Sleep Pressure

My stumbling shuffling half run barely kept my feet under me. Leaning forward, arms flailing as sharp spinifex belted my shins sending painful signals to my brain. It was about 2 am on a moonlit night deep in the Pilbara on a survival course and I had fallen asleep and run off the track we were walking along. Yep, I’d gone to sleep not only standing up, but walking on a rough 2 rut track in the middle of nowhere. I found it hard to believe at the time, but I’ve seen it happen a couple of times since to different people.

I’ve recently been reading an excellent book “Why we sleep” by sleep researcher Matthew Walker. Experiences like mine while walking come down to something called sleep pressure. When we are underslept our body makes it harder for us to stay awake. For years I’ve been interested in optimising human ability and longevity. One of the most consistent recommendations I’ve heard from experts over the last decade is that optimising sleep is the most powerful variable. So much so that interventions in diet, exercise, brain training and more can be rendered ineffective if sleep is insufficient. Walker's book explains why. Sleep fundamentally affects every single system in the body and brain.

He gives compelling evidence for our current ‘lack of sleep’ epidemic, and some useful suggestions for remedying it. A significant insight is that we are unable to judge our own impaired state when underslept. And not just after one or two long nights pushing to meet a deadline, or having fun, but chronically if we are getting less than 7 hours and preferably more (That's sleep too, not time in bed). We can convince ourselves we don’t need as much sleep as that, because from the inside, the deprivation is not noticeable until you are nodding off in your equivalent of a dusty Pilbara track.

Well worth a read.

The Dark Side

Psychological Safety (PS) is confidence that you won’t be embarrassed, rejected or punished (by boss or team) for speaking up, sharing ideas, asking questions and providing feedback. 

So far we’ve seen that Musk encourages all of these, especially in the development of the products his companies create. It is far from a perfect picture however. Let's look at Musk’s behaviour which reduces PS. BTW, few (If any) of us  are perfect in this regard. This is intended to provoke reflection.

• “You’re an idiot” - Musk will often use language like this. It damages PS  by  directly attacking a person, rather than an open conversation about the problem. It also doesn't give any suggestion or support for improvement.

• “Your resignation will be accepted” - When people push back on timeframes, safety or variability of an idea/solution, Musk resorts to ordering them to do it while threatening their job. There are examples of this making teams go further/faster than they thought possible, but they don’t feel safe. This kind of behaviour leads to people covering things up, rather than telling the full story. Arguably, it was precisely the same behaviour that caused the Challenger space shuttle explosion.

• Ignoring sound advice - Musk puts arbitrary time frames on delivery that are often completely unobtainable. He has a litany of promised features behind him that have been confidently announced and not achieved. Parts of his team acknowledge that this has pushed them further/faster, however there is also chaos in the wake. I like Gilbert Enoka’s (former All Black’s Mindset coach) approach to this. He says targets need to be out of reach but not out of sight. When we can’t conceive it being achievable, a target can demotivate. If it’s too easy it won’t motivate us either. Musk could maintain the relentless drive for innovation and progress while making it more safe (and fun) by setting better gaps. It would do a lot for the believability of his promises too.

How do you personally create or contribute to the PS of your working environment? Are your behaviours net positive or negative?

If you want some insight into one of the most controversial and significant “movers and shakers” of our time, I’d highly recommend “Elon Musk”, by Walter Isaacson. It’s current up to 2023. The book was the catalyst for this series.

Musk making it safe

mage of Starship explosions tweeted by Musk"

Elon Musk has an unusually high appetite for risk compared to most entrepreneurs. There have been many times over his many business ventures when he has risked an ‘all-in’ bet on something that was far from certain. On some of those occasions, Musk himself has stated that the most likely outcome will be a company ending failure. He’s also known to be demanding, setting very high expectations and seemingly impossible timeframes. He’s not shy when it comes to firing people. So how does he create psychological safety, which is an important ingredient for success in a high performance environment:

• Clear vision - for all of his companies there is a single line summary of purpose (except Twitter now X perhaps). SpaceX is “Make humanity a multiplanetary species to ensure the survival of consciousness.” While this is lofty, it also drives real world-decisions. Musk moves fast, because the goal is not just a moon shot, or orbit, but a Mars colony. Whatever you think of the vision, there’s no ambiguity in it.

