www.princexml.com

Prince - Personal Edition

This document was created with Prince, a great way of getting web content onto paper.

“This delightful book is both intelligent andwise. It is full of insights that trigger just theright kind of reflection and soul-searching.Anyone serious about becoming more effect-ive at work (or anywhere in which interac-tions with other people matter) will benefitby reading this book and taking its insightsto heart. Marcum and Smith do a beautifuljob describing ego’s strengths and pitfalls,and they guide us gently, with care and em-pathy, toward practices that help tame theego to get it to work for us rather thanagainst us. To do this, they integrate estab-lished social science research with their ownexperiences, and the result is a seamlessreadable journey that experts and novicesalike will enjoy.”—Dr. Amy C. Edmondson, Novartis Profess-

or of Leadership and Management and chair,Doctoral Programs, Harvard Business School

“I love this book. From Freud to modernneuroscience, we’ve been told that it’s ourego, the monitor of good and bad judgmentand decision making, that determines ourfate and future. This book reveals in depthand originality how to deploy this basic forcefor self-development and for the commongood. A book every leader should read.”—Dr. Warren Bennis, Distinguished Profess-

or of Business, University of Southern Cali-fornia, and author of On Becoming a Leader

and coauthor of Geeks and Geezers: HowEra, Values, and Defining Moments Shape

Leaders

“egonomics is great medicine for those of uswho manage knowledge workers—peoplewho know more about what they are doingthan we do! Marcum and Smith show youhow to get ahead without letting it get toyour head. The book is filled with greatlearning and, at the same time, great fun.

4/564

This book addresses the greatest challengefaced by successful people. A wonderfulbook.”

—Dr. Marshall Goldsmith, New York Timesand Wall Street Journal bestselling author

of What Got You Here Won’t Get You There:How Successful People Become Even More

Successful!

“What a brilliant and vitally important book!So true and so pragmatically necessary. Egois the opposite of conscience. It never sleeps.It micromanages and disempowers. Ego in-terprets all of life through its own agenda. Itis only when conscience and humility tameego and channel its strength that it can beused for good. Then, humble confidence andthe ambition only to significantly contributematter, which in turn produce constant im-provement cultures and synergistic relation-ships. Integrity then becomes a higher value

5/564

than loyalty, in fact becomes the essence oftrue loyalty.”

—Stephen R. Covey, author of The 7 Habitsof Highly Effective People and The 8th

Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness

“This book is quite an accomplishment. ego-nomics addresses an incredibly importantaspect of work life (and all of life) that getsvery little systematic attention and sustainedimplementation in the business world. Mar-cum and Smith’s practical approach may justsave you from the blindness of your mostmindless self and tap those elements of heartand mind, native intelligence, and our capa-city for wise action that can make a huge dif-ference to the effectiveness of an organiza-tion and the quality of its corporate culture.It reminds us where our truest self and self-interest as leaders might be found. Such em-bodiment will make for happier stakeholdersall around, and for the best reasons.”

6/564

—Jon Kabat-Zinn, Ph.D., professor of medi-cine emeritus, University of Massachusetts

Medical School, author of Coming to OurSenses: Healing Ourselves and the World

Through Mindfulness, and leader of theUniversity of Massachusetts Medical

School’s The Power of Mindfulness retreatsfor leaders and innovators

“After the extraordinary hubris of recentbusiness history—the Enron scandal, theDonald Trump TV shows—it’s so refreshingto read egonomics, which makes a compel-ling case for the practical importance of hu-mility and veracity in the business realm.”

—Alan Deutschman, senior writer, FastCompany; author of Change or Die: The

Three Keys to Change at Work and in Life

“egonomics quickly focuses your mind on theneed for personal improvement and does sothrough the principles it teaches—humility,

7/564

curiosity, and veracity. It is a riveting assess-ment of every leader’s daily challenge for realand perceived ego balance in a journey char-acterized by permanent white water. ego-nomics is the critical ingredient for the qual-ity and sustainability of any organization’svalue system and economic profit.”

—James C. Thyen, president and chief exec-utive officer, Kimball International, Inc.

“This book is about a subject that has re-ceived little attention for far too long. True, itdeals with an important aspect of leadershipthat is difficult to discuss comfortably, muchless to solidly research. Marcum and Smithhave done a scholarly job of both. They notonly recognize and clearly explain the signi-ficant problems and opportunities EGObrings to great leadership, but they motivateyou to do something about it and explainhow it can be done. It’s good reading for

8/564

every executive and could result in enormousrewards.”

—Dr. Jack R. Wentworth, professor deanemeritus of business administration, Kelley

School of Business, Indiana University

“This book is terrific! egonomics providesgrounded, practical approaches for those try-ing to lift their organizations from thestrangleholds of runaway egos. Marcum andSmith’s perspective on ‘veracity’ should berequired reading in every MBA program.”

—Christine M. Pearson, Ph.D., professor ofmanagement, Thunderbird School of Global

Management

“Marcum and Smith’s well-written, enga-ging, and useful work identifies early warn-ing signs of ego and principles to avoid ex-cessive ego (humility, curiosity, veracity).They document that when leaders act purelyout of ego they make costly and ill-advised

9/564

decisions. Leaders may maintain self-confid-ence without the downside of ego by beingaware of the early warning signs Marcumand Smith identify and the principles theyadvocate. The book is well documented, easyto follow, and filled with specific ideas thatcan be helpful for leaders at all levels of acompany.”—Dave Ulrich, Ph.D., professor, Ross Schoolof Business, University of Michigan; partner,the RBL Group; and coauthor of The Leader-

ship Brand

“egonomics brings a new significant leader-ship resource—moving us from experiencingego as a liability to appreciating ego as partof the power of personal humility. egonomicsenhances the language of the leader of thefuture.”

—Frances Hesselbein, chairman of theboard, Leader to Leader Institute (formerly

The Peter Drucker Foundation)

10/564

“Individual success depends on ability, drive,and creativity. These same qualities oftenproduce strong egos, which often underminethe ability of an organization to leverage thediverse skills, ideas, and perspectives of itsemployees. Blending ideas from cutting-edgeresearch with the wisdom that can only beacquired from being in the game, egonomicsshows leaders how to recognize ego’s costand how to control their own egos and man-age those of others. A must read for anymanager or business leader. The smarter youthink you are, the more you need to read thisbook.”

—Scott E. Page, Ph.D., professor of complexsystems, political science, and economics,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; externalfaculty, Santa Fe Institute; and author of The

Difference

11/564

“With stunning examples, Marcum andSmith’s egonomics shows how the ego needsof executives, managers, and key others cansabotage corporate and personal success.Marcum and Smith chronicle the differencebetween strong and needy egos, and chartthe early signs of formal leaders’ ego defi-ciencies and defenses. I applaud their psy-chological knowledge of self-defeating beha-vior, their Rogerian applications, and theirability to show how humility, curiosity, andtruth can restore the self, the confidence ofothers, and the corporate bottom line.”

—Dr. Carol Hoare, professor of human de-velopment and human resource develop-

ment, George Washington University

“Finally a book that tackles the toughestproblem in business today: the inflated egosof the players, especially top management.Marcum and Smith deliver a wealth of help-ful advice on how to deal with your own ego

12/564

as well as the egos of those you work with. Abrilliant and badly-needed book.”

—Al Ries, coauthor of The Origin of Brands

“Marcum and Smith have identified an im-portant yet unexplored facet of the power ofindividual differences at the workplace. Theyprovide convincing evidence that harnessingthe power of ego will provide new levers forenhancing organizational effectiveness. Thisbook provides practical wisdom that will beessential to understanding and motivatingthe high potential workforce of the future.”

—Terri A. Scandura, Ph.D., professor ofmanagement and psychology, University of

Miami

“We have come to think of ‘ego’ as the sourceof major problems in life and in organiza-tions. Marcum and Smith show, in clear lan-guage and practical detail, how to make egointo a force for positive change—for personal

13/564

and organizational success. This book willprove to be a valuable resource for man-agers, executives, and anyone who wants tofind more productive ways to fulfill whatpsychologists call ‘ego needs.’”

—Marshall Sashkin, Ph.D., professor of hu-man resource development, Graduate Schoolof Education and Human Development, Ge-

orge Washington University

“egonomics is a very interesting and uniqueapproach to helping people learn to steertheir behavior more productively in theworkplace. It is certain to be widely used, es-pecially now that so many businesses under-stand that their primary competitive advant-age is people and culture.”

—Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Ph.D., professor,Harvard Business School, and bestselling au-

thor of Confidence: How Winning Streaksand Losing Streaks Begin and End

14/564

“egonomics is a breakthrough work muchneeded in a time when we are bombardedwith quick fixes of marginal relevance. It is acarefully considered and wide-ranging workthat provides excellent guidance for man-agers at all levels as well as serving as a blue-print for researchers interested in fully un-derstanding organizational behavior. Thisvolume is well written and interesting. Theflow carries the reader along with minimaleffort so that you don’t want to put it down.The concepts are concise and clearly explic-ated so that the logic is easy to follow and theconclusions equally easily accepted. I highlyrecommend egonomics to managers, re-searchers, and students. Each of them willappreciate the implications and importanceof this work.”

—Dr. David D. Van Fleet, professor of man-agement, School of Global Management and

Leadership, Arizona State University

15/564

“David Marcum and Steven Smith’s newbook, egonomics, addresses head-on the del-icate and subjective nature of ego. This read-able book develops in a compelling fashion,and provides insightful guidance about howto confront and master ego—largely neg-lected as a crucial element of successful per-formance—to drive individual and enterpriseperformance.”—Herbert S. Wander, Katten Muchin Rosen-

man LLP, Chicago, Illinois

16/564

FIRESIDEA Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

1230 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 10020

Copyright © 2007 by David Marcum andSteven Smith

All rights reserved,including the right to reproduce this book or

portions thereof in any form whatsoever.For information address Fireside Subsidiary

Rights Department,1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY

10020.

FIRESIDE and colophon are registered trade-marks of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publica-tion Data

Marcum, David.Egonomics : what makes ego our greatest as-

set (or most expensive liability) / by DavidMarcum & Steven Smith.

p. cm.“A Fireside Book.” 1. Success in busi-

ness—Psychological aspects. 2. Ego (Psycho-logy). 3. Leadership—Psychological aspects.

4. Humility. 5. Self-confidence. I. Smith,Steven. II. Title.

HF5386 .M30873 2007658.4'09019—dc22 2006101638

ISBN-13: 978-1-4165-4631-3ISBN-10: 1-4165-4631-6

Visit us on the World Wide Web:http://www.SimonSays.com

20/564

Dedicated to the final ten percent

contents

1ego and the bottom line

why managing the power of egois the first priority of business

2the ego balance sheet

the four early warning signs thatego is costing your company, andthe three principles of egonomics

that turn it around

3early warning sign 1—being

comparative

how being too competitive canmake us less competitive

4early warning sign 2—being

defensivethe difference between defending

ideas and being defensive

5early warning sign 3—showcasing

brilliancehow intelligence and talent can

keep the best ideas from winning

6early warning sign 4—seeking

acceptancehow our desire for respect and re-

cognition gets in our way

23/564

7humility

opening minds and creating op-portunity for change

8humility, part II: intensity and

intentusing humility as a bridge to turnsilence or argument into vigorous

debate

9curiosity

how different types of curiosityunlock our minds and

conversations

10

24/564

veracityhow to make the undiscussablesdiscussable, and closing the gapbetween what we think is goingon and what’s really going on

appendix

notes

acknowledgments

about marcumsmith, lc

25/564

ego and the bottom line

Every good thought that we have,and every good action that we per-form, lays us open to pride, andthus exposes us to the various as-saults of vanity and self-satisfaction.

WILLIAM LAW

Ego is the invisible line item on every com-pany’s profit and loss statement.

And because ego’s subtly out of sight onthe P&L, that’s precisely why for decades, ifnot centuries, we’ve become no better—andmaybe no worse—at managing the most per-vasive, powerful force inside every person inevery company.

Chances are when you read the openingline of this chapter, the idea that ego is prof-itable wasn’t exactly the first idea to catchyour attention. But despite the negativereputation of ego, it isn’t purely a loss. Onthe profit side, ego sparks the drive to inventand achieve, the nerve to try something new,and the tenacity to conquer setbacks that in-evitably come. Surprising as it may sound,many people don’t have enough ego, andthat leads to insecurity, hollow participation,and apathy that paralyze cultures andleaders.

Invested into every team meeting, board-room debate, performance review, clientconversation, contract negotiation, or em-ployment interview is the potential for ego towork for us or against us. If we manage egowisely, we get the upside it delivers followedby strong returns. But when that intense,persistent force inside manages us, compan-ies suffer real economic losses.

27/564

Over half of all businesspeople estimateego costs their company 6 to 15 percent ofannual revenue; many believe that estimateis far too conservative. But even if ego wereonly costing 6 percent of revenue, the annualcost of ego—as estimated by the peopleworking to produce that revenue—would benearly $1.1 billion to the average Fortune500 company. That $1.1 billion nearly equalsthe average annual profit of those same com-panies. But whether ego costs us 6 percent ofrevenue or 60, when people estimate thosecosts, what are they thinking of? Usually thelast time they crashed into someone’s ego orthe latest headlines.

Under the leadership of David Maxwelland then James Johnson, Fannie Mae de-livered unmatched performance from 1981 to1999, beating the general stock market 3.8 to1. Fannie Mae was listed as one of only elev-en companies in Jim Collins’s study of 1,435companies in Good to Great that created and

28/564

sustained unparalleled performance, withleaders to match. On January 1, 1999,however, Franklin Raines replaced Johnsonas CEO. Five years later, under pressurefrom Fannie Mae’s board of directors afterquestionable accounting practices, Rainesresigned. “By my early retirement,” Rainesclaimed, “I have held myself accountable.”

Ironically, four years earlier, in 2002,Raines was asked to testify before Congressabout the collapse of Enron. “It is wholly ir-responsible and unacceptable for corporateleaders to say they did not know—or suggestit is not their duty to know—about the opera-tions and activities of their company,” Rainestold lawmakers, “particularly when it comesto risks that threaten the fundamental viabil-ity of their company.” Raines walked awayfrom Fannie Mae with a retirement packagepotentially worth $25 million and total com-pensation of nearly $90 million during his

29/564

tenure. He was replaced on December 22,2004, by Daniel Mudd.

As we were writing this chapter, a col-league emailed us a news release. The head-line announced, “Fannie reaches $400 mil-lion settlement.” The first line of the releaseread, “Fannie Mae’s ‘arrogant and unethical’corporate culture led to an $11 billion ac-counting scandal at the mortgage giant, fed-eral regulators said Tuesday in announcing a$400 million settlement with the company.”[emphasis added] Daniel Mudd’s leadershipwas also questioned. “Fannie Mae thought it-self so different, so special, and so powerful,”wrote Bethany McLean of Fortune, “that itshould never have to answer to anybody.And in this, it turned out to be very wrong.”It took Fannie Mae almost twenty years tomove from good to great, and less than fiveyears to go from great to good to…only timewill tell.

30/564

The risk in the headlines of ego out of con-trol, or the brutal impact of a long buildup ofan egotistical culture, is that we can say toourselves, “We would never do that. We’rejust not that bad.” That’s true. Ninety-ninepercent of us will never be Dennis Kozlowski(Tyco), Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling (Enron),Bernie Ebbers (WorldCom), or Martha Stew-art or earn a nickname like “Chainsaw Al”(attached to fired Sunbeam CEO Al Dunlap).We won’t go to prison or single-handedlycause the collapse of our companies—andthat’s the trap.

Because those stories are so extreme,rarely do they cause us to ask, “Is any part ofthat true of our company?” “What about myteam?” or “What about me?” That’s when wetune out, and we miss the behaviors thatnever get that severe but subtly and surelyundercut our ability. As authors, we can tellyou from experience and our research thatego-driven behaviors rarely feel extreme at

31/564

any one moment in time. “We started great,”as one Fortune 50 manager said to us. “Overtime that greatness led to ego, which then ledus back to good, and now we find ourselvesneeding to start over. We were blind to howour egos were escalating along the way.”

Organizations are rarely short of peoplewith enough talent, drive, IQ, imagination,vision, education, experience, or desire. Asconsultants, in our conversations with lead-ers and managers following failed projects oraverage results, we’ve often heard, “He’s veryinnovative, but…” or “She has incredible vis-ion, if she could only…” or “We were on theright track, and then all of a sudden…” Theexceptions to the praise are consistently tiedto the escalation of one thing—ego. So if thecosts are so deep and persistent, why dopeople hold on to ego so tightly and, in somecases, even fight for it? That’s a questionthat, early on, we couldn’t answer ourselves.

32/564

liability or asset?

We started our research with the premisethat ego was negative and needed cold-blooded elimination—at least from a busi-ness perspective—because it was a hiddencost with zero return. In fact, the workingtitle for this book for a very long time wasegoless. For nearly two years into this pro-ject, that view seemed justified by both microand macro egonomics. At the micro level,Roy Baumeister of Florida State Universityand Liqing Zhang of Carnegie MellonUniversity conducted a series of experimentsdesigned to reveal what kind of financial de-cisions people would make when their egowas threatened.

In one experiment designed to examinehow ego would affect participants’ decisions,the researchers assigned people to one of twogroups: the “ego-threat” group or the “non-ego-threat” control group. In each of the

33/564

experiments, participants stood to winmoney, lose money, or break even to varyingdegrees. Both groups were given the same in-structions: you’re about to take part in a“bidding war” similar to an auction, but withonly one other person, whom you’re obvi-ously trying to beat. The auction is for onedollar. Your goal is to get that dollar for lessthan a dollar, but you can spend up to fivedollars to get it. But each person in the ego-threat group was told privately before start-ing, “If you’re the kind of person who usuallychokes under pressure, or you don’t thinkthat you have what it takes to win the money,then you might want to play it safe. But it’sup to you.”

As the bidding soared in the experiment,the people who received the ego “threat” lettheir bids escalate higher in almost every in-stance than those who weren’t trying to pro-tect their ego. After a drawn-out bidding war,those whose egos had something to prove

34/564

spent up to $3.71 trying to buy one dollar. Infact, the higher their “self-esteem,” the moremoney they lost. The experiment illustratedhow ego entraps people in costly, losing ven-tures. When participants were interviewedafterward, those who spent more money to“win” in the experiments not only didn’t feelgood about the money they had spent to win,they felt worse about their own self-esteem.In other words, they lost money and self-confidence.

Because of ego, “people tend to becomeentrapped…and throw away good moneyafter bad decisions,” said Baumeister andZhang. “They get locked into uncomprom-ising career choices, supervisors becomeovercommitted to those employees who theyhad expressed a favorable opinion in hiringdecisions, senior executives in banks escalatetheir institution’s commitment to problemloans [because they approved the loan to be-gin with] and entrepreneurs and venture

35/564

capitalists become entrapped in unprofitableprojects.” The conclusion of their extensiveresearch was that when people feel their egois threatened, people make “less optimal de-cisions as judged from the standpoint of fin-ancial outcomes.”

At a macro level, business performancesuffers when ego negatively impacts the waywe produce. Dr. Paul Nutt of Ohio StateUniversity conducted more than two decadesof research with hundreds of organizationson why business decisions fail. In examiningwhy 50 percent of decisions fail, he dis-covered three key reasons:

• Over one-third of all failed busi-ness decisions are driven by ego.

• Nearly two-thirds of executivesnever explore alternatives oncethey make up their mind.

• Eighty-one percent of managerspush their decisions through by

36/564

persuasion or edict, and not bythe value of their idea.

Over the last two and a half years wesearched 2,190 news articles (mainlybusiness-related) that used the word ego inany way. Eighty-eight percent of the time egowas used negatively, usually followed by sug-gestions on how and why people should getrid of it, and what would happen if theydidn’t. News articles berate ego-trippers withheadlines like “Don’t Let Ego Kill the Star-tup” from BusinessWeek or “Ego Slams T.O.”(Terrell Owens, NFL wide receiver) fromUSA Today.

Over the last five years, we surveyed thou-sands of people who attended our leadershipsessions and asked them to write down thefirst words that came to mind as they wereshown random words. If the word egoflashed in front of you, what would youwrite? Ninety-two percent of the first

37/564

responses were negative. “Arrogant” is thefirst word mentioned by almost 5:1, followedby “self-centered,” “insecure,” “closeminded,” “defensive,” “conceited,” and “con-descending,” if we keep the list clean. Justlisten to how people talk about ego—espe-cially someone else’s—and it’s easy to get themessage that ego is the enemy.

For example, if you’re in a one-hour meet-ing and at minute forty-three of that meetingsomeone lets their ego take control, whichminute will be remembered? What effectdoes that minute have on the previous forty-two? At worst, they’re erased. What happensto the next seventeen minutes? At best,they’re tainted. And how much time will bewasted after the meeting talking about whathappened in the meeting? We may not re-member that exact minute, but we will livewith the impact. If ego doesn’t crash themeeting, it certainly leaves a dent.

38/564

As we continued our search for answers,we interviewed, surveyed, and observedpeople across industries and disciplines tofind out why they do what they do. While wescoured hundreds of business articles, peri-odicals, and a wide range of psychologyjournals, we also reengaged in a study ofleadership and management literature fromas early as 1944, when Peter Drucker firstbegan to raise awareness about the modern-day need for a different kind of management.Even though many books had interestingideas, by our criteria only a handful qualifiedas landmark books—books whose ideas wereso powerful, they changed the way peoplethought about business.

These well-researched books—such as TheEffective Executive; In Search of Excellence;The Change Masters; Built to Last; First,Break All the Rules—marked what separatesone category of leader or company from thetypical. As we examined those themes piece

39/564

by piece, most outlined techniques,strategies, and tactics for change, but thetheories and practices didn’t account for thedifference between what we read and whatwe saw in action when ego was in play. By al-most all accounts, ego seemed to stake itsclaim on the business world’s most-wantedlist.

But there’s another side to the story.

ego 2.0

The word ego comes from Latin, where itmeans “I, myself.” What people usually meanwhen they talk about “ego” is that someoneelse is so me-myself-and-I absorbed, thatperson can’t see anything else. Yet “I, myself”isn’t always self-absorbed. Open a dictionaryor psychology textbook to the entry “ego,”and “an inflated sense of self-importance” isquickly followed by the definition “self-con-fidence.” With those same surveyed

40/564

audiences mentioned earlier, ego also has apositive meaning; 8 percent of the timewords surface like “self-confidence,” “self-esteem,” “open-minded,” and “ambitious,”with “confidence” cited nearly 10:1. The fur-ther our investigation went, the moreit appeared there was an irony aboutego: it is both a valuable asset, and adeep liability. With that dual nature inmind, we turned our search to what movesego one way or the other.

As fate would have it, one of the most pro-lific business authors of the last fifty years,Jim Collins, appeared to be on a paralleltrack to our early work. Collins noted in hisGood to Great research that two-thirds ofthe companies that didn’t make the leapfrom good to great were weighed down bythe “presence of gargantuan personal egothat contributed to the demise or continuedmediocrity of the company.” For the elevencompanies that made the cut, Collins

41/564

discovered two unique traits of their leaders:1) intense professional will, and 2) extremepersonal humility. He called the rare com-bination “Level 5” leadership.

As Collins described his findings to agroup of executives before his book was re-leased, a newly appointed CEO spoke. “I be-lieve what you say about the good-to-greatleaders,” she said, “but I’m disturbed be-cause when I look in the mirror, I know thatI’m not Level 5, not yet anyway. Part of thereason I got my job is because of my egodrives. Are you telling me I can’t make this agreat company if I’m not Level 5?” Avoidinga definitive yes, Jim simply pointed to theevidence validating the findings. The groupsat quietly for a moment, and she followedwith her next question, “Can you learn to be-come a Level 5?”

He answered that there are two categoriesof people: those who have it and those whodon’t. “The first category consists of people

42/564

who could never in a million years bringthemselves to subjugate their egoistic needsto the great ambition of building somethinglarger and more lasting than themselves,”said Collins. “The second category ofpeople—and I suspect the larger group—con-sists of those who have the potential toevolve to Level 5; the capability resides with-in them, perhaps buried or ignored, butthere nonetheless. And under the rightcircumstances—self-reflection, consciouspersonal development, a mentor, a greatteacher…they begin to develop.” That’swhere Collins’s answer to her questionstopped.

To answer that CEO’s question with anydegree of hope, a series of questions had tobe asked and answered—questions we’vebeen asking for years: What is it about egothat allows leaders to take their organiza-tions to good, but without humility never al-lows them to move to great? Why does it

43/564

appear that ego is something we must have ifwe want to succeed, but having it often inter-feres with the success we pursue? Are therehabits we can develop that manage the driveof ego? Should it be managed in the firstplace? If humility is so powerful and a neces-sity for Level 5 leadership, why don’t more ofus have it? Can we learn to be humble? If egoand humility can’t coexist, what has to give,and what change is required? Egonomics isthe result of the answers to those questions.We believe these findings are the differencebetween ego working against us as a liabilityor for us as an appreciating asset. If we knowhow to use it effectively, the upside of ego isjust as powerful as the downside. The firststep toward increasing ego’s return on in-vestment comes from understanding what“ego” is in the first place and how it works.

egonomic health

44/564

To get a clear understanding of the way egoworks, picture the way our bodies work. Tokeep our body healthy, our immune systemcreates molecules called free radicals thatfight viruses and bacteria. However, whenenvironmental factors such as pollution andpesticides cause free radical production tobecome excessive, the molecules attack notonly viruses and bacteria but good cells andvital tissue as well, causing illness, prema-ture aging, cancer, and other diseases.

Ego is a free radical.In the right amount ego is inherently pos-

itive and provides a healthy level of confid-ence and ambition—driving out insecurity,fear, and apathy. But left unchecked, it goeson a hunt. The primary “cells” ego attacksare our talents and abilities—either throughoverconfidence and giving the false illusionwe’re better than we actually are, or by rob-bing us of confidence so that we lose trust inour ability to use those talents to capacity.

45/564

Ego’s power is pervasive and relent-less but never neutral in how it affectsour performance. Drawn from decades ofpersonality work by experts including Kath-arine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers,Carl Jung, and Taylor Hartman, listed beloware talents and traits that cover most person-ality types. In the boxes, check three to fiveof your greatest strengths:

1. assertive2. analytical3. flexible4. charismatic5. committed6. decisive7. dedicated8. directive9. passionate

10. dependable11. optimistic12. open-minded13. discerning

46/564

14. loyal15. trusting16. strong-willed17. pragmatic18. self-confident19. straightforward20. alert21. diplomatic22. determined23. courageous24. innovative25. disciplined26. smart27. independent

Each of those strengths contributes to whowe are. Keeping those traits true to formmakes us employable and promotable andallows us to make unique contributions tothe companies we work for. If we were to getrid of ego, we would lose what egoprovides—the confidence and ambition tobuild on and take advantage of our talents

47/564

and traits. But those strengths don’t alwayswork to our advantage when we lose controlof ego.

from talent to traitor

When we don’t manage the intense power ofego effectively, it damages our strengths andturns them into weaknesses. Through ego’soverconfidence, overambition, insecurity, orme-centered agenda, our talents take on aslightly different appearance but have a sig-nificantly different impact. Looking at thesame list of strengths as before, find thoseyou previously checked and transfer them tothe list below.

48/564

The point here is not simply that we allhave strengths and weaknesses: “I can seethe big picture, but I’m not very good withdetails,” or “I’m good with numbers, but I’muncomfortable with people.” That’s typical.

49/564

The crucial point is that when ego isn’t bal-anced (with what we’ll discuss in depthlater), it turns our strengths not into polaropposites but into close counterfeits. Thatsubtle modification becomes the ultimateblind spot, because our weaknesses feel al-most the same to us as our strengths. Whilethe difference isn’t discernible to us, it isclear to others. When we spot those weak-nesses in ourselves or the work culture we’rein, we can be confident negative ego is theculprit. The table below shows how strengthsturn to weakness and put the value of ourtalents at risk.

50/564

51/564

losing control of ego

In 1996, two rival expedition companies ranseparate but concurrent treks to reach thesummit of Everest. In that pursuit, nine

52/564

people died. Even if you’ve already read theaccount, the lessons are still relevant. Bothfatal expeditions were led by well-seasonedEverest climbers: Rob Hall from New Zeal-and and Scott Fischer from the UnitedStates. Both had the aid of expert guides.Each had led successful expeditions before.Despite unequaled track records, even theyweren’t immune from the human frailties ofconfidence turned into a sense of infallibilityand of resolve turned into denial. JonKrakauer, a journalist who signed on withHall’s expedition to do a story for Outsidemagazine, recaps his experience:

With so many marginally qualifiedclimbers flocking to Everest thesedays, a lot of people believe that atragedy of this magnitude wasoverdue. But nobody imagined thatan expedition led by Hall would beat the center of it. Hall ran the

53/564

tightest, safest operation on themountain, bar none. So whathappened? How can it be ex-plained, not only to the loved onesleft behind, but to a censoriouspublic? Hubris surely hadsomething to do with it. Hall hadbecome so adept at runningclimbers of varying abilities up anddown Everest that he may have be-come a little cocky. He’d braggedon more than one occasion that hecould get almost any reasonably fitperson to the summit,and his re-cord seemed to support this. He’dalso demonstrated a remarkableability to manage adversity…. Hallmay well have thought there waslittle he couldn’t handle.

[In addition] the clock had asmuch to do with the tragedy as theweather, and ignoring the clock

54/564

can’t be passed off as an act of God.Delays at the fixed lines could eas-ily have been avoided.Predetermined turn-around timeswere egregiously and willfully ig-nored. The latter may have beeninfluenced to some degree by therivalry between Fischer and Hall.Fischer had a charismatic person-ality, and that charisma had beenbrilliantly marketed. Fischer wastrying very hard to eat Hall’slunch, and Hall knew it. In a cer-tain sense, they may have beenplaying chicken up there, eachguide plowing ahead with one eyeon the clock, waiting to see whowas going to blink first and turnaround.

Most of us don’t lose our lives whenwe momentarily lose control of

55/564

ego—but we lose a lot: trust, respect,relationships, influence, talent, ca-reers, clients, and market share. Eachof us has occasionally, perhaps un-knowingly, let ego weaken our talentsdespite our qualifications, expertise,charisma, track record, or remarkableability. Carly Fiorina, former CEO ofHewlett-Packard, engineered the highly pub-licized merger between Compaq and HP.When the signs became evident that themerger wasn’t working as planned, one exec-utive remarked, “She’s a very, very smart,competent, talented executive. She cannotbite the bullet and say ‘We lost.’ Other busi-nesspeople can do that and move on. Shecan’t.” Fiorina’s great determination and op-timism served HP well in the beginning. Shewas ranked as the most powerful woman ex-ecutive in the United States by Fortunemagazine. But over time, ego appeared towork against her, and Fiorina’s exceptional

56/564

determination and optimism were too oftenreduced to inflexibility and denial. Less thanthree years after the merger she cham-pioned, Fiorina was fired. Ego—for good orbad—is so deep-seated in each of us, andtherefore embedded in the way we use ourtalents to lead, manage, think, talk, listen,decide, and take action, it deserves our un-qualified attention as a first priority.

r.o.i.

When an organization invests in us for ourtalents, it also inherits the potential counter-feits of those talents. “The great organizationmust not only accommodate the fact thateach employee is different, it must capitalizeon those differences,” wrote Marcus Buck-ingham and Donald Clifton in Now, Discov-er Your Strengths. “It must watch for cluesto each employee’s natural talents and thenposition and develop each employee’s

57/564

natural talents so that his or her talents aretransformed into bona fide strengths.”Equally important to that development is towatch for early warning signs of ego that sig-nal when natural talents have become natur-al enemies.

When ego works against us, these fourearly warning signs indicate we’re losingvalue: 1) being comparative, 2) being defens-ive, 3) showcasing brilliance, and 4) seekingacceptance. When those signs appear, restassured we’re losing talent. The greater theintensity or frequency of the early warningsigns, the steeper the decline in value. Howeffectively we manage ego determines the“risk, reward” ratio for each of us—whetherwe’re the most valuable asset to the business,or the reddest cost.

To gauge that ratio, the next logical ques-tion we wanted answered as authors washow often people observe that individualstrengths and organizational value evaporate

58/564

in the name of ego. If the evaporation ratewas low, we were ready to check ego off as aninteresting but only mildly impactful topicand move on. Currently, 63 percent of busi-nesspeople say ego negatively impacts workperformance on an hourly or daily basis,while an additional 31 percent say it happensweekly. Even if we recruit the best andbrightest people on the market, once we havethat talent on the payroll, we don’t reallyhave it when ego interferes with the way wework. In getting full access to that talent,measuring ego’s cost by the clock may bemore accurate than by the calendar. Any wayit’s measured, performance takes a hit: 35percent of managers who take new jobs failand either quit or are asked to leave withineighteen months.

talent supply and demand

59/564

Companies not only can’t afford for individu-al talents to weaken from ego, they can’t af-ford egocentric cultures. One Fortune 1,000CEO we interviewed for this book was givingus background on his company’s progress.After praising two specific competitors, heended his comments by saying, “They’re op-erationally excellent, and I do think theircurrent performance is sustainable,” he said,“but they can’t keep people. Their cultureisn’t healthy, and I would probably describetheir culture as a little egotistical. I believethat will keep them exactly where they are.”Companies like that stagnate as their peoplecheck out by walking out the door or divest-ing mentally, and the reputation of the com-pany in the labor market suffers.

Those same organizations then have to at-tract talent primarily by pay, missing the op-portunity to attract talent by the opportunit-ies for growth the company provides or thedesire people have to work there. When

60/564

people work hard to stay employable, theywon’t bet their career on a company whereprospects for personal growth look weak andemployment is unstable. In turn, talent looksfor a home somewhere else. The ripple effectis that companies become less competitiveand are marginalized by the lack of talent.

If those cultures are as prevalent as mostthink they are, then we shouldn’t be sur-prised that 65 percent of those currently em-ployed are looking for new jobs, and 28 mil-lion people every year leave where they work.While there are certainly other factors thataffect those numbers, at $50,000 per em-ployee in hiring and training costs across alljobs and industries, that’s $1.4 trillion annu-ally, or $7.5 million for the midsized com-pany of one thousand employees with annualturnover of 10 percent. Losing talent is an in-creasingly unaffordable cost. “After 500years or so—the scarcest, most valuable re-source in business is no longer financial

61/564

capital. It’s talent,” said Geoffrey Colvin ofFortune. “If you doubt that, just watch howhard companies are battling for the bestpeople…there isn’t nearly enough of the verybest stuff.”

By the year 2010, over half of all U.S.workers will be over forty, and the decadesahead will see baby boomers (born between1946 and 1964) being replaced by Gen Xers(born between 1965 and 1981) and millenni-als (born between 1980 and 2000). Thatshift will create a supply and demand gap ofover ten million workers within the next2,700 days. To make matters worse, when2,900 HR executives and managers were in-terviewed, only one-third were confidentthey would have enough talent in thepipeline to keep their businesses moving for-ward as the workforce changes.

