynamics can sometimes border on the ridiculous. For example, the executive search firm Spencer Stuart explained, “Women can find themselves at a disadvantage in hiring or promotions when subjective measures such as ‘gravitas’ are used to evaluate candidates for senior roles — like the 5’2” female executive being compared to the 6’-plus male candidate on their ‘presence.’” As a result, women must generally work harder to exhibit, say, gravitas by consciously tempering their expressiveness. 

But in the end, there isn’t much a woman can do to grow from 5’2” to 6’, and we all remember the controversy Elizabeth Holmes’ artificially deep timbre drew. Ironically, women who embrace and exhibit stereotypically masculine traits — whether physical, like boxy clothing or character-based, like ambition — often face backlash. And even when a woman thinks she may have gotten the balance of [insert category] just right, research shows that she will still be perceived as “not quite right.” 

For clarity: This post is not exclusively about women. It’s about people with the ability to lead a team or organization to success, but who don’t necessarily fit the mold — a mold that happens to be stereotypically masculine. More specifically, this post is about expressive leaders who aren’t taken seriously because of their expressive nature.

As you can imagine, I probably wouldn’t be so attuned to this dynamic if I hadn’t had a peppering of fun encounters over the years with (usually well-meaning) people who have revealed to me their narrow understanding of what effective leaders look like: 

* As a young professional, a colleague criticized me for being "too smiley" and laughing too much to be seen as a credible leader — as if happiness was somehow incompatible with competence. To this person’s credit, they did follow-up with me later to admit they’d misjudged and congratulate me for a job well done. 

* When I was still working as a lawyer, a client consistently disregarded my input and talked over me. My style is pretty informal, and I was my happy self, so I can only guess what the client thought of me. One day during a call, the client narrated as he reviewed my LinkedIn profile. As soon as he noted my credentials, he presumably decided I was competent after all, and his attitude toward me suddenly shifted. He showed great deference to my advice going forward, even though I had changed nothing on my end. If the whole thing hadn’t been so distasteful, it would have been quite funny! 

* More recently, I was told after an interview loop for a senior role that my perceived lack of gravitas would make it difficult to earn respect from the C-suite. I ultimately accepted a lower-level role at this company. Unsurprisingly, the feedback about gravitas turned out to be a red flag for a culture mismatch between the org’s and my understandings around what strong leadership, communication, and diversity look like.

So… what’s a girl to take from these experiences? 

The learning-oriented side of me appreciates these situations as opportunities to enhance my interpersonal skills, understand others’ expectations, and improve my ability to foster trust. My more skeptical side sees these experiences as evidence that we desperately need to reshape “effective leader” stereotypes. 

In fact, these stereotypes aren’t universal. I frequently reference Erin Meyer’s The Culture Map as a reminder that different cultures hold different views on what good communication, disagreement, persuasion, and even leadership look like — and that not one is objectively right or wrong. In addition, the very meaning of leadership, and therefore what constitutes an effective leader, has been anything but static throughout history.

So the question is: Do we really want a world where leaders must suppress perfectly human elements of their personality and communication style to be taken seriously? Is it really the case that laughter, enthusiasm, and passion are fine when coming from a colleague but unprofessional liabilities when coming from a leader? In a world where we are in dire need of effective leaders, how many phenomenal people are we counting out because they don’t fit a particular mold with characteristics that have little to do with the ability to lead?

Or can we choose to evolve our view of what constitutes an effective leader?

People are inspired and motivated by different leadership styles. Presumably, this includes expressive leadership styles. What may come across as unprofessional giggling to one person may evoke engagement and trust to someone else. And hey, expressive people need role models too! In fact, I recently received unsolicited feedback (which inspired this post in the first place): “Your enthusiastic approach to what is often perceived as dry and ‘any other business’ has given me tools to bring [data, digital, and all things privacy] to life…. You are a great role model for women in leadership, especially those of us who are colourful and expressive as well as thoroughly intelligent. I could see your authenticity in every encounter.”

Now, I get that feeling frustrated about leader stereotypes and unconscious bias is a little like shaking your fist at the sky and yelling out that life isn’t fair. 

But let’s admit that the call to bring your authentic self to work isn’t completely honest. There are standards and norms, after all — and this is mostly a good thing. We may not all have to wear suits and ties to the office anymore, but we can’t show up like we’ve been living in the woods for a year. Companies implicitly and explicitly establish norms by publishing values statements, cultivating organizational cultures, and subjectively evaluating employees’ so-called soft skills. This veneer of propriety — however thin it may be — is what many philosophers argue enables our ordered and civilized way of living (and working). 

So my call to action is not to do away with standards and norms, but it does involve better understanding their limitations.

First, let’s try harder to be aware of our own biases around people’s behavior, character, and appearance. This can be difficult, but trying will get you farther than not! Then couple this with a “sister” call to action, which is to commit to thinking critically and charitably about the leadership aptitude and capability of people who don’t fit your mold. 

So if you discover you prefer polished, stoical leaders, challenge yourself to explore whether your less-refined, effusive young team member might nevertheless be a fantastic lead for that new cross-functional project. Or if you learn you’re a judgy judgerson when it comes to casual appearances at work, challenge yourself to engage primarily with the substantive contributions of that jeans-wearing team member who nevertheless demonstrates promising people management skills. 

Successful leaders don't fit a monolithic mold. 

As we all nod in agreement with this sentence like good people, we should also acknowledge we still have preferences and biases that lead our minds to automatically — and perhaps even subconsciously — categorize a perfectly capable person as an ineffective leader. And these preferences and biases tend to place expressive people into that category. 

So let’s do better and (at least try to) judge leaders by their skills, experience, and results — not how smiley or serious they appear. Let’s embrace those leaders who model the authenticity we claim to value. While stoical leaders may bring a sense of stability and authority to the workplace, expressive leaders may bring a sense of excitement, engagement, and approachability. It’s all good.

Though I will say: this world could use more people who don't take themselves too seriously. ;-)

Postscript. Speaking of authenticity, writing this post helped me come to terms with something about myself. In a world that apparently exists only inside my own mind, I am this super witty person who can take serious ideas and wrap them up in pithy little packages. As it turns out, however — and I’m apparently the last to know — I’m actually an earnest nerd with a sense of humor that, if we’re being generous, could be categorized as ‘quirky’. Sigh. 

Thanks for reading callmemapo! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

It took me a while to assess whether I’d see the same great results as the CEO by putting this lesson into practice. I’m happy to report that I did—which is why I’m thrilled to share the lesson with you, in the hopes you’ll enjoy similarly great results.

Let me start by telling you about this CEO. This guy was a big deal. He’d been at the tippy top of a global financial firm. Eventually, he exited that world and entered the world of startups. He eventually became the CEO of a startup he ultimately led through a successful acquisition by a well-known global organization. 

But his impressive track record isn’t the full picture (it never is!). He was super cool and somehow managed to foster a working environment that was simultaneously focused and relaxed; productive and creative; execution-oriented and thoughtful; mission-driven and people-focused; serious and joyful.  

You can see why I admired his leadership style and wanted to learn from him. And I learned a ton! 

But one thing in particular stood out and stuck with me. That’s the lesson I’m sharing with you today. 

(Okay, okay, getting to the point after all that preamble!)

The lesson is this: Assume—and internalize the assumption—that each member of your team is highly competent.

Yep, that’s it. Pretty simple, and it goes a long way. 

Of course, as with anything, there are tactics and pitfalls to be mindful of. But before I get into the ‘How’, let’s start with a different question…

Why? Because, in terms of impact, nine times out of ten your team will respond not only by meeting, but exceeding, your expectations. By showing up with an assumption of high competence, you’ll cultivate a high trust environment in which your team’s confidence in themselves, each other, and you will grow. This, in turn, will feed a culture of personal excellence and curiosity. With these foundations in place, what you’ll have is a rock-solid, high-performing team.

Now turning back to the ‘How’. Below is a sample list of tactics, followed by a list of pitfalls. 

Tactics. 

* Lead with curiosity about your team members’ roles. Ask about the nature of their work, their specialized skills, and how they collaborate with others. Give them an opportunity to share details about the work they’re most proud of. Fearlessly admit when you don’t understand something and ask follow-up questions. 

* Engage with your team’s expertise. Ask how they’re solving a problem or thinking about a challenge. Invite their perspectives and learnings. Eliminate from your mind any tendency to be the smartest person in the room. Some prompts to get you started: “Have you seen this type of challenge before?” “How would you approach this problem?”

