Which direction and how?

Direction over detail is well and good if you know where you are going. Alice (in Wonderland) asked that cat which way she should go. She didn't care where she would end up. The cat reckoned in that case, direction didn't matter. Quite right!

I facilitated a conversation recently where big changes are afoot for an organisation with a long, proud and effective history. The conversation was about creating an ideal future within the inevitable changes.

The leaders and team did a great job of looking forward. They:

• Acknowledged and celebrated past success.

• Identified aspects of their organisation/work that they did not want to lose or compromise in the change.

• Articulated the likely limits to their future, including considering what is happening for their stakeholders.

• Laid out a high level plan for their future, which adds value and insulates from irrelevance.

• Framed their propositions thoughtfully, highlighting value to stakeholders rather than just making a wish list.

There’s a lot of detail to be added, but in less than 2 hours they have the bones of a solid future.

The risk in such a conversation is people getting stuck in the past rather than looking forward. They could have lamented the situation, complained, pushed back against inevitable shifts and fought over irrelevant detail. They did not. It was a great working example of Direction over Detail.

Right to disconnect

I keep running into leaders who say “I choose to do a lot of my work after hours and send lots of emails at night or the weekend. I don’t expect my staff to respond, but they do.”

If you do this it will set the expectation for many of your staff to respond, even if you explicitly state that you don’t expect them too. Expectations come from many sources:

• Notifications - if someone has their phone around them all the time, and notifications on, at the very least, they’ll see the message come in. Even if they choose not to respond, it will be on their mind.

• Standards - You are working after hours which sets an expectation that others should too, especially if you hold a senior position.

• Boundaries -  Some people and cultures have difficulty saying no to others. If you breach their boundaries, they’ll respond. 

• Old ways - It used to be said ‘never leave the office before the boss’. It’s changing, but it’s an enduring idea. If you are working any hours, it easily morphs to ‘don’t knock off before the boss’.

• Behaviour - You may not expect a response, but if you get one, do you respond again? This draws staff into an after hours discussion that your behaviour reinforces, even if you say you don’t expect it.

The new legislation is likely to get some leaders in strife for after hours emails like this, regardless of what they say about expectations. There’s a dead easy solution. All email platforms have a timed or delayed send feature. Learn to use it! Write your emails whenever it suits you, then set it to send during working hours. Simple, cleaner, better.

Don’t let legislation lead

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, you’ll know that WHS legislation has recently changed in Australia to include psychosocial hazards. Organisations now have a legislated responsibility to ensure that people are safe from undue psychological impacts of work. As of this week, there's been additions to enshrine people’s right to disconnect from work, meaning they cant be compelled to respond to out of hours communication unless it is unreasonable (e.g. when you are on call, or under a specific set of conditions for a limited time)

You could take the approach of finding out what the new rules are and then follow the legislative lead. That will take you down a rabbit hole of minimum standards and a compliance mindset. A better approach is to build the culture you and your team want/need for optimal performance and then create it together. The standard you set will be much greater than the minimum required, and will have the added bonus of boosting engagement and performance. 

Which Why?

A senior leader team I was working with this week spent time sharing their individual “User Manual”. Some great insights about how and where people work best, their preferences for information, building trust, working hours and more were shared. Super valuable. A common theme was that for them to commit time, effort and resources to something, they needed to know why. Makes sense - few if any of us like wasting time on work that doesn’t seem relevant. Whole books have been written on “why”. But which why? Those leaders articulated 5 different types of why:

• Large, audacious ‘change the world’ vision/mission why

• Large organisational purpose why

• Personal mission why

• Tactical ‘how does this relate to the rest of my/our work?’ why

• Unrelated to the organisation whys like family, health, travel, personal growth, freedom, balance, choice.

All the leaders wanted to know why. They all agreed that knowing why was fundamental to alignment of effort. But not all of them wanted to know the same why. A challenge to alignment is we tend to articulate importance through our own why and huddle with others who share that perspective. An effective leader works to understand the different whys in their team and works with people to align effort with the why that most interests them.

There’s a good chance that most of the whys you work with are in the list above. There’s also a good chance I’ve missed some. What would you add?