“There’s an imminent leadership crisis atmany big companies,” said Paul Terry of theconsulting firm Novations Group, who

62/564

worked on the survey. “They have less man-agement bench strength than at any time inmemory.” Bench strength can be lost by thelack of numbers. The same bench is alsoweakened by the talent lost to ego. The prin-ciples of egonomics aren’t the only route tomaximized talent and leadership benchstrength, but these assets are at high riskwithout them.

the bottom line

Often the hardest side of business tomaster is the human side, and nothingis more human than ego. How wemanage ego on the human side affectseverything we do on the business side,one way or the other. It’s up to each of usto shift the momentum of the one thing thatshifts the energy of everything else we do.That shift requires each of us to take a pier-cing look at the way we work—conversation

63/564

by conversation, project by project, meetingby meeting. There are three principles ofegonomics that, when fused together, makethat shift: 1) humility, 2) curiosity, and 3)veracity. These three principles not only re-quire us to do differently, they require us tobe different. To the degree we change, ourtalents are liberated to the strategic benefitof our companies and careers, and the waywe work is not only more effective, it’s easier.As a result, organizations become capable of:

• building an open-minded culturewhere change and new ideasaren’t resisted, and businessagendas aren’t overshadowed bypersonal agendas.

• maximizing individual talent andorganizational strengths by cap-italizing on the strengths of egoand minimizing its weaknesses.

64/564

• creating intense business debateabout ideas with the intention ofprogress without the drag ofconflict and prematurejudgment.

• cultivating relationships strongenough (and cultures safeenough) to share watercoolerhonesty and nontraditionalthinking during meetings, ratherthan after—or never.

• effectively dealing with the egoof others when it’s hurting per-formance or preventing/slowinginnovation.

We know we’re not offering a “final” an-swer; we don’t believe anyone has a final an-swer. We do hope to ignite a conversationlong overdue that can subtract the needlesswork and talent depreciation caused by egothat undermines corporate performance and

65/564

careers. In the next chapter we’ll highlightthe four early warning signs that signal ego isbecoming a liability—to your company, yourcareer, or even just a conversation. We’ll fol-low that with the three principles of egonom-ics that tap the power of ego and keep itsquarely in the asset column of business.

1: ego and the bottom line keypoints

• Ego is the invisible P&L lineitem. Currently, 51 percent ofbusinesspeople estimate that egocosts their company 6 to 15 per-cent of annual revenue; 21 per-cent say that the cost rangesfrom 16 to 20 percent.

• Ego is both a liability and an as-set: ego works for us and against

66/564

us, depending on how it’smanaged.

• Ego gives us confidence to useour greatest strengths, but it alsoturns them into weaknesses thatcounterfeit those samestrengths.

• Currently, 63 percent of busi-nesspeople say ego negativelyimpacts work performance on anhourly or daily basis, while anadditional 31 percent say it hap-pens weekly.

• Organizations where ego ispoorly managed then have to at-tract talent primarily by pay,missing the opportunity to at-tract talent by the opportunitiesfor growth the company providesor the desire people have to workthere. The ripple effect is thatcompanies become less

67/564

competitive and are marginal-ized by the lack of talent.

• When an organization invests inus for our talents, it also inheritsthe potential counterfeits ofthose talents. When ego’s work-ing against us, four early warn-ing signs indicate we’re losingvalue: 1) being comparative, 2)being defensive, 3) showcasingbrilliance, or 4) seekingacceptance.

• To counteract the four earlywarning signs of ego, there arethree principles of egonomics: 1)humility, 2) curiosity, and 3)veracity.

68/564

the ego balance sheet

Ego is our silent partner—too oftenwith a controlling interest.

CULLEN HIGHTOWER

In a typical business meeting it can take aslittle as five minutes to determine if ego islessening the honesty of what’s said, lower-ing trust, diminishing the sincerity withwhich people listen, clouding the accuracy ofassessments, and altering the openness ofdebates. When those warning signs appear,ego is becoming a liability rather than an as-set. Those signs are 1) being comparative, 2)being defensive, 3) showcasing brilliance,and 4) seeking acceptance. The earlier we seethe signs, the faster we can take action tocorrect ourselves or lead others to self-

correct, and lessen the damage ego does.Here’s a summary of each sign, which we willcover thoroughly in later chapters.

early warning sign 1—beingcomparative

Ironically, being too competitive makes usless competitive. By fixating on someoneelse, we lose unrecoverable time that couldbe devoted to becoming uniquely great; wegive up our potential in the name of becom-ing “better than” or at least “as good as”someone else. “Better than” is a strategy forordinary. “The competitor to be feared is onewho never bothers about you at all,” saidHenry Ford, “but goes on making his ownbusiness better all the time.”

Excessive comparison also turns col-leagues into competitors, and competitorsaren’t effective collaborators. A meta-analys-is of 265 studies over fifty-six years found

70/564

there was almost no task on which competit-ive or individualistic efforts were more ef-fective than collaborative efforts. The rareexceptions were physical tasks that requiredlittle thought and no collaboration. In addi-tion, when we’re comparative, either we tendto pit our strengths against another’s weak-nesses, which may lead us to an exaggeratedsense of confidence, or we compare ourweaknesses to their strengths, which cancause negative self-pressure.

When we’re too comparative, the goal wereach for is someone else’s standard of suc-cess. While under the influence of comparis-on, we don’t discern whether the standard isso low that in leaping it we barely tap our po-tential, or is so unrealistic that we fail andbecome discouraged trying to achievesomething we can’t, or isn’t the best use ofour talents. In any case, we accomplish less.

71/564

early warning sign 2—beingdefensive

There’s a vital difference between defendingan idea and being defensive. The motive be-hind defending an idea is to let the best argu-ment win. Because nobody is all-knowing,the best decisions are the result of rigorousindependent thinking followed by passion-ate, collaborative debate. To cover everyangle of a debate before we make key de-cisions, we lay out our best thinking and de-fend it passionately. Because the intent isprogress, we are equally interested in hear-ing opposing arguments. In fact, in the truespirit of real debate, we may even createcounterarguments when others agree tooquickly. That openness lets the validity of anidea win or disappear—either outcome beingequally okay, regardless of the intensity withwhich we make our case.

72/564

But when we cross the line from defendingto being defensive—even momentarily—see-ing our idea “disappear” isn’t an option.When we can’t “lose,” we defend our posi-tions as if we’re defending who we are, andthe debate shifts from a we-centered battle ofideas to a me-centered war of wills. With thechange of intent, we focus on proving ourcase and deflecting differing points. At ourdefensive worst, we refuse to be influenced atall, regardless of gaps in logic or inac-curacies—which we no longer see. We resistfeedback, brush off mistakes, withhold apo-logies, and our discussions become superfi-cial exercises.

In refusing to change our minds or seethings differently, we emerge from debateswith ultimatums rather than options, and werely on political power or positions of au-thority to force our agenda whenever we can.As for those being forced by our egocentricwill rather than persuaded by the merit of

73/564

ideas, they will offer only half-hearted sup-port, and the desired change or adoption ofthe ideas never genuinely occurs. As we’lldiscuss later, research shows that whilepeople believe they are open to feedback onways they can improve and listen without be-ing defensive, the people who work closelywith them disagree.

early warning sign 3—showcasingbrilliance

At face value showcasing brilliance, or high-lighting our talent, seems like something wewould want to do. If we hide our talent, whatgood does that do the company or our ca-reer? None. But showcasing isn’t about mak-ing our brilliance visible. It’s about making itthe center of attention and unduly occupyingtime and energy. The more we want or ex-pect people to recognize, appreciate, or bedazzled by how smart we are, the less they

74/564

listen, even if we do have better ideas. “Weshould take care not to make [brilliance] ourgod,” Einstein reminds us. “It has, of course,powerful muscles, but no personality. It can-not lead, it can only serve.”

When we allow showcasing to occur, thecasualty is collective wisdom. As we’ll coverlater, studies prove collective intelligenceoutperforms the brightest individual ineverything from bean-counting contests tostock market performance to complex prob-lem solving. The people we already have inour companies are exactly what we need. To-gether they possess the knowledge needed tosolve the problems we face or to innovateand seize new opportunities.

early warning sign 4—seekingacceptance

Leadership is best reserved for those whodon’t need positions of leadership to validate

75/564

who they are. Being aware of what peoplethink is a sign of great leadership. Becomingoversensitive to what people think of uskeeps us from being true to ourselves. Thatin turn places speaking our mind behind per-sonal promotion or public opinion. Accept-ance and respect are among the most funda-mental needs we have. But when we equateacceptance or rejection of our ideas with ac-ceptance or rejection of who we are, we “playit safe.” We tend to swim with the currentand find a slightly different way of sayingwhat’s already been said as long as accept-ance is the outcome. That makes us not onlya bland follower but an uninspiring leader.

One of the main risks of seeking accept-ance is that it drives intellectual diversityand independent thinking underground.Group applause and universal harmonydon’t make for the best decisions. The firstrule of making good decisions is to not makea decision unless there’s been vigorous

76/564

debate and differing points of view—which, ifdone well, is likely to have included somedisagreement. Seeking acceptance may bethe most subtle of the early warning signsbecause it’s so “nice” and doesn’t draw atten-tion to itself.

from business to home and backagain

The early warning signs that ego is workingagainst us rather than for us aren’t limited tobusiness. John Gottman is a world-renowned research scientist on marriage andfamily at the University of Washington. Werecently spent a weekend with John andJulie Gottman at their marriage retreat inSeattle. For thirty years Gottman has trackedthe correlation between certain marital be-haviors and marriage satisfaction andlongevity. Watching and listening—secondby second—to over three thousand couples in

77/564

three separate studies at a place affection-ately known as “the Love Lab,” his researchteam records everything from a couple’sheart rates to facial expressions to stresslevels as they communicate. It is the largestscientific study of marriage ever undertaken.

Though Gottman refers to his work as “ex-tremely simpleminded science,” the revela-tions from his work are anything but ordin-ary. After only three minutes of observationhe can predict with 96 percent accuracywhether a marital discussion will resolve aconflict. He can predict divorce rates with 91percent accuracy after as little as fiveminutes of observation. His remains thehighest prediction rate ever for a scientificstudy of relationships. His remarkable accur-acy isn’t driven by what couples argue or talkabout, their personality differences, or—be-lieve it or not—how often or even how in-tensely they argue.

78/564

He primarily looks for behaviors driven byexcessive ego. He calls these behavi-ors—stonewalling, defensiveness, criticism,and contempt—the “four horsemen of theapocalypse.” The result of his research allowshim to help couples improve—andsave—their marriages. Gottman’s maritaltherapy relapse rate is only 20 percent, whilerelapse rates nationwide run between 30 and50 percent.

Every couple experiences the “four horse-men of the apocalypse” now and then. That’snormal. If those signs appear, it doesn’tmean a relationship is doomed, unless thecouple does nothing about the problem.What’s sad is that couples don’t recognizethe signs until it’s too late. “Only after thepapers have been signed, the furniture di-vided, and separate apartments rented,” saysGottman, “do the exes realize how much theyreally gave up when they gave up on eachother.” There is a remarkable similarity

79/564

between what makes a marriage work andwhat makes a business relationship work.

If you recognize in yourself any of the earlywarning signs we’ve mentioned above (beingcomparative, being defensive, showcasingbrilliance, and seeking acceptance), that’snormal. It doesn’t mean you’re doomed, un-less you don’t take action. When it comes toego, you can take small steps that stop thedamage. But you’ll never take those steps ifyou can’t see the warning signs in the firstplace. Since awareness is crucial to the cure,we explore each warning sign in depth.

We will point out the reasons the warningsigns show up and when they’re most likelyto appear. It’s important to know that foreach sign, there’s a precise amount of thatbehavior that’s healthy. For example, whenmanaged effectively, comparison pushes usto reach our best and motivates us to change.But despite the benefits connected with eachsign, there’s a tipping point where they

80/564

become destructive. (Later we will coverthose tipping points for each of the earlywarning signs.) When we see, hear, or feelthe early warning signs of negative ego—inourselves or others—there are three prin-ciples that keep individual talents and organ-izational performance from oxidizing.

three principles of egonomics

For a moment, let’s return to the analogy ofego as a free radical. To keep our body’s freeradical count in balance, our body producesantioxidants. Those antioxidants act ashunters that track down excessive free radic-als and neutralize them, keeping us and ourimmune system healthy. Our body doesn’tproduce enough antioxidants on its own, buta diet rich in vitamins A, C, and E helps thebody protect itself against the destructive ef-fects of free radicals.

81/564

In matters of personal ability, the sameprinciple of a balanced diet applies. Thehealth of our company’s culture, our conver-sations, and our careers relies heavily onthree key “antioxidants” that track down ex-cessive ego free radicals (the early warningsigns) and neutralize them, allowing our tal-ents to stay true to form and our company’sculture productive. The three principles ofegonomics that keep ego working as an assetrather than a liability are 1) humility, 2) curi-osity, and 3) veracity. Here’s a preview ofeach one we will explore in depth later in thebook.

1. humility

Humility is the first principle of egonomicsbecause of its unique ability to open minds.Until we’re ready to listen and learn, curios-ity and veracity are never invited on stage.But as crucial as an open mind is, that may

82/564

not even be the most essential characteristicof humility. Humility is a means to an end,and that end is the progress of the business.Discussions and debates that facilitate trueprogress require we temporarily suspendwhat we think is best for us to considerwhat’s in the best interests of the business.From a business perspective, humilitydoesn’t lose sight of “me,” but it also doesn’tlet our own needs interfere with open dia-logue and intense debate. With that inten-tion of progress, we discovered a character-istic of humility we came to call “constructivediscontent.”

Without losing confidence in who we areor lessening the importance of what we’veachieved, humility has the unique ability tocreate a craving to reach the next level ofperformance. Without an open mind, noquestions are asked about what that nextlevel might be. And even when questions areasked, without humility we hear only

83/564

selective replies. Humility swallows excessiveego and channels our ambition into the busi-ness success of “we” rather than a selfish,short-lived agenda of only “me.” Humilitydoesn’t replace “me” with “we” but placesour focus in the proper sequence, for theright reasons, and at the right time.

In one survey, Fast Company asked 1,665respondents to rate leaders in various typesof organizations on their ability to lead. Ofthe abilities they saw in their leaders, charac-teristics like being passionate about work orruthless for success rated high. Unselfish-ness rated dead last. In one of our surveys,nearly eight out of ten people wished theirorganizations were more humble. Interest-ingly, when we’re teaching those samepeople and we begin the discussion of be-coming more humble, there is hesitancy un-til we explore what humility really means. Asa trait, humility is the point of equilibriumbetween too much ego and not enough.

84/564

Humility has the reputation of being the po-lar opposite of excessive ego. In fact, the ex-act opposite of excessive ego is no confidenceat all. Humility provides the crucial balancebetween the two extremes. To borrow aphrase from Alcoholics Anonymous, humil-ity requires not that we think less ofourselves, but that we think of ourselves lessoften. Humility is not the equivalent of beingweak, ignored, indifferent, boring, or apushover. If it is to be a point of equilibrium,humility must include confidence, ambition,and willpower.

Without a clear understanding of what hu-mility is, it can be seen as a trait best left tospecial causes and religious leaders, notbusinesspeople. If humility seems to be anoutdated concept in a fiercely competitiveworld, it’s because humility is misunder-stood, understudied, and underused—and,consequently, underestimated. As an indis-pensable trait of great leadership, humility

85/564

must make its way past the pulpit of Sundaysermons and into cubicles and boardrooms.Humility should be our first reflex, not ourregret once the moment has past.

2. curiosity

Once humility creates an open mind and adeep commitment to progress, curiosity isthe active ingredient that drives the explora-tion of ideas. Curiosity gives us permissionand courage to test what we think, feel, andbelieve to be true, reminding us we don’tknow everything about anything. If we leadwith questions rather than answers, curiositycan strip us of an agenda and stop us fromholding so tightly to our own ideas and be-liefs that we aren’t able to consider others’.The good news is that most everyone is curi-ous, so we have a head start. But there is adifference in the type of curiosity we haveand the degree to which we’re curious. That

86/564

difference is a vital answer in determiningthe value we create. Highly curious peopleare different than you might imagine; theyhave a unique ability to bring both opennessand order to conversations, not excludingeither in the way they think.

Curiosity is so potent that just extendingthe invitation to be curious makes a differ-ence in performance. A group of businessstudents at the University of Michigan wassplit into two teams and given an identicalbusiness case to solve. The instructions givento both groups were also identical, except fortwo small words; group two was told to “becreative.” Thirty-nine percent of students ingroup one solved the case successfully, while52 percent in group two solved it success-fully. Creativity springs from curiosity, andsomething as simple as reminding people tobe curious makes a difference. We’ll take thediscussion beyond a reminder by exploring

87/564

different types of curiosity and show how itunlocks minds and conversations.

3. veracity

Veracity is the third principle of egonomicsthat keeps ego working for us rather thanagainst us. Veracity is the English word forthe Latin term veritas, which means “truth.”But why would truth be an antioxidant of un-healthy ego, and why not just say the wordtruth if that’s what we mean? Truth essen-tially refers to facts or reality; it implies ac-curacy and honesty. Veracity, however, dif-fers slightly from truth; veracity is the ha-bitual pursuit of, and adherence to, truth.Veracity differs from truth in action, not invalue.

So why is veracity an “antioxidant”? Whodoesn’t want the truth? It’s not that peopledon’t want the truth, but we don’t alwayswant all of it. What part wouldn’t we want?

88/564

The part that’s hard to hear. What fraction ofthe truth wouldn’t we want to address? Theportion that’s hard to say. There is a pointand time in almost every important businessdiscussion where we might be curiously ex-ploring or intensely debating, and westumble upon brutal facts. Humility’s con-structive discontent almost always brings tothe surface a truth difficult to hear. “Truth,”said Oliver Wendell Holmes, “when notsought after, rarely comes to light.” If open-ness and progress are the outcome of humil-ity, and innovation is the aim of curiosity,then veracity is the light that exposes thetruth hidden in the shadows of habits andcomfort zones. As we discuss later, veracityis as important to leadership as vision,strategy, integrity, execution, or passion.

a study of moments

89/564

Very early in my career, I (Dave) was askedby a mentor what I thought the differencewas between a very good leader and an ex-ceptional one. Wanting to give an impressiveanswer, I pointed to several key characterist-ics. He said, “I believe it’s different than allof that. It’s about ten minutes.” What hemeant by “ten minutes” is that in a typicalday we make decisions in a moment. The de-cisions from those moments throughout aday carry us down a path and we reap theresults. The difference between very goodand exceptional is the humility, curiosity,and veracity that drive our decisions in thoseten minutes when our decisions aremade—moments that can appear anywhereand at any time.

During dinner with a friend, a moment ap-peared for me. Unexpectedly my wife turnedand began asking my friend Todd questionsabout a digital camera she wanted to buy.The questions were perfectly normal. But

90/564

that’s not what the little voice inside my headwas saying. “Why is she asking him and notme? We haven’t even talked about this be-fore. Why is she bringing it up now?”Startled at what was happening inside myhead, I lost track of their conversation in fa-vor of the one I was having with my ego.

As I analyzed what was happening, I askedmyself these questions: “What’s going ondown deep that made me ask that question?What’s wrong with her asking Todd? I don’tknow much about digital cameras. Why do Ieven care if she asks him?” Wrapping up mysilent conversation I smiled, realizing howeasy it is to go on an ego trip. After all, as aman I’m capable of pretending to have ananswer when I haven’t a clue. “What are yousmiling about?” Karen asked after Todd left.I wanted to quickly get past it, so I said, “Oh,nothing.” “Was there anything wrong withmy questions?” she asked. “No, not at all,” Ireplied. Then she followed with a question I

91/564

wasn’t ready for. “Did it bother you I askedTodd before I asked you?” Everything insideme wanted to say, “No big deal.” But thatwasn’t true. I confessed.

My ego tripped me in a moment during asimple dinner conversation about somethingas trivial as a camera. In a fifteen-minuteconversation, we might spend four-teen minutes with our ego balancedand checked—but it only takes one mo-ment to undo the previous fourteen. Avariety of situations, people, and momentswill test us differently. Those moments maycome unexpectedly and pass quickly, defin-ing the difference between what we are andwhat we could be.

perfect moments, not perfectleaders

Everyone has their defining moments. In1994, Jeffrey Immelt was vice president and

92/564

general manager of GE Plastics Americas. In-stead of hitting his 20 percent profit growthgoal, he delivered 7 percent—a net miss of$50 million. At the annual GE leadershipmeeting, Immelt used his most creativestrategies to avoid running into Jack Welch,GE’s famous CEO. Immelt would arrive lateto group dinners and leave early, and stra-tegically place himself in meetings on the op-posite end of the room from Welch. On thelast night, halfway to his escape to the elevat-or, Immelt felt a hand on his shoulder. It wasWelch. “Jeff, I’m your biggest fan, but youjust had the worst year in the company. Ilove you,” said Welch, “and know you can dobetter. But I’m going to take you out [of yourposition] if you can’t get it fixed.”

Imagine that moment if you were Immelt.He could take the one-on-one opportunitywith Welch to justify the performance. Anyone or all of ego’s early warning signs couldhave surfaced. He might have defensively

93/564

complained about a lack of support, shiftedresponsibility to others, faulted changingmarket conditions, or pointed to governmentinterference. He could have compared histrack record to others to minimize the defi-cit, or used his intellect to create compellingjustification from industry trends. He’d beengiven an open invitation for an ego trip. Butthat’s not what happened. “Look, if the res-ults aren’t where they should be,” said Im-melt, “you won’t have to fire me because I’mgoing to leave on my own.”

Even though Immelt’s job was in jeopardy,that response revealed his agenda: a concernfor the company first, himself second. Im-melt wasn’t fighting to protect himself or hisjob. It’s not that he lost sight of himself; hesimply had the right perspective. Three yearslater Welch appointed Immelt as presidentand CEO of GE Medical Systems, a divisionof GE. Four years after that promotion, GE’s

94/564

board of directors appointed Immelt as thereplacement for Jack Welch as CEO.

We asked Welch what impression thatbrief elevator meeting with Immelt had lefthim with. He didn’t remember the incidentspecifically, but then followed withsomething that made us think: “I probablythought Jeff’s response was typical Jeff.”And that’s the point: what’s typical? For eachof us, in the most difficult moments, whatwould someone say is typical of us? Withouta specific memory, what would people assignto us by default because of the way we’ve re-sponded in our tests of leadership? How weact in those moments steadily adds up totypify our careers. In that pursuit, we willeach make mistakes along the way—plenty ofthem. We can’t let imperfection discourageus.

In the search for people who perfectly bal-ance ego with humility, curiosity, and vera-city, we came up short. We can’t point to one

95/564

person in history and say without reserva-tion, “Look to her,” or “Emulate him.” Des-pite some inspiring examples, there was al-ways more than one “yeah, but…” along theway. As much praise and credit as great lead-ers like William Hewlett and David Packardof HP, Darwin Smith of Kimberly-Clark, orColman Mockler of Gillette deserve for beinghumble, determined leaders, our discussionswith people who worked with them revealedthey were human.

Among presidents and prime ministers,civil rights leaders, inventors, and entrepren-eurs, whether public servants or private cit-izens, close inspection always revealed im-perfect moments. That discovery only gaveus more hope for what’s possible in spite ofour imperfections. Egonomic success doesn’trequire anyone to be superhuman—justdetermined.

There have been critical moments in thelives of all great leaders—in fact, in all our

96/564

lives—when we didn’t let our ego inappropri-ately drive our response or the agenda, andthat choice made all the difference. Egonom-ics is an examination of what those momentsreveal. But unless we’re willing to open ourminds and take an inventory of ourselves,this book will be nothing more than an intel-lectual tour of ideas. It can be tempting tothink of who else needs to read this book.Don’t wait for others to change first; mostwon’t.

You can—one moment at a time.Small changes in the way we think and be-

have make a surprisingly big difference inmaking the most of those moments. Historyshows there will be a few who succeed, andgreatness is usually found in small numbers.

momentum

As we were completing this book (Steve re-calls), a friend of mine died in a tragic plane

97/564

crash. Unable to cancel a client engagement,I missed his funeral. Upon arriving home, Idrove to his gravesite. The marker with hisname on it was surrounded by dozens ofbouquets. I stared at the freshly cut grassplaced over his casket. I placed my hand onthe turf and expected to find a conclusion.Instead, I felt suffocated—barricaded fromone more chance to interact with him. Icouldn’t understand why. I expected a periodto the sentence of this episode, and instead Ifound another comma. Unresolved thatevening, I asked my wife, Kitty, what the fu-neral was like. The church where they heldhis services had been filled to overflowing.My friend’s wife delivered the eulogy. Kittydescribed the delivery of his eulogy and theentire experience as “educational, uplifting,and filled with hope.”

My friend taught people how to be produ-cers in society, not just takers. In that churchwere hundreds of people who had been

98/564

profoundly affected by his message. At theinstant Kitty shared the feeling at his funeral,I felt the momentum of his life. The energy ofhis message wasn’t extinguished by hisdeath. He was gone, but the momentum ofhis life continued through other people.

Each of us is like my friend. We are mo-mentum creators. What momentum we cre-ate is up to each of us, but it won’t be stolenby death. That momentum will be shaped bythe next conversation we have or the next de-cision we make. The word momentum is re-lated to the word moment, and those mo-ments for humility, curiosity, and veracitypresent themselves every day, in every meet-ing, with every person. Those momentsaren’t meant to weigh us down with the pres-sure of perfection; rather they give us the op-portunity to live and lead a little better todaythan we did yesterday.

2: the ego balance sheet key points

99/564

• In a typical business meeting itcan take as little as five minutesto determine if ego is negativelyaffecting a discussion or adecision.

• early warning sign 1—beingcomparative. Ironically, beingtoo competitive makes us lesscompetitive. By fixating onsomeone else, we give up our po-tential in the name of becoming“better than” or at least “as goodas” someone else.

• early warning sign 2—beingdefensive. There’s a vital dif-ference between defending anidea and being defensive. Themotive behind defending an ideais to let the best argument win.When we’re defensive, we defend

100/564

our positions as if we’re defend-ing who we are.

• early warning sign 3—show-casing brilliance. Showcasingisn’t about making our brilliancevisible—it’s about making it thecenter of attention. The more wewant or expect people to recog-nize, appreciate, or be dazzled byhow smart we are, the less theylisten, even if we do have betterideas.

• early warning sign 4—seek-ing acceptance. Leadership isbest reserved for those who don’tneed a leadership position to val-idate who they are. Being awareof what people think is a sign ofgreat leadership. Becoming over-sensitive to what people think ofus keeps us from being true toourselves.

101/564

• Humility is the first principle ofegonomics because of its uniqueability to open minds. Humilityis a means to an end, and thatend is the progress of the busi-ness. Another characteristic ofhumility is constructive discon-tent. Without causing loss ofconfidence or lessening the im-portance of what we’ve achieved,humility craves the next level ofperformance.

• Curiosity is the active ingredi-ent that drives exploration ofideas. Curiosity gives us permis-sion and courage to test what wethink, feel, and believe to betrue, reminding us we don’tknow everything about anything.

• Veracity is the habitual pursuitof and adherence to truth. Ithelps make the undiscussables

102/564

discussable and closes the gapbetween what we think is goingon and what’s really going on.

103/564

early warning sign 1 beingcomparative

Every man in the world is betterthan someone else and not as goodas someone else.

WILLIAM SAROYAN

We make comparisons every day: prices,candidates, car lanes, diets, job offers, moviereviews, wines, restaurants, temperatures,and on and on. Comparison is a necessary,natural, minute-by-minute part of our lives.

As an unconscious habit it can be either aneffective tool or a weapon that turns againstus.

A frequent companion of comparison iscompetition—preached as the capitalist wayof life. As Andrew Carnegie said, “[Competi-tion] is here; we cannot evade it; no substi-tutes for it have been found; and while thelaw may be sometimes hard for the individu-al, it is best for the race, because it ensuresthe survival of the fittest in every depart-ment.” Because we’re immersed in competi-tion, and the competitive spirit pushes us todo better, we hardly notice when it makes usworse.

are you a turkey?

In his famous fable “The Fox and the Tur-keys,” Jean de La Fontaine tells of a group ofconfident turkeys who suffered the con-sequences of being preoccupied with an

105/564

opponent. The fox in the story is determinedto make a group of turkeys his feast. But us-ing the high perch of a forest tree as theirhaven from the fox, the turkeys stay out ofreach and mock the futile attempts of the foxto reach them. After hours of jeering andtaunts, the fox changes his strategy. Ratherthan keep trying to get to the turkeys, he getsthe turkeys to come to him. On the stage ofthe forest floor beneath the spotlight of themoon, the fox entertains the turkeysthroughout the night.

The turkeys find the fox’s antics so amus-ing, they can’t take their eyes off him the en-tire night, despite their need for sleep. Even-tually they grow tired, drift off to sleep, andfall from their perches. Then the fox fills upon turkey dinner and saves the leftovers. DeLa Fontaine closes his fable:

106/564

A foe, by being over-heeded,Has often in his plan succeeded.

By not watching modern-day foxes tooclosely, CSI executive producer AnthonyZuiker created the most successful crimedrama in television history. Currently, allthree CSI series (CSI, CSI Miami, CSI NewYork) are in the top ten on Nielsen’s televi-sion ratings. When asked how he manages tokeep producing CSIs without diluting thebrand, Zuiker responded, “The thing I’mmost proud of is that we didn’t react to thecompetition. Some of the other crime showshave added labs and are doing moreforensics, and there have been all kinds ofknockoffs watering down the market, butwe’ve held true. You need to evolve, but youdon’t need to evolve defensively. That’s aclassic mistake.” [emphasis added]

107/564

Ironically, we lose our competitive edgewhen we cross the line and become toocompetitive.

But where is that line?Let’s explore where that thin line is, how

deeply it divides healthy from unhealthycomparison and competition, and how to re-cognize that line before crossing it.

mirror, mirror, on the wall

Sometimes we’re hardly aware we’ve crossedthe line. In one study, researchers askedpeople to rank how much they liked ordin-ary, everyday items like a drink holder,comb, stapler, and so on. But the survey hada catch: each person was given one of theitems on the list as a gift before they wereasked to rank their preferences. As trivial asthe gift seems, people ranked the gift they re-ceived higher when comparing and then

108/564

ranking the twenty items. If it’s ours, it mustbe better!

In another study, researchers found thatwe’re influenced by something as simple asthe letters in our name. The results showedthere is statistically an overrepresentation ofGeorges in Georgia, Virginias in Virginia,and Marys in Maryland. There are more law-yers named Lawrence, dentists named Den-nis or Denise, and hardware stores owned bypeople whose names begin with the letter Hthan would normally be represented. In thenormal course of life, even the smallest de-tails create bias that makes us less objectivewithout any awareness on our part, andtherefore less effective in our comparisons.But even when we are aware, our self-biasplays a sizable role when judging ourselvesagainst others.

U.S. News & World Report asked onethousand people how likely particularcelebrities were to reach heaven. The choices

109/564

included people like Oprah Winfrey, DennisRodman, Mother Teresa, Michael Jordan,Bill Clinton, and Princess Diana. The winnerwas Mother Teresa: 79 percent believed shewas heavenbound. That question was fol-lowed by asking readers how likely they (thereaders) were to go to heaven. Eighty-sevenpercent of respondents voted themselves in-to heaven. So, according to the survey, ifthere’s only one lot left in heaven, and Godhas to choose between us and MotherTeresa, we believe the divine real estate isours. If Mother Teresa doesn’t win by com-parison with us, you might guess that neitherdoes anyone else.

The tendency to see ourselves throughrose-colored glasses doesn’t stop with ourviews of the afterlife. We surveyed nearly1,800 people to ask how confident they werein making good decisions. Eighty-three per-cent rated themselves as very confident orconfident. When we asked how confident

110/564

they were in the ability of the people theywork most closely with, confidence droppedfrom 83 percent to 27 percent. Can we reallybe that good, and everyone else that bad?When we weigh ourselves against othersthrough the eyes of pure ego, we’re likely tofavor ourselves. When that favorable viewisn’t validated by performance, excessivecomparison justifies the gap. Maybe theywere lucky. Maybe they had an advantage wedidn’t know about. Maybe we didn’t do aswell as we normally do. Maybe all of that istrue. Maybe it’s not.

True or not, excessive comparison drivesus to search for areas where others don’tmatch up to us, and we breathe a competitivesigh of relief when we find the gaps. For ex-ample, Andrew Oswald, a professor of eco-nomics at the University of Warwick in theUnited Kingdom, surveyed over 16,000workers in eight hundred organizations andfound salary has little impact on job

111/564

happiness. That finding isn’t surprising oreven new. But what is surprising is howmuch we rely on comparison for satisfaction.When Oswald looked at an employee’s posi-tion in a company, rank influenced howproud people were with their professionalachievements. In fact, rank increased happi-ness 50 to 60 percent, even when comparedto the size of their paychecks.

In other words, when we’re too comparat-ive, ranking higher than someone else mat-ters more than how much money we earn orwhat we’ve actually achieved. In a second ex-periment, Oswald asked students how satis-fied they would be with a job offering ayearly salary of $32,000 after graduation.Some were told the salary was the secondlowest in the firm, while others were told itwas the fifth from the bottom. The higher thesalary ranked, the more satisfied studentswere with their prospective job—regardlessof the offer itself.

112/564

Research on social comparisons show themore uncertain we are about who we are orwhat we have, the more automatic and per-sistent our comparisons become. Unfair orinaccurate comparison not only stealscredit from the person we’re compar-ing against when they deserve credit,it interferes with the opportunity tomake the most of our situation—inde-pendent of anyone, or anything, else.Then we stall, waiting for luck or destiny tofind us and deliver our portion of comparat-ive success. The tax we pay emotionally oncomparison doesn’t help us or changeanything.

When trapped by comparison—even tem-porarily—we’re not nearly as interested inhelping others advance as we are in advan-cing ourselves. There is in most of us a fiercedesire to be “better than”—more valued,loved, rewarded, and respected. “Pride getsno pleasure out of having something,” wrote

113/564

C. S. Lewis, “only out of having more of itthan the next man.” It’s very different tothink “I’m better than he is” versus “I’m bet-ter than I was.” Perhaps more important,mistaking the two makes us discouragedwhen we shouldn’t be.

oprah versus bride of chucky

In 1998, Oprah Winfrey released her firstfilm as a producer, Beloved. She consideredthe film one of the greatest accomplishmentsof her life, in a life with quite a few achieve-ments. The movie grossed $23 million at thebox office: by Hollywood’s standards, ittanked. In box office revenues, her film wasbeaten by Bride of Chucky’s opening week-end. In her own words, she was “dis-heartened and depressed.” But the reasonshe felt disheartened wasn’t really themovie’s performance; it was an unfair andineffective comparison. Working through her

114/564

disappointment, Oprah lamented one even-ing to her close friend Gary Zukav. Zukavasked her a profound question that broughther comparison to an accurate view: “Whatwas your intention?”