* Recognize your team’s potential. Ask for advice on questions ‘above their paygrade’. Be candid about what’s on your mind; share what you’re excited about, as well as what you’re worried about. Take in their fresh perspectives and be sure to let them know if you’ve implemented their advice. 

Pitfalls. 

* You don’t actually believe in your team’s competence. This all falls apart if you don’t have confidence in your team’s ability to meet or exceed expectations. And if you don’t hold this belief, it’s important to explore why (is it you? is it your team?) and work to address it.  

* You don’t hold each other accountable. This is such an important antidote to ensuring your team’s confidence doesn’t turn into arrogance. At the same time, you will need to balance this with normalizing failure and learning from suboptimal decisions, outcomes, etc. 

* You’re feeling a lot of pressure. This could be coming from your manager, or accountability for delivering an ambitious goal, or a lack of self-confidence. High pressure can invite enemies of high-performing teams, like micromanagement. The key to thwarting these enemies is to establish your healthy team culture from the get-go so you’re not digging yourself (and your team) out of a confidence hole.

So there you have it: Assume competence!

Give it a try. You’ll be amazed at the results.

Thanks for reading callmemapo! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Years later, we still feel his presence. And he left me with three important life lessons I’ve been meaning to share. But I haven’t been quite up to it, until now. (It helps that we have a new addition to our family, an English Setter rescue we call Louis. He’s a free-spirited sprite who has filled our lives with heaps of laughter and joy!)

What’s remarkable is that Adicus’ life lessons align perfectly with classic math & physics principles. Perhaps this is not so surprising and reflects the deep wisdom and beauty of the laws of nature. After all, as Bertrand Russell said, “Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty.”

So here you go: three life lessons from Math, Physics, and Adicus!

Life Lesson 1

“I am here, make room” | Archimedes’ Principle

Whenever Adicus walked into a room, you knew it. He wanted to be noticed. If you were sitting on the sofa or a chair, he would plop down just close enough that you had to scooch over to make room. Adicus was never apologetic about his own presence. He was self-assured and knew his worth – and wanted you to know his worth, too. 

His example was particularly powerful for me. Growing up as a child, I became aware early on that my natural exuberance, curiosity, and zeal could overwhelm people (I only recently learned there is an official label for people like me called ‘giftedness’). I also learned over the years that most people don’t like women – especially smiley, curly haired women – to be assertive, outspoken, and strong-willed. So as an adult, I practiced making myself smaller and quieter. 

Though many of you who know me may question my success in this (hey, I try!), the unexpected impact was that I internalized my own smallness and quietness. I inadvertently learned to be apologetic about asking for people’s time, seeking help, and even existing. I doubted my own value and was worried people would dislike me if they could feel my presence.

But Adicus showed me you can be your exuberant self and still be lovable and loved. He helped me reconnect with my self-worth. Adicus reminded me that I am made of matter, and I matter. 

Adicus’ “I am here, make room” attitude is like Archimedes’ Principle, which explains why an object placed in fluid will displace that fluid. 

Just as the fluid has to “make room” for a submerged object, Adicus unapologetically expected people to “make room” for him. And my takeaway is that I – we all – should not be afraid to ask people to “make room” for us. 

Though it’s a lesson one could easily overlearn, for me, for now, it’s spot on!

Life Lesson 2

“Find wonder in the routine” | Fourier Transform

As adult life becomes more demanding, I increasingly cherish sleep. I’m sure many of you can relate. So bedtime is a very exciting time of day. 

Adicus apparently picked up on this. Although he once resisted going to bed and settling in for the night, he came to love bedtime, just like me. Over time, we developed a bedtime routine: I would sing the word, ‘bedtime’; he would joyfully run to his bed and plop down, expecting to be promptly tucked in and sung to.

His bedtime routine was unbearably cute. But it could also be a drag, especially when I was exhausted and didn’t feel like tucking in or singing. And this was true for many of his routines: his extended evening bunny hunting walk; his expectation that we top his kibble with cooked chicken every meal; his anti-grooming ritual involving phases of evasion, then passive resistance, and finally reluctant but dramatic acceptance (think dignified death march). 

Despite the inconvenience and sometimes seeming mundanity of these routines, they became our go-to “classic Adicus” stories. In retrospect, they are some of our fondest memories.

And this is how Adicus taught me that the simplest, everyday routines are magic moments in disguise. 

Adicus helped me realize that many of the most important moments in life occur experientially, not sequentially. In other words, one bedtime sequence is super cute. But a collective experience of daily bedtime routines is heart-melting. I wouldn’t trade the bedtime routine experience – however inconvenient or mundane it may have felt at times – for anything. 

Finding the beauty and wonder lurking within the noise of the daily grind is a lot like how Fourier Transforms find signal in the noise. For example, a Fourier Transform can help you identify chimes or chirping birds that are otherwise shrouded in ambient noise.

The Fourier Transform does this by transforming sequential noise – what you would hear with your ear – into frequencies. You can then see and focus on frequencies of interest. Similarly, “transforming” Adicus’ routines from sequential chronicles into collective experiences helped me find wonder in those routines and see the extraordinary in the ordinary.

And it’s a reminder to take a step back and do this “transformation” more frequently – before all that wonder is only a memory.

Life Lesson 3

“Don’t preserve life, live it” | Integral of a Curve

Adicus was rarely concerned with preserving himself beyond the basics (eating, sleeping, etc.). Even as he got older, he would never let aches and pains keep him from chasing bunnies or playing. Though he did adapt to new physical limitations as they evolved, he never stopped doing the things he loved. 

Now, Adicus was a genetic phenom. He loved using his physicality and showing off his athleticism. One memory in particular stands out: We were hiking through the woods, and he decided to go off-trail. As he romped through fallen leaves and broken branches, he came upon a choice: go straight for a clear path or fork left for a dramatic leap over a log. 

You can guess which one he chose. True to form, he landed beautifully and kept going. The sheer joy on his face was enough to make anyone smile ear to ear.

Of course, his leap could easily have gone wrong. He could have missed the landing and hurt himself badly. In fact, we were often tempted to protect him from himself. And in some cases we did step in, like when he wanted to chase bunnies into a traffic-heavy road. But we came to realize that Adicus’ go big or go home attitude was an intrinsic part of his character and essential to his self-actualization (to the extent dogs self-actualize). 

We could have ensured a super safe life for Adicus, but he would have felt perpetually depressed and deprived. He would not have been living his life but rather passing the time. 

All of us navigate through life managing risks. We protect ourselves and loved ones from harm and danger. This is normal – essential even.

But what I learned from Adicus is that if we skew too far in favor of safety and security, we create a new and paradoxically depleting risk: living a long life devoid of the very things that make us feel alive. 

The integral of a curve can help us visualize a mathematical representation of Adicus’ “quality of life over quantity of life” philosophy. Imagine a curve, f(x), on a graph that represents the quality of your life at any given time. You can think of the area under that curve – which we would calculate by integrating f(x) – as your Total Life Quality. 

Picture it: If you have a very long life curve with low quality levels over time, the area under that curve – your Total Life Quality – will be small. On the other hand, if your quality of life levels over time are higher, then even if your life curve turns out to be a little shorter, your Total Life Quality will be greater.

I don’t know about you, but when it’s time for me to go – morbid as it may be to think about – I’d rather look back and say: ‘I lived an awesome, full life’ than ‘I lived a long, riskless life’. Which is why, like Adicus, I don’t want to preserve my life. I want to live it.

Jack London (via James Bond in ‘No Time to Die’) perhaps said it best: “The proper function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time.”

RIP Adicus.

The answer requires more than a blog post. So I’d like to focus on one key aspect of why being a new manager is hard – which is that it’s really four Core Jobs in one.

CORE JOB #1 - Enabling and empowering your team.

This is the net new job for new managers. Some new managers may have had experience with enabling and empowering people while leading projects and other initiatives. However, being responsible for your team’s development and accountable for their performance calls for additional leadership skills you may not have practiced before, and piles on additional pressure you may not be accustomed to. 

CORE JOB #2 - Managing “up” to your manager.

New managers almost certainly have experience with this. In fact, doing this well is probably one of the reasons a new manager has been selected for the role. The novel aspect of this job as a new manager is that you must manage “up” on behalf of your team, not just yourself. This requires embracing an unfamiliar mindset that your team’s successes and failures are your successes and failures.

CORE JOB #3 - Collaborating with cross-functional colleagues.