Clarity is Performance Fuel

Photo by Solen Feyissa on Unsplash

When it’s clear what you are doing, a solid performance becomes much more likely. The opposite is also true - a lack of clarity makes it very difficult to perform. The Olympics are on at the moment, and we are witnessing amazing feats of human performance by some incredible athletes (Go Aussies! - just sayin’).

These are humans who have dedicated themselves to a very clear outcome and have trained specifically for it for 4 years or more. Great work teams have clarity too. They know what they are working toward, as well as what each person’s role is within the team.

When clarity is missing, commitment rapidly dissolves. People initially attempt to deliver, partly in an attempt to gain clarity. But over time their commitment wanes. Imagine training for the Olympics, but being told regularly that the discipline you will be competing in has been changed. The novelty would appeal for a while, but it would get demotivating pretty quickly.

One of the imperatives of leadership is to add clarity whenever possible. How do you do that in your team?

Conduct: Low Hanging Fruit

Christine Porath has been researching incivility in the workplace for almost 3 decades. She defines it as “...seemingly inconsequential inconsiderate words and deeds that violate accepted norms of workplace conduct…”. It’s the small, slightly rude acts we do and experience - things like eye rolls, sarcasm, harsh words, snappiness. The stuff we can all do especially when we are tired and stressed.

Porath says it’s on the rise. In 1998 she found around 25% of people experienced regular rudeness at work. In 2005 it was almost 50%. By 2022 it was over 75%. An alarming pattern.

I often ask teams about the pattern in their own workplace. 98% say there's some level of rudeness. Over 70% say they do it occasionally when they lose their cool, and that they regret it later. A fair portion of us do it to ourselves with harsh negative criticism and self talk when we disappoint ourselves in some way (I know I do).

So if it's rarely deliberate why is it growing? Rudeness easily provokes a “Tit for tat” dynamic. The more we experience it, the more likely we are to bite back or pay it forward. That adds further to stress, which makes it even more likely that we’ll behave that way.

If you want a high performing team, there’s enormous value in naming this stuff. Talking about where and how it happens, and discussing ways to reduce it. In the same way that rudeness is contagious, so is kindness. It’s an easy, high ROI element of conduct that teams can turn to their advantage.

If you like to know more about how rudeness shows up, its impacts and what to do about it, I’d love to hear from you.

A Tale of Two Teams

I’ve worked in and with a lot of different teams. Each of them had a unique way of operating together. While there were some similarities, none were the same. One of the best ‘team health’ gauges is commitment.

In one team, no one was committed to their teammates. People would actively sabotage work and make each other look bad to gain advantage. It was like an episode of Survivor. Commitment was transitory and only ever for defence or advantage. It was a horrible place to work. Everyone was focussed on who was plotting what.

On another team, commitment was high. We would go out of our way to support each other to get results. Success was celebrated together. People willingly put in extra effort for each other. Everyone was focussed on getting the best outcomes. In both situations the leader was a very active participant in setting the team dynamic and culture, and the team echoed and amplified the standard they set. Both dynamics were also strongly self reinforcing.

Where does commitment lie in your team? If you want optimal performance, there will be tangible commitment to the team (each other), the task (what we are doing?) and the organisation and/or purpose (what are we here for?). Good leaders model and encourage commitment.

Clarity precedes commitment

While I was working as a survival instructor, we emphasised over and over again the importance of water as one of the 5 survival priorities. Participating in an advanced exercise, we encountered a smelly, slimy pool covered with bubbly green algae. It didn’t look drinkable. But parting the layer of green sludge revealed slowly flowing, almost clear water. Clarifying it by straining through fabric, then boiling to purify, and it was perfectly drinkable. It took a while to convince the rest of the group that it was a better option than walking further with an unknown distance to our next water source.

There are similarities in the workplace. Like the group facing that sludgy looking pool, sometimes we need clarification before we commit. Clarification is a key role of leaders at all levels (even if you are an unofficial leader).