“My intention,” she replied, “was to createa movie so powerful that it would allowpeople to feel, not just see, what it meant toovercome slavery and be able to love—and toreconstruct a life. My intention was forpeople to realize that this wasn’t just a ‘peri-od’ in history, that these were real people,my ancestors, who had fought their way backto some sense of humanity in ordinary andextraordinary ways.” “Well,” he said, “youdid that.” In that moment she released un-realistic, unfair expectations for box officenumbers and looked honestly at the film forwhat it truly was.

Her film wasn’t only about box office suc-cess or beating Bride of Chucky. The film’sreal objective—lost temporarily in the web of

115/564

comparison—was to be a message ofstrength, history, courage, and humanity. Bycomparison, her film was a failure; by inten-tion, it was a success. Imagine, however, ifshe had made the film only to compete, toproduce revenue and beat films like Bride ofChucky. The vision for her film would havebeen misdirected from the beginning. Com-parison often clouds the clarity of our vision.

the “more or less” campaign

When competition blurs our focus, we crossthe line of healthy comparison by placing asingle person, group, or company at the cen-ter of our attention. Then comparison getspersonal—“you versus me” or “us versusthem.” In the “you versus me” game, thelevel of internal competition leads to behavi-ors that make companies less effective. Infour different group experiments, teammembers withheld accurate information

116/564

from the team leader assigned to make a de-cision. They also gave inaccurate informa-tion to the decision maker when they per-ceived the decision maker as ultracompetit-ive. When asked why they misled or withheldinformation, they answered it was because ofthe decision maker’s greed and competitive-ness, or the fear of being mistreated. Beingcompetitive, without letting it suck us intobeing counterproductive, isn’t easy.

In a world that constantly judges who fin-ishes first, second, and third, it’s hard not tojudge ourselves or others as more or lesssmart, innovative, insightful, talented, orsuccessful. There’s a constant stream of mes-sages reminding us that who we are andwhat we achieve isn’t enough. We’re floodedwith images that give the illusion certainpeople have it all, and select organizationsare idolized as near perfect. The truth is noone has it all and perfection is an illusion.

117/564

But the “more or less” commercials ofcompetition that surround us distract fromwho we are and what we do have. If othersseem to have more or are larger in our lim-ited view, it doesn’t mean we must thereforebe smaller. With a surplus of comparison,multiplied by excessive competition, ourview gets tilted. When competitive chal-lenges consume us—even momentar-ily—combined with the bias of our comparis-ons, we get sidetracked in three ways: 1) weset goals we shouldn’t set to begin with, 2)we set the bar higher than is reachable orrealistic, or 3) we get comfortable where weare.

1. the wrong goal

Constantly looking over our shoulder at whatothers are doing takes our eyes off what’sahead of us. Then our goals are set not bywhat’s possible or relevant but by what

118/564

someone else is doing. In that case, we’re noteven setting our goals; someone else is. Apreoccupation with comparison pushes us tomeasure success against accomplishmentsthat have little or nothing to do with whatwe’re uniquely suited for. Envy is a strongmotivator but a weak navigator.

In the late 1980s, the satellite communica-tion company Iridium got locked in a duel tobeat its competitors to get a new product tomarket. The company was the first to devel-op a satellite phone that would allow you totalk from Mount Everest to Los Angeles stat-ic free and with no dropped calls. The onlyproblem was handsets cost $3,000 each andper-minute charges ranged from $3 to $8.“What it looks like now,” said Chris Chaney,an analyst for A.G. Edwards, “is amultibillion-dollar space project.” When wetalked with people who worked at Iridium, itwas clear the leaders of the company werepreoccupied with comparisons to a specific

119/564

competitor. As a result, their commitment tothe new product escalated into heavy, hur-ried investments and rushed execution des-pite warnings that signaled dramatic changesin cellular and wireless technology. Whilethe two competitors raced each other towarda nearly irrelevant finish line, market-relev-ant competitors passed them by. In 1999,Iridium crashed and became one of thetwenty largest bankruptcies in history. Agroup of private investors later bought thecompany and its sixty-six satellites for only$25 million.

When companies are fixated on competit-ors—where they’re going, what they’re doing,who they’re doing it with, when they’re doingit, or what their next move might be—busi-ness IQ drops. And we become less competit-ive. “Competition whose motive is merely tocompete, to drive some other fellow out, nev-er carries very far,” said Henry Ford. “Thecompetitor to be feared is one who never

120/564

bothers about you at all, but goes on makinghis own business better all the time. Busi-nesses that grow by development and im-provement do not die. But when a businessceases to be creative, and it believes it hasreached perfection and needs to do nothingbut produce—no improvement, no develop-ment, it is done.”

When we fixate on what others achieve, weoverrespond to their every move. “If youbase your strategy on what competitors aredoing,” said Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos,“then—because the competitive environmentchanges so rapidly—you’d have to changeyour strategy all the time.” In an interviewwith Business 2.0, Google CEO Eric Schmidtwas asked to respond to a statement from aMicrosoft leader about Google, hinting Mi-crosoft was now the “underdog.” “He’s wel-come to say whatever he’d like,” said Sch-midt. “I’m happy to talk about Google.” Hiscomment wasn’t competitive naiveté but an

121/564

appropriate view of, and reaction to, thecompetition.

Many of the smartest business ideas today(such as eBay, Home Depot, iTunes, WholeFoods, Skype, Progressive Insurance) werecreated through uniqueness, not competitivesameness. Marketing experts Seth Godin andJack Trout stress that the greatest chancesfor success in marketing are in being a one-of-a-kind brand or product. Godin calls thatuniqueness a “purple cow.” Trout simplysays, “Differentiate or die.” Not only cancomparisons hurt the creativity that leads touniqueness, they may spur us to prematurelyabandon the truly unique creation. “Every-one engaged in creative work is subject topersecution by the odious comparison,” saidthe brilliant architect Frank Lloyd Wright.“Odious comparisons dog the footsteps of allcreation wherever the poetic principle is in-volved because the inferior mind learns onlyby comparisons; usually equivocal, made by

122/564

selfish interests each for the other. But thesuperior mind learns by analyses.” Thesearch for uniqueness compels us toinnovate, not impersonate. Butstrategies driven purely by comparison areset because of the pressure—which is fre-quently imagined—we feel from competition,not because those goals are relevant orunique.

2. the cow jumped over the moon?

In addition to setting the wrong goal, thesecond way comparison sidetracks us is byinducing us to set an unrealistic goal. For ex-ample, in 2001, then CEO Dick Brown ofEDS decided that 2002 revenue had to growby nearly 60 percent and committed to thatnumber to the board of directors. Given thefact it took over forty-two years to get to$21.1 billion, increasing revenue by $13 bil-lion in one year was no small feat. One of the

123/564

primary strategies to hit the revenue goalwas to grow the sales force by 50 percent.One of the sales vice presidents confided thatregardless of whether they believed the can-didates were qualified or would be success-ful, they were required to hire a certain num-ber by a specific date. EDS paid big signingbonuses, agreed to higher salaries than theywould have otherwise, and covered movingexpenses.

What were the results of this grandstrategy? Revenue for 2002 grew by 2 per-cent. Operating margin fell by 2.4 percent.Earnings per share fell by $.53. The totalvalue for contracts signed fell by $7 billion.Within twenty-four months, nearly 95 per-cent of newly acquired sales talent left thecompany. And what happened to DickBrown? In March of 2003 he was fired.When the bar is out of reach, we setourselves up to fail. Worry and frustrationfollow. The warning here of setting

124/564

unrealistic goals is far from an endorsementof complacency. Attuning to reality first be-fore setting objectives shouldn’t be confusedwith fear of setting ambitious goals or con-strued as not trying anything new. But whileego-driven, unrealistic goals might be tem-porarily motivating, it’s not long beforethey’re discouraging and expensive.

3. sit back and relax?

The third detour of comparison tricks us intocomplacency. When our comparison findsperformance that doesn’t match ours, we getsatisfied. While there’s nothing wrongwith satisfaction, comparison makesus completely content. Even thoughwe’re capable of more, comparisonlulls us into a state of comfort, and ourcontentment to simply be “betterthan” turns out to be the enemy ofwhat’s possible.

125/564

In an article on the United States’ disap-pointing showing in the 2006 World Cup,writer Ives Galarcep spoke of the comfort ofstar U.S. player Landon Donovan. “If any-thing, Donovan provided clear-cut evidencethat it is time for him to pack his bags, sellhis beachside condo in California, and goback to Europe,” wrote Galarcep. “He hassold us on a bill of goods for more than ayear about being a better player when he iscomfortable. Being comfortable doesn’tmake you a better player. Being comfortablemakes you a comfortable player.Donovan—and any soccer player worth hisgolden spikes—needs pressure to evolve.Pressure makes diamonds, busts pipes, andturns soccer players into big-game stars. TheWorld’s best players, be they European orSouth American, live a life of continuouspressure to perform…. [Does] he want to beremembered as an amazing soccer playerwho made the most of his talent, or does he

126/564

want to be remembered as the incredible tal-ent who cared more about being comfortablethan being great?”

Under the anesthesia of comfort, when wesee a gap that suggests we’re not as elevatedas we once thought, we search for reasons tostay satisfied, rather than wake up. For ex-ample, I (Steve) recall that when my sonCaden was little, he wouldn’t sleep in hisown bed. Because he was afraid of monstersunder his bed or in his closet, no matter howhard we tried, begged, cajoled, pleaded,prayed…he refused. We read child psycho-logy books, watched documentaries on childbehavior, and waited for Dr. Phil to do ashow on it. Nothing seemed to work. Onenight as I was lying down with Caden, wait-ing for him to doze off, I had an idea. In des-peration, I decided to appeal to his fiercesense of competition.

“Cadybug—Nicky, your little brother,sleeps in his own bed. He’s not afraid.”

127/564

“Dad,” he said, “Nicky is only three. He’s toostupid to be scared of monsters!” Resistingthe urge to give him a lecture on name-call-ing, I thought the next logical comparisonwould convince him of his error. “Well, Alec,your older brother, isn’t afraid to sleep in hisown bed.” “Dad,” he said with a sigh of frus-tration, “Alec is nine. Do you know how oldthat is in dog years? He’s like…thirty-three.He’s way too old to be scared.” The compar-ison had come full circle. Either way, Cadenremained—in his own mind—the perfectsleeper in no need of a change by comparis-on to those lesser sleeping intelligencescalled his brothers. For him, it was quitecomfortable to have Mom or Dad sleeping inhis room until he gave them permission toleave.

better than…until

128/564

In business we can get distracted by gazingon those “below” us, and if the gap is bigenough, we stop paying any attention tothem and get comfortable. Before we knowit, they—or someone else—pass us. The SonyWalkman was certainly “better than” everyother portable, personal stereo. Until iPod.Sears was “better than” every other retailerin the world. Until Wal-Mart. GM and Fordwere definitely “better than” every otherautomobile company. Until Toyota, which iscurrently on track to be the world’s largestautomobile manufacturer. Day-Timer was“better than” the average calendar. UntilOutlook…until Palm…until BlackBerry…untilMotorola’s Razr. There’s always an untilwaiting for each of us if we drift off to sleepunder the fleeting warm blanket of content-ment, leading to faulty assumptions, me-diocre performance, and sometimes career-altering decisions.

129/564

first among…?

Molly is a bright, vivacious friend of ourswho teaches global business at a university.Early in her career, she had a career-alteringexperience with comparison. In 1986, at theencouragement of friends, she trained forher first triathlon in Chicago. To finish in arespectable position, she spent months offree time swimming in Lake Michigan, ridingher bike up and down Lake Shore Drive, andrunning all over the suburbs. Race day cameand she placed in the top 20 percent for herage group. Falling in love with the sport andher placement, she shifted not only her per-sonal goals but her professional ones as wellto concentrate on training for other triath-lons. She joined a local club, subscribed toevery available running magazine, andsigned up for as many races as she could. Forthe next year and a half, she worked full-timeand trained at night. By the end of the next

130/564

year she had ten more races under her beltand some encouraging successes.

To get to the next level, she thought itwould be helpful to train and race in an en-vironment swirling with triathlon fever. Soshe moved to Atlanta and got a job with asporting goods firm. In her first summer inAtlanta she raced in seven triathlons. Sheachieved a significant milestone when shewon the Georgia state championship for herage group. In doing so, Molly qualified forthe USA Triathlon’s National Championshipto be held in Chicago. Qualifying gave her anincredible rush of confidence and power.Feeling as if she had found her life’s callingas a professional triathlete, she quit her jobin a well-paid management position andbegan to train full-time. The national cham-pionship features the best athletes in thetriathlon world. By qualifying for this race,she would be set to compete alongside all themarquis names.

131/564

Then race day came.She lined up with her fellow “champions”

in her brand-new Speedo triathlon suit andran into the water to start the swim. No morethan a few seconds into the swim she felt ahand push her under the water and an armin her side. She was literally tossed, turnedaround, swum over, and pummeled. Hernormally fast swim time turned into astruggle to survive. “Who are these women?”she kept thinking. “This is awful!” The condi-tions didn’t get any better. After forty-fiveminutes in the water, and the age groupers’coming from behind and passing her, shedragged herself to the bike. Again she felt aleg on the side of her, this time kicking herbike, and another body pushing so close toher that she crashed.

Discouraged and thinking she would belucky to finish in the championship group,Molly pulled herself up and slowly spunthrough the rest of the bike segment. By the

132/564

time she ran the last twenty-five miles, shehad completely lost the championship group,had been passed by age groupers, and wasnow among the normal Joes of Chicago run-ning their first triathlon. She was embar-rassed, especially since her number of28—versus 8,476 or some other high num-ber—indicated she was in the championshipgroup. People who saw her knew she wassupposed to be much farther ahead. Whenshe crossed the finish line, she could see hermother’s and sister’s worried looks. “Wewondered where you were!” they said.“Everyone else in your group finished agesago.”

What does Molly’s story have to do withthe bar comparison sets for us? Maybe it wasjust a bad race. Maybe she simply needed totrain harder. Perhaps this was simply anobstacle on the road to greatness. Lookingback, Molly said she tricked herself by com-parison into a feeling of superiority. “Some

133/564

‘gift to triathlon’ I turned out to be,” she toldus—at times smiling widely, and at othertimes shaking her head. “When I look backon the experience, I realize I never really didvery well in any race. I placed in my agegroup when there were no other people inmy age group, and I ‘won’ the Georgia statechampionship because the only other womenin my age group didn’t finish. (One droppedout and the other had an accident!) My ‘suc-cess’ and my decisions were based mostly oninaccurate comparisons, and I let it go to myhead. I was humbled so completely in Chica-go that I gave up triathlons as anything otherthan a hobby from that time forward. It wasa hard lesson to learn. I wish I could havelearned the ‘easy’ way, but life doesn’t alwaysdeliver easy lessons. Since that time, I’mcareful about what comparisons I make.”

Being our competitive best requires a clearview of ourselves. We all tend to seeourselves in some areas a little better than

134/564

we are, and occasionally worse than we are.We can’t be our best if we’re mistaken by ex-cessive comparison about who we are andwhat abilities we have or don’t have. Weshouldn’t eliminate competition or stop chal-lenging ourselves. But we can’t afford tocross the line and let unwarranted comparis-on and competition lead us down an irrelev-ant, frustrating, or mediocre path.

Falling into the comparison trap usuallyprecedes and triggers the other three earlywarning signs: being defensive, showcasingbrilliance, and seeking acceptance.

Breaking the habit of any early warningsign requires we examine beliefs that drivethose behaviors. Our beliefs are based on amathematical equation—a series of “this plusthis equals this” or “if-then” logic. But themath we do in our heads doesn’t always addup—the beliefs we have may be anything buttrue. If we can identify the faulty equationsin our minds, we can break bad habits.

135/564

There is also often a difference betweenwhat we say or do and what we’re thinking orfeeling. Even though we might say the rightwords, sometimes we feel different. Whilewhat we feel or think can be masked by theright words or actions, our intentions andfeelings are always true, although not alwaysrevealed. What we or others are feeling letsus know if we’re managing ego effectively.

In appendix 1, we’ve listed key beliefs,healthy and unhealthy, for each early warn-ing sign along with questions we can ask tochallenge unhealthy beliefs to overcome thatearly warning sign. Also listed are primaryemotions and attitudes related to each of thefour early warnings signs we can watch for inourselves and others. A more comprehensivelist may be found atwww.egonomicsbook.com.

3: being comparative key points

136/564

• Comparison is such a necessary,natural, minute-by-minute partof our lives, it’s an unconscioushabit. That habit is either an ef-fective tool or a weapon thatturns against us. A frequentcompanion of comparison iscompetition. Because we’re im-mersed in competition, and thecompetitive spirit pushes us todo better, we hardly notice whenit makes us worse.

• An appropriate view of competi-tion resists the temptation tomake comparisons that turn col-leagues into competitors. Wemake better choices by not at-tempting to become someone, orsomething, else.

137/564

• We lose our competitive edgewhen we become toocompetitive.

• When we’re too comparative,ranking higher than someoneelse matters more than howmuch money we earn or whatwe’ve actually achieved.

• Research on social comparisonsshows that the more uncertainwe are about who we are or whatwe have, the more automatic andpersistent comparisons become.Unfair or inaccurate comparisonnot only steals credit from theperson we’re comparing against,it interferes with the opportunityto make the most of our situ-ation—independent of anyone,or anything, else.

• When excessive comparisoncomes into play, judgments that

138/564

follow prevent us from reachingour potential by satisfying uswith status quo or distractingfrom the performance itself.

• When competitive challengesconsume us, combined with thegeneral inaccuracy of our com-parisons, we get sidetracked inthree ways: we set goals weshouldn’t set to begin with, weset the bar higher than is reach-able or realistic, or we get com-fortable where we are.

139/564

early warning sign 2 beingdefensive

Men often oppose a thing, merelybecause they have had no agency inplanning it, or because it may havebeen planned by those they dislike.But if they have been consulted, andhave happened to disapprove, op-position then becomes, in their es-timation, an indispensable duty ofself-love. They seem to think them-selves bound in honor, and by all

the motives of personal infallibility,to defeat the success of what hasbeen resolved upon contrary totheir sentiments.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

The second early warning sign that ego hasmoved from an asset to a liability is defens-iveness. On the one hand, there’s absolutelynothing wrong with defending an idea. Vig-orous debate and the clash of different pointsof view are requirements for letting the bestideas win. An idea that is able to withstandscrutiny warrants support, and if it can’t, weshould be equally happy with that as an out-come. Being passionate about an idea isn’tthe same as being right, and disagreementdoesn’t equal negativity. “I look for brightpeople with strong personalities who will ar-gue with me,” said Massachusetts governorMitt Romney. “I like discussing both sides ofan issue and I’m comfortable with

141/564

controversy.” That’s a rare approach for aRepublican in a heavily Democratic state. Infact, it’s uncommon practice in most anyarena—business, school, politics, or home.Yet if our intent is to let the best ideas win,we can take any stance, on any topic, in anyarena to test the strength of what we’re de-bating. But there’s a difference between de-fending a position and being defensive.

When my daughter Lindsay was in highschool (Dave recalls), she frequently left thegarage door open after she got out of her car,even though we had given her several re-minders to close it before she came into thehouse. One evening, as I went out to the gar-age to get something from the freezer, I no-ticed she had left it open—again. I wanted tomake the point clear that she usually forgets,and I thought this was the perfectopportunity:

142/564

DAD: Lindsay, is there a reason you don’tclose the garage door when you comehome?LINDSAY: I’m not the only one that leavesit open.DAD: Yes, but you just came home tenminutes ago and it’s open. Jeff andSpencer are both gone, so it couldn’thave been either one of them. And Ididn’t go open it up just so I could getyou in trouble. If the garage door is leftopen, the wind blows dirt, leaves, andtrash into the garage. Then someone hasto clean it out, and that someone is usu-ally me. I want you to remember to closeit when you come home.LINDSAY: Why do you only get after me?When the boys come home from school,they leave the garage door open all thetime and you don’t say anything tothem. I’ve even seen you and Mom leaveyour garage doors open. I’m not the only

143/564

one that does it. Besides, I might leaveto go somewhere later.

In any situation, when the power of egosurges, our intent switches from honestly de-fending our point to proving our case exclus-ively; we refuse to be influenced, regardlessof gaps in logic or inaccuracies. In the relent-less effort to be “right,” we make excuses,find fault with others, even if our faultfindingis unrelated to the discussion at hand. Or wesimply deny any wrongdoing. Sometimes weexcuse mistakes by saying, “That’s just theway I am.” Occasionally we go to extremes tomake the point we disagree with seem far-fetched and therefore irrelevant.

The exchange of extreme ideas quicklyturns into an exchange of intellectual oremotional blows, and small things becomebig things. To justify our switch from defend-ing to defensiveness, we may feel righteouslyindignant or that we’re the innocent victim.

144/564

And when a simple acknowledgment of beingwrong would move everyone toward open-ness, oddly enough we use apology as anoth-er weapon of defensiveness. Defensive “apo-logies” are so common, they meritelaboration.

i’m sorry, but was that anapology?

“I’m sure that I’m supposed to act all sorry orsad or guilty now that I’ve accepted that I’vedone something wrong,” said Pete Rosewhen he admitted to betting on baseball.“But you see, I’m just not built that way. Solet’s leave it like this: I’m sorry it happenedand I’m sorry for all the people, fans, andfamily it hurt. Let’s move on.” If you’re anavid baseball fan, is his apology acceptable?Defensiveness doesn’t allow a genuine apo-logy; we go through the motions.

145/564

In an article for Governing magazine, AlanEhrenhalt identifies a second strategy—the“I’m right, you just misinterpreted me”strategy. Ehrenhalt describes how Mas-sachusetts state representative Ellen Storygot herself into hot water for saying the stateunder-funded mental health because of the“predominance of Irish Catholics in author-ity.” She said the Irish deemed retardation tobe God’s will. After colleagues called herview “bizarre,” she apologized to “anyone Ioffended” by the “poor choice of words.” Thewarmth of her apology? Thirty-two degreesFahrenheit.

The final defensive maneuver in the formof an apology is an unwilling about-face. Onthe campaign trail several years ago, presid-ential hopeful Howard Dean said he wantedto be the candidate for “guys with Confeder-ate flags on their pickup trucks.” After get-ting blasted in the press for the next twenty-four hours, Dean did a one-eighty: “I think I

146/564

made a mistake. I apologize for it. I think it’stime to move on.” Was he truly sorry? TheReverend Al Sharp-ton told Dean: “You arenot a bigot, but you appear to be too arrog-ant to say, ‘I’m wrong,’ and go on.” Whenasked why he didn’t apologize earlier, Deansaid, “I tend to be somebody who, underpressure, tends to fight back.” But insincerityonly serves to keep everyone as unforgiving,unapologetic, and entrenched in their opin-ion as they were before.

In time, we become more insensitive toour mistakes and develop a natural inclina-tion to “fight back.” Unfortunately, we fallback on that inclination not only when facedwith outright challenge or accusation, butwhen someone is trying to help us.

can I give you some feedback?

When someone tells us they want to give usfeedback, we don’t usually think, “Yes. I’ve

147/564

been hoping for someone to point out a blindspot. I can’t wait to hear what they have tosay!” The word “feedback” has become codefor “Can I tell you what’s wrong with you?”Even though it sounds courteous, we expectto hear unpleasant news, and it’s easy to bedefensive, even if only on the inside. In fact,if we’re feeling defensive and someone sug-gests we’re being defensive, our typical re-sponse is to say, “No, I’m not.” We’re evendefensive about being defensive.

In his work based on The 7 Habits ofHighly Effective People, Stephen R. Coveyhas conducted over 150,000 360-degree as-sessments in the last decade. In an analysisof those assessments, of the seventy-eightitems included in the survey, “Receives neg-ative feedback without becoming defensive”and “Seeks feedback on ways he/she can im-prove” rank dead last when people are evalu-ated by their colleagues. Ironically, thosesame two items show up in the top ten when

148/564

people rank themselves. If we don’t “mindthe gap,” we stay mired in ineffective habitswe can’t even see.

What is it about feedback that makes it sohard to take? We know we’re not perfect.Even so, feedback isn’t easy when a flaw isexposed, especially when someone else re-veals it. There are two major reasons for ourdefensiveness: the image we want others tohave of us, and the image we need to have ofourselves.

the burden of perfection

We want and need others to have a positiveimage of us—who we are, what talents wehave, what we’re like to work with, whetherwe can be trusted, whether we’re competent,whether they should follow our lead, and soon. As a result, it’s natural that we projectour best possible image. But when someonehas feedback to share, we fear our image has

149/564

been tarnished, or will be if we don’t defendit. We don’t want to look as if we’re not all weshould be or as if we have a chink in our ar-mor. That would make us look foolish for notrecognizing and addressing an apparentweakness. So in response to that pressure,we rally our own personal PR firm to manageperceptions and defend our reputation. Wecould be defending our identity—who we areand what we stand for—our behaviors, or ourideas. But when we attempt to manage per-ceptions through defensiveness, the effort istransparent.

In a televised press conference on theWatergate scandal in 1973, President Nixonforcefully resisted admitting mistakes as hedefended his record in the Watergate case. “Iam not a crook,” he said. “[I]n all of my yearsof public life I have never obstructed justice.People have got to know whether or not theirpresident is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook.I’ve earned everything I’ve got.” Nine months

150/564

later Congress impeached Nixon and forcedhim to resign the presidency. And who couldforget President Clinton’s infamous 1998grand jury testimony when he said, “It de-pends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’is.” America rolled its eyes in disbelief.Whether we’re in a public political position,a visible corporate leadership role, or asimple everyday encounter, when we try toescape responsibility for mistakes, to hidethe truth, or when we agree we’ve made mis-takes but discard them as trivial, people usu-ally see through our defensive ploys.

Not surprisingly, the more visible webecome, the more we’re expected to be“perfect.” It’s almost as if to qualify as aleader we aren’t allowed to have flaws. Thesocial pressure makes it even harder to ad-mit mistakes. At a press conference on April13, 2004, John Dickerson of Time magazineasked an unexpected question of PresidentGeorge W. Bush: “You’ve looked back before

151/564

9/11 for what mistakes might have beenmade. After 9/11, what would your biggestmistake be, would you say, and what lessonshave you learned from it?”

The president’s response was indicative ofnot just a political propensity but a humantendency to hide frailty. “I wish you wouldhave given me this written question ahead oftime, so I could plan for it,” President Bushsaid. “John, I’m sure historians will lookback and say, gosh, he could have done itbetter this way, or that way. You know, Ijust—I’m sure something will pop into myhead here in the midst of this press confer-ence with all the pressure of trying to comeup with an answer, but it hasn’t yet.” Thenthe president went on to explain his reason-ing for the things he believed he had doneright—from Afghanistan to Iraq. He closedby saying, “I hope I—I don’t want to soundlike I’ve made no mistakes. I’m confident Ihave. I just haven’t—you just put me under

152/564

the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick onmy feet as I should be in coming up withone.”

President Bush was quicker on his feet amonth later. At a White House correspond-ents’ dinner he was asked about that unfor-gettable question. “It’s an excellent questionthat totally stumped me,” Bush admitted. “Iguess looking at it practically, my biggestmistake was calling on John.” Perhaps Pres-ident Bush would lose with a yes or no an-swer. If he answers yes, his opponents andthe press have new ammunition. If he an-swers no, he looks arrogant. How refreshingit would have been to hear something likethis:

John, that’s not an easy question toanswer. Admitting mistakes ishard, whether it’s to the nation orto my wife. I believe that’s a humantendency each of us is susceptible

153/564

to. To make matters worse, politicshas become a place where admit-ting mistakes is a sign of weakness,and an opportunity for others tojump on and amplify those mis-takes. In spite of that, I have mademistakes. For example, I was con-vinced it was in the best interests ofour national security to [fill in theblank]. But because there are vari-ables no one controls, it didn’t playout the way I thought it would.Now, with better information,looking back on it, I wish I haddone differently.

With that said, I ask the Amer-ican people to forgive me for thosemistakes—and the mistakes I’mcertain I will yet make. I’m not un-der the delusion I’m perfect, and Iknow the people in this room aren’tunder that delusion about me

154/564

either. There’s no such thing as amistake-free presidency: it hasn’tbeen possible for the forty-twopresidents who preceded me. Thosewho don’t learn from history arebound to repeat the same mistakes,and that applies to me, you, andeach American citizen. I know I cando better. Thank you for the hon-esty of your question.

Maybe President Bush lost an opportunityto shift the discussion from party politics andbrazenness to candor and humility. His pre-decessors have certainly had opportunities tomake that same shift and passed them up.Only forty-three people in the history of theUnited States have been asked such ques-tions from the podium of the White Housepress room, and it’s easy to give advice fromthe sidelines or to criticize. The point is,our defensiveness, often seen as

155/564

evasiveness, only serves to indict us,regardless of the truth of the accusa-tion, the sincerity of the question, orthe nature of the feedback.

happy go (un)lucky

Another reason we resist feedback is that wewant and need to hold a positive image ofourselves. An accurate, healthy self-image isan essential pursuit of life and a prerequisiteto making a positive contribution. Anythingcounter to that positive image can be seen asa threat to our identity. In fact, there’s an ar-gument to be made against feedback—that adose of reality when it’s negative isn’t healthymedicine.

Research by Shelley Taylor at theUniversity of California and Jonathan Brownof Southern Methodist University showedthat the more positive we are aboutourselves—even if our perception isn’t tied to

156/564

reality—the happier, harder-working, morebenevolent, and more determined we are. Sowhy in the world would we want feedbackthat could shatter our rose-colored glasses?And when we get feedback, why not simplydismiss it if we’re happier without it? Theanswer is that those findings are incomplete.In the long run we wouldn’t actually behappier, harder-working, or more product-ive. Mark Leary, professor and chair of psy-chology at Wake Forest University, has con-ducted years of research that suggests thedanger of an overly positive self-view:

Holding an overly flattering viewof one’s personality, abilities, andother attributes is often a recipe fordisaster. Success in life comeslargely from matching one’s abilit-ies, interests, and inclinations toappropriate situations, jobs, andrelationships. To the extent they

157/564

misperceive who or what they’rereally like, people are more likelyto make bad decisions. How manypeople are in jobs, relationships,and lives for which they are un-suited simply because they per-ceived themselves inaccurately?When self-serving illusions blindpeople to their shortcomings andweaknesses, they are unlikely totry to improve.

If hearing feedback from someone is pain-ful, the alternative—ignoring it—appearseven worse. Being defensive doesn’t erasethe truth; instead, it only protects our illu-sions that block progress. “We defend ourenslavements,” said an unknown philosoph-er, “as if they were our freedoms.” Freedomcomes from inviting reality checks while atthe same time holding a positive self-view.The feedback we get won’t always be

158/564

accurate; the data we receive filters throughthe biased lens of the one giving it, as well asthe one on the receiving end. But what otherpeople tell us does represent their perceptionof us, and we should remember that theirperception is their reality. So if we want towork effectively with them, we must under-stand their reality. We’re not saying it’s a joyto hear about our imperfections, but if weresist the feedback, then we’re bound to livewith the flaws. One of the flaws we shouldexamine that may help us to stay open tofeedback is the logic underlying our defens-iveness. As it turns out, it isn’t very logical atall.

logically illogical

The logic behind defensiveness doesn’t stackup. If we’re wrong, do we really want to de-fend a bad idea or position? If we’re right,will being defensive increase or decrease the

159/564

strength of our position? Will it hurt or helpthe odds that others will give up their posi-tion in favor of a better way? Will defensive-ness foster better listening, on either side?Will our defense or denial of our weaknessesmake us stronger? While there’s no rationalebehind the tactic of being defensive, there’splenty of emotion. Fear is the mortar thatholds together the wall of defensiveness. Wefear that

• we weren’t smart enough to seeit first.

• we risk losing what we have orwho we are if we change.

• if we admit we’re wrong, we’lllose face.

• the world is changing and wedon’t want it to—so we defendthe “old world,” under the illu-sion that if we hold to our

160/564

position long enough, the worldwill adjust to us.

• the past has been different fromwhat we thought it was, and thefuture might be different fromwhat we want it to be.

• we are the feedback we’regetting.

If we’re defensive whenever others give usfeedback, they stop giving us input, evenwhen it’s in our best interests. They’re morethan willing to become spectators and let ex-perience teach us a lesson. “You can’t shutout the world,” said Arnold Glasgow,“without shutting yourself in.” One of thepreferred means we use to shut the world outis what we call spin.

spin doctors

161/564

During a political debate, each candidate’scamp is abuzz with staff members analyzingwhat is said by the candidates, gauging howthe public will react, and, if necessary, manu-facturing corrections. Immediately after thedebate is over, each side eagerly and passion-ately claims victory and assures the punditsthat their candidate delivered the messagethe public resonates with. What often getsshared after a debate isn’t always an accurateassessment but a carefully crafted spin thatmakes one candidate’s points look dead-onand the opponent wrong or out of touch.People good at this are dubbed spin doctors.Our guess is that if you reviewed postdebaterhetoric, it would appear not one candidateever lost a debate.

Spinning was an art originally designed topolish a clear, accurate message so peoplecould understand it quickly. Now it’s theability to manufacture a one-sided version ofthe truth, and too often to make weakness

162/564

look strong and fallacy seem factual. The fi-nal report of the U.S. House of Representat-ives investigation into the Katrina disasterstates, “Critical time was wasted on issues ofno importance to disaster response, such aswinning the blame game [and] waging a pub-lic relations battle.” In other words, defens-ive spin.

Spin isn’t reserved for politicians, mediapersonalities, or congressional inquiries. Itdoesn’t matter if it’s the Oval Office, a For-tune 500 boardroom, a meeting room, or aliving room; we’ve each learned to shape ourside of the story to show ourselves in a posit-ive light. While there’s nothing wrong withour side of the story, the wheel of spin hasfour major spokes that lead to bias and error:

• Exaggerate. Inflate informa-tion beyond its actualsignificance

163/564

• Understate. Filter, minimize,or block out certain information

• Manipulate. Twist and re-forminformation

• Fabricate. Create informationthat has no basis in reality

When defensive, we’re inclined to use spintactics to suffocate good information and ad-vance our cause. Unfortunately, defensive-ness doesn’t always show up in our words.

he (really) said, she (really) said

We’re not only defensive when someonechallenges us or gives us feedback. We canbe defensive in simple interactions becauseof previous exchanges, and yet defensivenessisn’t always apparent on the surface. Con-sider a meeting where the right words are

164/564

being said, but defensiveness still spins howinformation is shared and received:

165/564

As this conversation escalates, imagine therest of it seesawing back and forth. Neitherhears the other, because they’re filteringeverything through the spin inside theirheads. On the surface we can use open, politewords, but the internal barriers that are con-stantly being fortified make honest, openconversation nearly impossible. When dead-

166/564

bolted minds clash, the outcome ispredictable.