Many new managers already have experience with cross-functional collaboration. As a manager, however, your reputation as a strong or weak cross-functional partner will trickle down to your team and impact the quality of their cross-functional relationships. This is critical because – unless your team works in a silo – their cross-functional relationships can either unlock or block your team’s success. 

CORE JOB #4 - Contributing as an individual contributor.

One of the biggest adjustments for new managers is shedding individual contributor responsibilities. After all, there are three other jobs managers must do well (see above), and the net-new job of enabling and empowering your team is particularly demanding. However, new managers should retain some individual contributor responsibilities to maintain subject matter expertise (important for professional growth), and to stay grounded in the experience of individual contributors (important for effectively enabling and empowering your team). 

So what can you take from this?

For all the new managers out there…

Hopefully, this framework validates your experience as you face the challenge of doing four Core Jobs at once! 

For those of you exploring manager roles for the first time…

Take time to reflect on whether any of these Core Jobs surprised you. Also consider how you can use this framework to prepare yourself for success.

And for those of you hiring new managers…

When hiring new managers, people often over-rely on candidates’ past success as an individual contributor. Hopefully this framework demonstrates why we should instead be evaluating candidates’ relevant experience and aptitude across all four Core Jobs.

The only way organizations can answer these questions is to draw upon the combined expertise housed across its various functions — including engineering, data, design, product, legal, and more. 

It’s tempting to imagine cross-functional collaboration as just another corporate buzzword, or a fancy term for a skill we all learned in grade school. 

But as it turns out, organizations get cross-functional collaboration wrong more often than not.

Just a few common activities people mistake for cross-functional collaboration include:

* Sharing round robin updates in cross-functional meetings and emails.

* Including a representative from every function in every discussion or decision.

* Ambushing cross-functional partners with requests for input without providing relevant context or sufficient time to respond.

Recognize any of these activities?

They can be more accurately described as cross-functional coordination and have the undesirable effect of increasing coordination overhead (a variation on the concept of Josh Kaufman’s communication overhead). I’ve certainly mistaken these and other activities for cross-functional collaboration in the past — and I can attest first hand that they actually increase inefficiency without driving meaningful impact. 

So, what should organizations do instead?

Here are five tips for implementing cross-functional collaboration at scale.

* Ring-fence initiatives with clear objectives to experiment with cross-functional collaboration approaches that make sense for your organization. The ring-fence can prevent ineffective past ways of working or unhelpful reporting lines from bogging down these efforts.

* Empower teams to execute these ring-fenced initiatives, and assign clear accountability for execution. Empowerment must be meaningful, so factors like appropriate decisionmaking authority, resources, and organizational support are key.

* Identify domain translators, i.e., people in your organization who are ‘fluent’ in more than one discipline. Plug them into cross-functional work to translate across teams and address common points of confusion. For example, they can help develop internal taxonomies to drive common understanding of terms with different meanings among different disciplines. And make sure to formally recognize this work — it is a real skill whose value should not be taken for granted. (Thanks to Jordan Famularo for the suggestion to make this explicit!)

* Establish feedback loops about cross-functional work to identify useful collaboration practices. For example: Which team(s) needs to be involved and when? What context does each team need to contribute meaningfully? How can we remove these common bottlenecks? This feedback should be recorded and can inform the next cross-functional effort, and so on.

* Design formal incentives for cross-functional collaboration, e.g., cross-functional KPIs, performance review goals. This may seem unnecessary (we all want to work together, right?), but it is critical for aligning priorities and resources like budget. 

What do you think?

Would you add anything to this list? Would you change anything? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

What changed? 

Well, a lot. Among other things, the Cambridge Analytica scandal became a household reference; GDPR and privacy starred in dozens of mainstream news stories; and digital tools and apps infiltrated every corner of our lives. 

What does this mean for organizations building data-driven tech? 

For one thing, it means expectations are higher. In addition to quality and utility, people expect some degree of privacy protection, cybersecurity, and transparency as a baseline. These expectations and more are increasingly codified, and tech and data policy continues to evolve. Expectations also come in the form of consumer preferences and public opinion (here is one of my favorite recent examples).

This is why responsible tech programs are quickly becoming a must-have. As it turns out, though, these programs aren’t easy to build. They are cross-functional, multi-disciplinary, dynamic; they are technical, legal, strategic, operational, and more. And organizations have no choice but to figure it out. 

What does a ‘good’ responsible tech program look like? 

There is fantastic guidance and commentary on the substance – the ‘what’ – of responsible tech programs (e.g., risk frameworks, guidelines, principles). I’ve also started to see more commentary on functions, roles, activities, and best practices organizations should adopt. 

But one gap I’ve been thinking about a lot over the past decade or so is guidance on designing a responsible tech program that both scales and ages well. To me, this means a program that:

* Keeps up with the external landscape (laws, societal norms, etc.)

* Aligns incentives across functions

* Clarifies responsibility and accountability across functions

* Transcends cross-functional cooperation and drives cross-functional collaboration

* Has a sustainable FTE forecast (another way to look at this one: how large do you really want your, e.g., legal or compliance department to be 3 years from now?)

* Includes iterative capability gap assessments and development 

* Recognizes people as program drivers and accordingly models the program’s teams as humans – not cogs in a system – which means leadership considerations like engagement, org design, professional development, etc. are key

Based on what I’ve seen, the last bullet seems easiest to forget (or ignore?) because it usually isn’t functionally critical. But the last bullet also tends to be the difference between an effective responsible tech team over time, versus a team constantly fighting burnout, morale, competence, and productivity battles. 

With all that in mind, I’ve been brainstorming a responsible tech program maturity model, in the form of a grading scale. I’m excited to share my brainstorm soon!!

In the meantime… what do you think?

What responsible tech program models do you think are most effective? What are the pros/cons of the models you’ve seen, and what are the gaps we need to work on? Would love your thoughts!

You look at the engine. You look at Point A and Point B on a map. And you’re not seeing how that engine is going to transport you over that distance. 

You turn to your intelligent colleague and ask them to explain. They assure you the engine is what you need. Then they go home for dinner.

As you scratch your head in confusion, you call your practical colleague and explain your situation. They chuckle to themselves for a minute. Then they say not to worry and promise to help you get to Point B.

The next day, you wake up worried about whether your practical colleague can actually help. But it turns out there’s no need to worry! You find your practical colleague standing next to the engine – but now the engine is under the hood of a car that’s gassed up and ready to roll. 

You high-five your practical colleague, send a quick text of thanks to your intelligent colleague (after all, they did provide the engine powering the car), and set off to Point B.

You arrive safely, and all is well.

So… what does this silly little story have to do with responsible tech? 

As things currently stand, many of us tend to focus on principles, frameworks, and requirements as we embark on the journey toward building responsible tech. These elements – principles, frameworks, requirements – are critical. 

But they are like the engine in our story.

They won’t get you from Point A to Point B. Just like we needed the car (product) to make use of the engine (technology), we need responsible tech products to make use of these ‘technologies’ (i.e., principles, frameworks, requirements). Otherwise, we end up with teams scratching their heads in confusion when they’re asked to be ‘transparent’ or ‘fair’ or ‘privacy-protective’ – especially in high-context, low-precedence use cases. 

Today, the main responsible tech ‘product’ is advice from subject matter experts. This approach works well in theory, especially for addressing novel questions. This way, teams get comprehensive advice that’s tailored to the specific details of a particular use case. 

But this advisory model has a flaw: The only way to effectively scale advice is to hire more advisors. That’s not usually a sustainable model for organizations. 

* It creates operational inefficiencies like bottlenecks, overlapping areas of responsibility, etc.

* It introduces new risks resulting from inconsistent advice.

* It incentivizes unwanted behaviors like ‘forum shopping’ (in-house advisors know what I’m talking about!).

We could think of the advisory model like a bicycle. It will get us from Point A to Point B, but with a lot of labor that’s not easily repeatable (remember, the distance between is significant). A bicycle is not an optimal solution by any means. It’s an MVP at best.

We need a more sustainable, scalable solution.

So what are we to do?

We need to approach responsible tech with product-led thinking.

To do this, organizations must develop responsible tech product development capabilities (whew, that’s a lot of words… Improve Branding is officially on the backlog!). BigTech is increasingly investing in these capabilities. In the meantime, companies across all industries, including tech itself, have the benefit of learning from BigTech’s often-painful lessons and can get ahead on this investment. 

The engine is critical, but it’s the car – the product – that’s ultimately going to get us where we’re going!

You can view a video of the presentation here.