On Friday I was working with a CEO and Board discussing their strategy. They are pursuing organic growth by being exemplary at what they do (it’s working well). They also want to grow by acquisition. The nature of their industry means potential acquisitions are a rare find. The CEO was seeking guidance from the board about how aggressively to pursue the acquisition strategy. He mapped a provocative ‘worst case’ to see how the board reacted. Initially the discussion resembled the survival group around the skanky pond - wrinkled noses and obvious discomfort. As the conversation progressed, there was more and more clarity. By the end, the Board and the CEO had a crystal clear understanding about their approach. Ambiguity gone. Alignment achieved.

As a leader, in any situation, it’s worth asking “How can I add clarity to this interaction?”

Minor Changes?

Three stories from real people in real businesses this week:

• An engineer was plagued with constant ‘minor changes’ requested by a client. The engineering needs to be precise because of the loads on the structure. Relatively minor changes equal a full redo of the calculations and drawings.

• A highly customised vehicle had to be upgraded. The old model was no longer available. When the new one finally arrived, it didn’t fit in the shed.

• During an approval process a commitment was made to do things a certain way. When regulators made their inspection something completely different was happening. The original commitment had not been passed on to the operational team. The project may be suspended.

• A piece of public paving near my place was completed and dug up 6 times in one year because roads were changed, trees were planted, cables were shifted, water pipes were replaced etc.

We’ve all had experiences like these where one part of an organisation seems really badly informed about decisions others are making. At worst this leads to massive do-overs and significant frustration. I reckon it’s a compounding situation right now.

People’s to - do lists are so hectic, that they are focussed on what is right in front of them. Taking the time to ask for input from others and/or keep them informed can easily feel like a distraction from our primary focus. It’s false economy. I wonder what percentage of work across the planet is caused by a lack of cohesion, collaboration and communication. It must amount to a massive cost in time, dollars, resources and energy.

If you lead, take the time to slow down and facilitate the connections with people. Everything will go faster.

Police or Purpose

Many moons ago I was a Youth Worker. I once saw a great act of policing. There was a group of young people from a country town visiting Freo. They had gathered in a car park drinking around a mate's ute. They were loud and dropping empty cans/bottles everywhere, but not causing any harm.

A couple of local cops turned up and the older of the 2 leant on the back of the ute and had a yarn to them about street drinking, noise and drink driving. He politely asked them to chuck all the empties into the back of the ute, identified a guy who hadn’t been drinking, eyeballed his licence and then said, “My partner and I are off on patrol, when we get back it would be great if you had cleaned up the cans, and moved you and the ute back to wherever you are staying. If we come back we might need to write some cautions”.

He could have technically thrown the book at them and been much more pushy in his approach. His explanations and requests made sense, and had the group immediately on side. If he’d taken another approach it could have easily escalated with undesirable outcomes for all.

Workplace policy and procedure is similar, I reckon. As a supervisor, employer, or business owner you know that they have their place. From there you have 2 choices:

1. Use them to ‘police’ behaviour and productivity. This approach usually has lots of black and white compliance, criticism, right and wrong involved. The problem is that it rarely motivates people to do a great job. It’s more likely that they’ll adhere to the minimum standard, and/or hide stuff that will draw attention and heat.

2. Tell people about the purpose of them. Involve them in discussions about why they exist and what ‘good’ work looks like in your context. Get people focussed on a good job, not just a compliant one. They’ll be more likely to follow your lead, get excited about doing great work, and evolving great procedures to do it.

Force won’t fix it

A while ago, I was doing a maintenance job on my motorbike. When trying to re-fit the front axle it wouldn’t slide through without a bit of force. As the saying goes, ”If at first it doesn’t fit, get a bigger hammer.” I got one and in return I got some damaged parts. My bigger hammer made a bigger problem.

The situation came to mind when I was talking to a leader about the performance of his team. According to him, they are not bad, but the general standard of their work is a bit lackadaisical. In attempting to lift the standard, all his tactics are about more force. Some of what he told me:

• He expresses anger and/or disappointment at the current standard of work (Understandable by the way, it costs him $$ when work is not on point)

• He plays people off against each other

• He makes thinly veiled threats about people losing their job

• He demands longer work hours to make up for the perceived shortcomings

• He constantly reminds people of policies and procedures

• He is looking over people’s shoulders all the time

• He never thanks people for anything (Why should I thank them for doing the job they are paid to do, especially if they are not doing it well? he asked)

I asked him how that approach was working for him.