A deceptively attractive quality of spin ishow persuasive it can be. As an example, weonce consulted with the CEO of a companythat needed to change its corporate strategy.With hundreds of thousands of individualcustomers all over the world, and not muchcash to experiment with, a change in strategywould have major implications. The follow-ing is the condensed version of the one-yearconversation this CEO had with us and oth-ers. He was one of the best spin doctorswe’ve run across.

US: So, you’ve done market research?CEO: Yes.US: Where?CEO: L.A. and Boston.US: Good. Where else?CEO: Nowhere.

167/564

US: Okay. How many customers in L.A.and Boston?CEO: Twelve.US: Twelve?CEO: Twelve.US: What kind of market research didyou do?CEO: Focus groups.US: Who conducted the focus groups?CEO: Me.US: You?CEO: Me.US: Well, did they all like the newstrategy?CEO: Yes…by the end of the day they allagreed it was a compelling strategy.US: What do you mean “by the end of theday”?CEO: Well, two of them liked it right off,but the others needed some work. Theyeventually came around.

168/564

US: You’re going to change the strategyof the whole company with hundreds ofthousands of customers all over theworld based on what you personallythink and what twelve people said inL.A. and Boston?CEO: Yes.US: Uh-huh. (Check, please!)

Unknown or known to him (we couldn’tquite tell), he was spinning to get what hewanted in the first place. He exaggerated the“market research” way beyond its intendedsignificance, filtered out information andthose who disagreed, modified data as itcame in, and fabricated information thatdidn’t exist. His spin started to infiltrate theculture, and we could see objectivity andopenness evaporate. Marketing guru Al Riestold us, “You can’t ever suggest that any de-cision made by the chief executive in the pastwas wrong. You can’t get to be a chief

169/564

executive or a CEO without a powerful ego.And people with powerful egos will never,ever admit they made a mistake. How thencan you sell a new strategy unless you canconvince the company that their previousstrategy was wrong? You first have to tellthem that their strategy was ‘right for itstime.’ But today, times have changed; there-fore their strategy has to change. No CEOhas ever told me that he or she has evermade a mistake.” When an individual leaderis prone to defensiveness, it creates a defens-ive corporate culture.

not-so-happy meal

Consider the defensive canopy that oncecovered McDonald’s. In 2001, McDonald’sannounced major restructuring after manyquarters of declining profits, cutting corpor-ate jobs, and consolidating service regions. Astory for BusinessWeek by David Leonhardt

170/564

pointed to a preceding decade of disappoint-ing performance: much lower taste rankingsthan competitors, dissident franchisees, de-clining profits, low stock performance—espe-cially for a brand that was sixth most recog-nized in the world—layoffs, and increasingcompetition. The company’s response?Chairman and CEO Michael Quinlan wasasked if change was needed. “Do we have tochange? No, we don’t have to change. Wehave the most successful brand in theworld.” The illusion of invulnerability andcollective rationalization had crept in amongsmart, hardworking, dedicated people—andinto the same CEO who earlier acknow-ledged they had “made some mistakes.”There were other signs of culturaldefensiveness.

Leonhardt wrote, “As the company’s per-formance has deteriorated, top execs havetended to blame others. They have publiclyblasted dissident franchisees, whom they

171/564

dismiss as a small faction. Negative news ac-counts are chalked up to misperceptions byreporters. And one persistently critical WallStreet analyst—Damon Brundage, now atJ.P. Morgan & Co.—was barred from thecompany’s latest biennial briefing.” Stereo-typing outsiders as the enemy, McDonald’shead of marketing pointed to the media forthe company’s brand problems. “If therewere one thing I would want to change aboutMcDonald’s,” said Senior Vice PresidentBrad A. Ball, “it would be to correct the mis-conceptions and perceptions that have be-come so pervasive in the last few years.” De-fensiveness focuses on changing others, notourselves. Eventually, the fog cleared forMcDonald’s with new leadership, fresh ideas,and an open mind.

shifting into high gear

172/564

In stark contrast to the defensiveness we fre-quently see, there’s the example of CarlosGhosn, a Lebanese Brazilian working for aFrench company (Renault), who went toJapan to turn around a traditional Japaneseauto company—the perfect conditions for de-fensiveness on both sides. In 1999, Nissanwas $22 billion in debt. It had inflated sup-plier costs, new product development wasstuck in neutral, and only one out of the lastten years had been profitable. Daimler-Chrysler and Ford had both considered of-fers to buy Nissan but backed away. Renaultstepped up, bought controlling interest, andasked Ghosn to lead the transformation.“The company was considered to be lost,”Ghosn said. “When you are the last bidder,you know that you are going to have to makea difference or there is no future.”

Today Nissan is in overdrive. Currently,Nissan is on track to sell 3.6 million units an-nually (a boost of 1 million in three years),

173/564

with five-year sales growth nearly matchingToyota’s and profit margins and return onequity to match Fortune’s most admiredcompanies. With performance like that it’seasy to credit Ghosn’s clear strategy, market-driven designs, insistence on performancemeasurement, cost-cutting savvy, and cross-functional team approach. What’s even morestriking than Ghosn’s success is the way hedid those things, and how he was able to dothem in the first place. In his speech to theteam he brought with him from Renault to“fix” Nissan, his advice reveals his commit-ment to openness and unwillingness to sparkdefensiveness in others:

“You’re not missionaries. You’vecome here not to change Japan, butto straighten out Nissan with themen and women of Nissan. We’rethe ones who have to assimilatewith them—it’s not up to them to

174/564

adapt to us.” A manager whoworked closely with Ghosn said,“[his] idea was to tear down thewalls, whether visible or invisible,that reduce a collective enterpriseto a congregation of groups andtribes, each with their own lan-guage, their own values, their owninterests. To compel people to talkto one another, to listen to one an-other, to exchange knowledge. Thatwas the essence of their power.”

If we can drop our defensive posture andlisten, it gives us power—power to be influ-enced and power to influence others. WhenGhosn came to Nissan, he listened to asmany people as he could. People gave himadvice; they told him he couldn’t close plantsin Japan…or go fast…or reduce headcount…or…“I listened carefully, even to theopinions that totally contradicted my own

175/564

beliefs,” said Ghosn, “to make sure that whenI made my decisions, I hadn’t missed any-thing. I told my critics, ‘Don’t judge me on agood speech. Judge me on my results. Bevery cynical. Be very cold. Look at theprofits, the debt, the market share, the ap-peal of the cars. Then judge me.’”

Instead of moving away from or resistingwhat others were saying, he moved boldly to-ward it—even when he didn’t like it. Hedidn’t have to agree with it to understand it,but he did need to be influenced by it. Andthat made all the difference. Ghosn’s ap-proach allowed ideas to make their way fromthe watercooler—where ideas almost alwaysevaporate—to Nissan’s boardroom, wherethey could work for rather than against thecompany.

4: being defensive key points

176/564

• There’s nothing wrong with de-fending an idea. If our intent isto let the best ideas win, weshould be able to take anystance, on any topic, in anyarena to test the strength of whatwe’re debating. But there’s a dif-ference between defending a po-sition and being defensive.

• When the power of ego surges,our intent switches from hon-estly defending our point toproving our case exclusively. Werefuse to be influenced, regard-less of gaps in logic or inac-curacies. In the relentless effortto be “right,” we make excusesand find fault with others, evenif our faultfinding is unrelated tothe discussion at hand.

• Even apologies can be defensive.

177/564

• We resist feedback because wewant and need to hold a positiveimage of ourselves. Anythingcounter to that positive imagecan be seen as a threat.

• The logic behind defensivenessdoesn’t stack up. If we’re wrong,do we really want to defend abad idea or position? If we’reright, will being defensive in-crease or decrease the strengthof our position?

• The wheel of defensive spin hasfour major spokes that lead tobias and error: 1) exaggerate: in-flate information beyond its ac-tual significance, 2) understate:filter, minimize, or block out cer-tain information, 3) manipulate:twist and re-form information,and 4) fabricate: create informa-tion that has no basis in reality.

178/564

179/564

early warning sign 3showcasing brilliance

This woman said I was acting likeGod. Therefore, I said unto her…

WOODY ALLEN

In addition to being comparative and defens-ive, showcasing brilliance is an early warningsign that ego is eroding the bottom line. Eventhough showcasing (showing off) brilliance iseasy to spot for those on the receiving end,perpetrators seldom see it. For example,

while I (Dave) was managing a design teamat a newspaper early in my career, I watchedthe following exchange between twocolleagues:

SAM: Sarah, can I give you some feedbackabout this design?SARAH: Um, (pause) yeah, go ahead.SAM: I’m not trying to brag, but I thinkmy creativity and ability is as good asanyone’s in our department. I’ve beendoing this for longer than I like to admitand I think I have an eye for what looksgood and what doesn’t. To me thisdesign is sloppy, boring, and…well…toopredictable.SARAH: Why do you say that? I’ve workedhard on this and I think it looks prettygood.SAM: Well, for starters, how hard youwork on a design isn’t the point. Eventhough what you’ve done is creative,

181/564

you’ve also created confusion with themain message that has to get through tothe reader. The visual elements aren’tbalanced very well and distract ratherthan help. Plus you have to rememberthis is going to be in a newspaper envir-onment where there are other ads andstories right next to it, on top of it, or onthe opposite page. The goal is to create astop sign for the reader, not a yield sign.If I were you I’d move this—SARAH: (interrupting) Everyone’s en-titled to an opinion. This has alreadybeen shown to the client and they lovedit. Thanks for your ideas, but I think it’sjust fine the way it is.

Later that afternoon, Sarah told me that“even though I think Sam has some goodideas and I respect his experience, I can’tstand it when he talks down to me. It’s as ifhe thinks he’s above making those same

182/564

mistakes, but he’s not. Plus, he makes itseem like I should bow down and be gratefulhe took time out of his busy day to help the‘little people.’” As expected, the next day Samcomplained to me about “how frustrating itis that people are so defensive when I givesuggestions that could improve a design.Why don’t people listen to someone withmore experience? I’m only trying to help.”The more we expect people to recog-nize, appreciate, or be dazzled by ourbrilliance, the less they listen, even ifwe do have better ideas.

When others stop listening, we isolateourselves not only from their interest in ourideas but from their brilliance in makingideas better. Then we’re left less informedand with less influence—the opposite of whatwe thought we were getting by showcasing.That’s why showcasing is the ultimate irony;whether we dominate a conversation, grand-stand to show how much we know, name-

183/564

drop to dazzle, choose words or phrases toimpress, pontificate to promote ourselves, orpay only superficial attention to what otherssay, the more we showcase, the less bril-liance surfaces—and the less brilliant we’relikely to be. There’s nothing wrong with be-ing brilliant or capitalizing on our talents.After all, what’s the value of having brillianceif we don’t use it? But we cross the line fromsharing to showcasing when we use it to feedour ego.

you’re really smart, but…

In the pursuit of brilliance, most of us wantsmart people around, but only under onecondition: if they share their brilliance in away we can take. When people move fromsharing to showcasing, the smartest peopleare ignored—even when they’re neededmost. For example, if you were under pres-sure to get big-time results and were putting

184/564

together your project team, would youchoose someone you like who’s not quite agenius but easy to get along with, orsomeone who’s brilliant but hard to tolerate?The politically correct answer is “Hire theshowcaser. We may not like him, but bril-liance is hard to come by.” It’s hard to arguewith that.

Except, when push comes to shove and wehave to make that choice, we actually do theopposite. In a study of over 10,000 real-timeworking relationships, Tiziana Casciaro ofHarvard Business School and Miguel SousaLobo of Duke University discovered thatwhile people say they would choose someonewho’s “brilliant” but arrogant, they actuallychose those they liked. One of the reasonswe’re excluded when we showcase is thetrace of intellectual arrogance people feelfrom us. That separation “gives the segregat-or a false sense of superiority,” said Martin

185/564

Luther King, “and the segregated a falsesense of inferiority.”

As our perceived brilliance separates usfrom others, it leads to a one-way mind-set:everyone else is a student, and we’re theteacher. Our impulse as the teacher is tohave the first and last word, with as muchstage time in between as possible. The stu-dents aren’t excluded from participation, butthey’re not actively invited either. If youwatch conversations carefully, you can seethat showcasers can rarely tell the differencebetween obligatory tolerance by others andgenuine interest. Dialogue becomes mono-logue, and blank stares are interpreted as en-gaged, attentive eyes. All the while, theteacher is clueless. “Intellectual arrogance,”wrote Peter Drucker, “often causes disablingignorance.”

an identity crisis

186/564

The effects of showcasing steadily add up un-til they disable a career, even a culture. Inthe spring of 2003, the New York Times, oneof the world’s most important newspapers,was impeached. Jayson Blair, a reporter forthe Times, resigned after an investigation re-vealed he fabricated or plagiarized dozens ofstories. But Blair was only the tip of the ice-berg. In his compelling narrative of whathappened, journalist Seth Mnookin lookeddeep inside the culture of the New YorkTimes and found the problems below thesurface were as much to blame as the decep-tion by Blair.

The cause of the mass below the surfacewas Times CEO Howell Raines, who had ego-maniacally elbowed his way to the top. Soonafter his ascent to executive editor, anyonewith different views was treated as a darkcloud blocking the light of his vision. “Heembraced his authoritative nature and beganediting the paper according to his whims and

187/564

predilections,” writes Mnookin, “in the pro-cess embarrassing and marginalizing peoplewho disagreed with him.”

Responding to Raines’s self-centered style,the Times culture deteriorated. Employeesbecame unhappy, discouraged, and increas-ingly emotionally distant from the mission ofthe paper. In turn, that distance shaped theprocess and quality of their work. Key editorsstopped talking to each other. Concerns,ideas, and problems were being saved for off-the-record conversations or simply withheld.“Everybody felt under siege,” said RogerWilkins, a former Times editorialist andcolumnist. “The instinct to cooperate andwatch your buddy’s back was diminished.When Thor is up there throwing thunder-bolts, your happiest moments come whenthose thunderbolts hit someone else.”

In spite of his talent, in twenty shortmonths Raines’s egotistical showcasing cre-ated chaos, tarnished the good reputation of

188/564

a prestigious newspaper, and undid the yearsof personal effort and contribution that hadqualified him for such an influential post.“[Raines] made the fatal mistake of manytalented men and women who allow theirrise to the top to be defined by ego and blinddetermination,” writes Mnookin. “He con-fused his own identity with the company heled. In the end, this self-created man wasdone in by the need to see himself at the cen-ter of every story.” What happened at theTimes illustrates perfectly how one person’sshowcasing affects others. But showcasingisn’t solely an individual problem.

cultural signs of showcasing

On February 1, 2003, during reentry intoEarth’s atmosphere, the space shuttleColumbia disintegrated. The disaster tookthe lives of the entire seven-member crew. Intheir investigation, the Columbia Accident

189/564

Investigation Board reported that the cultureat NASA “had as much to do with the acci-dent as the foam.” They wrote:

Many accident investigations donot go far enough. They identifythe technical cause of the accident,and then connect it to a variant of“operator error”—the line workerwho forgot to insert the bolt, theengineer who miscalculated thestress, or the manager who madethe wrong decision. But this is sel-dom the entire issue. When the de-terminations of the causal chainare limited to the technical flawand individual failure, typically theactions taken to prevent a similarevent in the future are also limited:fix the technical problem and re-place or retrain the individual re-sponsible. Putting these corrections

190/564

in place leads to another mis-take—the belief that the problem issolved.

Even after the loss of the Challenger spaceshuttle seventeen years earlier, NASA’s beliefthat they were the “perfect place” and “thebest organization that human beings couldcreate to accomplish selected goals” createddisabling ignorance. The “perfect place” wasa reference by the board to work by Yale’sGarry Brewer in which he writes that in suchcultures, the ability to listen—especially todisagreement—requires “the shock of heavycannon.” The line that divides intellectual ar-rogance from confidence is a thin one.

the half-life of brilliance

When we begin our career, start work with anew employer, or take a new role in our cur-rent company, there’s a learning curve.

191/564

Because of that curve, we’re not likely to beas relevant or valuable today as we will be in,say, six weeks or six months. No one expectsus to be. But they do expect us to get up thecurve as quickly as possible. In the figureshown below, the box represents our accu-mulated knowledge, experience, and com-petence. The size of that box varies for eachof us, but regardless of its size, the curve rep-resents the relevance of what’s inside thebox. The higher our position on the curve,the more indispensable we are to our com-pany and the greater the demand for our ser-vices in the labor market. But there’s a re-quirement for staying on top or moving to-ward the peak of that curve—keeping the lidto that box open to learn.

“The larger the island of knowledge,” saidRalph Sockman, “the longer the shoreline ofwonder.” While Sockman’s idea should holdtrue, we’re susceptible to a delusion of ad-equacy. When ego is out of balance,

192/564

there is an inverse relationshipbetween amassing knowledge andlearning; the more we know, the moreconfident we become. When our con-fidence in what we know increases tothe point where we think there’s littleleft to learn, we’re less open. That’s thepoint of danger; the lid to our box of know-ledge begins to close. As it closes, new ideashave a harder time getting in, flawed ideashave a tough time escaping, and we slidedown the other side of the curve. The fasterthe lid closes, the faster our descent.

193/564

The slide down the curve is evidenced inour vocabulary: “If you’d been here as longas I have…” or “I know my experience speaksfor itself, but…” Down goes our relevance.Once the box is locked, we slide to the bot-tom on the other side of the curve—as relev-ant at the end of our careers as we werewhen we began. “In times of change, learnerswill inherit the earth,” said philosopher EricHoffer, “while the learned will find them-selves beautifully equipped to deal with aworld that no longer exists.” To which futur-ist Alvin Toffler added, “The illiterate of the21st century will not be those who cannotread and write, but those who cannot learn,unlearn, and relearn.” If we’re to increaseour knowledge and relevance, the first stepof leadership literacy is learning.

To avoid the slippery slope of irrelevance,think of the knowledge we have in the sameway scientists look at isotopes. One of theproperties that govern isotopes is a

194/564

phenomenon called half-life. The half-life ofan isotope is the amount of time it takes forhalf of its atoms to decay. But as an isotopegoes through natural decay, it doesn’t justbecome less potent—it actually loses its ori-ginal identity. For example, oxygen-17 de-cays first into nitrogen-17 and then fluor-ine-17. In much the same way, our know-ledge has a half-life: it can actually lose itsoriginal relevance. “There’s good evidencethat once physicians leave their residency,”says Larry Gruppen, PhD, a cognitive psy-chologist at the University of Michigan Med-ical School, “the currency of their informa-tion starts to decline fairly steadily.” That de-cline isn’t reserved for the medical field.

yours, mine, and ours

Keeping our own box of expertise open is vi-tal. It’s also not enough. In an organization,no one person is an island of brilliance, and

195/564

no single box of knowledge is sufficient forprogress. Unfortunately, the “lone genius” isthe message that’s sold and people are in-clined to buy. Too many articles treat “theone” who gets the credit for a success as ifsuch people were isolated from those whowork with them. Who gets credit for invent-ing the assembly line? Henry Ford. Whomade flight possible? The Wright Brothers.And what about the telephone? AlexanderGraham Bell. Who should we thank for thehappiest place on earth? Walt Disney. Whomade us fashionable? Liz Claiborne. Whoran the company that could sell you a refri-gerator, a lightbulb, and a jet engine all atthe same time? Jack Welch. Who has womendriving pink cars? Mary Kay. Who does Win-dows? Bill Gates. The list could go on and on,and not surprisingly, people know the an-swers. But when one person gets the credit, itskews our perspective about what really

196/564

happened behind the scenes. The question ishow alone were the lone geniuses?

Research shows that brilliance doesn’tspring from flying solo. Take one examplefrom the list above: Henry Ford invented theassembly line, right? As it turns out, it wasn’toriginally Ford’s idea. In 1799 Eli Whitneytook an innovative approach to manufactur-ing. He used the ideas of division of laborand engineering tolerance to create assem-blies from parts. Whitney’s ideas justhappened to be borrowed from political eco-nomist Adam Smith. Then in 1901, RansomEli Olds patented the first assembly line,which he put to work in his Olds Motor Ve-hicle Company factory.

Olds was the first company in America tomass-produce automobiles. But it was HenryFord’s engineers who perfected the assemblyline concept. How? It was an evolution bytrial and error, not any single event, idea, orperson. More important, it was a collective

197/564

effort primarily by Peter E. Martin, the fact-ory superintendent; Charles E. Sorensen,Martin’s assistant; C. Harold Wills, a drafts-man and toolmaker; and Clarence W. Averyand Charles Lewis, first line supervisors.Among other improvements, they added aconveyor belt and built factories around theassembly line. With these improvements, in1916 Ford cranked out over 700,000 ModelTs, which was twice the output of all compet-itors combined. The increased efficiency al-lowed Ford to cut prices in half, so that a carsold for $360 in 1916. By 1924 the price wasdown to $290. The old adage “Two heads arebetter than one” is true.

diversity: politically correct ornecessary?

Not only are two heads better than one, re-search shows that many heads are betterthan two—but collaboration isn’t practiced

198/564

nearly as well as it’s preached. The culpritmay be misperceptions about how to get themost out of intelligence. The answers to thefollowing questions may reveal the miscon-ceptions. Consider the following scenario:you’re faced with a big problem. If you get itwrong, you’re fired. If you get it right, you’repromoted. With X years of experience (youfill in the number), you probably could solveit on your own. But would you? Or—giventhat the stakes are so high—would you optfor collective intelligence just to be on thesafe side? How would you include others:would you rather have a randomly selectedteam, or would you prefer to handpick theplayers personally? If you’re in human re-sources, do you gather mostly HR types? Orif you’re in sales, do you pull in thesalespeople who are hitting the biggest num-bers? Which approach is the safest bet foryour career?

199/564

Scott Page, a political scientist and eco-nomist at the University of Michigan,answered some of those questions, and theanswers aren’t conventional wisdom. Pagecreated an experiment where groups ofpeople were challenged to solve the samecomplex problem. When people were isol-ated and worked on their own, as expectedsome were good at solving the problem,while others weren’t as good. But the nextstep in his research didn’t produce an out-come as easy to predict. Page teamed thegood problem solvers with the not-so-good.What effect would the weakest link have onthe collective ability to solve the problem?Would the good be dragged down by the not-so-good? Together, the mixed teams almostalways did better than those who were goodproblem solvers on their own. Butwait—what if you created a team made up ofonly those who were the best problem

200/564

solvers on their own? Wouldn’t that producethe best results? Actually, no.

Even when the “smartest” individual prob-lem solvers were put on the same team, theyweren’t as good as the teams made up ofboth the good and not-so-good problem solv-ers. In other words, the people we alreadyhave in our companies are exactly who weneed. “Together they possess the knowledgewe need to solve the toughest problems weface, or to innovate and seize new opportun-ities,” writes Page. “Our individual differ-ences—the differences in how we think, inthe cognitive tools we possess, in our per-spectives—is far outside the mainstream in asociety that prizes individual talent andachievement. It shouldn’t be. Our collectiveability depends as much on our collective dif-ferences as it does on our individual IQscores. [Does] this logic imply that we shouldabandon the meritocracy? That we shouldremove those ‘my child is an honor student

201/564

at Neil Armstrong Junior High’ bumperstickers from our minivans and randomly al-locate spots in our top colleges? Of coursenot. Obviously, ability matters. But, here’sthe catch, so does diversity. [We’re] limitedin our abilities. Our heads contain only somany neurons and axons. Collectively, weface no such constraint.” When showcasinginterferes, collective IQ drops and diversitydisappears.

Sometimes the disappearance of diversityis due to subtle showcasing. The subtle ver-sion can be brought on by a promotion or aposition in an organization. With perceivedpower comes the temptation to see thingsfrom a self-referenced vantage point. “Afterall,” we might feel subconsciously, “Iwouldn’t have this position if I didn’t alreadyknow, or wasn’t smart enough to figure out,this on my own.” The way we do it in thiscase is in not going out of our way to seek theperspective of others.

202/564

In a series of studies on power and per-spective taking, researchers wanted to studythe link between people in power and theirability to see things from a different per-spective. In one study, they asked parti-cipants to draw the letter E on their fore-heads. The researchers theorized that if aperson wrote the E in a self-oriented way, heor she would view the world from his or herown perspective. If, however, a person wrotethe letter so that others could read it easily, itwas an indicator that that person was con-sidering the perspective of others. The res-ults showed that those in the “high-powergroup were almost three times more likely todraw a self-oriented E than those who wereassigned to the low-power condition,” wroteScience Daily. “The researchers found thatpower leads individuals to anchor too heavilyon their own vantage point, thus leavingthem unable to adjust to another person’s

203/564

perspective and decreases one’s ability tocorrectly interpret emotion.”

“The research has wide-ranging implica-tions, from business to politics,” wrote AdamGalinsky of Northwestern University. “Pres-idents who preside over a divided govern-ment (and thus have reduced power) mightbe psychologically predisposed to consideralternative viewpoints more readily thanthose that preside over unifiedgovernments.”

In The Wisdom of Crowds, JamesSurowiecki takes the idea of collective intelli-gence and different perspectives much deep-er. He cites dozens of studies that prove themany are smarter than the few. In research-ing everything from bean-counting conteststo stock market performance to predictionsabout which actors will grab a coveted Oscar,it is the collective intelligence of people thatmakes the best decisions, not the lone geni-us. Surowiecki points out that as long as

204/564

people think through ideas independentlyfirst, even the method we use to make de-cisions doesn’t matter much, as long as we’retapping the collective wisdom of the crowd.To put it another way, a discovery-drivenprocess that explores what’s happening froma variety of perspectives—rather than anidea-driven process by an individual—in-creases the odds of making the best decisionby 50 percent.

There are, of course, exceptions to the rulethat collective brilliance trumps individualgenius. But those exceptions are rare. If atheatrical play was written by a committee,you wouldn’t expect it to reach Broadway, letalone win a Tony. Poetry is most likely beau-tiful when penned as a solo effort. But youprobably do want computer viruses tackledby a team (letting the best idea win) ratherthan a lone genius. You do want medical sci-ence teams solving the dilemmas of disease.You do want government by the people and

205/564

of the people. But in business, even when theone outdoes everyone, what happens whenthe one leaves or runs out of relevance? Theculture is empty of any collective history,habits, or ability to innovate. Increasing theodds of brilliance is an interdependent task.

In the arithmetic of true brilliance, anynumber (you) multiplied by only one (yoursolo effort) is only equal to the original num-ber (you, by yourself). The likelihood of suc-cess for that equation requires once-in-a-life-time brilliance—which isn’t a sound strategy.While great ideas will continue tospring from the minds of the brilliantfew, the vast majority of smart ideasand excellent execution are waiting forthe rest of us. Being smart will, as long asthe group is diverse, contribute to brilliance.Laboring to be the smartest person in a roomof smart people won’t.

The fact is there are dozens of people be-hind the faces of lone geniuses responsible

206/564

for an organization’s success. In an issue ofFortune that explored the performance ofApple, Steve Jobs’s picture is on the cover,but the picture inside shows six people sit-ting next to him—not behind him or in frontof him. The article refers to them as the“brain trust”—a collective brilliance. And forevery person sitting next to Jobs, there’s an-other picture worth taking that would in-clude the people who sit next to them. Work-ing with people—not above, below, or aroundthem—is where true genius is consistentlyfound.

5: showcasing brilliance keypoints

• Even though showcasing bril-liance is easy to spot for those on

207/564

the receiving end, perpetratorsseldom see it.

• The more we expect people to re-cognize, appreciate, or bedazzled by our brilliance, the lessthey listen, even if we do havebetter ideas.

• Showcasing is the ultimateirony; the more we showcase,the less brilliance surfaces—andthe less brilliant we’re likely tobe.

• When people move from sharingto showcasing, the smartestpeople are ignored—even whenthey’re needed most.

• When ego is out of balance, thereis an inverse relationshipbetween amassing knowledgeand openness to learn; the morewe know, the more confident webecome. When our confidence in

208/564

what we know increases to thepoint that we think there’s littleleft to learn, we’re less open tolearn. That’s the point of danger;the lid to our box of knowledgebegins to close and we loserelevance.

• Research shows that brilliancedoesn’t usually spring from oneperson flying solo. A discovery-driven process that exploreswhat’s happening from a varietyof perspectives—rather than anidea-driven process by an indi-vidual—increases the odds ofmaking the best decision by 50percent.

209/564

early warning sign 4seeking acceptance

Here is a secret that no one has toldyou: Life is junior high. The worldthat you are about to enter is filledwith junior high, adolescent petti-ness; pubescent rivalries; the insec-urities of 13-year-olds; and the falsebravado of 14-year-olds.

TOM BROKAW

If you had the chance to go back and relivejunior high school, would you?

At 7:26 a.m. on a cool September morningwe boarded the yellow school bus and did ex-actly that. Although we were a few decadesremoved from the right age, our visit to a ju-nior high school quickly jolted our memor-ies. Do you remember the peer pressure,cliques, and preoccupation of trying to fit in?It’s still there. Every comment, question, andmove seems to be instantly weighed againstacceptance from peers. Some kids work todraw attention to themselves, while othersavoid it at all costs—both extremes used tokeep acceptance high. At times they teareach other down or withhold their approvalso no one gets a popularity advantage or ap-pears more acceptable than they themselvesare.

Junior high is our first real introduction tothe high-stakes art of seeking accept-ance—what will “they” think, what did they

211/564

say, what did they mean by that, what shouldI say, how should I act, what should I wear,what’s everyone else wearing, who’s hangingout with whom? While some of these con-cerns are driven by massive amounts of hor-mones—and not every attitude or behavior isdysfunctional—they’re all around.

i double-dog dare ya

Formal research seems to back up our obser-vations at school. Nearly three hundred ad-olescents were surveyed in the United Statesand Ireland to find out how many take unne-cessary risks to impress their friends.Twenty-five percent admitted to drivingdangerously. One-third of male students saidthey had done stupid stunts simply to makean impression. The compelling need for ap-proval leads children to become ultra-self-conscious. The more self-conscious they be-come, the less likely they are to perform well.

212/564

Performance on video games drops by 25percent when game players are told they’rebeing watched.

As fathers, we’ve seen the need for approv-al preoccupy our own children. More thanonce we’ve arrived home from work to haveone of our children say, “Dad, come outsideand watch me do a cartwheel!” Often thekids are so concerned with whether we’rewatching or not that their newfound skillmomentarily escapes them. When childrencare too much about what others think andhow others will react to their show, they losesight of the performance itself. We happilyended our nostalgic day at the local juniorhigh school just before lunchtime—which isanother memory in itself. What a relief it isto be past the consuming desire to win theapproval of others.

Only we’re not past it entirely.When ego isn’t managed well, we don’t

grow out of the junior high need for

213/564

acceptance, we grow into it as “grown-ups.”According to one study, 30 percent of menadmitted they’ve lifted too much weight tomake an impression on their friends.Twenty-seven percent of women admit tooverexercising in front of others to impressthem. When running with others, runners of-ten run faster and longer than they should.The same desire for acceptance that leads usto overexercise also leads to poor decisionsand weak cultures.

junior high business

Jenny Chatman of the University of Califor-nia at Berkeley’s Haas School of Businessstudied 120 Northwestern students inter-viewing for jobs. Those who told corporaterecruiters what recruiters love to hear, suchas “Your company has a reputation for beingteam-oriented, and that’s something I trulyvalue,” landed jobs at twice the rate of their

214/564

more reserved but equally qualified or morequalified peers. While telling interviewerswhat they want to hear may get us a job, itmay also put us in the wrong job. If you’re arecruiter influenced by praise, you’re likelyto hire the wrong person. Whether we’re onthe receiving or giving end of acceptance,when we’re too anxious for it, we are sus-ceptible to insincere comments or artificialinformation. We’re also prone to saywhatever we think will get us the acceptancewe need, which ironically increases thechances we’ll get rejected.

In the early eighties, a good friend of ourswas a partner in a small computer softwarefirm in Boston. The Foot Locker invited hiscompany to propose on a large retail soft-ware contract. To his surprise, they were oneof only two finalists invited to make a finalpresentation. The other finalist was IBM.The morning arrived to make their presenta-tion, and they delivered their best business

215/564

case to the executive committee. When theyfinished their presentation, the CEO asked,“How big is your company?”

Privately, the size of their firm was ourfriend’s biggest concern—especially whencompared with IBM, who had already madetheir presentation. They were convinced theywould lose the sale if they appeared too smallto handle the business. One of the partnersbegan describing how much experience theyhad collectively, how many clients they haddone work for, how big some of the projectswere they had successfully completed, andhow happy those clients were with the res-ults. He shared every ounce of informationthat would convey the message that theywere big—at least big enough. “I was evenmesmerized with his answer,” said ourfriend. “We sounded big.”

After seeking the CEO’s acceptance, theysat down, waiting for the CEO to give it—andit came. He congratulated them on their

216/564

success and then added, “For us, it’s also dis-appointing. The last time we worked with abig, experienced company like yours, theywere so unresponsive that we could never getwhat we needed when we needed it,” he said.“Given what’s at stake for us, we can’t affordthat kind of response again. For this pur-chase, we need to work with a small, re-sponsive, entrepreneurial company. I thinkwe’re going to keep looking, but thank youvery much for your presentation and interestin our project.” Even when seeking accept-ance does work, that doesn’t mean the ac-ceptance we flattered our way into isn’twithout risk.

my, what lovely teeth you have

For some, giving acceptance is a way of get-ting it in return. Have you seen somebody“kiss up” to someone hoping to receive ap-proval in turn? It’s a marvel the boss doesn’t

217/564

see through it. In an article on the finerpoints of giving false praise, Kim Girard ofBusiness 2.0 gives some suggestions for linesyou can use:

“I’m really excited about yourproposal. What an originalidea.” (Hyperbole should be down-to-earth.)

“It’s like you said in last week’smeeting: The brand iseverything.” (Bosses like to hearthemselves quoted.)

“You look great. That Zonediet is really working.” (Person-alize your compliment so it soundssincere.)

218/564

“Got it. Great idea. I’ll do itthat way, and you said youwant it tonight, right?” (Showyou listen intently.)

Parrot key ideas or slogans.Using the boss’s pet phrases inmeetings, reports, and memosshows that you’re getting the mes-sage, you respect her opinions, andyou firmly grasp what she wantsfrom you on the job. This doesn’ttake practice, just shamelessness.

Be aware of your manager’s in-terests. Those pictures of yourmanager’s dopey-looking kids coverher desk for a reason. Ask howthey’re doing. Does the boss love

219/564

tennis? Suggest a match after work.At the very least, ask the boss tolunch. Talk about her, not you.