• Delete, Delete, Delete - Musk is on a relentless drive to delete anything unnecessary from his companies and the rules governing them. That would normally lead to people feeling at threat, but Musk’s mantra “if we don’t end up adding back at least 10% of what we deleted, we didn’t go hard enough” sets the stage. There’s an inherent understanding that some of the deletion experiments will fail. That’s both expected and encouraged.

• Accountability - If someone says “It's an engineering requirement”, Musk will ask, “who from engineering said so?”. There’s a name attached to everything. It stops people hiding behind departments or processes, and gets people to own their decisions. It also means things can be discussed. Much harder to have a conversation with ‘engineering’ than with Steve from engineering. That this is framed as an expectation so that deletion conversations can be had faster, rather than as a blame point for failure makes it safer. Steve would still be sweating when the spotlight turns to him, but it’s very different from a blame game or witch hunt. Steve will be prepared to answer challenges on the calls he made.

There’s no doubt Musk drives himself, his people and companies harder than I think is ideal; however these and other clear elements make it very obvious what people are signing up for. As a result he attracts, driven, focussed people who want to change the world we live in. There’s no denying the incredible list of achievements.

Next time we’ll look at some of the ways Musk damages psychological safety and what we can learn from that.

If you want some insight into one of the most controversial and significant “movers and shakers” of our time, I’d highly recommend “Elon Musk”, by Walter Isaccson. It’s current up to 2023. The book was the catalyst for this series.

Observing Elon

I’ve read a couple of great biographies about Elon Musk recently. He is on the record as disliking Psychological Safety. It’s one of the cultural mismatches of the much reported Twitter purchase. 

I disagree with Musk. 

There’s significant evidence that he values Psychological Safety, and like many leaders, misunderstands what it means. 

Amy Edmondson in her book, “The Fearless Organisation” says Psychological Safety is not being nice, or lowering performance standards. In high performing teams there will be a hard-edged drive to sorting issues and clearing a high bar. It’s likely to be rewarding but not necessarily comfortable. 

Musk actively does many things to make it Psychologically Safe to ask questions, challenge the status quo, and achieve incredible results. Like all leaders, he also, either inadvertently or deliberately does many things that degrade Psychological Safety in his companies and teams.

If you want some insight into one of the most controversial and significant “movers and shakers” of our time, I’d highly recommend “Elon Musk”, by Walter Isaccson. It’s current up to 2023. Over the next few weeks, I'll share some more detailed thoughts on Musk and Psychological Safety.

Well Worn Path

This week I have spoken to 3 leaders who are creating something genuinely new. Innovative ways of addressing some of the deepest challenges of their sectors. It’s exciting work and I love spending time with people who are explorers at heart. They want to venture over the nearest hill, motivated by deep curiosity. The conversations reminded me of a piece I wrote in my first book “Thrive and Adapt” exploring situations when breaking a new trail is the best option.For those of us who like to explore (myself included) it’s helpful to avoid unnecessary expenditure of effort or resources. It maximises our exploratory range. Here’s that piece, lightly edited for context.

A decade ago, I was on a cross-country walking trip in the Pilbara with my Dad who was 76 at the time. There were no paths or markers to follow, no guidebook. We were reading a map of the area and taking the country as we found it. It was a great journey!

In situations like that, I’m always on the lookout for game trails –the paths taken by cattle or wildlife between one water hole and another. They are sometimes counter-intuitive. They don’t always follow the shortest route. Sometimes they head into hilly or rocky territory and seem to wander a little aimlessly. Over the years, experience has always shown that the animals know the easiest and best route between points. Their trails are sometimes ancient – even wearing into solid rock surfaces. From a walking point of view, finding a game trail is gold. The going is easier because the animals have smoothed the way. The large rocks and obstacles have been shifted off the track over the years and, at times, it’s as good as walking on a footpath. The alternatives are never as easy. Often, they involve struggling through dense bush or over rough and broken ground. Without a game trail, forward speed is slower and takes more effort. Despite the extra effort, sometimes I choose to walk off the game trails. The walking is harder but if there is something in the landscape worth exploring, the game trails won’t always get you there.