“I think it’s getting worse,: he said. People don’t take responsibility and blame others/circumstances for their results. Like me with my axle bolt, I understand his frustration, but I’m not surprised.

In an environment where high results/standards are expected, but people don’t feel psychologically safe, the dominant feeling is anxiety. People will do almost anything to avoid attention and cover their butts. More force adds to the problem, making it harder and longer to fix.

Next time we’ll look at some of what he can do to reverse the current situation and build

Psychological safety as well as the performance standard.

That takes the cake

Want to see a really great example of high quality feedback delivered really well? Such examples are hard to find in a format that can be widely shared. Last night I was watching the finale of School of Chocolate on Netflix. It’s an interesting show if you are into food, sculpture, fine art and expertise. In the finale, two people are competing for a massive prize by making a chocolate showpiece. Chef Amaury Guichon gives the competitors some great feedback when their build is done. The whole season is worth a watch if you are into that sort of thing. If it’s not your flavour, but you’d like to see the feedback go straight to the final episode from 27 min 10 sec until 30 min for one competitor and 30:46 to 33:00 for the other (You’re welcome!). If you want a bit more context watch the whole episode. SPOILER ALERT, if you plan to watch the whole series, watching these 2 segments before watching from Episode One will make it less enjoyable.

Chef Guichon uses some fine ingredients often missing from feedback:

• It’s clear, concise and specific with good examples

• It’s actionable

• When he expresses an opinion, or preference he owns it by saying “I would have liked…”

• When he’s talking industry standards he’s clear about that too

• He doesn’t beat around the bush with ambiguous fluff, making statements that sound as if there’s deep meaning buried in the marrow just waiting to be sucked out by someone who is already on the bus and willing to step up and lift their game (See what I did there?)

• He is respectful in his delivery

• He cares about the development and growth of the person receiving the feedback

• He gives quality corrective feedback as well as feedback on elements that were well executed

Magnifique Chef Guichon! It’s a great recipe. With a bit of practice anyone can do it. Sing out if you’d like a hand with that.

Why can’t we just talk openly?

A new CEO asked this question of his senior staff, one of whom I’m coaching at the moment. His belief is that people should be able to raise issues and talk openly about them with each other. But people don’t. Simply saying that they should, regardless of good intent, won’t change people’s minds.

There’s been a history in the organisation of people raising issues and experiencing significant backlash. There’s been people actively working to boost their reputation while tearing others down. There's been gossip and blame. People are accustomed to bad outcomes when they speak openly about problems. There’s nothing in recent history that suggests doing so would be good or safe.

To change that will take more than words. It will take building trust and psychological safety. That will likely mean starting with relatively small and inconsequential pieces and building up to the bigger stuff. It will take some courage and accountability.

All that can be achieved reasonably quickly, but simply saying it won’t make it so.

“Did you get a free coffee yesterday?”, the owner asked my wife. “No , why?”, she replied. As she brewed a fresh and free coffee, the owner told Donna she had noticed she didn’t drink her breakfast coffee on Sunday. We had left before she could ask why not. She was genuinely curious about why that coffee had been left untouched by one of her regular customers. She listened to Donna’s feedback, asked great questions, and listened some more.

On its own, that’s pretty cool. But it doesn’t make a difference. I’m sure many of us have had experiences of giving feedback, only for nothing to change. At that coffee shop, action is guaranteed - like when the lids on takeaway cups kept coming off and the owner had a new supplier the following day - she makes it safe to speak, she listens and she acts.

Safety in this case is created by 4 things:

1. She has a track record of being open to feedback and genuine enquiry. She always receives feedback without judgement, justification, blame or excuses. She simply listens.

2. The free coffee is a way of saying “I know you were not happy with our product. I know we did something different and less good”. She is creating an invitation to talk about it by acknowledging the problem and making a gesture of good faith.

3. She separates the people from the problem. It’s all about the best possible coffee. It’s not about an argument or lynching baristas.