There’s nothing necessarily wrong with theideas above, provided the intent promptingthem is genuine. But what this article seemsto suggest is: lie—but don’t let it look like alie. Fake your sincerity. The tactics are noth-ing more than tips for deceiving people youwork with who may be craving acceptance.That way of doing business needs to be un-done. The question is, what value issomeone adding, and what value is thecompany getting, if the leader is per-sonally craving acceptance? If a per-son wants to be told only what makeshim or her feel good, how close to real-ity could that person possibly be inmaking decisions?

when being nice isn’t nice

220/564

When we favor popularity over candor, con-versations are artificial and reality goes un-der the table. Isabelle Royer of the Universityof Paris at Dauphine researched project suc-cess in organizations. After discovering thata majority of new projects fail, she wonderedwhy more people didn’t speak up when dubi-ous ideas were proposed, given the high fail-ure rate and heavy cost. In an article for theHarvard Business Review she wrote, “Exitchampions [people who have evidence that aproject should be killed] need to be fearless,willing to put their reputations on the lineand face the likelihood of exclusion from thecamaraderie of the project team.”

Bad projects don’t always fail because wecan’t see the problems with the project. Theysometimes fail because we trade candor forcamaraderie or popularity. Cultures that en-courage people to not speak their minds costorganizations time, money, and talented

221/564

people. We asked 1,123 businesspeople, on ascale from one to ten (with one being poorand ten being great), how well their compan-ies were doing in creating a culture wherepeople felt free to speak up and weren’toverly concerned with seeking acceptance.Here’s how they rated their companies:

• People share concerns directlywith people in a meeting ratherthan with “others” later after themeeting—5.4.

• People are not intimidated byothers who are in more “power-ful” positions in the organiza-tion—5.9.

• People share candid thoughtsand feelings even when they’ll beseen as unpopular—5.9.

222/564

Halfway to ten may not seem like it’s sucha bad score. On second thought, imagine thata good friend wants to set you up on a blinddate. A little hesitant, you ask your friend togive an overall rating of the person’s looks,personality, sense of humor, intelligence,background, interests, etc., on a scale fromone to ten. If your friend answered,“Oh…well…I’d say maybe a six,” would yoube excited to go? The same can be said forcompanies; when we have level-six cultures,people aren’t excited to go to work or fullyengaged when they arrive.

why we do it

Most people think when someone has aproblem with ego, they have too much. Seek-ing acceptance can be an early warning signwe have too little ego, which is equally inef-fective. Though most people don’t typicallythink of seeking acceptance as a sign of

223/564

poorly managed ego, it may be the mostcommon sign of all. The reason we don’t seeseeking acceptance as a more prominent signis because genuine acceptance is so valuable.But how can seeking something so meaning-ful be an early warning sign? It’s not—untilyour motive changes.

Everyone needs to know they matter—thatthey’re worth something. Everyone is. Weneed love and respect. From the time we’reborn, we look for it, and in doing so learnthat others give us acceptance based on whatwe do or say. When we sing our first song,say the alphabet for the first time, or take ourfirst steps, people around us react. We inter-pret their reaction to what we do or say asacceptance or rejection, as approval or disap-proval, or as good or bad. These reactionshelp us learn which beliefs and behaviors weshould or shouldn’t adopt. Unfortunately,there’s also a misleading interpretation.

224/564

Under the influence of seeking acceptance,we believe others’ reactions endorse us as ac-ceptable or not. We don’t separate our ac-tions from who we are—intrinsically valuablehuman beings deserving of love and respect.To be more acceptable, we strain to project apositive image that reflects what we believeothers think we should be, rather than theperson we truly are. “If I tell you who I am,”said John Powell, “you may not like who Iam, and it is all that I have.” When we fearrejection, being liked less, or losing accept-ance, we trade authenticity and self-confid-ence for approval from those around us.

self-respect and acceptance

There’s a vast difference between wanting re-spect and recognition and being desperatefor it, even momentarily. When too littleego deprives us of a healthy sense ofself, getting approval from others is

225/564

our primary motive and a consumingdistraction to making a contribution.We then seek acceptance because we believeif we get the approval of others, it will feedour ego what it’s missing. But those areempty calories. If we’re hypersensitive tohow others react to the words we say, thepossessions we have, the thoughts we share,or the actions we take, we give control of howwe feel about ourselves to others.

When others are in the driver’s seat of ourself-confidence, we shape our thoughts andactions to what we believe will be endorsedby others; we become pleasers and don’t of-fer what’s on our minds. People then getgood ideas from us—but sadly, not our best.Ironically, when they don’t get our best,they’re less likely to give us the acceptancewe deserve. Somewhere deep down, we knowwe could have given our best and usually re-gret we didn’t. That disappointment eats

226/564

away at our confidence, and our ego isweakened.

When our desire for acceptance is healthy,love and respect are still important to us, butthey aren’t our solitary goal. We can want ac-ceptance without letting it affect our self-worth or authenticity. When our desire forrecognition and respect is balanced, we drawa clear distinction between who we are andwhat we do. We may not have been as creat-ive as we would have liked in the last meet-ing, but we can still value our creativity: onestifling day doesn’t mean we’ve lost it. Wemay have offered an irrelevant thought, butwho doesn’t? We’re still capable of generat-ing a thousand other relevant thoughts.Ironically, the less we’re worriedabout maintaining an ideal self-imageand being endorsed by others, themore genuine acceptance and realconfidence come our way.

227/564

three principles of egonomics

We’ve discussed four early warning signsthat indicate that the power of ego is costingus: 1) being comparative, 2) being defensive,3) showcasing brilliance, and 4) seeking ac-ceptance. If and when we have complaintsabout work over lunch or on our commutehome, notice how many are the result ofthose four signs. We often chalk discontentup to poor communication, conflicting per-sonality styles, or bad thinking. But under-neath it all is ego, and the early warningsigns of poorly managed ego won’t disappearby merely trying to avoid them. Somethinghas to take the space they occupy, or thesigns quickly return.

The three principles of egonomics not onlyknock the early warnings signs out of theirplace, they occupy the vacancy. Those prin-ciples are humility, curiosity, and veracity.As we mentioned in the opening chapter,

228/564

those three principles not only require us todo differently, they require us to be different.With the intent to lead and work better thanwe have, let’s explore the first principle,humility.

Note: A free egonomics survey that measuresthe degree of humility, curiosity, and veracityin your team or company is available atwww.egonomicsbook.com/teamsurvey.

6: seeking acceptance key points

• When ego isn’t managed well, wedon’t grow out of the junior highneed for acceptance, we grow in-to it as “grown-ups.”

229/564

• Whether we’re on the receivingor giving end of acceptance,when we’re too anxious for it, weare susceptible to insincere com-ments or artificial information.We’re also prone to say whateverwe think will get us the accept-ance we need, which ironicallyincreases the chances we’ll getrejected.

• What value is someone adding,and what value is the companygetting, if a leader is personallycraving acceptance? If a personwants to be told only whatmakes him or her feel good, howclose to reality could that personpossibly be in making decisions?

• When we’re reluctant to risk be-ing candid rather than popular,conversations are artificial andreality goes under the table. That

230/564

reluctance is a major reason“dumb” projects in companiesdon’t get killed as early or oftenas they should.

• Most people think that whenpeople have a problem with ego,they have too much. Seeking ac-ceptance can be an early warningsign we have too little ego, whichis equally ineffective.

• When others are in the driver’sseat of our self-confidence, weshape our thoughts and actionsto what we believe will be en-dorsed by others; we becomepleasers and don’t offer what’son our minds. People then getgood ideas from us—but not ourbest.

231/564

humility

True humility is intelligent self-re-spect which keeps us from thinkingtoo highly or too meanly ofourselves. It makes us modest byreminding us how far we have comeshort of what we can be.

RALPH SOCKMAN

In the first chapter we wrote that because ofego’s economic impact, the first priority ofbusiness is managing the power of ego. Ifgetting control of that power is our first

priority, then humility is the first disciplinefor doing so. For each of us, there is a con-tinuum of ego. At one end of the continuum,we have too little ego; at the other, too much.Humility is the equilibrium between the twoextremes. Three unique properties of humil-ity keep us at equilibrium:

1. we, then me (devotion to progress)2. i’m brilliant, and i’m not (duality)3. one more thing (constructive

discontent)

When these three properties govern ego,we get positive results ego can’t deliver by it-self. To understand why, let’s explore whathumility is, what it’s not, and how it works.

As we mentioned earlier, there was a hostof questions our investigation of humilityand ego set out to answer: What is it aboutego that allows leaders to take their organiz-ations to good but without humility never al-lows them to move to great? Why does it

233/564

appear that ego is something we must have ifwe want to succeed, but having it often inter-feres with the success we pursue? Are therehabits we can develop that manage the driveof ego? Should it be managed in the firstplace? If humility is so powerful, and a ne-cessity for level-5 leadership, why don’t moreof us have it? Can we learn to be humble? Ifego and humility can’t coexist, what has togive, and what change is required? Our ex-perience is that people are hungry for the an-swers; 83 percent of people we surveyedwish their organizations had more humility.

But despite the desire for it, humility has amystery about it that’s both appealing andunsettling at the same time. Traditionally,humility—or being humble—is known morefor what it’s not than for what it is; defini-tions of humble include “not arrogant orprideful,” “not high in rank,” or “not boast-ful.” Most words associated with humilitydon’t get clearer or more attractive. Among

234/564

appealing words like modest, polite, respect-ful, patient, and unpretentious, the word hu-mility is surrounded by unsettling negatives:passive, apprehensive, content, cautious,fearful, hesitant, ordinary, quiet, self-con-scious, meek, simple, submissive, soft-spoken, timid, and unambitious, among oth-ers—words that don’t exactly leave a favor-able impression.

While leading our workshops, a questionreveals what many people believe deep downabout humility: if two people were debatingor competing, and one was egotistical andthe other was humble, who would win? Themajority of people answer, “The egotisticalperson.” Why? Because while humility is anadmirable trait, there’s suspicion about itsweaknesses: who wants anything to do withhumility if it’s incompatible with winning?That question wasn’t easy at first to square inour own minds. In a relentlessly competitivebusiness environment where we’re paid to

235/564

aggressively take market share from compet-itors, drive revenue and profit, and compareand rank people internally for a limited sup-ply of compensation, where does humility fitin?

Even when humility gets a positive spin inthe business press, the apparent risks aren’tfar behind. For instance, in an article for theNew York Post titled “Iger’s apparent humil-ity seen as strength,” the opening starts pos-itive but ends with a warning. “You can saythis much for Disney CEO Bob Iger,” wrotePeter Lauria, “he doesn’t seem to mind shar-ing the limelight. This time around, however,it could end up costing the 54-year-old exec-utive his job. While Iger’s bold move to cedeSteve Jobs both a Disney board seat—andthe largest individual stock stake in the com-pany—underscores precisely how far re-moved the Mouse House is from Michael“Ego” Eisner’s reign, it also places Jobs in aposition to easily usurp Iger’s authority.”

236/564

Praise of Iger’s humility is quickly followedby the looming threat of unemployment.

If humility puts us at risk, it’s no wonderwe feel it belongs more in a church than in acorporation. Not surprisingly, we don’t findmany people in our leadership sessions—atleast initially—consciously focused on cultiv-ating humility. Occasionally people in ourclasses fold their arms and stare sternly aswe begin the discussion on humility, as if tosay, “Go ahead and try.” After all, business isanything but an altruistic endeavor, and atfirst glance, humility appears to be altruistic.A business leader at one of our workshopsraised his hand and said, “I’ve been taughtmy whole life to embrace ego. My parentsdrove it into me from the time I can remem-ber. I’ve been taught—by just about everyoneI know—that’s how you succeed, that’s howyou lead, that’s how you beat yourcompetitors.”

237/564

“Then why give it up?” someone asked.“You’re young, the head of your own com-pany, financially successful. What you’vebeen taught seems to have worked for you.”After a long silence, the CEO spoke. “Becausein sitting here over the last three hours, Irealize I’ve been out of balance with my ego,”he said. “My mind’s racing back to differentsituations I’ve been in, and it’s killing me tothink about the opportunities it has cost me.In spite of what I’ve achieved, my ego hashurt me as much as it’s helped me. In fact, Ithink in some ways I’ve been my own night-mare competitor because of my lack of hu-mility.” What he realized is that despite hissuccess, his ego was managing him, not theother way around. That left him unable tofully utilize its power. Humility would havegiven him the balance he was missing.

humility’s equilibrium

238/564

What is humility? The quote that begins thischapter is the clearest definition, with slightmodification: humility is intelligent self-respect that keeps us from thinkingtoo much or too little of ourselves. Itreminds us how far we have comewhile at the same time helping us seehow far short we are of what we canbe. With the definition of humility in mind,let’s explore the relationship between egoand humility. For most people, traditionholds that the opposite of excessive ego ishumility, when in fact having too little ego isjust as dangerous and unproductive as hav-ing too much.

Since the three properties of humility existonly at the equilibrium, when we’re on cen-ter, our talents stay true to form. But sincethere’s a natural tendency to deviate fromthe equilibrium, when we move just right orleft of center, we begin to lose humility. As aresult, our strengths morph into

239/564

counterfeits—that is, into subtle weaknesses.Imagine that the spectrum of ego is magnet-ic, with the strongest pull coming from thetwo ends. At the center, the magnetic pull oneither side has little effect on us. But thecloser we move to the extremes, the more themagnetic pull affects us and the harder it isto make our way back. The longer we stayoff-center, the more comfortable we becomebeing off-center. If we don’t quickly recover,we’re more likely to develop egotisticalhabits.

Ego doesn’t suddenly pull us to the ex-tremes and twist us overnight into egomani-acs, or lead us to believe we’re above the law.But once we’re in the habit of being off-cen-ter, we do slowly start to believe we’re above

240/564

other things: reproach, being wrong, beingquestioned, the need to prove we’re right,having a bad idea, following the lead of oth-ers, and so on. Being consistently off-centerleads us gradually toward the extremes.

When an entire culture or team is off-cen-ter, it’s rarely the responsibility of only oneperson, but the imbalance can’t start withoutthe permission of at least one person and thesteady agreement of others. That’s whatmakes the four early warning signs of ego sovaluable: they let us know we’re being pulledoff-center, and therefore losing talent. Butwhether we’re consistently or momentarilyoff-center, ego’s drive is so strong, only hu-mility can pull us back.

terminally unique

Jahn Prince is a charismatic, creative, andaccomplished friend of ours. He was alsopinned by ego at one end of the equilibrium.

241/564

Early in his career, Jahn built a successfulbusiness and enjoyed everything that camewith it: a beautiful home, a cabin, boats, cars,toys, and so on. “I was competitive and I wasthe center of the universe,” he said. “I wasn’tsure there was a God, but if there was one, Ieven saw him as a competitor.” But regard-less of his belief or disbelief, and in spite ofhis accomplishments, it seemed the deityhad a plan for him. “One of the most difficultthings for God to do, especially for those towhom he’s given so much talent,” said journ-alist Scoop Jackson, “is to take things awayfrom them to keep them hungry—to shapetheir souls.” Jahn’s shaping began in 1979.

On December 30, 1979, Jahn’s businessburned to the ground. Forty days later, helost his home to fire, nearly losing his two-year-old daughter before breaking through awindow to rescue her. For every bolt of light-ning life threw, Jahn stood resolute and re-built what he had lost. Working eighteen-

242/564

hour days for months on end, Jahn person-ally rebuilt his home and his business. Butthat reconstruction was easy compared tothe reconstruction he personally needed. Fornearly two decades, Jahn was an alcoholic.In fact, even though he hasn’t had a drink ineleven years, he would tell you he still is.

After drinking heavily one day, Jahn knewhe had to make a choice: he was either goingto let his disease kill him or call for help. Hesought help. Today, Jahn counsels otherssuffering from addiction. Knowing humilityto be a central step in the recovery processtaught at Alcoholics Anonymous, we askedJahn what role humility played for him. “Youhave to understand that the disease of alco-holism is cunning and powerful. But it’s alsopatient,” he said. “It has nothing else to dobut keep coming after you. One of the firststeps you have to take to overcome alcohol-ism is to acquire enough humility to admityou’re powerless over it on your own—you

243/564

need help. But I was ‘terminally unique.’ Ithought I was uniquely qualified to drink likeI did and not have it affect me. I had a suc-cessful career and everything that comeswith it. I wasn’t a homeless guy living underthe viaduct. I kept saying to myself, ‘If I wasan alcoholic, I wouldn’t be this successful.’”

Jahn didn’t reach for help earlier in his lifebecause he didn’t think he had a problem.“Even though I was successful, my real po-tential was being held hostage because I waslooking at life through a Johnny Walkerbottle,” he said. “Alcoholism shuns detection.If you go to the doctor with a heart problemand she tells you that you need surgery, youdon’t say, ‘No, I don’t.’ But with addiction,you ignore it. You think you have an argu-ment against it when you really don’t.” Afterso many years without a drink, friends askhim why he still attends the AA meetings.“Alcoholism never goes away” is his answer.“Your ego keeps trying to tell you you’re

244/564

done—that you can do it on your own, thatyou’re finished. Humility reminds you thatyou never are.”

Vital lessons surfaced in our interviewwith Jahn that paralleled our study of the re-lationship between ego and humility, not theleast of which is the idea of “terminaluniqueness.” Terminal uniqueness isthinking we’re uniquely qualified tobehave the way we do—that wewouldn’t be as successful as we are ifour behaviors or attitudes were de-structive. That belief blinds us to what ishappening to us and around us. Con-sequently, we may not get worse, but we alsodon’t get better. As we drift further from hu-mility, ego delivers the misleading messagethat we’re finished. Humility reminds us wenever are. We can stay constantly aware thatwe’re unfinished and therefore constantlyimprove if we embrace humility’s threeunique properties:

245/564

1. we, then me (devotion to progress)2. i’m brilliant, and i’m not (duality)3. one more thing (constructive

discontent)

The deepest level of humility is at the in-tersection of those three properties. Because“we, then me” establishes the primary intentof everything we do in egonomics, let’s ex-plore it first.

1. we, then me

246/564

The core ambition of humility is a remark-able devotion to progress. In business, thatdevotion translates to the progress of ourcompany: the project we’re on, the client infront of us, the market we serve, and so on.That devotion requires a sequential focus:company first, me second. Devotion to pro-gress doesn’t exclude what we personallyneed, it just prioritizes the focus.

At first glance, devotion to progress couldsound like a nice, but naive idea—naive be-cause, according to most, that’s not the waywe currently do business. In a Rutgers andUniversity of Connecticut poll, 58 percent ofworkers believe most top executives put theirown self-interest ahead of the company’s,while 67 percent don’t believe their bosseshave the firm’s best interests at heart. Theonly realistic way to change that number isto believe that by putting the company’sneeds first, we will make both ourselves andthe company better. And before anyone will

247/564

buy a more selfless approach to business, weneed to ask an ironic question: what’s in itfor me? The truth is that the less we fo-cus on our needs first, the more likelyour needs will be met. Let’s explore theidea.

Imagine for a moment you’re a salesper-son for IBM (or any company). In a high-performance culture, the pressure is on. Likeevery salesperson, you have a monthly quota.Hitting your quota could mean many things:commission, promotion, reputation, collegetuition, weddings, house payments, retire-ment, and so on. With that pressure, youhave a sales presentation to make on aseveral-hundred-thousand-dollar proposal.If you walk into that meeting and begin mak-ing your presentation with your focus firstand foremost on your needs—to hit yournumbers and get your commission—are youmore or less likely to make the sale? The an-swer is less likely. But why?

248/564

As soon as the clients sense a me-first in-tent from you, that intent taints the interac-tion on both sides. You may oversell productfeatures, rush through a technical explana-tion, mistake understanding for agreementand enthusiasm, smooth over objections, orpush too hard for the close. As the clients feelyour intent, they grow suspicious of whatyou say, become guarded about what theysay, and don’t give you access to informationor people they otherwise would. In turn,their trust in you goes down, you lose thesale, and your company loses the revenue. Infact, maybe you have a better product thanyour competitors, and the client loses theeconomic benefit of getting the best solution.Everybody loses.

In sales, the more important it is to meetyour numbers, the more important it is toforget about your numbers and help clientsmeet their numbers. In other words, themore important it is for you and your

249/564

company to progress, the more important itis for you to suspend the focus on that pro-gress and devote yourself to the progress ofyour clients first. The irony is that in sus-pending your own needs, you are more likelyto meet your clients’ needs, which in turn ad-vances the progress of your company, andyou therefore become more likely to meetyour needs.

when winning is losing

The same sequence of whose needs we focuson applies whether we’re working to meetexternal or internal client needs. If progressis truly our primary motivation, we won’t letindividual passion and commitment to a pro-ject or idea drift into a me-first, company-second view. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’tfight fiercely for our individual team’s needs,but we should be guided by what’s best forthe business, not just our own territory.

250/564

Consider the email from a Fortune 100 gen-eral manager to his leadership team invitinga more “we, then me” focus:

To: Leadership teamSubject: Food for thought

As the planning process for[product name] unfolds, I’m seeingor hearing some behaviors thatcould be destructive to our long-term goals. Essentially, everyone isfeeling the pinch of our budget real-ity, but most are also lobbying fortheir group to get a bigger piece ofthe work that we need to accom-plish. Sometimes that lobbying is inthe form of emails, sometimes it’sin planning meetings, sometimesit’s accomplished through proto-types, etc. My only conclusion is

251/564

that somehow I’ve created an envir-onment where people believe thatthe way to get more resources is tosign up for unrealistic deliverables.

Prototyping and dreaming areactivities we need to encourage, so Idon’t want anyone to interpret mystatement as not being in favor ofthat activity. As leaders, I expectyou to guide the team through thetradeoffs it takes to make the trans-ition from prototype or dream tofunded project. Sometimes morethan one good idea will exist in thesame area and we’ll be forced tochoose. Sometimes even a greatidea won’t rise above the thresholdthat has us reprioritize other workin order to fit it in. Oftentimes, youwill be asked to do more with less.In the end, we have to do what’sright for the business, even if the

252/564

individual dreams of some of ourbest people can’t beaccommodated.

I hope to hear statements fromeach of you like “Doing X is moreimportant than Y. Even though I’mresponsible for Y, I think we shouldcut it and move the resources to fo-cus on X.” Unfortunately today, I’mmore likely to get “I understand Ybetter than anybody else…Y maynot be the most important thing wecould do, but it’s really cool and itwill motivate my team, so I shouldfight for it.”

We all have work to do. Thanks.

What message is he trying to get across?The business comes first.

253/564

go ahead, be a survivalist

But let’s say this manager’s company is onthe ropes and downsizing on the horizon. Ishis business-first request unrealistic topeople vying for a limited number of jobs?Should they ignore the email and take a “sur-vival of the fittest” approach? Even thoughthat’s a typical response, it would be exactlythe wrong approach. In good times, a com-pany needs contribution from people, andpeople want to keep their jobs. But do com-pany or employee needs change in difficulttimes? The answer is no.

The needs for both increase when timesare hard: companies need more contributionand people need greater job security. If “we,then me” is effective when times aregood, it’s no less effective when timesare bad. The irony of a survival-of-the-fit-test mentality is that as pressure for survivalincreases, so does the temptation to abandon

254/564

humility and adopt a “me, then we” atti-tude—to be defensive about our ideas, treatcolleagues as competitors, occupy timeshowcasing our “you can’t live without me”brilliance, and seek the acceptance of thosewho can send us to the unemployment line.As ego takes control, our performance de-creases. By definition, that decline puts usone step closer to the exit. If ego minimizesour strengths, we won’t be judged on whatwe’re capable of contributing at our best, buton what ego’s counterfeits allow us to con-tribute. The more we focus on self-survival,the less likely we are to survive. “We, thenme” is the most direct strategy and incentivefor survival—on both sides of the equation.

“Economists have long assumed that suc-cess boils down to personal incentives. We’llcooperate if it’s in our self-interest, and wewon’t if it’s not (sort of like lions),” said JerryUseem of Fortune. “Then a team of research-ers led by behavioral psychologist Linnda

255/564

Caporael thought to ask: Would people co-operate without any incentives? The answerwas—gasp!—yes, under the right conditions.Participants often cited ‘group welfare’ asmotivation. To economists, shocking. Toanyone who’s been part of a successful team,not shocking at all. [The] boss who assumesthat workers’ interests are purely mercenarywill end up with a group of mercenaries.”

the economics of “we, then me”

It’s important to remember that devotion toprogress abides by an economic reality; sincethe company is investing for the return andliving with the risk, its needs factor in ac-cordingly. For instance, if an employeemakes a mistake that costs the companymoney, the company eats the cost; it doesn’tcome out of the employee’s pocket directly.As a result, the business comes first. Buteven with that reality, it doesn’t make sense

256/564

that a company would be interested only inits progress to the exclusion of the needs ofits employees.

It’s equally ineffective for an employee topursue individual progress to the detrimentof the company. A company shouldn’t skewthe balance to 90/10 in favor of its needs,and individual contributors should be clearthe balance isn’t 50/50 either. When eitherside miscalculates the ratio, they misjudgethe consequences to a culture. When peopleperceive unfair disparity, they hold back, anddevotion to progress evaporates in favor of“doing their job” and collecting a paycheck.Not all strikes from work are on picket lineswith signs of grievances.

Devotion to progress doesn’t mean youcan always meet everyone’s needs, but youcan diligently consider them before youmake a decision. Those considerations willbe subjective, and only you can determineyour motive behind them. The sequence of

257/564

focus we’re suggesting doesn’t eliminateselfishness or guarantee selflessness, oneither side. It does, at least, provide the op-portunity to strike the right balance between“we” and “me.”

the moment of truth

Devotion to progress sometimes requiressacrifice for causes greater than ourselves,with no immediate or apparent return to us.That devotion was displayed by one of themost courageous, devoted people we studied.Her name was Isabella Baumfree (which shelater changed to Sojourner Truth). As anAfrican American woman who escapedslavery, she became a powerful advocate forwomen’s rights and freedom from slavery. In1851, Truth went to the National Women’sRights Convention and requested to speak.She was such a powerful voice for freedom,her opponents made a move in an attempt to

258/564

humiliate and disqualify her from speakingat the conference. It is reported that officialsordered her to go to the women’s restroomand bare her breast to prove that she was awoman.

At that moment, Truth had a choice: shecould walk away and allow injustice to sub-due her voice, or agree to a demeaning testand liberate her voice. As she removed herclothing, she said, “It is to your shame, notmine, that I do this.” To leaders full of hu-mility, there is no humiliation—only purposeand progress. Humiliation is a feeling mostoften felt by those who lack humility. Upongetting dressed again, she delivered her“Ain’t I a Woman?” speech. Here’s anexcerpt:

That man over there says that wo-men need to be helped into car-riages, and lifted over ditches, andto have the best place everywhere.

259/564

Nobody ever helps me into car-riages, or over mud-puddles, orgives me any best place! And ain’t Ia woman? Look at me! Look at myarm! I have ploughed and planted,and gathered into barns, and noman could head me! And ain’t I awoman? I could work as much andeat as much as a man—when Icould get it—and bear the lash aswell! And ain’t I a woman?

I have borne thirteen children,and seen most all sold off toslavery, and when I cried out withmy mother’s grief, none but Jesusheard me! And ain’t I a woman?Then they talk about this thing inthe head; what’s this they call it? [amember of the audience whispers,“Intellect.”] That’s it, honey. What’sthat got to do with women’s rightsor negroes’ rights? If my cup won’t

260/564

hold but a pint, and yours holds aquart, wouldn’t you be mean not tolet me have my little half measurefull?

Truth’s message was a revolution for thetimes, and her humility was the delicate bal-ance between the arrogance that wouldn’thave allowed her to walk into that bathroom,and the lack of ego that would have preven-ted her from asking to speak at all. In spite ofher feelings of inadequacy about her abilityto speak to a large audience, she had the con-viction that what she had to say from centerstage was worth hearing and would make adifference. She stayed at the center of humil-ity’s equilibrium, and that made it possiblefor her to have a profound impact on the wo-men’s movement.

261/564

2. i’m brilliant, and i’m not(duality)

Because of the genuine confidence humilityproduces, we can be both bold and meek atthe same time. We can be as comfortablepassionately making a point as listening toanother’s opposing point. Humility can fol-low the lead of someone else one momentand just as easily be the leader the next. Thatduality is the second unique property ofhumility.

Duality fuses traits that otherwise appearto be in conflict, adding complements to our

262/564

strengths so they don’t become one-dimen-sional. Take, for example, someone with thestrengths of intense passion and fierce de-termination. At first glance, those character-istics seem incompatible with traits likemeekness and flexibility. That perceived in-compatibility is a false dichotomy.

Many leaders believe that some traits theyhave are incompatible with others theywould like to acquire. During a workshop onpower and leadership taught by Dr. RoderickKramer of Stanford University, he asked par-ticipants which leadership qualities theywished they possessed more of. “Despitetheir proven success,” said Kramer, “theseleaders felt they were still too nice and tooconcerned about what their employeesthought of them.” In other words, theywished they were tougher. One executivesaid, “I would love to have Carly Fiorina’sability to stare down her opponents.” Whenwe’re unaware of duality, we believe it’s

263/564

either this or that—either we have to betough (and stare people down) or we have tobe nice (and too soft).

But humility isn’t a dichotomy, it’s a dual-ity. As such, humility has the capacity to sayI am something and I am nothing—at thesame time. I am accomplished and, at thesame time, unfinished; talented and average;special, and better than no one; extraordin-ary and ordinary; popular and unknown; de-serving of respect, and no more deservingthan another. “The test of a first-rate intelli-gence,” said F. Scott Fitzgerald, “is the abilityto hold two opposing ideas in the mind at thesame time and still retain the ability tofunction.”

When we embrace humility’s confident,dual nature, the early warning signs of egoare eradicated. Comparison weakens becausewhile we can strive to be something signific-ant, we don’t suffer from the delusion thatwe can be everything. Seeking acceptance is

264/564

uneasy next to humility because we’re at easebeing both loved and disliked. Showcasingcan’t occupy the thoughts of a person whoacknowledges his brilliance and yet under-stands that it’s not the only brilliance on theplanet, or even in the room. Defensivenesscan’t penetrate our management style whenwe’re willing to admit that, although we’reoften right, we’re also often wrong.

Duality doesn’t erase our identity butsimply balances and elevates the traits wealready have. Duality doesn’t force us to be-come something we’re not. Humility isn’tthe architect of plain personalities. Itis the engineer of stronger ones.

what color is humility?

On February 14, 1986, Dr. Taylor Hartman,who wrote The Color Code on personalitytraits and characteristics, was nearly preven-ted from completing his work. As he was

265/564

driving home from a Valentine’s Day dinnerwith his wife, Jean, they were involved in ahead-on collision. As a result of the crash, hesuffered severe memory loss. He couldn’t re-member patients from his practice. He tem-porarily lost his own identity, causing him tofeel like a stranger to his wife and family.“For the first time in my life,” said Hartman,“I recognized how enviable it is to be some-body—to feel truly unique and alive. I des-perately needed my sense of identity. I feltdesperate and lost without my personality.”As time passed, Hartman regained his per-sonality, his memory, and his identity. Dur-ing his recovery, he began to appreciatemore deeply the differences in personalityamong his family and friends, each of whombrought unique value and perspective to hislife.

His suffering and return to health re-ignited his commitment to his innovativework on personality theory. Hartman’s work

266/564

is groundbreaking. Not only does his re-search suggest that we’re born with a certainpersonality type as unique and genetic as afingerprint, but he asserts that our coremotive drives our behaviors. And while per-sonality and typical behaviors associatedwith each personality type can change di-mensions, who we are and our core motiva-tion never changes. “Your personalitywatches over you like a parent,” says Hart-man. “Without clear-cut personality traits tomark our paths through life, we would be-come lost.” He labels his four categories ofpersonality red, blue, yellow, and white. Thechart below shows the core motives andgives very brief descriptions for each.Red—powervalues productivity,wants to berespected

Blue—intimacyvalues relationships,wants to be good

Yellow—fun White—peace

267/564

values being fullyengaged in life,wants to look good

values independence,wants to feel good andbe respected

So if you were to vote, what personality doyou think would have the easiest time ac-quiring humility? When we ask that questionduring our leadership sessions, whites arethe first voted in. Blues are easily voted intosecond place, while yellows are hardly men-tioned, and reds are a complete shutout.After the initial vote we sit silent, and withinseconds the debate among participants be-gins. Eventually, the class gravitates to gen-eral consensus: “No one has the easiest timeacquiring humility.” They’re right. In our ex-perience, there is little or no correlationbetween personality type and the capacity forhumility. Duality isn’t about blues switchingtheir core personality over to white, yellowsturning blue, or reds losing their color. Hu-mility is not homogeneity.

268/564

What is true about personality is that theearly warning signs can be linked to specificpersonality types: reds with showcasing,blues with defensiveness, yellows with com-parison, and whites with seeking acceptance.But in terms of personality and the develop-ment of humility, nobody has an easy road.Duality doesn’t require abandonment of whowe are, but it does require adaptation.

balancing act

Without sacrificing our personality, dualityallows “opposing” traits to coexist. That’swhy we need duality: it frees us from a one-sided development of our strengths. By coex-isting, our talents stay true to form: weneither overdo nor underuse each trait.

269/564

If either trait excludes the other, that par-ticular trait weakens in the other’s absence.For example, let’s use the first two traits lis-ted in the chart above: ambitious and self-less. If we overrely on ambition in a debate,we crowd out other ideas or people to makeour point. We use over-the-top words like“always,” “never,” “everyone,” or “nobody” toconvey the passion of our argument, whichsends a message to colleagues: this is ora-tion, not conversation. On the other hand, ifwe lean too heavily on being selfless, wechoose words so carefully, hoping not to rock

270/564

the boat, that our point gets steamrolled inthe process. Our passion is lost in politeness,and confidence loses out to deference andcourtesy.

unfinished business

Since everyone is unfinished and missing atleast one balancing trait, we each have workto do. For some the work may be minor re-modeling, for others it may look more likedemolition. In either case, the scope of workto be done depends on the role we allow du-ality to play. “Many of the more conventionalbooks on leadership show leaders as mythicand heroic figures,” says Dr. Kramer of Stan-ford University. “Students want their leadersto be perfect and without any personal blem-ishes. What they fail to realize is that some-times the very qualities that make someoneimperfect also help explain their tremendousdrive to succeed and energy to focus on one

271/564

narrow realm of achievement. [Steve] Jobs isa great example. He is a creative genius andyet he has an amazing ability to alienatesome people and drive them away from hisorganization.”