Key takeaway

Responsible AI is about day-to-day decisions: Should we build it? Can we build it? Are we building it right? It’s a personal responsibility.

And it's as much about the small stuff as it is about the big stuff.

Below is a summary of some tips I shared during the talk.

*****

Commit to cross-functional collaboration

Responsible AI is one of the most cross-functional topics out there, and this is what makes it super interesting—and super challenging—to implement. What does it take?

* Develop internal taxonomies to bridge cross-disciplinary vocabulary gaps.

* Ring-fence one or a few projects staffed with tight cross-functional teams. Get these teams beyond coordination and closer to integration. Enable experimentation without being bogged down by past ways of working.

* Design incentives for cross-functional work. Unless KPIs, performance reviews, etc., are aligned—collaboration borne of curiosity and goodwill won’t last.

Make it all about driving value

Responsible AI is largely about anticipating and mitigating risks. But this framing can fall short due to a cognitive bias called 'absence blindness', which refers to our difficulty acknowledging what we can’t see. When we successfully mitigate a risk—nothing happens. Absence blindness makes us forget the importance of risk mitigation.To hack absence blindness, reframe risk mitigation in terms of concrete, tangible value propositions. This helps us both create and protect value—not destroy it. The outcome is a trusted AI product. And in fostering trust, you create a sustained innovation cycle.To help think in terms of driving value:

* Ground yourself in the purpose of the AI to keep value tradeoffs in perspective. 

* Make sure to consider the full lifecycle of an AI product in your value calculation. Specifically, don’t forget the importance of ML Ops.

* Look through the eyes of your various stakeholders. Each sees value differently. In the best case, you can align their views; otherwise, you’ll be empowered to make deliberate and informed value tradeoffs.

Always be learning

This space is incredibly fast-moving. If you aren’t seeking to learn what’s out there, you will miss out on others’ hard-earned lessons. How to do this with a busy schedule:

* There are many high-quality Responsible AI voices on LinkedIn, so take advantage and follow them! 

* If you are driven by what’s in your calendar, write in 15-30 minute calendar blocks for reading articles or for virtual coffee chats with smart colleagues. 

* Double-task (e.g., commuting, walking your dog, washing dishes) while listening to podcasts.

When making the case for responsible innovation within an organization, the conversation almost inevitably turns to a discussion about managing risk. And while responsible innovation absolutely helps manage risk, this defensive framing fails to capture the upside that responsible innovation can generate. 

This framing also ushers in a compliance mindset, which can often be at odds with an innovation mindset. Enterprises are more likely to ask what steps they must take to stay out of trouble—instead of what steps they can proactively take to make the pie bigger, i.e., to generate value not just for users and the P&L, but also for the company’s brand and reputation, affected communities, and even the environment.

To make things complicated, the definition of “responsible innovation” is far from settled. I searched for how others have defined it and liked these examples:

“Responsible innovation means taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present.” Jack Stilgoe, Richard Owen, Phil Macnaghten, “Developing a framework for responsible innovation”, Research Policy 42:9, 1568-1580 (2013).

“Responsible innovation considers the role that new products, processes or business models have in society.” Charlotte Evans, “What Is Responsible Innovation and Why Does It Matter?” (2021). 

The fact remains, however, that risk mitigation is a significant driver for responsible innovation, and it effectively conveys the urgency around investments in responsible innovation capabilities and tools. 

So—how to square this defensive vs proactive framing without overcomplicating things? 

After some brainstorming, I’ve landed on a responsible innovation framework rooted in the concept of value, specifically protecting value and creating value.

As a personal matter, I prefer this value-focused framing because it is optimistic, exciting to me, and aligns with my interests. But as a practical matter, this framing is helpful for organizations because it highlights the potential upside of responsible innovation and orients teams toward generative, collaborative—and innovative—thinking.

Here’s a working draft of this value-based responsible innovation framework.*

What do you think about this approach? Any suggestions or other feedback?

*At a future date, I will experiment with making the value axis vertical and adding a time scale, i.e., short-term to long-term, on the horizontal access.

(If you have the opportunity and the means, taking time off between jobs is something I highly, highly recommend. It’s about the best thing you can do for your soul: there are no professional responsibilities hanging over your head, and this does wonders for self-reflection, revelation, creativity, and the like.) 

So what have I been doing with my time? Well, thinking about the meaning of life, of course! Leave it to me to go down an existential rabbit hole when I should be binging on bad TV (which I’ve also been doing…). 

Well, I’m happy to report that this has been a fruitful meandering! 

While I certainly haven’t discovered the meaning of life, I have come up with a clue: that ASPIRATION is a major source of fuel for life, and without it, we become stale.

What started this line of inquiry?

The other day, I was reflecting on my time off so far. In addition to pondering the meaning of life, I’ve predominantly spent my time aspiring to:

* Create music. My husband gave me the most wonderful gift of repairing my childhood guitar (it’s a real beauty). I’ve been practicing daily to get my chops back, and it’s been a joy to plunk out some tunes.

* A state of gratitude and, in particular, appreciation for my surroundings. We’re lucky to live near pristine New England beaches, share space with a variety of cool birds, enjoy the shade of ancient trees, and more—so all I have to do is notice the landscape.

* Artistic creativity. It’s been a long time since I’ve felt inspired to draw or paint. During this break, I managed to let go of the idea that my art had to be ‘good’ and the images started to flow. 

* Better health by exercising more regularly and challenging myself with difficult goals, like hiking Mt. Washington (we made it to the top!).

* Learn about ethical challenges in tech innovation by reading books like Hello World, listening to podcasts like Technically Human; and about working effectively with people in organizations by reading books like The Culture Map and The Change Monster.

Throughout these pursuits, I’ve felt more alive than I have in a long while! Why is that?!

Well, I’m sure some of it has to do with a decline in stress from not working. But I couldn’t help wondering if something more fundamental was fueling my newfound vivacity and pep—hence the rabbit hole. Below is what I discovered in my meandering.

Etymology

First, I looked up the dictionary definition of ‘aspiration’ to see what that might tell me. Here’s a representative sample of entries: “a hope or ambition of achieving something” (Oxford Languages); “a strong desire to achieve something high or great” (Merriam-Webster); “a strong hope or wish for achievement or success” (Cambridge Dictionary).

I also learned that ‘aspiration’ comes from the Latin word, spirare, which means, “to breathe.” In fact, an alternate definition of ‘aspiration’ means “the action or process of drawing breath”. Spirare also happens to be the origin of the word, ‘spirit.’ 

So the etymology of ‘aspiration’ links the act of breathing (something our bodies do to stay alive) and the spirit (the soul or essence of a person) to the act of striving for something. 

Perhaps the idea is that aspiring is as essential to our lives and souls as breathing…

History

Second, it occurred to me that aspiration is ingrained into the story of humanity. Humans have aspired to all sorts of things throughout history: innovation, enlightenment, security, beauty, freedom, civility (well, sometimes), and more. In fact, I’m hard pressed to think of any time past or present when aspiration in some form hasn’t been a core driving force for individuals and societies.

Here is a handful of cool examples:

* Yoga: an ancient discipline (notably, not an end-state) that is very much alive today, through which one aspires to self-awareness and higher consciousness. 

* Leonardo da Vinci: a person with lifelong aspirations to learn and create, resulting in legendary feats of art and engineering.

* Democracy: a system of government that aspires to empower and effectuate the will of the people being governed.

* Marie Curie: a person with relentless aspirations as a scientist, yielding pivotal discoveries in nuclear chemistry and physics, as well as paving the way for women in the sciences. 

Undoubtedly, by now some of you have noted to yourselves that I’m hardly the first person to link ‘aspiration’ and ‘meaning of life’; this link has been long-established by philosophers and scientists much smarter than me. While searching for resources and references (though I mostly have my Harvard historian husband to thank), I even came across this super on-point Scientific American article from 2012 titled, Aspiration Makes Us Human. 

In any case, in light of the overwhelming evidence, it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to conclude that, through aspiration, we find meaning and purpose… 

Philosophy

Finally, it occurred to me that none of the aspirational endeavors I’ve taken on during my break have a true endpoint. I’m never going to be the most grateful or be the fittest or learn all the things. As a result, I’ve been compelled to enjoy the journey, not the destination. (Yes, that ol’ cliché we get from Emerson, though my favorite delivery of this line is actually by Aerosmith, timestamp 2:04.)

This journey vs destination framing seems to carry a lot of weight in the ‘meaning of life’ inquiry.