4. She acts which lets people know the feedback is heard and valued.

By comparison, a coaching client is currently being asked to give feedback about a team member. The process is not transparent. The intent is not transparent. There's a history of issues raised being ignored or not acted on. There’s a history of people being treated differently because they gave feedback. Not surprisingly, she doesn’t feel safe to give feedback.

How do you personally seek and encourage feedback?

How do you make it safe for others to seek it and give it?

What action do you take as a result?

And if you are in Midland, check out New Ritual cafe. The coffee is great.

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.

Hidden Resistance

Over the years of being involved in many organisational change initiatives, there has always been resistance. Some of the reasons for resistance are obvious and easily addressed. Some are more subtle, hidden away in places we don’t often consider. In my experience, locating and addressing hidden resistance has a much greater effect on progressing change, than adding further force.

One hidden source of resistance is that the status quo serves some or all of the people in some way. It doesn't necessarily need to be positive - the old adage about the devil you know exists for a reason! Asking and answering the question “How does the current situation serve me/us/them?” will give some insight. Here are a few examples I have encountered.

• Ian had been one of the major people involved in creating the current system. He was quick to admit that it no longer served the organisation and it was time to move on, but he also had an emotional attachment to it. It was hard to let it go without feeling that his original work was somehow substandard. He also felt that people pushing the change were not listening to his depth of experience. How could you address this with Ian?

• Lorraine knew her team and their circumstances very well. She manually ran an excellent roster of many people and never missed a beat. As the organisation grew, rostering was being brought into a central function, which gave capacity to better manage overtime hours, use people’s skills and availability across a larger spread of the organisation's work and allow staff to easily see their rosters and request changes. Lorraine was concerned about losing control of the excellent relationships she had with her staff and clients. She was also concerned about learning a computer based system, and was resolutely sticking to her paper based one, slowing the whole project down. How could you assist Lorainne with that situation?

• The whole of A Shift had a reputation for quickly solving the problems that the current system caused (usually many a day). They relished their reputation and the edgy excitement of solving problems ‘on the fly’. An A Shift supervisor said, "the new system will mean less problems, and our work immediately becomes more mundane and boring.” A Shift was significantly blocking progress on the new system and as a result getting even more problems to solve. How would you work with A Shift?

In each of these situations, once the reasons for resistance were heard, understood and addressed, the people involved became avid supporters of the changes being made. Trying to force them toward the new systems would have resulted in them being casualties of change, or the resistance being driven more underground.

Lead like the Pool Guy

Andy the pool guy delivered a spa to our place this week. It took 2 of us to assist him with unloading and moving into its new home. Andy was a great example of effective leadership. The spa was heavy, and mishandling could easily have broken it, or hurt one of us. Every time we were about to change position, Andy gave us a ‘just in time’ brief about what was about to happen. It was smooth and low stress. He would say things like, “the trolley is about to kick away from us, but it wont go any further”, and “put one hand here like this, and the other one under here”. He was using his experience and knowledge to guide the process. He took responsibility for both the results and the people involved, he isolated the potential problem areas and made sure it was in hand before we moved, he consistently added calm clarity.

Great work Andy! How can you lead more like Andy in some of your work?

Work Both Ways

I worked with a team with some of the best scores I have ever seen for psychological safety. It wasn't surprising. The team focusses on it in everything they do. Despite the scores, their biggest opportunity for improvement was feedback. They give and receive plenty. They value it. They care about each other as well as the result. These are all ingredients for a great feedback culture. Almost all of them said the quality of feedback was the challenge.

To give quality feedback work in 2 directions at once. Down into detail and up into context. Specific, actionable detail is feedback gold. If it's not specific enough it's difficult to act on. The master stroke is to link to a bigger contextual frame. Context makes feedback useful across everything you do, rather than just the immediate situation.

I love working with teams to develop great feedback skills. Done well feedback is a superpower for teams. Done poorly it can tear them apart.

How does your team score on feedback?

Problem Solving

I’ve been thinking a lot about problem solving. A useful starting point is to know the nature of the problem you are trying to resolve. Is it simple, complicated, or complex?