In business, it’s similar – finding and following a well-worn path frequently results in easier and faster forward-progress than ‘reinventing the wheel’. Business systems, mentors and proven systems are all examples of ‘game trails’ in the business world. It’s smart and sustainable to follow them whenever you can. But there’s also times when you may want to blaze a trail yourself, to define a new path, and be a pioneer. I use four filters to determine if trailblazing is the best approach.

1. No one has done this before – I need something in my business that is not currently available.

2. I can offer something new – there is a need in the marketplace which is currently unmet.

3. I can refine something existing – making it better or more applicable than the original.

4. I’m seeking to learn, understand or explore – sometimes the harder road yields great insights and personal progress.

If none of those conditions exist, go for the pre-existing ‘path’ that gives maximum sustainability and minimum effort for the return.

We need influencers!

With no staff and no budget, I was tasked with some complex and often contentious change initiatives. The only significant tool I had at my disposal was influence. My manager and I used to debate the difference between influence and manipulation. Her view was that influencing people was inherently manipulative. Despite her being a significant and successful influencer of people via her steadying hand, compelling vision, deep care for staff and customers, values based approach and cheerful disposition, she felt that influence had an undertone of deception and force.

My perspective is that influence is essential to all successful groups of humans. And regardless of our role in family, community or work, our influence makes a difference. I reckon the concept of influence gets muddied by slick sales tactics, deceptive actions designed to force people to a conclusion and more recently by the superficiality of some social media influencers.

I was delighted to see my good friend and colleague Suzanne Waldron step into this discussion exploring the nuances of influence, and an assurance that influence and manipulation are not the same thing. It reminded me instantly of those deep conversations with my old boss where we both respectfully influenced each other's perspective. I am looking forward to joining Suzanne as she unfolds her deep and rich experience in this space. I reckon the conversation will make me a better person and leader.

Worth being part of I reckon. What do you think?

#influence #leadership #makingadifference

Reflections on Perception

I’m foolishly recovering from a fortunately small and easily removed metal fragment in my eye. Reflection number 1 is “all the gear, all the time, no matter how short or quick the job is”.

I work a lot on my own in my shed, and have a pretty high standard on safety gear. And I took a “shortcut” which has taken a lot longer to resolve than slowing down for the couple of minutes to get my safety specs from where I used them last. Working in company, we can keep an eye on the safe practices of others around us. Alone, not so much. If you work alone a self prompted review (preferably without a GP) is well worth it.

The perception of shortcuts and too busy pop up regularly in the coaching work I do with leaders. Themes like:

• It’s faster to do it myself

• I haven’t got time to give people the reasons for what I'm asking, they just need to get on with it.

• I know I should do more about health, exercise, sleep, food, etc, but I don’t have time.

There are many like these, and I can relate to all of them. The short term may show a tempting illusion of being faster, but ultimately all these “shortcuts” involve do-overs or repairs of some kind. A couple of useful questions are:

• How can I build capacity and strengthen relationships as I do this? While doing so may take a little longer, in the long run the trust and capacity built will speed us up.

• What are the negative consequences of this “shortcut”?

• What are the actual risks of rushing this?

Not surprisingly, today I’m feeling more one-eyed about this than I might otherwise…And I’m counting my blessings.

Belief

Who do you know that could benefit from an injection of belief?

No Fear! Really?

In the early 2000’s “No Fear” was everywhere. It never made sense to me. Courage is more realistic. We only need courage where there is fear.

Courage features in some of my proudest moments, and the ones I’d rather forget. In the proud ones,  I stood for something when it was both important, and uncomfortable. Some were small interactions like recognising someone's effort, or extending kindness when someone was doing it tough. Some were much bigger like calling out unacceptable behaviour when few were speaking up. Some had me working hard to change something about myself when I knew it would be better for me and the people around me.

But there have also been times when I held my tongue, not shown support, avoided a necessary but tough conversation, let something substandard (in me, or others) slide, ignored my intuition.

Over years of working with some great leaders and working on myself, I know that courage has a lasting impact on individuals, companies and cultures.  When I’ve worked with teams on building Psychological Safety,  I see a direct correlation between leader courage  and the courage of their team. Courage is contagious and directly impacts Psychological Safety.

“No Fear” = no courage. I’d rather notice fear,  explore the cause, and act courageously. How does courage show up in your leadership?