But what is it about creative genius thatalienates people and drives them away? Itisn’t creative genius that’s the problem, it’swhat’s missing from genius that’s thetrouble. Early in his career, Jobs was de-scribed as someone who ruled “by force ofpersonality, making numerous enemies withhis ridiculing of the ideas of others, his un-willingness to hear views contrary to hisown, and his outbursts of bad temper.” Butwhy argue for Jobs to add to his genius traitslike inclusion or mutual respect when he’sresponsible for starting Apple in his parents’garage and growing his company within tenyears to a $2 billion organization by the timehe was thirty? Why would “balance” evenmatter? Because what he accomplished to

272/564

that point is a narrow view of what he wascapable of achieving. When we’re too narrowin our development of traits, we limit whatwe accomplish. As it turns out, humility hada lesson in store for Jobs that would balancehis creative genius and as a result widenwhat he achieved. In his commencementspeech to the graduating class of 2005 atStanford University, Jobs shared his lessonin humility:

And then I got fired [from Apple in1985]. How can you get fired froma company you started? Well, asApple grew, we hired someone whoI thought was very talented to runthe company with me, and for thefirst year or so things went well.But then our visions of the futurebegan to diverge and eventuallywe had a falling out. When we did,our Board of Directors sided with

273/564

him. So at thirty I was out. Andvery publicly out. What had beenthe focus of my entire adult life wasgone, and it was devastating. Ireally didn’t know what to do for afew months. I felt that I had let theprevious generation of entrepren-eurs down—that I had dropped thebaton as it was being passed to me.I met with David Packard[cofounder of Hewlett-Packard]and Bob Noyce [cofounder ofFairchild Semiconductor and Intel,and known as the Mayor of SiliconValley] and tried to apologize forscrewing up so badly. I was a verypublic failure, and I even thoughtabout running away from thevalley.

If we don’t let humility teach us first, cir-cumstance—like a stock market

274/564

“correction”—will usually do the job.Stunned at the turn of events in his careerand unable to explain why, Jobs said, “Some-times life hits you in the head with a brick.”

Ejected from Apple, Jobs started his nextventure, a computer company appropriatelynamed NeXT. But NeXT didn’t come close toproducing the success of Apple. Seven yearslater, Jobs closed the factory, laid off half theemployees, and shifted the company’s direc-tion to software development. Not until 1995did NeXT turn a profit. In December of thatsame year, Apple bought the company for$400 million. The same year Jobs startedNeXT, he also bought a struggling computeranimation studio named Pixar from moviemogul George Lucas. The Pixar story was alittle brighter; in 1988 it won an Oscar for itscomputer-animated short film Tin Toy. In1991 Pixar secured a deal with Walt Disneyfor three animated films and started work onthe blockbuster movie Toy Story.

275/564

But none of these events represents themost interesting part of Jobs’s story. In 1997it must have felt like déjà vu when Jobs wasnamed “interim” CEO of Apple, which was ina near free fall. One of his first moves was todrop the very operating system that he haddeveloped at NeXT and that Apple had pur-chased from him two years earlier. Thatmove wasn’t the Steve Jobs of old. “Everyyear he’s mellowed and matured,” said SusanKelly Barnes, NeXT’s former chief financialofficer. She’s not the only one who noticedchanges in Jobs. A biography by Kirk Beetzreveals what can only be described as ametamorphosis of Steve Jobs:

Although he was still certain thathis vision for Apple was the onlyright one, Jobs’ management stylehad radically changed from what ithad been in 1985; he seemed morerelaxed and open to ideas. In fact,

276/564

he seemed to relish other people’sideas; perhaps his work at Pixarhad improved his ability to workwith the creative people at Apple.He wisely surrounded himself withtop-notch executives in all the keycorporate positions, and he held onto them rather than driving themaway. Almost by willing it, hetransformed the corporate cultureinto one in which employeeswanted to come to work and wherethey saw themselves as part of agreat company that had a missionto change the world for the better.Moreover, Jobs, the hobbyist of old,brought the fun back into tinkeringwith electronics.

The irony of duality is that when we ac-knowledge we’re unfinished, we becomestronger. Jobs seems to agree. “I’m pretty

277/564

sure none of this [NeXT, Pixar, his return toApple, the iPod, and iTunes] would havehappened if I hadn’t been fired from Apple,”says Jobs. “It was awful-tasting medicine,but I guess the patient needed it.”

Duality is the admission that we are know-ledgeable and ignorant, strong and weak,right and wrong, capable and at the sametime incomplete. Let’s now return to some ofthe less than attractive traits we mentionedearlier that surround the word humility: sub-missive, meek, quiet, simple, cautious, soft-spoken, self-effacing, and passive. With du-ality, most of these traits now appear to havestrengths when not isolated. Sometimes itrequires more inner strength to be sub-missive than it does to be independent. Du-ality exists in all of those characterist-ics—meekness and boldness, modesty andbrilliance, self-effacement and self-confid-ence. Duality, as a unique property of humil-ity, leads us to an appropriate sense that

278/564

we’re unfinished, and thereby puts us on thedoorstep to the final property of humility:one more thing (constructive discontent).

3. one more thing (constructivediscontent)

In addition to “we, then me” (devotion toprogress) and “i’m brilliant, and i’m not”(duality), the last unique property of humil-ity is “one more thing” (constructive discon-tent). U2 band members Bono and LarryMullen epitomize the essence of “one morething.” As the lead singer of U2, Bono has

279/564

won fourteen Grammys and produced fifteenalbums that have sold 130 million copies.When asked what his favorite song or albumis, Bono answered, “We haven’t written ityet.” Larry Mullen, U2 founder and drum-mer, added, “We’re constantly unsatisfied asa band. We’ve got all this stuff, but maybe wehaven’t earned it. There are contemporarieswho have worked equally as hard as U2 anddon’t have as much success. We’re uncom-fortable with it; we need to prove ourselves.”That pursuit of perfection and proving one-self is the power of “one more thing.”

Constructive discontent works hand inhand with humility’s devotion to progress. Infact, humility is wholly dedicated to pro-gress. And when it comes to progress, Toyotais a model citizen of constructive discontent.In reality, it’s not “Toyota,” but the people atToyota, who are currently on track to maketheir company the world’s largest automobilemanufacturer. In fact, by the time you’re

280/564

reading this, projections suggest they alreadywill be. For the third year in a row, Toyotawas awarded International Engine of theYear for the revolutionary hybrid Prius. Ifyou added the J. D. Power 5 Stars and MotorTrend Cars of the Year awards, you wouldneed an endless inventory of stars andtrophies. In a Fast Company article onToyota’s dissatisfaction with satisfaction,Charles Fishman writes of a recent improve-ment the Georgetown, Kentucky, Toyotaplant made in how it paints cars. While theirprocess wasn’t “broken” by competitivestandards, it wasn’t perfect. That imperfec-tion was incentive enough.

Fishman goes on to describe how they im-proved the painting: nozzles, paint cart-ridges, paint flush changes, processes, etc.“Cars now spend eight hours in paint, in-stead of ten,” writes Fishman. “The paintshop at any moment holds 25 percent fewercars than it used to. Wasted paint?

281/564

Practically zero. What used to require onehundred gallons now takes seventy.” But thedetails of the specific improvements aren’treally the point. “[Improvement] is rooted inan institutional obsession with improvementthat Toyota manages to instill in each one ofits workers, a pervasive lack of complacencywith whatever was accomplished yesterday.[What’s] interesting is to compare how theythink about work at Georgetown with every-where else. How come the checkout lines atWal-Mart never get shorter? How come thecustomer service of your cell phone companynever improves, year after year? How comemy PC gets harder to operate with each soft-ware upgrade? It’s almost as if Toyota peoplesee the world with special four-dimensionalglasses; the rest of us are stuck in 2-D.”

When driven by constructive discontent,we aren’t looking for a final destinationthinking we’re “finished.” Instead, we valuethe movement along the way as much as, or

282/564

more than, the end result. “We’re all incred-ibly proud of what we’ve accomplished,” saidChad Buckner, an engineering manager ofToyota’s paint division. “But you don’t stop.You don’t stop. There’s no reason to be satis-fied.” His colleague John Shook added,“Once you realize that it’s the process it-self—that you’re not seeking a plateau—youcan relax. Doing the task and doing the taskbetter become one and the same thing.”What Toyota has realized is the differencebetween merely having a process for kaizen(a Japanese word for “improvement”), and aculture with a kaizen attitude.

The Toyota story is an example of smallchanges made inside a very large corporatemachine. Important changes aren’t always avision that descends upon us, seizes us, andgalvanizes everyone. If you just consider thepaint change improvement as a snapshot, itwouldn’t seem revolutionary. But small, in-cremental changes accumulated over time

283/564

make the bigger difference. That doesn’tmean that constructive discontent is onlyabout small, nearly indiscernible differences.Sometimes changes are revolutions, butmost of the time they’re not. Besides, wheth-er the changes are big or small misses thepoint—it’s the attitude and drive that analyzeopportunities and pursue change that mat-ters. To explore why, let’s return momentar-ily to the work of Jim Collins in Good toGreat. There was something about Collins’sresearch that was different from any other inour study of the last fifty years of manage-ment writing. His work wasn’t an investiga-tion of companies that were great from theday they were born. It was a study of trans-formation: decades of good performance,marked by a transition period to great. Inthat transition, most of the good-to-greatcompanies weren’t forced by any urgent di-lemma to change.

284/564

Market conditions didn’t transform thesecompanies; in fact, Collins created criteria toensure it wasn’t the market’s “fault” theymade the leap. Each company had to moveitself. In essence, these cultures appeared de-pendent on humility because they wanted tochange, not because they needed tochange—in other words, because of con-structive discontent. To a certain degree, In-tel cofounder Andrew Grove’s statement that“only the paranoid survive” is an extremeversion of that very idea. That’s why theacute awareness of the early warning signs isso important. They’re signs that let us knowprogress has stalled. In the pursuit of pro-gress, constructive discontent makes us lesscomfortable where we are, and less stubbornin making a change.

But when you carefully inspect the tasksrequired for that change, it becomes moreapparent why humility surfaces so promin-ently. Collins first observed what he came to

285/564

call the “first who, then what” strategy. Thatmeant companies had to get the “rightpeople on the bus” and the wrong people off,even before they decided what they were go-ing to be or do as an organization. Once theseats on the bus were taken, each companyhad to discover what they could be best inthe world at, regardless of what they werecurrently doing or wished they could be bestat. But it wasn’t the “company” that had tomake those admissions. It was people; it wasthe leaders. In other words, human beingshad to discern the difference between whatthey wanted to be best in the world at andwhat they really could be best in the worldat—a critical distinction not easily recognizedwith too much or too little ego. In their pur-suit of great, every task that lay ahead ofthese leaders required uncommon dialogue.

humility’s traction

286/564

As we mentioned earlier, egonomics is astudy of great moments, not great leaders.But over time crucial moments build reflexesin us that keep us closer to the center of hu-mility’s equilibrium or push us farther away.Of the interviews we conducted for the studyof egonomics, one of the more remarkableset of reflexes we observed was that of JimThyen.

Thyen is CEO of Kimball International, a$1.2 billion furniture and electronics com-pany. Given our emphasis on economic per-formance and ego’s role in that performance,some might be surprised that we’re writingabout a company whose sales have been flatfor five years. To an outsider, Kimball cer-tainly wouldn’t seem to qualify as a good-to-great company. But the numbers on the out-side don’t always reveal the story on the in-side. The transformation to greatness is usu-ally reported at the end of the road, when re-markable results sing the company’s praises

287/564

and the glamour of a goal reached concealsthe labor and sweat it took to get there. Thisis a story of sweat.

Kimball International began in contractfurniture in 1949. From there it expandedand diversified. Television cabinetry in the1950s, pianos in the ’60s (at its peak, Kim-ball made over 250 pianos and 150 organsevery day), commercial office furniture in the’70s, and residential and hospitality fur-niture and electronics in the 1980s spurredthe company’s growth to $1.2 billion withover nine thousand employees by 2000.Named to the Fortune 500 in 1988 for thefirst time, Kimball was twice included as oneof “America’s Most Admired Companies.”

But that was about to change.Kimball’s consistent performance over

decades caused everyone to feel good aboutthe business. During the good times, Kimballlived by the “might as well” strategy. Theyexpanded horizontally and vertically,

288/564

continued to invest in pianos simply becauseit was their legacy, and moved into marketswhen customer demands in those marketswas changing rapidly. Despite the changes,they told themselves they could do it all. Butwhen they did it all, the diversificationmasked the rapid changes coming. Marketsstarted to shift, the effects of a recessionbegan, and revenue in certain business unitsdropped suddenly, accelerated by September11, 2001. Kimball’s overall market declinedfrom $12 billion to $8 billion.

Over the years, Kimball slowly insulated it-self. “We weren’t recognizing that the ‘waterin the pan’ was getting warmer one degree ata time,” said Thyen. “Our headquarters waslocated in a community where most peopleshared similar experiences and mind-sets.For instance, self-reliance was ingrained intothe company culture, and that self-reliancenaturally comes with a strong sense of pride,which gradually led to isolationism. The

289/564

similarities among us were so strong thatchanges in the market didn’t send alarm sig-nals. I feared we were headed down the slip-pery slope of entitlement. We believed theworld should come to us.”

While Kimball waited for the world, theworld didn’t budge. Globalization and the In-ternet changed the customer relationshipwith manufacturers. Reading customer ex-pectations was no longer simple. As withmany companies, the retail economic buyingpower had shifted heavily to informed, soph-isticated women buyers, and the typical buy-er had scores of choices and knew what shewanted, when she wanted it, and what priceshe wanted to pay. Brand value shifted fromproduct to experience.

Meanwhile, Kimball’s residential and hos-pitality market supply was aggressively mov-ing offshore. The entertainment (TV) cabinetmarket was declining rapidly. The hardwoodlumber market shifted from domestic to

290/564

international. Horizontal market segmentsquickly became more focused and demand-ing. Vertical markets were evolving with dif-ferent rhythms and demands. With all thechange, Kimball was trying to serve thosemarkets with a single business model, whichcaused conflict in performance and capitalneeds.

In the midst of those changes, Thyen wasasked to become the company’s president,the first non-family member in forty-fiveyears to take the helm of Kimball Interna-tional. Before he took the position, Thyenspoke with individual members of the board.Because the company was managed, con-trolled, and owned by a family, Thyen knewthe next forty-five years would look muchdifferent from the previous forty-fiveyears—depending on what the foundingHabig family decided to do. Looking ahead,Thyen asked a pivotal, strategic question:“The good Lord seems to be driving me to

291/564

ask a critical question before I can make adecision whether to accept your invitation tobe president. Are we going to run this com-pany for the family or for our customers?”

As you might guess, the reaction was oneof surprise. But Thyen trusted his colleaguesand knew his question would be seen as onefor debate, not one of a disbeliever. Our ex-perience as consultants is that average lead-ers don’t ask questions of constructive dis-content often enough, never mind when thequestion might jeopardize a promotion. ButThyen isn’t typical. “Why would you even aska question like that?” replied one boardmember. “We’ve always run our business forcustomers.”

If that was the answer, then Thyen wantedto know exactly who those customers were,how they felt, and what they wanted. “Wecouldn’t expect the world to come to us any-more,” said Thyen. “We had to humbleourselves and go out to the world.” Because

292/564

he was determined to guide his tenure aspresident by the company’s guiding prin-ciples, the next eighteen months found Thy-en flying around the world talking face toface with customers, employees, andsuppliers.

As the former CFO of Kimball, he knew thenumbers inside and out. What he didn’tknow was how customers really felt. “Thebrutal reality was that our business modelwas dying,” he said. “It wasn’t dead on paper(which is where we tended to focus), but as aresult of my conversations with our clientsand suppliers, I came to realize it was dead.”But “dead” wasn’t apparent to everyone.Despite the market alarms going off, per-formance was still good enough at Kimball:they were profitable, had no debt, continuedwith solid cash flow, and still had dominantmarket share in automotive electronics.

Upon each return from the market, wherehe had listened to customers firsthand,

293/564

Thyen shared what he had found and whathe believed it would take to move the com-pany in the right direction. That meantchange—in fact, serious change for somefamily members in key executive positions.In response to Thyen’s proposed changes,one responded, “I believe that’s the right dir-ection for the company, but I don’t want tomake the journey. I don’t want to put in theenergy. Let’s find a way to transition me intoa different role and find someone that can dowhat needs to be done.”

It was a remarkable commitment to “we,then me,” taking hold in a courageous, hon-est moment from someone who had helpedmake Kimball what it was—someone whohad the influence and ability to easily resist.Thyen deeply admired the response. “Canyou imagine what it takes to sit there andlisten to the changes that need to be made,”Thyen said, “and not take it as a personal

294/564

attack on legacy, given they had been at thehelm for over thirty years?”

But like any real effort for change, it had tostart at the top. Thyen took the position,working to keep himself within the equilibri-um of humility. Genuinely confident hecould do the job, in the spirit of duality heacknowledged that he was “part of the prob-lem. I took the position, but it was with someapprehension and self-doubt. Ego gives youa set of filters that you don’t even know youhave, and I didn’t know what mine were.”And breaking with tradition wasn’t easy, forThyen in particular. “When other CEOs areasked to help change a company, they oftencome in from the outside,” said Thyen. “Theyget to pack, change wardrobes, and moveacross the country. I didn’t get that oppor-tunity. I’ve been here since 1966. Everybodyknew me.”

In assuming the role of president, Jim de-manded two things of colleagues: 1) to not

295/564

assume they knew what he was thinking, orwhat he was going to say, and 2) to help himchange. Devoted to the organization’s pro-gress first and not his image as president, hewas candidly and consistently transparent,conversation by conversation, meeting bymeeting. “You know me. You probably knowwhat I’m going to do or say before I do,” headmitted. “But if I take this position, I haveto change. I won’t be perfect. I’m going toslip and I’ll need your help. We’ve been inthe same town, driving the same roads,shopping at the same stores for thirty years.We need to respect the past. But we can’t af-ford to be tied to it, or by it.”

In the spirit of diversity, the mix of theboard of directors needed adjustment: it wastoo homogeneous. The board had been dom-inated by owners, controllers, and managers.“We only had one independent,” said Thyen,“but frankly we had never really brought himinto the board.” Additionally, there were no

296/564

women on the board. That needed to change.“We needed people who could complementthe talent we had, but who couldn’t finishour sentences,” Thyen continued. “Weneeded board members with skills for wherethe company was heading, not where we hadbeen.”

Over the next few years, Kimball execut-ives filled the board with a diverse group oftalented, senior executives and CEOs fromFedEx, Cummins Engine, Quaker Oats, andPepsi, among others. Another change in theboard required some family board membersto agree to a different role. They were askedto sit on committees and provide insight ondirection that only their unique history couldprovide, but at the same time they agreed notto vote; they would “preserve history andlegacy without sacrificing the future by beingtied to it.” They serve voluntarily andwithout fees, revealing their own humilityand deep devotion to the company’s progress

297/564

first, themselves second. In making the hardchanges, there were never fights—but therewere strong words. With humility you’re lesslikely to make conflict personal, or take itpersonally. Animosity showed up from timeto time, but humility prevented it fromlingering.

With a diverse, committed board in place,Kimball made steady but bold changes overtime. In 2001, the company employed 9,000people, most in the United States. Today,Kimball has 8,200 employees, but less thanhalf are in the United States. Kimball execut-ives had to manage with humility, not arrog-ance, to make the transition successful. “If amanager didn’t know their employee’s firstnames and something about their families,”said Thyen, “it was an indication to us theywere too far removed from their people. Weencouraged them to really know their people.There are no ‘Mr.’ and ‘Ms.’ here. You can’tafford that formality in a real transformation

298/564

effort. It creates too much distance.” An un-written rule at Kimball is that if people needa third-party advocate, that is, a union, tocommunicate with management, manage-ment isn’t doing their job.

That philosophy contributes to opennessbetween employees and management. In thecourse of closing sixteen plants in smalltowns, exiting nine markets, and laying offnearly 5,000 employees, there were no law-suits and no union campaigns. As hard as thelayoffs and restructuring were, even peopleno longer employed by Kimball recommendothers to the company, and most talk highlyof their experience. Internationally, Kimballexited France and Austria, keeping its repu-tation intact with those governments. In theprocess, not a single client fired them. Thecompany entered other countries, with man-ufacturing in Poland, China, Thailand, andexpanded their presence in Mexico.

299/564

Meanwhile, in an attempt to not abandonany community they needed to exit, com-pany executives met with local governmentleaders. In one case, they pledged cash tofund an economic development council to di-versify the city’s economic base. The aim wasto help restore the employment and tax rev-enue Kimball had provided over the years,and increase employment opportunities andper capita income. While that might notsound remarkable, Kimball made that cashdonation on the condition the city would so-licit competitors of Kimball. This strategycaught us off guard during our interview.When we asked why, Thyen used an analogy.“We did it,” he said, “because the communityneeded it (they were too dependent on us)and we needed it (competition makes youbetter). In basketball, you don’t get betterplaying your little brother. You only get bet-ter playing your bigger brother, and we

300/564

needed more big brothers.” Humility isn’tafraid of competition.

During the massive and rapid transitions,Kimball stayed profitable. Over the last threeyears with Thyen as president and CEO,Kimball is not only still in business, they’reback on track. Their cash balance is thehighest it’s ever been, and they have no debt.Kimball has exited almost a dozen busi-nesses, sixteen cities, and two countrieswithout ever losing profitability. Meanwhilethey’re producing organic growth in theirfurniture business at nearly twice the in-dustry’s growth rate. Kimball International ison a $2 billion pace over the next threeyears, with acquisitions in electronics thatwill add another $250 million.

According to Thyen, the recovery isn’tabout him. “I’m not the only one responsiblefor our success. I never have been. Everyonedeserves credit for what we’ve achieved andwhat we have yet to accomplish. I’m also not

301/564

only a ‘leader’ because I’m now the CEO,”Thyen said. “I’m also a follower. We’re allfollowers. We’ve been followers since thetime we were born. You need humility tolead, but you also need humility to follow.Leaders need followers—there is no leaderwithout followers. And in leading, you needto hire people who have different viewpointsand experiences—a group around you tokeep you humble, because in leadership, it’sso easy to be egotistical.”

We asked managers at Kimball what theythought of Thyen. Observations of his leader-ship were as strong as our own impressions.What equally impressed us was how congru-ent these managers were with the Kimballvalues they helped create with the Habigfamily and Thyen. His leadership style is bestframed by a comment his wife, Pat, offeredhim before he took the position. “In the end,”she said, “all you are is a voice and amemory. Use your voice well to create the

302/564

proper memory.” Kimball International isn’tperfect. But despite its imperfections, peoplethere exemplify what’s possible when leadersand followers alike commit to progress andpursue it with humility.

In Kimball’s pursuit of progress, the mostdifficult tasks required uncommon dialogueand intense debate. Humility was the cata-lyst in every conversation that counted.

But how do we apply the three propertiesof humility in day-today conversations so thepressure those conversations always bringmoves a company forward, rather than idlingit or sending it five steps backward? In the

303/564

next chapter, we move decidedly toward ap-plication, paying particular attention to twokey elements: 1) the intensity of our dia-logue, and 2) the intent driving our debates.Let’s explore how intensity and intent worktogether.

7: humility key points

• For each of us, there is a con-tinuum of ego. At one end of thecontinuum, we have too littleego; at the other, too much. Hu-mility is at the equilibrium andkeeps ego balanced between thetwo extremes.

• Humility is intelligent self-re-spect that keeps us from think-ing too highly or too meanly ofourselves. It makes us modest by

304/564

reminding us how far we havecome and how far short we are ofwhat we can be. For mostpeople, tradition holds that theopposite of excessive ego is hu-mility, when in fact having toolittle ego is just as dangerous andunproductive as having toomuch.

• The three properties of humilityexist only at the equilibrium.When we’re on center, our tal-ents stay true to form and wemake our greatest contributions.But since there’s a natural tend-ency to deviate from the equilib-rium, when we move just rightor left of center, we begin to losethe power of humility. As a res-ult, our strengths morph intoweaknesses that parade asstrengths.

305/564

• The closer we move to the ex-tremes on humility’s equilibri-um, the harder it is to make ourway back to the center. Thelonger we stay off-center, themore comfortable we becomebeing off-center. If we don’tquickly recover, we’re morelikely to develop an egotisticalreflex in the way we work.

• When humility doesn’t managethe power of ego, comparison,defensiveness, showcasing, andseeking acceptance paint us intoa corner of contentment—thefeeling that we’re finished, thatwe’re complete. While pure egofights to tell us we’re finished,humility reminds us we neverare. The realization we’re unfin-ished comes from humility’sthree unique properties: 1) we,

306/564

then me (devotion to progress),2) i’m brilliant, and i’m not (du-ality), and 3) one more thing(constructive discontent). Theintersection of the three proper-ties is humility.

307/564

humility, part II: intensityand intent

What the eye is to the body, the in-tention is to the soul.

JOHN WESLEY

Because humility has the undeserved reputa-tion of being quiet, people mistake humilityfor perpetual harmony. But harmony rarelycomes without a little bit of turbulence first.“Unless one considers alternatives, one has aclosed mind. This, above all, explains why

effective decision makers deliberately disreg-ard the major command of the textbooks ondecision-making and create dissension anddisagreement rather than consensus,” saidPeter Drucker. “Decisions of the kind the ex-ecutive has to make are not made well by ac-clamation. They are made well only if basedon the clash of conflicting views, the dialoguebetween different points of view, the choicebetween different judgments. The first rulein decision-making is that one does not makea decision unless there is disagreement.”

In the pursuit of progress, there will be in-tensity. We can’t accelerate progress without“clash,” “differing points of view,” and “con-flicting judgments.” But if we can’t handleintensity, we won’t get diversity of thought.When diversity goes down, research showsthat so do the odds of success. If we misla-bel intensity as being egotistical, wetrade progress for soft conversationand swift consensus. Our intent shapes

309/564

the intensity of debate, and humility shapesour intent. As it does, humility generatesgenuine confidence that doesn’t allow us toconfuse our identity with our ideas. The cleardistinction between the two frees us to raisethe level of intensity in the exchange of ideaswithout crossing the line into the early warn-ing signs. In others words, humility makesintensity constructive, not destructive.

Let’s first clarify what we mean by intens-ity. “You need executives…who argue anddebate—sometimes violently—,” said JimCollins, “in pursuit of the best answers.” Thewords Collins and Drucker use are interest-ing choices in describing what it takes tomake good decisions: clash, conflict, dis-agreement, dissent.

But…violent?When’s the last time any of us read a book

on communication with the opening line“The first rule of effective communication isto embrace violence”? If there is a place for

310/564

violence in communication, then effectivedebate depends on what kind of violenceyou’re talking about. The first words thatsurface in connection with the word violenceare aggression, fighting, hostility, brutal,cruel, and vicious—definitely not words thatsmooth the exchange of ideas. The worst ofthese traits cause many people to avoid de-bates altogether because of the emotionalhangover they leave.

For example, a client told us a story abouta friend who was appointed the lead negoti-ator for management in a labor dispute withunion leaders in California. As the negoti-ation began, it became apparent that hercounterpart intended to be her opponent.His approach was aggressive; he frequentlyinterrupted her, made unreasonable de-mands, and hurled personal attacks. Shefought back the temptation to spar with himand remained committed to a debate of theissues and understanding his views. But it

311/564

wasn’t easy. The first fifteen minutes seemedlike hours. The second fifteen minutes wereeven worse, followed by another fifteen thatshowed no signs of letup.

Finally, realizing his attacks were goingnowhere, he slammed his fist on the tableand demanded, “What are you doing?” Sheasked, “What do you mean, ‘What am I do-ing?’” “Well,” he said, “aren’t you going tocome back with something?” “No, I’m not.Before we started, I committed to myself thatI would understand your point of view,” shereplied. “I’m trying to do the best I can, eventhough it’s difficult with some of the thingsyou’re saying.” “Well,” he responded, nowmore calmly, “I guess we’ll need to talkthen.” That’s the point—talk.

“violent” talk

In producing talk—especially intense de-bate—don’t make it personal, and don’t take

312/564

it personally. “Foolish is the person thattakes offense when none was intended,”someone once said. “More foolish is the per-son that takes offense when it was inten-ded.” In the pursuit of intense debate, weneed to be the opposite of violent—for in-stance, peaceful, gentle, and tranquil—butthese qualities are not enough by themselvesto produce real talk. Upon further investiga-tion of the word violence, a second set ofwords describes a productive violence:fierce, passionate, hard, powerful, strong,and intense. To distinguish the two kinds ofviolence, we’ll refer to good violence as vig-orous—as in “vigorous debate.” Not everydebate needs vigor, but when it is needed,the words just listed should characterizethose debates. Vigorous debates require aheavy investment of humility to keep intens-ity productive, to keep vigor from becomingviolence, and, when necessary, to keep usfrom being lulled into courteous but

313/564

meaningless exchanges that continue discus-sions, but don’t advance them.

when nice isn’t

If you’re not used to it, it’s easy to mistakevigorous debate for animosity. While wewere facilitating a discussion with a productdevelopment team, one person abruptly hal-ted the meeting. “Time out,” he pleaded,pointing to two of his colleagues. “Do youguys even like each other?” They were sur-prised. For years they had been successfulcollaborators and friends. Curious, we askedwhy he would ask that question. “Because,”he said, turning to them, “you argue witheach other’s point. Then you make a point,and the next moment you turn around anddisagree with the very point you just made.This isn’t productive at all.” Then he askedfor a break, saying, “I need a reprieve fromthe intensity.”

314/564

After the meeting he changed his mindabout what he said; the debate was product-ive. In looking back on the meeting, we real-ized how much sense his reaction made con-sidering the culture he came from beforeworking with this team. Disagreement anddisloyalty were one and the same. Positionequaled authority and omniscience. He hadacclimated to a culture of safety where si-lence was confused with agreement. Toomany trade debate for what they perceive tobe harmony in the name of misdefined hu-mility. We watch people attempt debate, butinstead they end up spending energy in de-ferential diplomacy or political tiptoeing, los-ing real argument for the sake of niceness.

In too many companies, the pendu-lum of argument swings to one side(violence) or the other(niceness)—either of which trades in-tellectual diversity for isolating, egot-istical clashes or tranquil,

315/564

pseudoharmonious agreement. We’renot recommending less civility or under-standing. We are encouraging the right kindof argument. The willingness and ability tolisten has its place, and a crucial one at that.But progress requires more than listening. Itrequires us to passionately push ourselves toexplore every angle and go to intellectual ex-tremes that test our assumptions before wemake a decision.

Consider Alfred Sloan, the former chair-man of General Motors from 1937 to 1956. Ina meeting, Sloan shared his ideas with histop executives. Then he asked what everyoneat the table thought. They nodded in univer-sal agreement. In response to what he feltwas premature agreement, he said, “Then Ipropose we postpone further discussion ofthis matter until our next meeting to giveourselves time to develop disagreement andperhaps gain some understanding of whatthe decision is all about.” To keep vigorous

316/564

debate from turning violent requires an un-derstanding of 1) how intensity works, and 2)how it’s managed with humility—in us andothers. Let’s break down an actual conversa-tion from 1969 that reveals both.

managing intensity in the moment

In 1968, Richard Nixon was elected presid-ent of the United States. After his taking theoath of office, his administration proposed apackage that would cut government fundingfor National Educational Television by morethan half—a cut that would cripple what weknow today as the Public Broadcasting Sys-tem (PBS). On May 1, 1969, at the invitationof PBS executives, Fred Rogers (aka chil-dren’s television host “Mr. Rogers”) was in-vited to speak and submit a paper at a hear-ing chaired by Senator John Pastore fromRhode Island.

317/564

Rogers and his colleagues had approxim-ately fifteen minutes to make their case to acommittee that had, for all intents and pur-poses, made the decision to cut their fund-ing. With the future of PBS hanging in thebalance, imagine the pressure Rogers andthe PBS executives felt. For Rogers, his showand the lives of the children he touched everyday were at stake. For PBS, their future wason the line. If you think back to the climateof the United States at the time, it wasn’tsuch “a beautiful day in the neighborhood.”Within the previous year and a half, the fol-lowing events had occurred:

• Thirty-four thousand soldiershad died in the Vietnam War.Over 250,000 people protestedagainst the war in Washington,D.C.

• Three hundred forty Harvardstudents took over the

318/564

university’s administrationbuilding. Four hundred statetroopers and police officerscleared them out with tear gasand night-sticks.

• At Cornell University, a thirty-six-hour sit-in was held in thestudent union building by blackstudents with automaticweapons in fear that white stu-dents would attack the building.

• At Berkeley, a National Guardhelicopter dropped chemicals onprotesters. Nineteen Universityof California faculty were amongthose burned by the substance.

• Charles Manson and others com-mitted the “Helter Skelter”murders.

• The Civil Rights movement wasin full swing.

319/564

• The Supreme Court ordered anend to all school desegregation“at once.”

• Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., andRobert Kennedy had both beenassassinated one year earlier.

These were turbulent times. Money wastight. Emotions were high. Upon concludinghis introductory comments, the PBS execut-ive slid the microphone over to Mr. Rogers,seated on his right.

SENATOR PASTORE: (challenging) Allright, Rogers, you’ve got the floor.MR. ROGERS: (holding a document hewas asked to submit) SenatorPastore, this is a philosophicalstatement and would take about tenminutes to read, so I’ll not do that.

320/564

One of the first things that a childlearns in a healthy family is trust,and I trust what you’ve said,thatyou will read this. It’s very import-ant to me. I care deeply about chil-dren. My first—SENATOR PASTORE: (interrupting)Will it make you happier if you readit? (said sarcastically and with acondescending tone, to which theaudience and members of the pressnervously laugh)

If tension wasn’t high in the room before,it was now. Pastore’s early message wasclear: the answer is no, and you’re wastingmy time. Rogers was visibly stunned by theinterruption and sarcasm. That interruptionwas the perfect opportunity for the earlywarning signs of ego to undermine progress.

321/564

We’ll return to the rest of the interactionbetween Pastore and Rogers later, and we’llshow you how the conversation ends. Fornow, let’s look at dynamics that affect ourinteractions.

At that moment, Rogers had two thingsworking against him: 1) the surge of power ofhis own ego working to “protect” him, and 2)someone else’s closed mind. Let’s start withthe first: managing the power surge of ourown ego. To understand how ego affects ourintensity and intent behind a discussion, let’slook at what would likely be going on insideour head and heart if we were in Rogers’sshoes.

in a heartbeat

When we feel threatened, in the spacebetween two normal beats of our heart, ourresponse to a threat becomes physiological.Dr. John Gottman calls this escalation of

322/564

emotion “diffuse physiological arousal(DPA).” Dr. Daniel Goleman calls it the“neural tripwire.” Whatever it’s called, here’swhat happens: we start secreting adrenaline,chemicals cause our heart to race (up tothirty beats per minute faster), our heartcontracts harder, arteries constrict, blood isdrawn away from the periphery into the cen-ter of our body, blood supply shuts down toour gut and kidneys, and perspiration in-creases. None of this would be a problem ifwe were trying to run away from a predator.But we’re not. We’re in a conversation. Butthat’s not what our brain is telling us.