I recently started bringing a 1992 Honda Goldwing back to life. There’s been lots of problem solving. I had to chase down why the headlights weren’t working. This is an example of a simple problem… It’s a closed system, and while there are a number of potential failure points, they are predictable and simple to rectify (that doesn’t necessarily equate to easy).

Photo by Knak

For a simple problem the best approach is a logical sequence to find which part of the system is failing, then find the exact location, and then fix that. In the case of the headlights there were 3 breakdown points. It took a while to find and rectify them all. The problem was compounded because the relatively simple headlight circuit ‘lives’ in a complicated motorcycle system, so the first job was to discover if it was a complicated problem (involving multiple failures across multiple interconnected systems). In that case, it would still be a matter of systematically testing and unravelling until the base issue was discovered.

In a number of coaching sessions recently we’ve been looking at complex problems. Complexity is when there are many factors involved, some may be causal (or maybe not). Often there are multiple overlapping causes and no easy solution. An example was conflict between 2 highly experienced leaders. Both their jobs and teams are “mission critical” for their organisation. Both teams are also critical to each other’s success. BUT the actual outcomes each team is tasked to achieve are somewhat contradictory.

The ideal progression for one team causes real world problems for the other and vice versa. There is no simple answer for these leaders. For both, a key piece in improving their working relationship was acknowledging that none of it was personal. If they saw each other's actions as intentionally hostile, it was no good.

They are working on a better understanding of what the genuinely non-negotiable parts of their roles are and being unambiguous with each other. The problems they face are complex. Their current understanding of each other’s roles helps them navigate the complexity more effectively and position both teams for the greatest success.

What are some of the problems you are currently facing? What category do they fit in?

Order from Chaos - 5 Lessons from a Day with an Elite Response Team

I recently had the privilege of spending the day with a professional emergency response team in their training environment. They are tasked with entering highly dynamic and unpredictable environments, often with minimal information. The situations they face evolve rapidly. One of the stand out aspects of their work was their ability to create order in the midst of chaos. I wondered what lessons could be learned that apply to everyday leadership and business. While the physical risk for most of us is much lower, we certainly face chaotic and unpredictable situations, often with minimal information and evolving dynamics.

Lesson 1 - Inject Clarity

I’m rapidly forming a view that the number one job of leaders in an uncertain world is clarity. The team added clarity in a number of ways. Excellent communication that focussed on what was known and what they were going to do. This included quality questions that highlighted gaps and potential misunderstandings. Ultra clear roles and responsibilities. Everyone knew exactly what they were responsible for. Clear decision making so that when the inevitable decisions on the fly needed to be made the whole team knew where their decision making lines were. Clearly defined start, end, decision, and potential disruption points. Discipline to focus the above on known information or useful speculation. The team stayed well away from the potential rabbit holes of ineffective ‘what if’. 

Lesson 2 - Debrief

After the action stopped, the whole team paused for review. What went well, what could have been improved, what lessons could they adopt for the future? Notable in this process was a strong expectation that people would highlight potential improvement. There was little consideration of position or ego in the process. All input was matter of fact and welcome.

Lesson 3 - BYO Feedback

Part of what made the debrief effective was people providing their own feedback for places they could have done better or had messed something up. They weren’t attempting to blame others or circumstances for anything. And they certainly weren’t waiting to see if someone else noticed. Actively reflecting on your own performance makes it easier and safer for others to give you feedback.

Lesson 4 - Hone your skill

The combination of clarity, practice and debriefing had the team constantly honing their collective skill. Individuals were doing the same. Whatever it is you do, keep practising and refining. Be the best you can be. When chaos lands you know your capability and can deliver without hesitation.

Lesson 5 - Control for Innovation

The team took active control of all elements they could. How they moved, how they communicated, how they decided, who was responsible for what, staying fed/hydrated/rested so they were ready to go, flawless maintenance and front loading, testing systems and gear and much more. The discipline and tight control of elements they could control created a strong core of certainty within chaotic and uncertain environments. It allowed them to quickly adapt and innovate when they needed to.

In what ways can you incorporate these lessons into your work/leadership? What additional insights would you add?