A Standing Ovation

I saw a great post this week of a leader receiving a standing ovation and as he walked down between 2 rows of his team heading for the exit on his last day. The celebration was warm, genuine and emotional. People were cheering, slapping him on the back, hugging him and crying as he walked the guard of honour. I know nothing of the man or his work, but he had clearly made a massive impression and impact on his colleagues and team. I suspect he was a master at some of the core ingredients of building trust and psychological safety in a high performing team.

• Competence - in a professional environment, connection is important, but you also need to be able to get the job done.

• Warmth - we judge people in a heartbeat, way faster than they can demonstrate their competence. Warmth means you care and genuinely connect with people as people, not assets or resources. The easiest and quickest way to do this is make eye contact and smile.

• Integrity - do what you say you will do, when you say you will do it. Competence and warmth won’t be enough to continue building trust and psychological safety if you don’t follow through. (PS, this also means being good at saying “No” - more on that later)

• Connection - beyond your warm smile, is connection. Getting to know team members, what they care about, what they aspire to, what their challenges are, where they shine and where they need support not only show you care, but also help in building high performance.

• Clarity - Great leaders add clarity to everything- roles, boundaries, timeframes, measures of success, standards and more.

I reckon that standing ovation was built on these ingredients. And the beauty is they are all skills which means they can be learnt and improved by anyone. Which of them could use some attention in your world?

The Missing Link

One of the teams I’ve been working with has a great feedback culture. They ask for it and give it. They clearly valued feedback and made it part of how they work together. They also give lots of positive feedback, and often pause to self-reflect - sometimes giving themselves feedback about something they could improve.

And yet all of them said the same thing. The feedback they received was hard to use.

Actionable detail is the missing link. Feedback is more valuable if it is actionable. The more specific the better.

“You did a great job today” is feedback, but not useful. “You did a great job today. The specialist information you brought to the meeting, and the way you broke it down for non specialists really helped our colleagues understand what was needed. You left them with a clear path for action too. Thank you and keep it up.” is much more useful.

“I need you to step up” is feedback that’s not useful. “When we met on site today, you hung in the background and didn’t raise any of the issues you have previously highlighted. Could you take a more active role in leading the project. Next time could you bring the issues up for discussion and guide the resolution. I can offer support if you need a hand to prep.”

If you’d like a tool for giving more useful feedback, let me know and I’ll send it through.

Socks and Psychological Safety

One of the most embarrassing moments I’ve had as an adult happened a number of years ago when I bought some new socks (that wasn’t the embarrassing bit). I left them sitting on our kitchen bench for many days. One day, I was short of socks, so I went to the bench to find them. They weren’t there. I assumed my dear wife had cleared them up and put them somewhere. I asked her where they were and she said she had no idea. Then it got embarrassing - I got cranky and started asking her how the hell she could forget where she had put them when she had clearly moved them. It wasn’t my finest hour, and at the time I found it really hard to let it go. Some time later it got even more embarrassing when I found the socks and discovered that it was me who had moved them, and me who had forgotten where. It took a while to repair our relationship after I had acted so poorly.

I was thinking of this incident recently when working with a team who have some fractures in their team culture right now because people aren’t behaving at their best. Like me back then, they have been treating each other in less than ideal ways. It’s pretty human to want to avoid admitting and taking responsibility when we haven’t behaved at our best. It’s also pretty human to want to fire back, rather than extend grace and forgiveness when people treat you poorly (even more so if there’s zero justification for it). It can take a team quickly in a downward spiral where defensiveness, blame, and sniping become the new norm. It gets in the way of both productive effectiveness and team cohesiveness.

One simple principle is “Play the problem, not the person.”

Inspiring Company

I met Amy a couple of weeks ago. She’s 10 years old and already blazing a trail. Amy is in the process of learning to fly. There’s been a bunch of hurdles in her way with people giving her all kinds of reasons why it's not possible. She’s also meeting plenty of people who are inspired by her clarity and working with her to make it possible. When I asked why she wants to fly, it's to be an aeromedical pilot, preferably with RFDS. She’s also aiming to get into one of WA’s aviation specific schools where her goal is to be the highest performing student in that sector and see the school become the highest performing aviation school.

Check out some of her work to shed light on women in aviation at https://girlscanflyanything.com/

As a by-product of what Amy is doing, she’s being invited to speak at all sorts of events around the country.