Let’s take the German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer: He wrote in the 19th Century that disappointment is inherent in human life. But in Midlife: A Philosophical Guide, MIT Professor of Linguistics & Philosophy, Kieran Setiya, offers an antidote to Schopenhauer’s pessimistic view. 

Setiya starts by pointing out that in his analysis, Schopenhauer was taking into consideration mainly telic activities, that is, activities that have an end or goal (more here). From that perspective, Schopenhauer is probably right. Disappointment is built into activities with a concrete objective: either you fail to achieve the objective (disappointing) or you achieve the objective and no longer have something to strive toward until you set up the next objective (also disappointing in a different sense).

To get away from this state of perpetual disappointment and instead move toward a state of fulfillment, Setiya suggests focusing on experiential activities that are satisfying in and of themselves.  

These are called atelic activities—and they are all about the journey, not the destination. I find Setiya’s example contrasting walking home (telic) and going for a stroll (atelic) particularly useful. 

The upshot seems to be that contentment and fulfillment stem not from achievement, but from aspiration itself… 

Putting it all together 

Here is a summary of my three takeaways in a nice, neat list:

* Aspiration is as essential to our lives and souls as breathing.

* We find purpose and meaning through aspiration.

* Contentment and fulfillment stem from aspiring, not from achieving. 

Collectively, these seem to support that Aspiration is a critical ingredient in our lives. They suggest that striving is our friend and complacency is our foe—but that in our striving, we should take care to be present and to free ourselves from expectations (whether external or self-imposed) around outcomes. 

This is a far cry from discovering the meaning of life, but it is a clue for how to live a fulfilling life.

What are your aspirations? How do you stay focused on the journey, not the destination?

Key takeaways

1/ Investing time and energy in each of your team members’ development is a core part of being a successful leader and manager.

* Doing so fosters an environment of learning and growth, which in turn facilitates giving and receiving feedback—and fast feedback fuels high performance.

* Since your success as a team leader depends on your team’s success, it’s important to hold yourself accountable for making these investments.

2/ Humility is an important starting place for both giving and receiving feedback.

* When giving feedback, humility establishes that your goal is to help, not correct; humility fosters trust and prevents the person who’s receiving the feedback from becoming closed or defensive.

* When receiving feedback, humility puts you in an open and growth-oriented mindset; humility enhances your ability to accept and internalize the feedback, whether reinforcing or constructive.

3/ It’s tough to receive harsh feedback, but here are three actions that can help.

* First, take a deep breath when you first hear the feedback; this helps release any initial anxiety you may feel.

* Second, after receiving the feedback, show gratitude no matter what; this reinforces your own growth mindset and prompts you to assume best intent (e.g., not everyone is skilled at giving constructive feedback).

* Third, let the feedback sink in before acting on it; going for a walk or sleeping on it can often help you put the feedback into perspective (perhaps it was more minor than it seemed) or uncover useful insights that weren’t initially obvious.

The Summit played host to some of the most impressive and powerful women in the law—general counsels, judges, law firm partners, as well as corporate board members, founders, CEOs, journalists, professors, and more. The presenters were absolute rockstars and generous with advice, anecdotes, and insights. 

Here’s a ‘lucky 13’ list of the advice that most resonated with me. There were of course many more than thirteen takeaways and significantly more richness to the experience than my words can convey—but hopefully this brief list is a helpful and inspirational one!

* * *

On empowering yourself

1/ Define what ‘success’ means for yourself. Don’t let others’ expectations or understandings of success displace what’s important to you.

2/ Name two goals you’re working toward in the next year or two. Then tell your friends and colleagues about these goals and ask if they know anyone who can help. No one can help you if they don’t know what you’re after. 

3/ Before joining a new organization, do your due diligence. Find out about the organization’s culture, leadership, successes, and critiques. Learn as much as you can about your manager, peers, and team. Then decide if it’s the right place for you.

On leading people

4/ As a leader, don’t lose sight of the fact that—at the end of the day—it’s individual people who ensure the success or failure of an organization.

5/ Listening is one of the most underrated skills of a strong leader, so practice listening more than speaking. This is particularly important when transitioning into a new role.

On leading change

6/ It’s natural to resist change. But keep in mind that it’s often a gateway to unexpected opportunities.

7/ Change is hard. You can’t “positive think” your way out of it; you have to do the hard work of confronting the discomfort and working through it.

8/ Don’t rush. Take the time to correctly diagnose persistent problems to ensure solutions address root causes. 

9/ When you’re leading change, think about how you can make people feel confident and excited about doing something new and different, rather than unsure or fearful.

On investing in yourself

10/ Throughout your life, bad things will happen to you, and you will make mistakes. These are facts of life. Decide today that you’ll do your utmost to take it all in stride and commit to learning from these experiences.

11/ Another fact of life: Your time on this earth is limited. So prioritize what’s most important. This means you’ll disappoint someone along the way—and that is a fact, too.

12/ Challenge yourself to read something you disagree with; invite people to challenge the assumptions on which you’ve based your perspectives.

13/ The people in your life matter more than anything else. Save the best of yourself for them.

Top to bottom: Lucy Lopez, GC of SpencerStuart, and me; Lucy and I worked together at McKinsey, where she was Deputy GC. Me holding Betty White during the goat yoga event on Thursday morning. Blue heron on the river, spotted during a break.

Here’s a summary of what we covered.

* * *

Authentic leadership is a gateway to other valuable team benefits. 

* Authentic leadership has a network effect: A leader who shows up authentically gives their team the license and confidence to do the same; in turn, the team gives their own subteams and peers confidence; and so on, contributing to a culture of authenticity.

* Authentic leadership is a powerful tool for inclusivity and diversity: When leaders fosters a culture of authenticity, they set a dynamic that empowers people of all different backgrounds and experiences to have a voice.

* Authentic leadership builds trust: We’re all quite adept at sensing when people are insincere; we tend not to trust those people. Same goes for inauthentic leaders. Nobody trusts them, and as a result, they’re less effective.

Trust is critical to developing strong teams.

* Leaders can build trust by establishing personal connections: If you see the people on your team as people, they won’t feel like cogs in a machine. Nobody likes to feel like a cog in a machine.

* Trust supercharges productivity: A team built on a foundation of trust is able to connect on a deeper level with each other. This connection fosters collaboration, which leads to better results.

* Empathy and good communication are key ingredients for building trust: The ability to understand and connect with team members’ experiences and perspectives unlocks trust.

As a leader, good communication is as much—if not more—about listening as it is about speaking.

* Don’t underestimate the power of communication norms: Expectations around listening (and speaking) can either mitigate or enhance biases and power dynamics. Leaders can play a significant role in setting these expectations—and therefore in mitigating or enhancing biases and power dynamics.

* A leader’s poor listening can cost their team a great idea: Great ideas come in all shapes and sizes. But leaders can’t enable or sponsor great ideas if they don’t hear them in the first place.

* Empathy and critical thinking are fundamental to good listening: Think about a speaker’s experience. Is the speaker nervous? Is there a language barrier? Is the speaker a member of a marginalized group? In addition, it’s important to decouple the merit of an idea from the skills of the speaker. These steps unlock inclusivity and professional growth opportunities, among other things.

Establishing a common purpose for a team or working group can unleash productivity.

* Purpose leads to alignment: Defining a purpose helps ensure that everyone rows in the same direction.

* Purpose is empowering: Defining a purpose provides clarity to teams around what they are working toward. In turn, this clarity grants a sense of agency and allows for increased autonomy—both of which unlock engagement and productivity.

* Purpose provides meaning: Defining a purpose allows teams to more easily make a connection between their efforts and impact. This fosters a sense of meaningful contribution.

Investing in self-care as a leader is a must.

* Self-care refills an empty tank: Leadership involves a lot of giving. So it’s incredibly important to refuel—or else risk burnout. And when leaders burnout, everyone loses: the leader, their team, and their organization.

* Self-care can take unexpected forms: One often overlooked self-care method is learning. Ways to incorporate learning into your routine include formally scheduling time in your calendar; listening to industry podcasts while doing chores; and setting up coffees with colleagues who have expertise complementary to yours.

* Self-care includes having self-empathy: Good mentors can help foster self-empathy. In sharing their advice, perspectives, and reflections, they’ll demonstrate to you that they’re human—just like you—and provide opportunities to let down your guard and be vulnerable.

Joining me on the panel were the very talented Chandra Adusei (business owner & entrepreneur), Aubrey Blanche (DEI consultant & designer of equitable orgs), and Ana Bracic (political science professor).

The experience was exhilarating!