When we’re in DPA on the inside—andacting like we’re not on the outside—thingshappen in the brain that create tunnel vision,and we can’t hear all of what’s being said.This isn’t just figurative deafness; at its peak,DPA literally interrupts our hearing. At thatmoment, as much as we would wish other-wise, we can’t think as clearly as we normally

323/564

do. For example, have you been in an argu-ment and much later, perhaps on the drivehome, thought of the perfect comeback tosomething someone said? That’s becauseyou’ve had a chance to calm down and yourbrain is working again. But in those fight-or-flight moments, we don’t have access to ourbest thinking. Dr. Gottman’s research con-firms that idea.

One of his experiments involved observingcouples arguing. When the intensity pushedone of them into DPA, Gottman walked intothe room and told the couple that his record-ing equipment had broken. He asked them toput their discussion on hold for a fewminutes until the equipment was fixed.Nothing was really wrong with the equip-ment; as researchers, he and his teamwanted to see what would happen if thecouple were given a chance to “cool down.”As soon as their heart rates dropped closer toa resting heart rate, Gottman walked back

324/564

into the room, told them the equipment was“fixed,” and asked them to pick up their dis-cussion where they left off. The result?

In his words, “It was as if the couple had abrain transplant.” The tone of the conversa-tion was different. They were more authenticand less guarded—no longer making theirconflict personal or taking it so personally.They were more open and, as a result, be-came rational and level-headed. They werestill arguing, but their argument wasn’t af-fected by DPA.

The early warning signs of ego in aconversation indicate we’re in DPA.Ironically, if we feel we’re under at-tack and need to defend, DPA doesvery little to keep us “safe.” That begsthe question, what are comparison,seeking acceptance, showcasing anddefensiveness trying to protect? Theanswer is inside each of us.

325/564

the power station

Inside each of us we have what we call a“power station” that represents, among otherthings, our identity—who we are. Literally,ego means “me”—at least the “me” we’reconscious of. If we perceive that our identityis under attack, the intensity of our responseto protect “who we are” increases. Look atthe figure shown here. Most of us feel theneed to protect ourselves, with increasing in-tensity, when challenged in the followingareas (working from the outside circle to-ward the center):

326/564

ideas

• execution: challenges to thetactics or details of how we thinkwe should execute our strategy.

• strategy: challenges to what wethink we ought to do—our plansbased on our viewpoints.

• viewpoint: challenges to whatwe believe to be true or false,right or wrong, good or bad, andso on. Our viewpoints come from

327/564

our synthesis of information,either in a given situation or overtime. This synthesis leads to ourassumptions, which may showup in differences of opinionabout the meaning of data, anidea’s relevance, or the signific-ance or outcome of a situation.

identity

• values: challenges to the valueswe deem important, such as fair-ness, respect, integrity, honesty,kindness, and loyalty.

• character: challenges to whowe think we are—personally andprofessionally. A challenge couldbe anything from misperception(such as, “If you’re only a projectmanager, why do you need to be

328/564

involved in a strategy discus-sion?”) to outright, if unspoken,prejudice (based on race, reli-gion, gender, age, appearance,credentials, and so on).

To illustrate how our internal reactions aretriggered in a conversation, consider how atypical power station works.

warning: do not enter

There is a power station near our offices. It’slike any other building, fire hydrant, or mail-box in the backdrop of our daily surround-ings: for the most part it’s unnoticed. Oneday it caught our attention, and so out ofcuriosity we decided to get a closer look. Aswe neared the gate, we were quickly alertedthat this would be a restricted visit: heavy-duty locks, an eight-foot chain-link fence

329/564

laced with razor-sharp barbed wire, and adozen high-voltage warning signs guaran-teed it. As we walked toward the fence, thesteady hum of roughly 69,000 volts surgingthrough the lines and transformers wasunmistakable.

That hum represents enough power tolight up the entire city. At home, our familieswere using it to play video games, cook,clean, listen to music, and watch television.At our offices, people were using that powerto run air conditioners, lights, laptops, print-ers, and phones. One block away from thepower station there were no chain-linkfences, warning signs, or locked gates; theintensity of the electrical current was lowand usable. But from two yards away wewere warned to stay out. The difference wasthe sheer intensity of electrical power, andhow it was managed.

While walking around the chain-linkfence, we were more than happy to keep our

330/564

distance. There’s a certain amount of awe(and fear) associated with the power of elec-tricity—for us. But in fact, electrical power isextremely predictable—if you understandhow it works. If you violate the principles bywhich electricity operates, it quickly switchesfrom productive to fatal. Our lack of know-ledge about how electricity is controlled iswhat’s dangerous, not the power itself. Butknowing power’s potential—for both goodand bad—elevates our respect for it.

Our identity is like a power station; itpowers everything we say, think, and do.When we confuse challenges to our ideaswith challenges to our identity, the earlywarning signs appear as a way of saying,“Stay out.” Like electricity, the power of ouridentity is also extremely predictable if weunderstand how it works and what we can doto manage it.

Considering our personal power stationsof identity, think back to the conversation

331/564

between Senator Pastore and Fred Rogers.Consider the timing of Pastore’s sarcastic re-mark to Rogers. Not only was it condescend-ing and filled with excessive ego, it was de-livered at the very moment Rogers sharedwhat meant most to him: children. Rogerswas revealing who he was (his identity) andwhat he prized most (his values)—the centerof his power station. At that moment Pastoreattempted to trip Rogers’s wires with a con-descending comment that went straight toRogers’s identity. It may not have been con-scious on Pastore’s part, but conscious ornot, it had the same effect. How we manageand channel the intensity of our own internalpower station, and influence others’ as well,determines whether ego works for or againstus.

In managing that power, our response isdetermined by our perception of what we be-lieve is being questioned or threatened. Theweld between our identity and our

332/564

ideas is sometimes so tight that wedon’t separate the two, or we can’t sep-arate them easily when questions orperceived threats present themselves.But why is it so hard to separate the two andsee another point of view, particularly whentwo people’s viewpoints are opposed to eachother? Who better to answer that questionthan a trial attorney who argues opposingpoints of view every day. We asked GerrySpence, one of the most distinguished triallawyers in the United States. “We all have apersonal image that we must protect,” hesaid. “For example, I do not want to be seenby others, and particularly by myself, asweak, as ill advised, as less than worthy, asstupid, as someone who cannot be respected.I will do whatever is necessary to preservemy personal image of myself. The more fra-gile my self-image, the harder I will struggleto preserve it.”

333/564

One morning on the way to work welistened to an example of the confusionbetween who we are and what we do or haveaccomplished. Colin Cowherd on ESPN Ra-dio was talking about athletes who are pasttheir prime but having a difficult time seeingit themselves.

It’s tough for guys like Brett Favre,Shaq, and Randy Johnson. If youlisten to their quotes, they stillthink they’re an A-plus. BrettFavre: “We just need one moreguy.” Brett…you’re just not goodenough to be one more guy to getto the Super Bowl. Shaq: “It’s therefs. The refs are after me.” No,they’re not. You’re just heavier,slower, and thirty-six years old.Randy Johnson: “It’s a cycle [badgames, good games].” No, it’s not.You’re forty-two with thirty-seven

334/564

hundred innings, not countingspring training. It’s who you arenow. Sports are their identity. Forathletes their bodies are their ca-reers—are their identities. For mostof us, when youth leaves us, we stillhave our identity. For pro athletes,they lose theirs.

Cowherd’s point is an important lesson. Ifwe can’t distinguish who we are from whatwe do, what we have, or who we do it with,we won’t see past our titles or tenure in a dis-cussion. If we say to ourselves or others, “I’mthe vice president,” “I’m the CEO,” “I’m thedirector of public relations,” or even “I’m thecreative one” or “I’m the advocate for di-versity here,” then we’re parading our iden-tity, and take the conversation personally. Inresponse, others walk away (maybe notphysically, but certainly mentally and emo-tionally). In our devotion to progress, we

335/564

must be able to vigorously debate ideas andnot let identity get in the way.

Now let’s return to the 1969 PBS Senatehearings to see how Mr. Rogers kept hisidentity separate from his ideas, and how thetestimony turned out. After absorbing theinitial blow from Senator Pastore, Fred Ro-gers stayed anchored at the equilibrium ofhumility.

ROGERS: I’d just like to talk about it, if it’sall right—PASTORE:(interrupting again) All right,sir. Okay.

Rogers began to discuss the state of televi-sion, the role violence plays in television, andhow it undermines the emotional develop-ment and mental health of children. At first,Pastore appears to patronize, acting as if he’slistening, but his body language sends a dif-ferent message. But the transformation that

336/564

occurs is visible. Within minutes, Pastoreturns increasingly sincere, asking questionsabout Rogers’s program. Rogers continues:

ROGERS: This is what I give. I give an ex-pression of care every day to each child,to help him realize that he is unique. Iend the program by saying, “You’vemade this day a special day by just yourbeing you. There’s no person in thewhole world like you, and I like you justthe way you are.” And I feel that if we inpublic television can only make it clearthat feelings are mentionable and man-ageable, we will have done a great ser-vice for mental health. I think it’s muchmore dramatic to see that two mencould be working out their feelings ofanger—much more dramatic—thanshowing something of gunfire. I’m con-stantly concerned about what our chil-dren are seeing. And for fifteen years I

337/564

have tried in this country and Canada toprovide what I feel is a meaningful ex-pression of care.PASTORE: Do you narrate it?ROGERS: I’m the host, yes. And I do allthe puppets, and I write all the musicand I write all the scripts—PASTORE:(interrupting) Well, I’m sup-posed to be a pretty tough guy and thisis the first time I’ve had goose bumps forthe last two days.ROGERS: Well, I’m grateful, not only foryour goose bumps, but for your interestin our kind of communication. Could Itell you the words to one of the songs Ifeel is very important?PASTORE:(with sincerity) Yes.ROGERS: This has to do with that goodfeeling of control which I feel childrenneed to know is there. And it starts out,“What do you do with the mad that youfeel?” and that first line came straight

338/564

from a child. I work with children doingpuppets in very personal communica-tion with small groups.

Rogers then read lyrics teaching childrento know “that there’s something deep inside”each of us “that helps us become what wecan.”

PASTORE:(visibly moved) I think it’s won-derful. I think it’s wonderful. (pauses, ashe looks down the line at his fellow sen-ators) Looks like you just earned thetwenty million dollars.

Applause erupted.Good leaders keep their minds open.

Great leaders open the minds of oth-ers in the most intense circumstances,even against the odds of prejudice,politics, and habit. Despite Pastore’s earlycontempt, Rogers remained devoted to

339/564

progress. In the intensity of debate, humilityis like a two-way surge protector; it keeps usfrom making the debate personal or taking itpersonally. That keeps the energy of our per-sonal power stations focused on the debateand exchange of ideas instead of on protect-ing personal identities.

lego la-la land

Confusing identity with ideas can createproblems for a company culture as well.When Jorgen Vig Knudstorp took over asCEO of Lego, the company was losing hun-dreds of millions of dollars each year. Taskedwith turning Lego around, Knudstorp ran in-to a culture where the weld between identityand ideas was unexpectedly strong. Previ-ously, the company refused to create toyswith any hint of violence or fighting, despitethe fact that their primary target market wasboys. While that principle might sound noble

340/564

(and maybe it was), it went too far and got inthe way of the company’s progress. “WhenLego decided in 1999 to launch a Star Warsseries,” said Niels Sandal Jakobsen, a Legoexecutive, “getting the license from Lucaswas nothing compared to the internalstruggle over having the word war appearunder the Lego brand.” In other words, theword war was a violation of their identity or“who they were.”

In an article by Nelson Schwartz for For-tune, a senior toy designer told Schwartz,“People had personal relationships with ele-ments [certain Lego pieces]” and fought tokeep them alive. But the focus on their favor-ite Lego pieces kept them from realizingwhat the company needed to turn around.“The company was very focused on doinggood—that’s fine,” said Knudstorp, “but theattitude was ‘We’re doing great stuff forkids—don’t bother us with financial goals.’”When the line between identity and ideas

341/564

isn’t clearly drawn, our focus stays riveted tothe wrong area (such as keeping an elementalive versus keeping the company alive) andincreases resistance to change, making pro-gress painfully slow and unlikely. To thecredit of the Lego team who challengedthemselves to separate identity from ideas,Lego is now turning the corner profitably.

Confusing our identity with ideas explainswhy we can be five feet from each other in ameeting but still feel like we’re five milesapart. Humility closes that distance andkeeps debates vigorous by applying two keyideas to communication:

1. Maintain unconditional positiveregard.

2. Channel intensity from identity toideas.

1. maintain unconditional positiveregard

342/564

Regardless of what others say or how theyact, a genuine exchange of ideas isn’t pos-sible until people are sure that what is beingquestioned is their ideas, not their identity. Ifthat security is missing or in question, pro-gress stalls because minds close to questions,challenges, new ideas, differences, and so on.Our ability to create open minds is drivenlargely by what others feel our regard is forthem.

Carl Rogers was one of the most influentialpsychologists in American history. Alongwith Abraham Maslow, Rogers deservesmuch of the credit for the move away fromearly psychology that too often held the hu-man race in disregard. Instead, his theorieshold that normally, people are mentallyhealthy. Mental illness and other humanproblems are seen as distortions or excep-tions to that natural state. In a brief bio-graphy written by his daughter Natalie, the

343/564

last ten years of Rogers’s life were devoted toapplying his theories in areas of national so-cial conflict, and he traveled worldwide inthat effort. In Ireland, he brought togetherinfluential Protestants and Catholics; inSouth Africa, blacks and whites; in the Un-ited States, consumers and providers inhealth care. Which brings us to one of CarlRogers’s most important practical ap-proaches, and a deeply effective way to vigor-ously debate with humility—unconditionalpositive regard (UPR).

In Rogers’s work, UPR meant that every-one is worthy of respect and capable of con-tribution, even when they don’t particularlyact that way or even feel that way aboutthemselves. Rogers used UPR effectivelywith clients, and it’s equally valuable in ourbusiness relationships. UPR assures peoplewe’re not interested in changing their iden-tity, even if we are inviting them to changetheir mind. If people don’t feel it necessary

344/564

to protect their identity, they’re able to focuson debating ideas.

But as the word unconditional suggests,this isn’t a temporary state of mind that endsthe moment we judge someone isn’t“worthy” of our respect. It is categorical. Wealso can’t artificially put a time limit on UPRand say to ourselves, “Okay, I’ll do this forten minutes, but then it’s over.” We don’tknow when the other person will say, “Well, Iguess we’ll need to talk then.” But whenpeople’s history is working against them,viewing them with UPR can be hard to do.Maybe they’ve violated expectations morethan once. Maybe they’ve lost our trust.Maybe there is no reason to hope they’llchange. Whatever the reason, however legit-imate, we still try.

When we hold a person’s identity inUPR, it doesn’t mean we’re naive. Weshould enter every discussion with oureyes wide open, mindful of what we

345/564

perceive is actually happening now orhas happened in the past. We may notagree with others’ values, views,strategies, or ideas about execution.But they still deserve our respect ashuman beings. Although intellectuallysimple to grasp, UPR is not easy to apply inpractice. Of all his contributions to psycho-logy, Carl Rogers pointed to UPR as the onemost capable of shifting the momentum ofhuman dynamics.

a flight to UPR

While waiting for a flight from Houston toPhoenix, I (Steve) learned an important, un-expected lesson on the power of UPR. Per-sonally, I struggle with this concept despiteknowing its power. While talking with a col-league on my cell phone, out of the corner ofmy eye I noticed someone walking down theconcourse. It wasn’t hard to get a sense of

346/564

who he was by his appearance. This was oneguy you didn’t want to mess with. He hadtattoos up and down both arms and on hisneck. He had his hat on backward, twopierced ears, and two teardrop tattoos belowboth eyes. I’ve never been in a gang, but Iknew enough about gangs to know that theteardrops meant he had lost a family mem-ber or fellow gang member, most likely tomurder. The teardrops were his way of hon-oring those he had lost. In addition to hisoutward appearance, there was somethingabout him that didn’t feel particularlyfriendly. When I looked up again, he hadpassed by.

As I made my way to the gate, he wasstanding in the middle of the aisle leading tothe Jetway, popping his gum. With each pop,someone would look up and then away toavoid eye contact. I watched people go out oftheir way to avoid interacting with him ordrawing his attention. I could relate. A

347/564

moment later I received another phone calland was consumed in the conversation.While I was talking, I unconsciously mademy way toward the luggage carts and leanedagainst them. When I finished my call, Ilooked around to reorient myself and noticedhe was standing next to me.

As the pilots checked in, grabbed their pa-perwork, and walked down the Jetway, heanxiously asked out loud, “Are we supposedto get on the airplane?” I told him we stillhad about fifteen minutes before we wouldboard. “Oh,” he said with visible relief, “I’mjust a little uptight. This is my first time fly-ing.” I could have easily ignored him, walkedto the gate, and been about my business.Candidly, I thought about it. Instead, I askedhim for his ticket and explained the boardingprocess. At that moment, with no real reas-on, I had unconditional positive regard forhim—regard that wasn’t justified by his ap-pearance or by how well I knew him. I wasn’t

348/564

trying to practice anything. More than any-thing, I started out trying to be helpful andthen grew more curious. I asked him wherehe was going. “Home,” he said, “after sixteenyears in prison…Just got out a few hoursago.”

He told me what gang he was in and thathe had been in prison for drug trafficking,stolen cars, and other crimes. He describedhis life, his crimes, his regrets, his experiencein prison, and the changes he saw in himself.Much of his time in prison was spent in solit-ary confinement. We talked about otherthings. There was a free flow of conversationand openness. As others watched us talk,they seemed curious and surprised thatwe—two apparent opposites—would be talk-ing like we were. As I boarded the plane, weput our arms on each other’s shoulders, theclosest thing to an embrace I could imaginehe’d had for a long time.

349/564

I take no credit for being special here. Formy friend, his track record was carved on hisface and hard to ignore. UPR isn’t about ig-norance. I was aware of his past, but itwasn’t relevant for the quality of our presentconversation. UPR suspends judgment ofrace, religion, age, title, tenure, position, andpolitics to allow us something as simple andbasic as an open, honest discussion, onethat’s appropriate for the context. As I lookback on this experience, the great irony isthat he was just released from prison, andwhat I discovered is that as I held him inUPR, I was released from my own version ofa prison.

In the same way we’re tempted to la-bel people we don’t know, we labelpeople we do know. We decide we don’tlike them, what they do, how they look, howthey talk, what they stand for, and so on. We“know” how they’ll respond and what theirmotives are. We think we know whether

350/564

they’ll be open, critical, creative, judgmental,or hard to work with. We justify our preju-dices. But bias affects our regard and, con-sequently, our openness with each other.

It’s not easy to hold people in UPR whenthey have a history with us, we have baggageabout them, or the debate is hitting close tohome. If that’s the case, we have to workharder to suspend judgment about the intentbehind what they say or do. But the more in-timately we know someone, the more the linebetween identity and ideas blurs: they seemidentical. We have to work diligently to keepthem separate. We’ll never maintain UPR inevery circumstance with every person. Butone more moment is all we’re looking for. Ifenough moments add up, the momentum ofour collective conversations and debates inan organization will shift.

2. channel intensity from identityto ideas

351/564

Intensity in a discussion or debate can causeus to do one of two things: 1) turn awayfrom people and against their ideas, or 2)turn toward people and open our minds totheir ideas in pursuit of progress. How weturn, and what level of humility we turnwith, determines the fate of everything froma conversation to a career to a company’ssuccess. Disney CEO Bob Iger used the prin-ciple of turning toward people to ensure thesuccess of the Disney-Pixar merger.

“Here’s the scene: It’s 3 p.m., Wednesday,Jan. 25, in Sound Stage 7 on the studio lot ofWalt Disney Co. in Burbank,” wrote BrentSchlender of Fortune. “Five hundred cartoonpeople—artists, producers, voice artists,etc.—are jammed into the warehouselikebuilding, murmuring and fidgeting in anti-cipation. The deal is surprising because Pix-ar’s longtime distribution pact with Disneyfell apart in acrimony and is due to expire

352/564

after the release in June of Cars, a kaleido-scopic celebration of racing, Route 66, andlife in the slow lane. But in a startling twist,not only is Pixar becoming part of Disney,but the upstart studio is also taking over thecreative direction of Disney’s own flailing an-imation operations—the people in this veryroom! [It’s] as if Nemo swallowed thewhale.” When John Lasseter, Pixar’s im-mensely talented version of Walt Disneyhimself, entered the room to meet thiscrowd, applause exploded and went “on andon.”

What most interested us as we read Sch-lender’s story wasn’t the eruption of ap-plause for Lasseter but how the Pixar-Disneydeal finally happened in the first place. Aftermonths of frustrating negotiations andmurky intentions between Michael Eisnerand Steve Jobs, rumor had it that Eisner wasfinally on his way out as CEO of Disney. Las-seter was nervous about the deal with Disney

353/564

because the way the deal was currently struc-tured, Disney would own Pixar’s charac-ters—or in Lasseter’s words, “our children.”After years of developing at Pixar wonderfulcharacters (including Woody, BuzzLightyear, the Incredibles, Nemo) that hadthe same warmth and charm of Disney’searly characters, he wondered if the dealwould wipe out years of passionate work andsacrifice. “We have this precious entity thatis Pixar,” said Lasseter. “It’s like a living or-ganism, like we had found out a way to growlife on a planet that had never supported itbefore. We wondered if a deal like this wouldruin it all. But Steve [Jobs] said to Ed [Cat-mull, Pixar’s founder and president] and me,‘Get to know Bob Iger. That’s all I can say.He’s a good man.’”

As you can imagine, the intensity was high.The day it was announced that Bob Igerwould replace Eisner, Iger called Lasseter toarrange a meeting. Notice how Iger uses

354/564

humility to turn toward Lasseter and the ef-fect it had on both of them (in Lasseter’s ownwords):

Bob [Iger] came up to my home,had dinner with me and my wife,and met my kids. And right away Irealized this guy is different. It’snot that he was just saying the rightthings. You could feel that he meantit. I think the simplest thing wasthat he readily admitted what hedidn’t know and was comfortablewith that. But he said he did knowone thing: that animation is theheart, soul, and engine that drivesthis train called Disney, and that itwas broken, and that it needs to befixed. [I] was still nervous abouthow Pixar was going to change if itbecame a part of Disney. And Bobsimply said, “[Buying Pixar] is

355/564

going to be very expensive, so it’s inmy best interest to do everything Ican to keep it the same.” He was socalm and logical. No politics, nohidden meaning. And what I real-ized is that Steve [Jobs] was rightabout this guy. [emphasis added]

The more something means to us orthe closer it is to our identity, thegreater the chances we turn awayfrom people, or against their ideas. Inthis case, Iger’s humility to admit what hedidn’t know and Lasseter’s willingness tostay open and listen created an atmospherewhere there was no room for ego to inter-fere—this despite Iger’s being the CEO of acompany with the tradition and fame of Dis-ney, and Lasseter’s deep concern that hislife’s work might be at risk. With no interfer-ence, they created a “neutral zone” that clari-fied intent and established mutual devotion

356/564

to progress. That neutral zone gives everyonea chance to breathe, making it easier tochannel intensity away from identity and to-ward ideas. But how do you create a neutralzone? By preventing DPA (diffuse physiolo-gical arousal) from interfering, or by exitingit once it’s triggered.

shifting from identities to ideas

The four early warning signs of ego indicatewe’ve entered DPA territory. To escape thatterritory, we need to deepen understandingbefore we continue any discussion at all. Wecan’t have a meaningful discussion or debatein DPA; its push for us to fight or close downis too powerful. But as much of a relief as it isto escape DPA, escape by itself isn’t enough.Once we’re free, advancing a discussion—notmerely continuing it—requires the right levelof intensity.

357/564

In a debate of ideas, there is an optimallevel of intensity we call elevated physiolo-gical arousal (EPA). Words that start withthe letter e best describe EPA: engaged, en-thusiastic, eager, energetic, effective, ex-cited, and encouraged. We shift intensity toEPA by the questions we ask. For the balanceof the chapter, we give practical ways to exitDPA and create a neutral zone so that we canraise EPA. The goal of learning these skills isto embrace intensity, not avoid it.

language for exiting DPA

When people are in DPA, consider using an“opening statement.” The opening statementgot its name for two reasons: 1) its aim is toopen minds which have started to close, and2) it’s the first thing we say before we askquestions. Opening statements sound like

358/564

• “You might be right…”• “Even though that’s hard to hear,

I’m glad you’re sayingsomething…”

• “Okay. Let’s talk that onethrough.”

• “Say a little more about that.”

An opening statement doesn’t equal agree-ment. In one of our leadership sessions, amanager was practicing an opening state-ment in a conversation. The line from thescenario she read started with the phrase,“You might be right.” She stopped and saidto her colleagues with whom she was practi-cing, “I couldn’t use this as an opening state-ment. What if I don’t agree the other personis right?” She interpreted “You might beright” as “You are right.” She didn’t evenhear “might.” We’re afraid understandingequals agreement, and so we miss an oppor-tunity to signal our intent and open minds.

359/564

On the other hand, we were coaching aperson who said, “I love this [opening state-ment]. It disarms the other person by agree-ing with them right up front.” Opening state-ments aren’t intended to agree or disagree.They are intended to open minds for eitherdebate or understanding, depending on theneed. And they’re as much a reminder tokeep our own minds open as they are a wayof opening the minds of others. For example,let’s say you’re having an outsourcing/opera-tions streamlining discussion and someonesays, “There’s nothing an outside firm hasthat we don’t have in my department.Besides, consolidating our vendors, and eveneliminating some, is way too complicated.We can’t do it. That’s why I suggested wedon’t consolidate in the first place. Is no onelistening to me on this?”

To decide if understanding or debate isneeded, ask yourself what the message isbetween the words. In his own mind, this

360/564

person may have gone straight to the unem-ployment line; in less than a second he shif-ted from the neutral zone to DPA, and thediscussion switched from we to me. At thatmoment, it’s probably not passionate debatethat’s needed, but deepened understanding.What would you say?

1. Why can’t we do it? Give mesome justification.

2. You seem really upset about thedecision, and not listened to. Isthat right?

3. Maybe no one’s listening be-cause you’re being defensive.

4. I don’t want anyone feeling likethey’re not listened to. Let’s startwith why it doesn’t make senseto consolidate, and let’s look at itfrom every angle. I’d like to hearyour thoughts first.

5. If it’s too complicated, we defin-itely shouldn’t move forward.

361/564

What are you seeing that doesn’tmake sense?

Which one would be the best choice? Thatdepends on your relationship with this per-son and if you think they’re in DPA or EPA.They have an opinion and now—with uncon-ditional positive regard and devotion to pro-gress—you have choices.

In this situation, the early warning sign ofdefensiveness indicates we’re in DPA territ-ory. That means we need understanding. Asa result, options d and e are the most effect-ive. Debate can follow understanding, but ifwe move directly to debate at this point, wemake the situation worse. It’s also possiblethat a or c might work, but only with theright relationship and intent. Nearly everytime we show option b in our workshops,there’s a collective “Yuck!” Even though thechoice shows empathy, it feels like a touchy-feely technique.

362/564

language for engaging EPA

After we exit DPA and reestablish the neutralzone, we often need to raise the intensity of adebate to explore the best route toward pro-gress. Raising the intensity of a discussionwith EPA wakes us from routines and con-tentment. That invitation might start withstatements like

• “I like a lot of what you’re saying.The fact that I like it so much,combined with the fact thatwe’re all in agreement, is whatmakes me nervous. As I thinkabout it, here’s what’s missingfor me…”

• “To get a different point of view,I’m going to argue the oppositeand take it to an extreme just tosee if there’s any validity to it.

363/564

I’m not even totally sure I be-lieve this myself, but I want tomake sure we’re not falling inlove too fast with what soundslike a great idea.”

• “I like some of what you’re say-ing. They’re good points and Ithink we’d be making a big mis-take if we threw them out. Thereare also some things that don’twork at all for me, so you’ll haveto help me see my way clear onthem. For instance…”

These statements assume that you’re do-ing the inviting. But what if you’re not incontrol and debate isn’t “invited”? One of ourclients was faced with a tough situation. Herboss said, “We need to lay off half your salesteam. I need the list from you by Friday.”While there’s not always room for debate,options might include

364/564

1. “What? Where did this comefrom? Is laying people off theonly way we can compensate forsales being down?” (defensive)

2. “I can have a list to you by Fri-day. Just out of curiosity, could Iask a question? Cutting our salesstaff in half will definitely cutsome short-term costs, but that’salso going to have an impact onrevenue, and I’m unclear aboutthe trade-offs. I’d like to talk thisone through from differentangles, and if firing salespeopleis the best option, then as diffi-cult as it is, I’ll be the first to votefor it (and I understand youdon’t necessarily need my vote).Does that sound reasonable?(debate)

3. It seems like our first responseto any financial pressure is to

365/564

hire or fire. We may be gettingsucked into a habit here thatprevents us from achieving thekind of growth we’re looking for.Is a layoff the best approach?(debate)

4. I know it’s not easy for any of usto fire people. I guess there couldbe a lot of different reasons driv-ing that strategy. Can we godown a couple of different roadsand talk about what’s leading usto believe that’s the answer?(understanding)

Imagine the pressure and anxiety thatcomes from having to deliver bad news andfire people. Losing half your sales force couldjeopardize hitting your numbers and eventu-ally put your job at risk. That could push youimmediately out of the neutral zone and intoDPA, and then good questions won’t occur toyou. You might disagree with the decision,

366/564

but your best arguments will escape you ifyou slip into DPA.

Again, any choice depends on the relation-ship you have with the person and the con-text of the situation, including the topic, thetiming, or what’s at stake.

humility + curiosity

Debate in a company is as critical as financialcapital, but certain human dynamics inter-rupt debate and cost money. There are twotypes of intensity; one is productive, the oth-er destructive. When destructive intensityshows up, so do ego’s early warning signs. Ifwe don’t do something about those warningsigns, people go into DPA and debate stalls.So does progress. The guidelines in thischapter keep debates productive. If we applyUPR, use opening statements, and make ourintent clear, we can shift intensity from iden-tity to ideas. That shift keeps minds open,

367/564

keeps communication clear, and acceleratesthe exchange of ideas.

Finally, in the spirit of vigorous debate anddeepened understanding, humility promptsus to ask, “Who cares if I’m right at this in-stant, as long as we get it right eventually?”If we’re devoted to progress, it doesn’tmatter who has the answer, only thatthe answers are found. Finding those an-swers begins with humility but doesn’t endthere. Shifting conversations from state-ments and judgments to exploration requiresa relentless, focused application of thesecond principle of egonomics—curiosity.What type of curiosity we need most, andhow to get it and use it, is where we’reheaded next.

8: intensity and intent key points

368/564

• Because humility has the un-deserved reputation of beingquiet, people often mistake hu-mility for perpetual harmony.But harmony rarely comeswithout a little bit of turbulencefirst.

• In the pursuit of progress, therewill be intensity. We can’t accel-erate progress without clashes,differing points of view, and con-flicting judgments. But if wecan’t handle intensity, we don’tget diversity of thought.

• Vigorous debates require a heavyinvestment of humility to keepintensity productive, keep vigorfrom becoming violence, and,when necessary, keep us frombeing lulled into courteous butmeaningless exchange.

369/564

• In too many companies, the pen-dulum of argument swings toone side (violence) or the other(niceness)—either of whichtrades intellectual diversity forisolating, egotistical clashes ortranquil, pseudoharmoniousagreement.

• Progress requires more thanlistening. It requires us to pas-sionately push ourselves to ex-plore every angle and go to intel-lectual extremes that test our as-sumptions before we make adecision.

• When we’re in DPA on the in-side—and acting like we’re noton the outside—things happen inthe brain that create tunnel vis-ion, and we can’t hear all ofwhat’s being said. This isn’t justfigurative deafness; at its peak,

370/564

DPA literally interrupts ourhearing. At that moment, asmuch as we would wish other-wise, we can’t think as clearly aswe normally do.

• The early warning signs of ego ina conversation indicate we’re inDPA. Ironically, if we feel we’reunder attack and need to defend,DPA does very little to keep us“safe.”

• Inside each of us we have whatwe call a “power station” thatrepresents, among other things,our identity—who we are. If weperceive that our identity is un-der attack, the intensity of ourresponse to protect who we areincreases.

• The power station includes ouridentity and our ideas. Ideas in-clude execution, strategy, and

371/564

viewpoints. Identity includesvalues and character. In man-aging that power, our response isdetermined by our perception ofwhat we believe is being ques-tioned or threatened.

• Humility keeps debates vigorouswithout letting them become vi-olent by applying two key ideasto communication: 1) uncondi-tional positive regard (UPR),and 2) the separation of identityfrom ideas.

• Regardless of what others say orhow they act, a genuine ex-change of ideas isn’t possible un-til people are sure what’s beingquestioned is ideas, not identity.

• UPR assures people we’re not in-terested in changing their iden-tity, even if we are inviting themto change their mind. If people

372/564

don’t feel it necessary to protecttheir identity, they focus on de-bating ideas.

• When we hold a person’s iden-tity in UPR, it doesn’t meanwe’re naive. We should enterevery discussion with our eyeswide open, mindful of what weperceive is actually happening orhas happened in the past.

• It’s not easy to hold people inUPR when they have a historywith us, we have baggage aboutthem, or the debate is hittingclose to home. If that’s the case,we have to work harder to sus-pend judgment of the intent be-hind what they say or do. But of-ten the more intimately we knowsomeone, the more the linebetween identity and ideas blurs.

373/564

• Intensity in a discussion or de-bate can cause us to 1) turnaway from people and againsttheir ideas, or 2) turn towardpeople and their ideas in thepursuit of progress.

• The four early warning signs ofego indicate we’ve entered DPAterritory. To escape that territ-ory, we need to deepen under-standing before we continue anydiscussion at all, let alone engagein vigorous debate. We can’t de-bate in DPA.

• There is an optimal level of in-tensity in a debate we call elev-ated physiological arousal (EPA).A person in EPA is engaged, en-thusiastic, eager, energetic, ef-fective, excited, and encouraged.

374/564

curiosity

Genuine ignorance is profitable be-cause it is likely to be accompaniedby humility, curiosity, and openmindedness; whereas ability torepeat catch-phrases, cant terms,familiar propositions, gives the con-ceit of learning and coats the mindwith varnish, waterproof to newideas.

JOHN DEWEY

Ego’s four early warning signs lock the gateto learning and prevent access to the mindsof others. Humility unlocks that gate through“we, then me” (devotion to progress), “i’mbrilliant, and i’m not” (duality), and “onemore thing” (constructive discontent). Curi-osity is the catalyst that freely explores theterritory of ideas, perceptions, biases, andbeliefs behind that unlocked gate.

Curiosity works with humility to extin-guish the four early warning signs of ego by1) placing the pressure of comparisonsquarely on ideas, not people, 2) unboltingdefensive positions, 3) reopening the box ofknowledge that closes when brilliance isshowcased, and 4) inviting someone seekingacceptance to ask questions rather than goalong. The good news is that most everyoneis curious, so we have a head start. But towhat degree we’re curious is another ques-tion, and the answer is vital in determiningthe value we create.