Regardless of age, people with clear visions like Amy often run into walls. People actively blocking, telling them why not, and how it won't end well. Some go so far as to stomp on the vision, running the person down in the process. Vision like this is less common than it could be because there’s plenty of spectators with fire extinguishers in hand just waiting to put it out. I reckon we should hold the door open instead, or at least get out of the way and let the person work - and then watch this space, because something amazing will emerge. Go Amy!

Who could you encourage this week? What would that look like?

Chunking Up

When I was working in the disability service sector, I was asked to get involved with a family whose services were not going well. More particularly, the mother of a young adult we were supporting did not think they were going well. She had made a number of complaints. I was told “they are a problem family” and warned that I would not be likely to get a reasonable response from mum. I was appreciative of the warning, but I reckon it wasn’t particularly helpful, as it predisposed me to an adversarial conversation. A few people before me had been in vigorous arguments with her about the service and not reached any suitable solutions. Mostly the interactions led to more complaints.

When I first met mum she was angry about a lot of things. She was entirely justified about a number of them. The volume of things she was unhappy about was big and some of the things were not solvable, so I chunked up. Chunking up is moving away from detail toward principle. If you go far enough, you eventually find territory where instead of arguing 2 sides, you both agree. For that mum and me it was that we both cared about high quality of life for her son.

Chunking up to a point of agreement allows two (or more) people to get away from adversarial positions and start on the same side. If you can find a bigger principle that is true for both and connect about that, then it’s easier to work back down into the details. Look at the details through the principle. “Does (detail) contribute or erode higher quality of life?” is a more useful conversation than arguing head to head over details. It becomes easier to see what is important to both parties, what should be fought for, and what should be compromised.

It took a number of sessions, immediate actions on some stuff that wasn’t great, more proactive changes and compromises for both of us, before everyone was satisfied with the service.

Where could you chunk up for a more effective conversation?

Feedback

How’s feedback working in your team?

When I ask teams about improving how well they work together, feedback almost always shows up in the conversation. Most teams tell me there is not enough feedback, or that it’s low quality. Ideally feedback is clear and specific enough that you can do something useful with it. In effective teams (ones where there are competent people and not much in the way of toxic behaviour), getting better at feedback is a great way to level up. But while a lot of us would like more (or better) feedback, hardly anyone gets excited about giving it. We shy away from it, concerned about negative reactions or hurting people’s feelings.

One of the best ways I know to change that dynamic is to start giving people clear and useful feedback about the great work they are doing as well as the stuff that needs improving. You’ll build a culture where feedback feels safe, and people feel valued whatever the nature of feedback you are giving.

Teams that nail this have a ratio of about 5X more positive feedback than corrective feedback.

What do you reckon the ratio is in your team?

Know Your Place

One of our Perth footy teams has been copping a heap of flack lately. They have had a woeful season, plagued with injury and losses. As always, there’s a bunch of armchair coaches with plenty of views about what could or should be done to fix it.

One player has been copping more criticism than usual. It’s been based on how much contact he has with the ball (Nowhere near enough apparently). In a radio interview another player was discussing the issue. His view is the player is doing exactly what his job is on the team, and doing it well. Apparently the position has wildly variable ball stats because it’s oriented slightly behind the play to create opportunities and turnovers. Depending how the game unfolds this means either lots of contact, or none. He could easily rush into the play and increase his stats, but hanging back is precisely what he’s meant to do.

There are several lessons from this interview that relate to Psychological Safety and high performance in any team:

• Clarity and willingness . The roles are clearly articulated and understood. People are willing to play their role for the team, even when there’s external pressure to do something different.

• Support roles are crucial. There are roles that are specifically about support. The people in these roles are unlikely to be the central figure or superstar (many times they don’t want to be either). Their support is part of the recipe for success. The highly visible roles in any team are surrounded by people who make it possible for them to do their best work.

• Support for support roles is crucial too. In a high performing team their essential contribution is recognised and celebrated in ways that make sense to the people in support, and the culture of the team. If those in support roles are not properly recognised, they either rush into action to improve their ‘stats’ or they become increasingly disengaged as their hard work goes unnoticed (or worse, others claim credit for it).