We delivered a discussion on one of the most important topics about the workplace today; we delivered that discussion as part of a major international conference; and we had the privilege of delivering that discussion to an amazing and engaged audience.

* * *

Firstly: What exactly did we cover in the panel?

Below is a summary. (Fun fact: In the coming weeks, we’ll be able to share a video of the event!)

What is the 3rd Shift?

* It builds on the concept of the 2nd Shift, which was originally introduced in 1989 by Arlie Hochschild in her landmark study. It refers to the additional, unpaid housework that working women disproportionately take on.

* The 3rd Shift refers to additional, unpaid work in the workplace, in addition to official work functions. Like the 2nd Shift, women disproportionately take on the 3rd Shift. It comes in many forms and can range from things like:

* Administrative tasks, like taking meeting minutes and ordering lunch

* Building community, like running ERGs

* Facilitating collaboration, like ‘herding cats’ for complex cross-functional projects

* 3rd Shift tasks add value to organizations, but organizations don’t proportionately assign value to 3rd Shift tasks.

What is the impact of the 3rd Shift (i.e., why should we care)?

* The 3rd Shift places an additional burden on women, and even more so on women of color and other under underrepresented groups. It also perpetuates gender stereotypes.

* 3rd Shift dynamics slow women’s advancement at work, in a time when the importance and value of women in corporate leadership positions is well-established. Consider the following facts:

* Fewer than 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women; numbers are similarly low for Board seats and C-suite positions generally.

* All the while, research shows that women who have stuck it out and made it into leadership roles do more than their male counterparts—in part because women in leadership roles are bucking gender stereotypes and often feel they need to compensate by over-performing.

* 3rd Shift dynamics contribute to the attrition of women in the workforce:

* One in four women are considering slowing their career or leaving the workplace altogether post-COVID.

* Pre-pandemic, numbers were similarly high, at one in five women.

* 3rd Shift dynamics cost hundreds of billions of dollars for organizations ($500 billion in the US alone).

What can we do about the 3rd Shift?

* ‘Sit on your hands’: Individual women can opt out of 3rd Shift tasks to help protect from burnout and the like.

* This may not always be an option. When it is, not volunteering for, or simply not doing, those ‘extra’ activities that take time and energy—but will not be proportionately rewarded—can be effective.

* There is a downside to opting out, however. Many women find 3rd Shift activities rewarding, and 3rd Shift-type activities make the workplace better and projects run more smoothly. So another option is to be selective about which 3rd Shift tasks to take on.

* Lead with mindfulness and awareness: Team leaders & managers can alleviate the burden by assigning 3rd Shift tasks more equitably.

* They can also help by simply acknowledging the importance of these tasks and giving credit to those who do it.

* Team leaders & managers can also reward 3rd Shifters with professional development, such as leadership training and coaching (because don’t we want leaders who are inclined to make everyone’s work experience better and organizations more productive?).

* Revise organizational values: Organizational leaders can put in place infrastructure that appropriately values 3rd Shift work and is equitable by design.

* Since 3rd Shift tasks contribute to the bottom line—albeit indirectly in many cases—companies can more concretely tie these tasks to key business metrics and performance measurement.

* Companies can offer compensation for equity and community-building work. A number of companies are already doing this, for example, by offering compensation to ERG leads.

* In addition, companies can create policies that set the expectation on workplace experience, coupled with accountability measures to uphold and enforce those expectations.

* * *

Secondly: How did we find our way to SXSW?

It all started last year, when I fell down a rabbit hole trying to better understand performance review processes. In particular, I was hung up on my observation that most performance review processes fail to capture employees’ value-add accurately or holistically. And more specifically, I found that most performance review processes systemically put women at a disadvantage.

These observations and discoveries turned into a couple blog posts exploring problems with performance review processes and what could be done to improve them (here and here).

In writing the blog posts, the 3rd Shift as a concept was born (though at the time I was calling it the ‘New 2nd Shift’). I had the opportunity to talk with colleagues and friends about it. And I even got the opportunity to discuss the topic on Nichole Harrop’s podcast, ‘Next Level Leaders’.

This all turned into a crazy idea to propose a panel discussion about the 3rd Shift for SXSW.

I asked three amazing women (see above) if they’d be willing to participate and was floored when they all said yes.

I prepared and submitted the pitch—and was totally shocked when I received the notification that our panel had been selected!

So there you have it: from obsession over apparent injustices, to public discourse and feedback, to crazy idea, to SXSW!

* * *

What’s next?

So that was our 1-hour talk in bullet points and the story of how it came to be. As mentioned above, a video of the panel event is forthcoming.

This isn’t a one-off discussion, and I aim to keep the topic alive in my own workplace, and hopefully through future speaking and publishing opportunities.

And a book with more in-depth insights and recommendations is potentially on the table…!

As always, feedback and follow-up discussion are always welcome, so please reach out!

At the conclusion of my proposal, the listener shared constructive feedback that I said the word, ‘like’, too often. I know this is something I need to work on, especially when nervous or tired, so I thanked the listener for their feedback.

I then followed up requesting feedback on the substance of the proposal.

The listener’s comments were minimal, and they seemed dismissive of the proposal. However, I was confident the idea was sound, timely, and a solid investment of resources. (Note: I’ve since received confirmation that my hunches on this front were right! Woo!)

I offered to explain the proposal again, assuming my verbal tick had been distracting. But we ran out of time, and that was that.

* * *

At first, I was disappointed in myself for not delivering a more compelling presentation.

After reflecting a bit more, though, I became increasingly disappointed in the listener for not trying harder to engage in the substance of the proposal, despite my verbal tick.

This prompted me to think about the expectations we put on speakers versus listeners in different contexts.

Erin Meyer captures this idea wonderfully in her book, The Culture Map. Although Meyer’s book frames the issue of communication expectations in terms of national and ethnic cultures, I think the idea applies equally to groups within organizations where power dynamics are at play.

These power dynamics may play out across hierarchical (senior / junior) or business (revenue generating / business support) lines.

For example, you could imagine a senior leader overlooking the ideas of a more junior colleague because the ideas were not presented clearly. Or you could imagine an internal client dismissing legal advice from in-house counsel because the advice is not succinct or action-oriented.

In both cases and others like it, strong presentation skills often act as a proxy for competence and elicit confidence that both the speaker and the substance of what they’re communicating is reliable and legitimate. Weak presentation skills, on the other hand, may indicate to the listener that the speaker is less competent or trustworthy. As a result, the listener—rightly or wrongly—may be dismissive of both the speaker and the substance of what the speaker conveyed.

The power dynamics may also arise as a result of bias—including unconscious bias—relating to gender, race, or other group identities.

For example, you could imagine a male listener disregarding the recommendations of a female speaker who exhibits negatively-associated, stereotypically female speaking characteristics (e.g., high pitched voice, filler works such as ‘like’ or ‘um’). Or you could imagine a white female listener dismissing the constructive criticisms delivered by a black female speaker whom the listener associates with harmful stereotypes (e.g., ‘angry black woman’).

Note that in these examples and others like it, the listener is statistically more likely to be more senior within the organization than the speaker. In other words, these power dynamics around communication could deeply undermine diversity, inclusiveness, and equity in the workplace.

* * *

All of this has led me to wonder how often we disregard what someone is trying to convey because the ideas are poorly communicated.

So who’s right?

* As a norm, should listeners be expected to cut through poor presentation and grasp the substance of what’s being conveyed?

* Should the norm be to expect speakers to do a good job of presenting in the first place?

* Or should both speakers and listeners be expected to try their best?

I tend to think the third option is a healthier starting place. After all, the point of communication is, well—to communicate! And since successful communication is a two-way street, why not hold both sides to it?

Admittedly, there may be circumstances where placing heavier expectations on either the listener or speaker is appropriate. For example, a person whose job it is to provide the daily intelligence briefing to the U.S. President may rightfully be expected to have strong presentation skills. Or a team leader facilitating a brainstorm session should arguably be expected to try to grasp all the ideas shared in the session, whether or not the ideas are well-formulated or articulated clearly.

Along those lines: I wonder how effective providing transparency around these types of communication expectations may be? I tend to think transparency would be helpful, though I worry that exclusive or otherwise harmful communication-related behaviors could quickly become the norm under the guise of ‘providing transparency’.

What do you think?

Is there a right answer? How have you navigated these dynamics in your organization?

I put the Olympics coverage on the gym TVs in the background, figuring that seeing elite athletes on the screen would push me to work a little harder. 