Without role clarity, none of this will happen well. What can you do today to increase clarity for the people in your team dedicated to support? How does recognition happen for them? Could that be improved?

If you’d like some tips and strategies for improving Psychological Safety in your team, feel free to be in touch.

Disclaimer - My knowledge of AFL is possibly the lowest of any human in Australia (at some point I’ll tell you about my own woful start and very short footy career). While my interpretation of the nuances of the game is way below the average armchair coach, the observations derived still stand.

The Right Tool for the Job

On the weekend I did a bit of work on my old 4WD. It got me thinking. I spent about 60 minutes applying brute force and busting knuckles trying to get a ball joint out of its socket. I phoned a friend. I swore quite a bit. Nothing worked. Then I went round the corner and paid $50 for the right tool for the job. In less than 10 minutes I had done 2 joints. It was easy and even pleasurable.

Sometimes we have to make do with not having the ideal tool to hand. More often than not it's false economy. One of the effective things leaders can do to build psychological safety and create momentum in the workplace is to set people up with the right gear for success.

Are there any areas where you or your team don't currently have the right tool?

P.S. This isn't a licence to demand the best and latest of everything. I could have bought a $800 tool that would have done the same job. If I was using it daily that would be money well spent. For the one off job, it would have been overkill.

Black Belt Mastery

I was learning from a black belt martial artist. The way she moved seemed like magic. One sequence flowed smoothly into another, and she was able to find advantage over much bigger and stronger opponents. She taught me about how she was using leverage in different situations. It sped up my journey because I was focussed on an important and effective principle. But there was still no magic. Using her insight speeds me on the path, but there are still years of dedicated practice to gain the same precise and fluid movement.

How can you speed someone's journey today?

A picture of Self-Reliance

I work with many organisations who provide support to people with disabilities and the elderly. At face value, their clients are not very self-reliant. The truth of it is we are all reliant on others, all the time, regardless of how independent we think we are. As leaders, recognising and appreciating the people we rely on is a great way to build a sense of team, and to grow psychological safety in your workplace.

I love Steve Jobs’ take on this…

"I grow little of the food I eat, and of the little I do grow I did not breed or perfect the seeds.

I do not make any of my own clothing.

I speak a language I did not invent or refine.

I did not discover the mathematics I use.

I am protected by freedoms and laws I did not conceive of or legislate, and do not enforce or adjudicate.

I am moved by music I did not create myself.

When I needed medical attention, I was helpless to help myself survive.

I did not invent the transistor, the microprocessor, object oriented programming, or most of the technology I work with.

I love and admire my species, living and dead, and am totally dependent on them for my life and well being."

(An email Jobs sent to himself in 2010. Bought to my attention by James Clear in his weekly post)

Isolation - What Does it Mean at Work?

16 years ago, I did a 12 day solo survival walk. An isolated part of Western Australia was the backdrop. Sourcing food and water from the land. Sleeping on the ground in just my clothes. When I first started, being alone and unplugged was an absolute luxury, but as the days wore on the effort of doing 100% of everything and having no one to share the scene, decisions, insights etc became wearing. There were moments when I felt the impact of isolation at a deep and visceral level. Without an external reference point, my mind explored all manner of answers to the question “Who am I?”. Some of it was useful and enjoyable. Some of it had a darker edge.

Since then there’s been a regular stream of survival shows that leave people alone. There’s a consistent pattern to the exits. Early on people with insufficient skill or experience quickly pull out and retreat to home. Of the people left, many have the skills to survive a very long time, if not indefinitely. Eventually, they all quit because they crave the company of others. Assuming no medical reasons for withdrawal, it's the isolation that gets people. We are meant to be with other people.

It’s no surprise to me that isolated work (including work from home) is listed as one of the potential risks in workplace psychosocial hazards. The baseline is to consider how we facilitate connection and inclusion in inherently isolated working settings. But I reckon the gold standard is to become really aware of how we potentially isolate people in any setting.

Who has access to resources and opportunities?

Are we Cliquey?

Are people snubbed or shunned for behaviour, appearance, professional background, belief, or any other factor?

How are social connections working? Everything from casual chats over coffee to formal events.

While we don’t have to include everyone in everything all of the time (That would get really cumbersome), we should be having regular conversations about what connection looks like in our workplace. How is it at yours?