So, there I was on the treadmill, feeling like a hamster on a hamster wheel. Women’s gymnastics was on. I’d turned off the TV audio in favor of my own tunes, so all I saw was the competing athletes, and all I heard was my own music. (This time around it was Girl Talk’s All Day—super fun, and if you’ve never heard it I highly, highly encourage it!) 

This audio/video setup resulted in quite a different viewing experience than I’d expected. I couldn’t hear the commentators analyzing what was going on, explaining how difficult or easy something was, or casting judgment on the gymnasts’ execution. And without the commentators to shape my interpretation of what was happening, I saw each gymnast in a different light: as a regular person who had decided to take an extraordinary life journey. 

I could almost feel each gymnast’s anxiety—and courage in the face of it—walking onto one of the biggest sports stages in the world to perform on behalf of their team and their country. I saw the gymnasts give all they had in each performance, despite knowing they’d likely face both criticism and celebration. Most of them bobbled or stumbled at least once, and a couple even fell.

But they all kept going. They were relentless. 

And as I watched these incredible women athletes, it really dawned on me why sport is so important. 

Sport gives us everyday heroes: otherwise ordinary people who have a goal in mind and have pushed through seemingly unconquerable physical and mental hurdles to achieve it; people who have invested their heart and soul and risked everything, win or lose; people who have made themselves totally vulnerable to all who are watching them; people who fail all the time, and get up to try again and again.

These people have an indomitable spirit.

But most importantly: these people also remind us that we might have that same fighting spirit inside ourselves.

And doesn’t that just give you a jolt of inspiration?

Epilogue: I did, in fact, run a little longer and a little faster than I’d originally planned. Woo!

Picking up where we left off, here’s just a sample of what I discovered while digging into this performance review issue.

* This study (HBR summary here) found that women are disproportionately asked by managers, and disproportionately volunteer, to take on tasks that don’t contribute to their career advancement, even though the tasks still benefit the organization. The study explains that, since women do more of this non-promotable work, women’s overall career progress is slower compared to men’s.

* Similarly, this research found that women and minorities are more likely to be assigned work dubbed “office housework”, i.e., work that’s “important but undervalued” (undervalued because it is administrative in nature or not directly tied to revenue goals). “Office housework” also tends to be non-promotable. Again, since women and minorities do more of this “office housework”, their overall career progress is slower compared to men’s and non-minorities’.

* And this and this research found that, in workplaces that rely on collaboration to complete projects, women disproportionately carry the burden of fostering and enabling collaboration. However, this additional effort is not itself considered to be promotable work. So again, since women disproportionately carry this load, women’s overall career progress is slower compared to men’s.

Experts have proposed a number of solutions to these challenges, for example, that managers assign non-promotable work more equitably across their teams. Experts have also shared tips for how women and minorities can proactively shape their work tasks to include more promotable work and effectively say “no” to non-promotable work. And circling back to the performance review workshop from Part I, some experts have theorized that improving self-promotion skills can help women and minorities receive recognition for their contributions to help overcome these patterns of unfairness.

These solutions all make sense. And yet they seem so unsatisfying!

Although experts’ proposed solutions are practical, they seem resigned to how organizations value (or not) certain types of employee contributions. It’s disappointing that the conversation isn’t more focused on recalibrating the value system itself, instead of teaching employees how to navigate it as-is. 

Why am I so disappointed, you may ask?

After all, really smart people have figured out ways to give women and minorities more agency in the workplace.  

First, I think it’s worth stating the obvious: that all the studies I shared above present evidence of organizations disproportionately relying on women and minorities to take up a certain type of work, namely, work characterized as supportive and community-oriented. We see this directly when we look at the proportion of women and minorities in “business support” verticals like HR, admin professionals, legal (though usually at the more junior levels), etc. But the studies indicate that women and minorities are taking on supportive and community-oriented tasks across all business verticals. 

So we have a clear gender/racial/ethnic divide with respect to this type of work. In some sense, this is old hat. Even though organizations are far from resolving the divide, there is broad awareness of its existence.

What’s remarkable, though, is that the studies also indicate that this supportive and community-oriented work is less valued than other work—and no one seems to have a problem with that. The experts describe this work as “important but undervalued” or having “little visibility or impact”. They call it “non-revenue-generating” work. And a main point of all these studies is that this type of work is non-promotable—which is a formal signal from organizations that it isn’t highly valued.  

And yet, organizations are dysfunctional without this so-called non-promotable work. In a lot of ways, non-promotable work is like infrastructure (bridges, dams, roads). It is fundamental for getting things done; it is also ubiquitous, and we tend to take it for granted. But consider the absence of non-promotable work: process becomes messy and time-consuming, communication is lacking, goals are unclear, people get stressed, rework is required, efforts are siloed, people miss appointments, etc. As a result, people become less engaged at work, and this leads to a host of negative consequences for organizations, including an estimated productivity loss of $500 billion in the US alone. And as John Oliver says in Last Week Tonight regarding infrastructure, “If anything exciting happens, we’ve done it wrong”. I don’t know about you, but a $500 billion loss is more exciting than not….  

But let’s not forget the upside to this non-promotable work! Anyone who has worked with a strong project manager, or a skilled admin professional, or a colleague who is excellent at providing context knows that supportive and community-oriented work creates significant value. Among other things, it enables efficiencies, connects dots that reveal untapped synergies, accelerates outcomes, facilitates decision-making, allows “highest and best use” of team members, fosters trust among colleagues, etc. 

Is any of this revenue-generating? I’ve never personally traced the value chain, but my bet would be on, “Heck, yes!” Perhaps the fact that this work’s value isn’t quantified is why organizations undervalue it in the first place. Daniel Yankelovich, a renowned social scientist, spells out the downfalls of this mindset (dubbed the “McNamara fallacy”, after Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War, Robert McNamara):

The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is okay as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can't be measured or give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily isn't very important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide.

And circling back to the performance review workshop for women from Part I:  If this supportive and community work—“we” and “us” work—is less valued than “me” and “I” work, and if women (and minorities) disproportionately carry the load on this type of work, then it’s no surprise that women and minorities have a tougher time standing out during performance reviews. 

Okay. So we have (i) a gender/race/ethnic divide and (ii) the devaluing of this supportive and community-oriented work. My final observation regards something more symbolic than anything—but symbolic in a way that is quite jarring and reveals how deeply ingrained workplace biases are. 

“Office housework.”

That’s the phrase experts use to describe this non-promotable, less valued work. There is a longstanding history of devaluing housework. And the fact that experts have landed on the term “office housework” (and anecdotally, I’ve heard colleagues and friends use this term as well) reinforces the problematic gender norms around undervalued—and unpaid—home labor.

We’ve all heard of women’s second shift at home (here’s a link to the landmark work by Arlie Russell Hochschild in 1989, and a NY Times summary).

Well, it turns out, women also have a second shift at work!

To advance at work, women not only have to do the so-called revenue-generating work (putting aside whether or not that characterization is accurate), but they are also expected to do the “office housework”, even though they only get meaningful credit in the form of promotions or higher pay for the former. And not only that, in performance reviews, women apparently need to downplay the “office housework”, including “we” and “us” work, and instead highlight me-me-me, I-I-I. Sounds a lot like a second shift to me.

Where do I think we should go from here?

Well, a massive shift in how we value certain types of labor is top of mind. Too ambitious? Perhaps, but I do think there are tangible steps organizations can take to change the game in positive ways, rather than expecting women and minorities to learn how to hack it. 

In fact, some organizations have already taken steps in this direction. For example, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Justworks announced that they’ll be providing additional monetary compensation to their employee resource group (ERG) leads. LinkedIn’s rationale for this acknowledges that “there is ‘no price on the emotional labor and investment of time’ ERGs contribute and that $10,000 is a start, in addition to a formal systematized recognition plan.”

Or consider the massive venture capital investment in HR technology (this source cites $5 billion in 2020!), much of which seeks at least in part to make workplaces more equitable. And although we have a long way to go regarding robust family care leave (the US is particularly challenged here), we’ve seen organizations increasingly invest in this area and develop policies that serve many different family models and  implicitly recognize the value of the labor involved in “housework”. 

Some additional thoughts: Organizations should invest in renewing their understanding of how skillsets map to the bottom line. This analysis should include skills with second- and third-order impacts on revenue, like facilitation, peer leadership, dot connecting, coordination, context sharing, and others. Then leaders could more easily develop formal means to recognize and reward people who exercise these skills to benefit the organization accordingly. Because make no mistake, people are incentivized to do what leaders recognize and reward via signals like promotions, raises, and bonuses. And I suspect that most organizations want to incentivize employees to flex these supportive and community-oriented skills. 

Consider an employee—let’s call them Riley—whose strength is coordinating and facilitating collaboration that yields unique opportunities for the organization. Riley is a catalyst who enables and empowers their colleagues everyday. Why would an organization want Riley to do mental and verbal gymnastics to highlight their “me” and “I” contributions in order to advance in their career? Wouldn’t it be better for both Riley and the organization to formally recognize Riley’s “we” and “us” work? The organization is enjoying the fruits of Riley’s work, after all; and Riley could continue contributing in this way while enjoying career advancement and feeling valued. It may require just a little more analysis and effort by leadership to trace Riley’s efforts to the bottom line.

One final point: If the carrot, i.e., the opportunity to do what’s right, is not enough to convince organizations to invest time and brainpower into this issue, there is always the growing stick, captured quite nicely in this recent NY Times article, Workers Are Gaining Leverage Over Employers Right Before Our Eyes.  

Whew! That was a lot.

I’d love reactions: What do you think? What do you agree or disagree with? What are some additional considerations? Your perspectives are all welcome!!

I know, it sounds crazy. There is plenty of research demonstrating that women don’t self-promote as much as men and that this has adverse career implications for women. So shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to help women get on an even playing field? 

Please bear with me while I explain myself! 

In the lead-up to a past performance review cycle, a women’s affinity group within my company at the time held a workshop to help women write stronger self-evaluations, which were a critical part of the performance review process. The workshop presenters came well-armed with statistics showing women’s general reluctance to self-promote, explained how this results in self-evaluations that don’t lead to raises or promotions at the company, and connected this to negative impact on women’s career advancement compared to men’s. 

The presenters then shared examples of what they considered to be strong self-evaluation statements, i.e., statements that correlated with positive performance reviews, implying—and in some cases explicitly stating—that “this is how men do it.” The presenters compared the strong statements to ones they considered to be weaker, implying that those were typical of women. 

One of the key differences between the strong and weak self-evaluation statements was the degree of self-promotion: The strong statements were heavy on self-promotion and highlighted “me” and “I”; the weaker ones focused more on teamwork and coordination work and highlighted “we” and “us.”

(To clarify, there were additional differences between strong and weak self-evaluation statements. For example, strong ones included evidence of impact, preferably in the form of numerical examples, as well as expressive verbs. But the focus of the discussion was on ramping up the degree of self-promotion.)

The presenters then equipped workshop attendees with practical tips for writing stronger self-evaluations that would presumably improve our performance reviews and increase the likelihood of receiving a raise or promotion. They also led us through exercises, where we practiced writing self-evaluation statements that followed the patterns of the strong examples. 

Overall, the workshop was a well-run event, effective, and incredibly generous of the presenters, as they were volunteering their own time to run it. And how cool is it that there was a sisterhood supporting each other in this way? (Answer: very, very cool!) 

And yet, I couldn’t shake this gnawing feeling about the event. 

Why were a group of women being trained to more effectively self-promote so that—in essence—they could be more like men? Was being more like a man what it took to be evaluated fairly and be competitive with male colleagues in the next performance review? (I thought I’d mostly left that behind when I transitioned out of the Navy.) And although there is statistical evidence supporting this man/woman split on self-promotion, it’s also true that the split does not universally apply across every individual man and woman. So directing this sort of training to women seemed unnecessarily exclusive. Oh and, by the way, the statistics say nothing about non-binary genders or race or other demographics.

The aim of this workshop didn’t feel right, even though I recognized that the presenters were sharing practical tools and advice based on the way things were. They were being pragmatic and empowering us to change behaviors that were within our control. They were teaching us how to ‘play the game’—a corporate version of realpolitik.

Maybe that was just it:  The workshop had an undercurrent of resignation to this approach to performance reviews—an approach that apparently valued individual contributions over teamwork, and form over substance.  

We were being taught to ‘play the game’ by amplifying “me” and “I” to ensure managers and leaders heard each of us, instead of putting the onus on managers and leaders to see through rhetorical techniques and nevertheless make fair performance assessments. And this push toward stronger self-promotion as a leveler between men and women seemed to mirror the worst of modern day mainstream media, where pithy clickbait and shouting the loudest get more attention than balanced and nuanced perspectives.  

Not only did I disagree in principle with this approach to performance reviews and the values it reflects, but I was not ready to resign myself to it. Resignation in this case seemed too defeatist, especially because there is already awareness that performance review processes like this are flawed, perpetuate biases, and lead to negative outcomes for many employees, especially women and minorities. And separately, the whole idea of leaning into self-promotion is an energy zapper. For me, playing a game where self-promotion is the key to winning is not inspiring.

So, my bottom line takeaway:

Instead of expecting that individual employees—and women (and minorities and other disadvantaged groups) in particular—learn to better play this game, why not demand that our organization change the game itself?

In Part II, I’ll share my diagnosis of what’s fundamentally wrong with this game (and I bet it’s not what you think), along with some ideas for how organizations can evolve toward something better. 

It was the middle of a busy work week, and I was overdue for a workout. But I was tired, not feeling my best, battling spring allergies, and doubtful that I’d get much out of any workout. 

I nevertheless donned my COVID mask and (begrudgingly) headed down to our apartment building’s gym that evening. We are very lucky to have a Peloton Tread+ in our gym (safety issues notwithstanding), so I decided to do a guided treadmill workout. 

As a total aside, I appreciate a great treadmill. I have herniated discs in my lower back, and running can be pretty hard on it. But I have yet to find a more effective cardio option for me than running: Biking and rowing are both uncomfortable and put a lot of pressure on my back, and ellipticals make me feel constrained and trapped. So I run. Effective shock absorption and good running form have become everything!

I chose a previously recorded workout led by Jess King because I love her free spirit and wanted a counterpoint to my super packed, left brain-dominant day. 

During the workout, Jess prompted viewers to do some visualizations. One of the prompts was to visualize what I was running away from (bad experiences of the week, tough moments of the day). 

The next prompt was to visualize what I was running toward. I immediately started picturing an idyllic future with a home on rocky seaside cliffs, a perfect job and home life, and not a worry in the world about money or status or anything like that. Have you ever done that? Found yourself wishing for some fantasy?

Well, a sudden and sharp objection popped into my head demanding: Why are you running to some imagined future instead of running toward your PRESENT? 

Boy, was that a heavy aha! moment for me. I often hear great advice like, live in the present and be in the moment. When I hear it, I nod my head and fervently agree. But this was the first time in my life I’d apparently internalized that advice, and I awoke to my deep cognitive dissonance around appreciating my present versus longing for some “better” abstract future.

So I started thinking about what I loved about my present and started running toward it. An amazing life partner, a very cute and bossy senior dog, a funny and resilient family, incredible friends from all walks of life, good health, and… 

And suddenly I was on a roll (and running super fast, by the way) and couldn’t stop listing off what I loved about my life today, now, in the present. It totally lit me up (and the endorphins from running certainly helped)!

My life certainly isn’t perfect—nothing ever is—but I have so much to love, and for the first time, I understood this on a visceral level that I’d not previously been able to access. Jess may not have known it, but she activated this experience of intense and transcendent awareness in me. 

And I was totally inspired. 

So I brought this epiphany and energy to my family, and I shared it with my friends—and now I bring it to you in the hopes it will inspire you to RUN TO YOUR PRESENT.  

Takeaways

* IMPACT. Don’t underestimate the powerful impact you can have on those around you, just by being yourself. (Look what Jess did for me with just a few words via a recorded workout!)

* TODAY. Love your present. And if that’s too abstract or too “big” to actualize, start by taking 15-20 seconds to note what you’re grateful for in your life today. Say it out loud or write it down to make the experience more tangible.

* ACTION. Even if you don’t think you can give 100% in a workout, just give it your best shot and do what you can. Exercise is good for your body, mind, and soul, and the endorphins help. And a “workout” doesn’t need to be a 2-hour intense iron pumping session; it can mean going for a walk or whatever is right for you. Fitting and true cliches here: Something is better than nothing; don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. 

* LEARNING. Always be learning. You may find yourself re-learning lessons you thought you’d mastered because you’ve had new experiences, developed or been exposed to new perspectives, or resolved an unconscious blocker (like cognitive dissonance). 

* OPENNESS. Be open and receptive to inspiration. You never know when it will come or where/who it will come from!