376/564

sparked or sparking?

There are two types of curiosity: state andtrait. State curiosity—the kind most peoplehave—waits on something to spark it.Whether it’s the technical ease and simplicityof a Segway, the majesty of the Taj Mahal,Michelangelo’s breathtaking art in SaintPeter’s Basilica, Stephen Hawking explainingthe universe in laymen’s terms, a magician’strick, or how Google searches the world forjust the information we need in 0.17 seconds,our curiosity is sparked. But state curiosity istemporary. Quickly after we’re removed fromthe state that sparked our curiosity (thequestion, the experience, the perplexity), ourcuriosity fades; it lies dormant until the nexttime it’s sparked. Trait curiosity, on the oth-er hand, doesn’t wait to be sparked. It doesthe sparking. The central difference betweenthe two is illustrated by Sir Richard Branson.

377/564

Branson—knighted by the queen of Eng-land in 1999 for “services to entrepreneur-ship”—is the handsome, adventurous entre-preneur of the Virgin Group. As outsiders,most of us wonder what people like Bransonare really like when they’re off camera andaway from the microphone. Here’s onefirsthand story. An associate of ours wasboarding a Virgin flight from London to L.A.when he noticed Branson on the same flight.Upon reaching 10,000 feet—when the pingrevealed it was “safe to move about the cab-in”—Branson popped out of his seat andwalked straight to the back of the plane. Hechatted with every kind of passenger—par-ents, children, teenagers, adults, busi-nesspeople, and so on. He didn’t ask peopleabout the fare they paid—never about price.Instead, Branson asked how they felt abouttheir seats, food, movies, games, service, andthe children’s goodie bag. He was curious not

378/564

necessarily about technical travel facts butabout what they were experiencing.

No one prompted the multibillionaire toget out of his comfortable seat and spend hisflight time talking with guests. His dash tothe back of the plane didn’t appear at allsparked by a superficial or egotistical motiveto be noticed. In fact, the person we talked tosaid he was doing it as discreetly as someonewith Branson’s fame could. He was incred-ibly, insatiably curious. He still is. Bransonflies Virgin at least once a month to stay intouch with the experience. And Branson’sbrand of curiosity is contagious. As a tentacleof Virgin’s curiosity, a page on the company’swebsite under “Got a big idea?” invites any-one to share an idea. Here’s the condensedversion of the first few steps:

1. So, you’re onto a winner?We’re always looking for the

next BIG thing. If you have a

379/564

fantastic idea for us, then we’re allears. We’re always on the lookoutfor fresh ideas to improve our cur-rent companies and to createbrand-new ones. Especially if itbuilds on our exciting businesses orcreates brand-new ones. All ourVirgin companies live and breatheour core brand values and all newproposals or ideas need to reflectthese values. [Those core values arethen listed.] So if you think you’vean idea that fits the bill and has thepotential to become a major globalbusiness, we would love to hearfrom you.

2. So where are we looking forthose winners?

We’ve got many different busi-nesses across the world. To make it

380/564

all easier and clearer we like togroup them into areas. [Those areasare then listed.] These are the areasthat we are keen to develop in thefuture and where we believe ourwinning ideas are currently hiding.

3. Getting your message acrossClick here for a contact list. If

your idea does not fit with our cur-rent companies but it is fantastic inits own right, you can send it toCorporate Development at VirginManagement to the address in Sec-tion 6 and we’ll be happy to reviewit. (We should have it back to youin 3 weeks.)

We cruised hundreds of websites, includ-ing Virgin’s competitors’, and found nothinglike it. Not only does Virgin make it easy for

381/564

you to get access to share your idea, the com-pany’s curiosity and warmth radiatethroughout the invitation. Even strangers,with perhaps even stranger ideas, are treatedlike invited guests. But the question mightbe, “So what? What’s the payoff with thatlevel of curiosity?”

Over the last thirty-five years, Virgin hascreated businesses in music megastores, airtravel, mobile, financial, retail, entertain-ment, Internet, drinks, rail, hotels, and leis-ure, with around two hundred companies inover thirty countries. According to nationalsurveys, Branson is the most admired busi-nessman in the UK, along with being numerouno as a role model for students, as thechoice for London mayor, as a father, andhe’s the number two choice for prime minis-ter among youth, after Tony Blair. In busi-ness, the market always gets the final vote.Here’s how the market votes about the

382/564

“professional, but uncorporate” VirginEnterprises:

• 100 percent brand awareness inUK, 96 percent in Australia,

• 56 percent in USA number onebrand to represent Britain in thefuture

• number one most respectedbrand among men

• second most “responsible” brand(after Body Shop)

• Forbes’s fourth best marketedbrand in the world

• more trusted than the Bank ofEngland

The name Virgin came from a femalefriend who, in starting the company withBranson, commented, “We’re all virgins atbusiness.” That idea never appears to have

383/564

been lost on Branson or his company. Bran-son’s title of chief executive officer doesn’t dojustice to the culture he’s created. A more fit-ting title would be chief curiosity officer. “Mybiggest motivation?” commented Branson.“Just to keep challenging myself. I see life al-most like one long University education thatI never had—every day I’m learningsomething new.” Everyone’s curiosity issparked by different things at varying times(that’s state curiosity), but trait curiosity sep-arates the most curious people we knowfrom everyone else.

openness + order = ?

Highly curious people like Branson are dif-ferent than you might imagine. Think ofsomeone you know who’s very open and wholoves to engage and explore: the person isadventurous, flexible, artistic, unen-cumbered, and energized by new ideas. Now

384/564

think about someone you know who’s the op-posite—organized, orderly, analytical, logic-al, structured, and methodical, witheverything under the sun in its proper place.Which of the two would you put your moneyon to have the highest level of curiosity? As itturns out, the answer is neither.

According to decades of research by Dr.David Beswick at the University of Mel-bourne, people with trait curiosity have arare, unique blend of openness and order.“They have a sufficient sense of security intheir world to put their cognitive maps injeopardy,” he said, “without experiencing de-bilitating anxiety.” That blend createsheightened curiosity and the security to workin the intellectual space “belonging at theborder between chaos and cosmos.” At firstglance there appears to be a conflict betweenorder and openness. In fact, when psycholo-gists evaluate personality traits, there is anegative correlation between the two. The

385/564

“orderly” aren’t open enough and resist dis-ruption to their systematic approach or ar-rangement of things. The “open” undervalueorder, and their curiosity is too carefree, eas-ily accepting change without enough thoughtof the impact.

When order overrides openness, curiosityloses freedom to explore. If left to opennessalone, curiosity loses structure and purpose.The highest concentration of curiosityisn’t created by adding an ounce of or-der to a pound of openness, or viceversa. Trait curiosity requires equalparts of both. With the right mixture ofopenness and order, “questions will beasked, calculations will be made, things willbe turned over and looked under, there maywell be much wondering and doubting,” saysBeswick, “but after the ball has been keptbouncing for a sufficient length of time somesort of resolution will be reached and…a neworder of representation of the world is

386/564

developed.” Keeping “the ball” of curiositybouncing long enough allows time for us tosee the world from a slightly different angle.

just one more question?

People with trait curiosity don’t see theworld differently from the rest of us everyminute of the day, but they do see it differ-ently for a few minutes. In those minutescuriosity might catch a glimpse of a subtledifference in what appears routine to every-one else. For example, in the middle of July(Steve recalls) our air conditioner quit work-ing. We couldn’t figure out what was wrong,so we called a repairman. Actually, we endedup calling two of them, which is the point ofthis story.

The first person showed up and after thirtyminutes was ready to leave. He showed mehis clipboard with twenty items he routinelychecks when diagnosing air conditioners. All

387/564

the boxes on his checklist were checked. “Iadded more Freon to your system,” he said,“so that should take care of it. I couldn’t findanything else wrong.” While writing thecheck, I expressed my relief that the problemwas only low Freon. “Oh, it wasn’t low onFreon,” he replied, “but I couldn’t find anyother problems, so I figured that was prob-ably it. If this doesn’t work you’ll probablyneed a new air conditioner.” The next day itwas still ninety degrees inside our house, so Icalled the same company—but asked them tosend a different technician. They assured methe first person was competent, experienced,and trusted. They even pulled the techni-cian’s report and verified that he had accur-ately completed the twenty-item checklist.She noted that “he added Freon to your airconditioner.” I insisted on someone else.

The next repairman arrived wearing thesame company uniform, driving the samecompany van, and clutching a clipboard with

388/564

an identical twenty-item checklist. He effi-ciently followed the same diagnostic steps,putting check marks in the boxes as he com-pleted each item. But then somethinghappened that separated him from the firsttechnician. As I walked downstairs to myhome office, I noticed he was standing infront of the furnace—staring at it. Fifteenminutes later as I headed back upstairs, I no-ticed he was still staring, from a slightly dif-ferent place. With my own curiosity piqued, Iasked him what he was doing. “I don’t thinkyour problem has to do with what’shappened to the air conditioner since youbought the home,” he said. “I think it’s whathappened to it before you bought the home.”Then he cut into the casing of the furnace tohave a look around. What he discoveredfixed the problem.

When the construction workers built ourhome, they used the furnace to stay warm inthe winter, but since the ductwork wasn’t

389/564

complete, the casing didn’t keep out sawdustand debris. Before finishing our home, theydidn’t clean the screen that protected theevaporator coil before they encased the fur-nace. The sawdust and debris made it im-possible for the coil to work. If the construc-tion workers hadn’t used the furnace the waythey did, the problem wouldn’t have oc-curred. This was the first time he had seenthis problem. He cleaned the screen, weldedthe casing shut, and soon our house was acool seventy-two degrees.

The point here is the twenty items thatrepresented “best practices,” no doubt accu-mulated over years of service repair calls,didn’t fix my air conditioner. The secondrepairman’s trait curiosity added a twenty-first box. Fixing my problem required abreak with routine questions; the mysterywasn’t going to be solved by “procedure” orstate-induced curiosity from a twenty-itemchecklist. According to research on curiosity

390/564

done by Mary Dawn Ainley, also at theUniversity of Melbourne, the first factordriving trait curiosity is a desire to “experi-ence something unique in order to achieveunderstanding.” The second repairmanstared and wondered, went back in time inhis mind’s eye, and reached past the check-list to experience something unique.

In “doing his job,” he easily could havecompleted the same diagnostic checklist and,with the same result as the previous servicecall, sold me a new air conditioner. Iwouldn’t have known better, and he wouldhave been perfectly justified in doing so. Iasked why he kept trying. “I’ve alwayswanted to figure things out,” he said. “I wantto know how things work, and why theydon’t. I just have to keep going untilsomething’s fixed.” That fix is the main pur-pose of curiosity. The word curiosity is re-lated to the words cure, care, careful, andaccuracy. In other words, curiosity drives us

391/564

to accurately understand what’s happening,with the intention of finding an appropriatecure. But sometimes our desire to cure or fixsomething is the very thing that gets in ourway.

what’s the cure for the commoncure?

Our zeal for answers dulls curiosity. As anexample of how our initial impulses get inthe way, consider a lesson from preschoolers.Imagine that you’re only four years old, andan adult offers you your favorite treat. Justbefore you bite into it, the deal getssweetened: if you can wait just fifteenminutes to eat your treat while the adult runsan errand, you’ll get two treats when theadult comes back. In other words, in as littleas fifteen minutes you double your return.What would you do? Remember, you’re only

392/564

four years old. Your answer may have majorimplications for your future.

Between 1968 and 1974, Walter Mischel ofStanford University conducted a series ofstudies on what makes it hard or easy forchildren to delay gratification. One simpleexperiment included four-and five-year-oldpreschoolers and a marshmallow. Mischelbrought each child into a room, one at atime, and offered the child a marshmallow.But before he allowed the children to eat themarshmallow, he told them if they waited fif-teen minutes for him to return, they wouldget two marshmallows instead of one. OnceMischel left the room, he and his team recor-ded the behaviors of the children.

For some children, there was no spacebetween stimulus and response. The mo-ment the door closed—gulp—the marshmal-low disappeared. Some children fought thetemptation as long as they could, taking tinybites off the bottom, hoping their nibbles

393/564

wouldn’t be seen. But their efforts to resistwere in vain and they eventually succumbed,happily eating the rest of the marshmallow.A few children pushed the boundaries as faras they could and licked the marshmallow,apparently reasoning that licking wasn’ttechnically eating and so was allowed. Butalas, licking led to eating.

On the other hand, some children kepttheir distance using different strategies—ig-noring the marshmallow’s pleas to be eaten.A few of the children pretended the marsh-mallow wasn’t there and wandered aroundthe room. Others sat in front of the marsh-mallow with their faces buried in theirhands, occasionally peeking between theirfingers to see if the marshmallow had es-caped. Others talked to themselves as if therewas an imaginary friend in the room. Onegirl sang nursery rhymes to take her mind offthe temptation, and then crawled under thetable and fell asleep.

394/564

Mischel conducted follow-up studies onthese children for twenty years after the ini-tial impulse control study. Those with thewillpower to outlast fifteen minutes oftemptation and wait for two marshmallowswere educationally more successful andemotionally intelligent. They showed betterskills under stress, embraced challenges, andpursued goals rather than giving up in theface of difficulties. They were more confid-ent, dependable, and willing to take moreinitiative than those who ate the marshmal-low. They scored an average of 200 pointshigher out of a possible 1,600 on the Schol-astic Aptitude Test (SAT) college entranceexam.

Warning: Before you run for a bag ofmarshmallows to do your own experiment,we recommend you don’t try this at home. Ifyour child eats the marshmallow before thefifteen-minute mark, you may slip into astate of depression as your dreams for your

395/564

offspring vanish before your eyes. Trust us;we know by experience. On second thought,maybe you should try it. At least you’d knowwhether to start a college fund or take themoney and go on an exotic vacation.

is there a marshmallow in themeeting?

As children, we find temptations overpower-ing. But gaining control over impulses isevidence that we’ve matured, right? So itwould seem. However, our ability to with-stand temptation as adults isn’t much better;just the “treat” has changed. The venue forthe Mischel-like research is a company’s con-ference room. The business version of amarshmallow is an idea (a cure, an answer, asolution) that someone thinks will make adifference. Our impulse, even as adults, is tojump on the idea ASAP because we want res-ults now; we want a fast answer followed by

396/564

flawless execution. But in pursuit of thoseresults, consider the following from Dr. Tho-mas Gilovich of Cornell University, who hasresearched decision making and behavioraleconomics since 1981: “We humans seem tobe extremely good at generating ideas, theor-ies, and explanations that have the ring ofplausibility.”

Evidence backs his observation; everysixty minutes 101 new patents are appliedfor, 2,265 new businesses are started daily inthe United States alone, and on average32,000 new products are introduced annu-ally. But there’s a second part to Gilovich’sfindings: “We may be relatively deficient,however, in evaluating and testing our ideasafter they are formed.” Within the next fiveyears over 90 percent of new ventures willclose their doors and 80 percent of newproducts will fail—most within weeks afterlaunch. As we mentioned earlier in the book,nearly 50 percent of decisions and new

397/564

projects inside companies fail to deliver any-where near expectations.

Every day new products are launched, pro-jects initiated, strategies implemented, andobjectives set. Too many turn out to be lessthan we hope for. Some people say the reas-on for the poor results is a lack of execution.Other arguments include “Hey, at least we’retrying,” or “We’re throwing stuff against thewall, seeing what sticks,” or “Nothing ven-tured, nothing gained.” We don’t lack theability to build, or courage to try. Researchsuggests we don’t lack imagination, ambi-tion, or ideas. We lack prebuild, prelaunch,preexecution curiosity. A failure of curiosityis not the only factor, but it’s a major one.Like those children who patiently waited fora better return, when we use discipline andpatience to resist our impulse to run with anidea at first glance, we give curiosity time tobreathe. In turn, we get better results. Butrestraint is harder than it sounds.

398/564

The problems we face every day pressureus to do something—and we should. But thequestion of what we do and how fast de-serves more attention than it typically gets.When ego is out of balance, we think weknow more than we actually do, and thatblocks curiosity. As a result, we invest time,people, and money before we should. For ex-ample, a division sales manager had an ideaabout how training could solve a problem hefaced with his sales team. What follows is atranscript of an interview between that man-ager and Dr. Rosabeth Moss Kanter of Har-vard Business School:

KANTER: What resources did you need toproceed with your idea for a sales train-ing program?MANAGER: None…I just wrote out theideas in a training process.KANTER: What about information?

399/564

MANAGER: I don’t know what you mean. Ihad an idea, and we developed thetraining.KANTER: Was anyone opposed or critical?MANAGER: The manager of a neighboringdepartment.KANTER: How did you handle thisopposition?MANAGER: I told that manager that thiswas not his business.KANTER: Did you win over the “critics”?MANAGER: No.KANTER: Did you hit any roadblocks orlow points when it looked as if the wholething would flop?MANAGER: I never thought about a flop.

Part of his last comment reveals the un-derlying problem: “I never thought…” Pro-posed “solutions” saturate business conver-sations, which is why we’re used to theirpresence and they go unnoticed. Even

400/564

outside of work, we’re immersed in advicefrom all sides of society—politics, religion,community, television, radio, Internet, andso on—and the advice is usually well-inten-tioned. But whether we’re trying to eliminateactivity that no longer seems effective, createvalue by doing something we’ve never tried,or increase or reduce the level at which we’recurrently doing something, those cures intheir infancy need investigation before theyneed imagination or execution. With unlim-ited ideas and limited resources, innovationdemands homework first, execution second.

what’s our homeworkassignment?

In the now famous ABC Nightline report onthe product design firm IDEO, Ted Koppeland crew created the perfect conditions forhomework to be ignored. Nightline gaveIDEO an idea; they asked them to redesign

401/564

the grocery shopping cart on national televi-sion. Koppel’s staff could think of no otherproduct that was used by the public so regu-larly, and yet was so remarkably absent in-novation since its invention. It made for agreat show and a beautiful new cart, but thereason it makes this chapter is how IDEO re-sponded to the restrictions Nightline im-posed on the process. For starters, thetimeline allowed was only five days, a reduc-tion of about 75 percent of a typical timeline.IDEO had no say in the choice of the project.The entire process was filmed for broadcaston national television. There was nowhere torun, hide, or put on their best face.

What impressed us most was a “small” de-cision they made early. With 75 percent ofthe normal development timeline gone, itwould be tempting to say, “Look, we have aninsane timeline, so let’s skip our typical re-search phase. We’re talking about a shoppingcart anyway, right? We’ve all used

402/564

one—maybe even just last night. We’ve allprobably ridden in one, so we know them in-side and out. Let’s get creative, brainstormdesign possibilities, and build it!” But despitehow well they knew shopping carts, they un-derstood that what they “knew” could be a li-ability. “I don’t have a problem getting thepeople in our company to be curious aboutthings they know nothing about,” said onehealth care executive to us. “It’s when theyknow a lot about something that they closetheir minds.”

With minimal time, IDEO insisted on de-voting time up front to exploring the entirereality, not just the one in their heads; theytalked to customers, store owners, baggers,repair people, and manufacturers. By lookingaround, taking pictures, asking questions,and listening, they discovered unanticipateddifferences that led to genuine innovation.“It is precisely because the unexpected joltsus out of our preconceived notions, our

403/564

assumptions, our certainties,” said PeterDrucker, “that it is such a fertile source of in-novation.” Because they were anxious to bejolted out of their assumptions, the results ofIDEO’s efforts were remarkable. In fact,business schools around the world refer toIDEO’s shopping cart project as the epitomeof the modern-day mechanics for innovation.

If you’re not familiar with the makeover ofthe shopping cart, it was impressive: wheelsthat turn 360 degrees so you don’t have tolift up the rear end of the cart in a tight spot;removable handbaskets that stack into metalframes to reduce cart theft and increaseshopping ease; a safer design to preventchild injuries; a lighter, more compact framefor storage; and major improvements allaround. “Wherever you are, look around.The only thing not designed by somebody isnature,” said IDEO founder David Kelley ashe stood in the middle of the produce sectionof a grocery store. “So the trees are not

404/564

designed by us, but everything yousee…every light fitting, every flower vase,every scale, every stand for fruit, everythingdesigned has to go through this process. Andthey can do a better or worse job of innovat-ing or improving, but everything that is de-signed has to go through this process.”

Kelley’s point isn’t reserved for productdesigners and engineers. If we look aroundour companies, every system, structure, pro-cess, strategy, project, or initiative is theproduct of someone’s design. Whatever in-novation process we use and no matter whatwe design, the level of curiosity has a pro-found impact on the brilliance of theoutcome.

four ways to spark curiosity

Because the idea “innovate or die” is etchedinto the mind of every executive and man-ager, virtually every company has processes

405/564

dedicated and designed for innovation andimprovement—whether it’s Six Sigma, TQM,decision making, problem solving, criticalthinking, creativity, or something else.Whatever the process, its value depends onthe quality of information that flows from itsconversations. A director of a Fortune 500company’s Six Sigma program told us, “Weknow what boxes to check off. The process isclear, well-defined, and we know what we’redoing—technically.” He sighed. “But it’s thestuff that happens between humans—in the‘white spaces’ of those boxes—that makesthose boxes actually work.”

No matter how clear and well-ordered thesteps of a process, the level of curiosity driv-ing the conversations inside those steps candecide the value created by each step. In thewhite space of those boxes, curiosity isprocess-neutral. What follows are practicesto “jolt us out of our assumptions” and in-crease the concentration of curiosity in the

406/564

exchange of ideas and otherwise routine con-versations. That curiosity can overcome theliability of what we know—to fluently turnover stones, to open new pages, to keep theball bouncing so we notice the small open-ings for insight that pass us by every day. Be-fore we explore those practices, one note ofwarning is necessary: merely asking ques-tions doesn’t mean we’re curious. “An estim-ated forty percent of all questions are reallystatements in disguise,” said William Isaacs,founder of the Dialogue Project at MIT.“Another forty percent are judgments in dis-guise. Only a small percentage of ‘inquiries’are questions.”

The number of questions we ask doesn’t byitself indicate how curious we are. Curiosityis measured in large part by the willingness itcreates in others to give access to what theyreally think and to embrace different pointsof view—views that may be unlike those theycurrently hold. Remember, the perceived

407/564

intent behind our questions has a major im-pact on the ceiling of curiosity. If others aresuspicious of our questions, we should makeour intent explicit: we have nothing to hide.Here are four ways to raise the level of curi-osity in daily conversations when we “jumpout of our seat and head to the back of theairplane”:

1. What do we mean? (clarity)2. What are we seeing? (context)3. What are we assuming?

(assumptions)4. What does that lead to?

(consequence)

Remember, a characteristic of trait curios-ity is that it combines openness and order.These questions are designed to provideboth—to give structure to our curiosity, whileat the same time opening minds. If we getgood at using these questions to induce a

408/564

state of curiosity, it’s more likely over timewe’ll develop trait curiosity.

1. what do we mean? (clarity)

The first way to spark curiosity focuses onthe basic unit of language: a word. Wordscan either spark our curiosity or, if we’re notcareful, lull us to sleep. For example, we tookfive hundred managers and executives fromthe same organization and separated theminto 125 teams, with four people per team.Then we wrote down the word “leadership”on a whiteboard and gave them ninetyseconds individually, without talking to oneanother, to write down as many words asthey could that captured what “leadership”meant to them. Next we asked them to com-pare their lists and see how many words theymatched as a team. A word was only con-sidered a match if all four team membershad listed it. The winning total?

409/564

One.Only one team had one match. The other

124 teams had a grand total of zero matches.We’ve conducted this exercise for years inover forty countries using different words,such as trust, strategy, vision, risk manage-ment, branding, customer satisfaction, andeven easier words like pizza, family, anddog. On a good day, a team will have one ortwo matches—and only on the easiest words.The mismatch is both good news and badnews.

After completing this exercise in one ofour leadership sessions, a manager raisedher hand. “I think it’s a good thing we didn’thave any matches,” she proudly exclaimed,“and I’ll sit here all day long with nomatches if it shows we have diversity.” She’sright. The good news is that there’s no doubtwe all see things differently, and even lessdoubt that we need diversity. But what goodis diversity if we can’t access it because we’re

410/564

not curious enough about something assimple as the meaning of a word? The badnews is we think everyone else knows whatwe mean. “The danger in communication,”said George Bernard Shaw, “is the illusionthat it has been accomplished.” We throwwords and acronyms around as if we’llachieve universal understanding, but mean-ing is very personal—and varied.

When we assume we’re clear about whatsomeone means, we may not be as clear aswe think. For instance, as consultants we hada conversation with a group of executiveswhere phrases like “better alignment withour vision” and “we need to be a leader in in-novation” were commonplace. At one point,someone said, “It doesn’t take much to seethe confluence of outside factors driving im-portant change in some of our traditionalbusinesses.” Heads nodded in agreement.What? Phrases like these were skipping un-noticed across the surface of a sixty-minute

411/564

meeting. We were unclear what they meant.“What do you mean when you say ‘betteralignment with our vision’?” we asked.“What does it mean to you to be a ‘leader ininnovation’?” The executives had to stop andthink about what they meant. It became clearthey weren’t exactly sure either.

One of the most challenging tasks man-agers face is to get everyone playing from thesame sheet of music, whether that song isstrategy, vision, alignment, or execution. Inan effort to synchronize, many leaders de-fault to repeating a message over and over,hoping it eventually sinks in. While the in-tent is sincere, and repetition may get themessage repeated, the message itself rarelygets any clearer. “The more an organizationknows about a term or concept relevant to itsbusiness,” said Thomas Davenport in hisbook Information Ecology, “the less likely itis to agree on a common definition of it.”

412/564

Repetition isn’t the answer. We said earlierthat highly curious people notice subtle dif-ferences that pass by most of us unnoticed.Words are one of those subtleties. Askingsomething like “When we say we need betteralignment with our vision, what do we mean,specifically?” sounds simple—maybe evensimplistic. Given their simplicity, it’s surpris-ing how rarely such questions surface. Curi-osity about words is a level of detail we missbecause it is so simple, and sometimes wethink curiosity should be reserved forgrander questions and more sophisticatedprocesses. When it comes to curiosity, thedevil is in the details.

2. what are we seeing? (context)

The second way to spark curiosity is to ex-plore what’s going on around us that affectsour decisions. Context is an important partof every situation. In a typical meeting,

413/564

someone will share an idea. Rather than talkabout the idea itself, exploring context re-quires we suspend our discussion of the ideato get as much information as we can thatsurrounds it. In doing so, we’re turning theidea over to exploration, not doubt or disap-proval. With an idea in mind, explorationeither validates the idea as strong or exposesits weaknesses. Our idea might be “cool” forcool’s sake, for instance, but miss marketneeds completely.

The cofounder of iRobot, Helen Greiner,developed for the army a mine-clearing ro-bot named Ariel that involved dazzling tech-nologies. When the demonstration of the “fu-ture” for the army was over, the client’s reac-tion was, “Uh, cool…but it doesn’t do whatwe need it to do.” The lack of focus on thecontext of the market earned iRobot an earlyreputation for being interested in doing “in-novation for innovation’s sake.” To dispelthat reputation, iRobot balanced curiosity

414/564

about technology with curiosity about mar-ket needs. In an interview with JenaMcGregor of BusinessWeek, Greiner reflec-ted on the experience. “After Ariel, I was in-vited to an Army Rangers demonstration andbrought another prototype to solicit inputfrom soldiers. That input led to the design ofour Pack-Bot, a bomb-disposal robot whichhas been credited with saving the lives ofdozens of soldiers. We’ve delivered five hun-dred of them,” said Greiner. “Innovation inour field can lead us in the wrong directionto the most exotic creation. I learned to talkto users and get input before designing.”We’ve been conditioned to quickly move todesign after we have an idea. Here’s whereimpulse control can help. It keeps us fromskipping past a deep enough understandingof the context that affects the very design ofour ideas.

Releasing ideas to explore context firstmight feel counterintuitive, but it isn’t

415/564

counterproductive. We can explore contextby asking questions like “What are we seeingthat leads us to believe we need to hire a full-time director of learning and reinforce-ment?” Once the question is asked, writedown the answers that surface and don’t stopat the first one or two. Once we’ve capturedall the answers to the question, argue the op-posite: could we, or anyone else, make a casethat anything on that list isn’t true? Whatevidence proves what we’re seeing or hearingis true or untrue? Then we can invite peopleto look at the list and challenge our assump-tions. As a follow-up question, we can askwhat we don’t know about what we just lis-ted. That usually creates its own valuablediscussion for uncovering added context.

Exploring context surrounding an ideamay seem intellectually simple, but emotion-ally it’s more challenging. In one study, re-searchers found groups would rather supportthe ideas they already have instead of

416/564

examining those same ideas. The strength oftheir bias depends on the team’s early prefer-ences. The earlier they form conclusionsabout an idea, the more they only want toconsider information that supports theirconclusions. In other words, if we search forinformation to prove our point, we’ll excludeevidence to the contrary, either by not seeingit because we’re looking for what we want tosee or by dismissing it if we do see it.

In the process of asking questions, the fourearly warning signs might show up at anytime. For example, if we see people seekingacceptance by simply going along withwhatever is said, argue against what you justsaid. A true test of curiosity is the ability totake another point of view with as much in-terest and intensity as we take our own. Ifour intent is clear, we should be able to setaside our position long enough to fully en-gage in a different perspective. If someonegets defensive at our question and says, “Are

417/564

you saying it’s a bad idea?” we can clarify ourintent. “Not at all. But even though we agreewe’re misaligned, others outside this roommay not, and they’ll be affected by our de-cision. From a business perspective, I wantto explore as many issues as we can, espe-cially since we’ll need buy-in if we move for-ward with the idea.”

3. what are we assuming?(assumptions)

The third way to increase curiosity in conver-sations is to test assumptions. Testing as-sumptions is a reality check: do the assump-tions that underlie the beliefs make sense?Are they real? For example, let’s say we werehiring for a managerial position andsomeone made a strong argument that can-didates must have a master’s degree. Whatare the assumptions? One of the untested as-sumptions is that a master’s degree gives our

418/564

company the experience we need for the pos-ition. We might ask, “If we hire a person forthis position who has a master’s degree, whatdoes that give us?” We may hear responseslike credibility, knowledge, goal orientation,technical expertise, and intellect. To testthose assumptions, we could ask thefollowing:

• Is school the best place to learnwhat a person needs to know forthis position?

• If someone has a master’s de-gree, does that mean he or shehas the ability to examine real-world problems and thinkcreatively?

• Do we believe a person with amaster’s degree and no experi-ence is more qualified than aperson with on-the-street experi-ence but no master’s degree?

419/564

• Will a master’s degree providethe credibility we need in ourculture?

• Does a master’s degree ensurethat the person is curious?

• If we hire someone with a mas-ter’s degree, is it more likelywe’ll hire the right person?

• Does a master’s degree ensurethe level of intelligence we need?

We can even test our answers to the ques-tions just listed. For example, if we asked,“Does a master’s degree ensure the level ofintelligence we need?” and the answer wasyes, we might test assumptions at a deeperlevel: “Have we ever known someone whohad a doctorate who didn’t seem as intelli-gent as someone with a bachelor’s degree?”“How would we know that a person had thelevel of intelligence we need?” “What spe-cifically would demonstrate intelligence?”

420/564

Whether our answers are true or not is up fordebate. But in testing beliefs, we need toquestion the validity of the thinking that cre-ated them, and question if our particularidea is pivotal in landing on a solution.

4. what does that lead to?(consequence)

The last way to spark curiosity is to take anidea and find what it leads to. Often the reas-on people hold too tightly to an idea is thatthey’re overly invested not in the idea itselfbut in the motive behind it. They also may beconcerned about what the impact of doing ornot doing something might be. When themotive behind an idea isn’t clear, we oftendebate about the wrong topic. To uncovermotive, we can use a tool called “cut to thechase.”

Cutting to the chase gets to the heart of thematter, but we use the phrase slightly

421/564

differently from what it commonly means.The phrase comes from early films, wherethere was typically a long story that led to achase scene at the end of the movie—copschasing robbers, aliens chasing earthlings,good guys chasing bad guys, and so on. Inthe editing room, if the story took too long toget to the chase, and therefore risked losingthe audience’s attention, the director wouldtell the editors, “Cut the storyline down andget to the chase.” The shorthand version be-came “Cut to the chase.” Today the phrasemeans get straight to the point, but the mod-ern shorthand is missing the essence of theoriginal meaning. We need enough story tocare about the chase scene, and the chaseshould be worth the wait. Cutting to thechase in conversations gives us the rightamount of story and confirms whether thechase is worth it.

The “chase” or impact of an idea may notbe apparent at first glance, but it’s always

422/564

there. As we ask questions that reveal the“movie” that’s playing in someone’s mind,we get the benefit of the “story” along theway that connects the dots between the ori-ginal idea and the “chase” or motive behindit. There’s almost always more than one wayto get what we want, and the first idea isn’talways the best—or only—way to get there. Apersonal example of using cut to the chase asa tool played out in one of our workshops.

diver down

The CFO of the company we were teachingasked if our colleague would practice cuttingto the chase with her on something she per-sonally wanted but her husband didn’t—aboat. Our colleague (Joe) asked her ques-tions to uncover the purpose driving herwish for a boat. To be brief, we’ll edit hisquestions to only those focused on the“chase”:

423/564

JOE: A boat sounds great. Let’s imaginefor a moment that you did have a boat;what would that give you that you don’thave today?CFO: Well, it’s not really complicated. Ijust think a boat is a great way to havefun and spend more time together as afamily. It’s pretty easy to get to the pointwhere you’re spending time in the sameroom or under the same roof, but we’renot spending time together.JOE: I can see that. And if you werespending more time together as afamily…?CFO: I’d have more uninterrupted, one-on-one time with my two teenagedaughters.JOE: And if you could spend more timewith them—at least the kind of qualitytime you’re hoping to spend withthem—what would that give you?

424/564

CFO: I’d feel like I was able to have moreof an influence on their lives. I guessthey’re like most teenagers and they’refacing some challenges in their lives. Ithink I could help them through thosehard times. A boat would be a great wayto spend time together.JOE: So if you could have the influenceyou’d like to have, and if you really wereable to help them through some toughtimes…?CFO: I think I could help them wiselyavoid some mistakes. I also think theywould be happier and better prepared tobe parents themselves when they havechildren of their own.JOE: And if they were, what would thatlead to?CFO: (now visibly emotional) I’d feel thatat the end of my life, I was equally suc-cessful a mother as I am a CFO.

425/564

After a brief pause, Joe’s next question toher was “Is a boat the only way you can getwhat you want?” The answer was no. Shediscovered through the discussion that—forher—the fierce debates about the boat wer-en’t about the boat. At the surface, the boatwas the topic of discussion, but what shewanted deep down was really driving the in-tensity, not the boat itself. Her husbanddidn’t know what was driving her interest inthe boat, and so they argued about “the boat”when the boat wasn’t the issue at all.

Imagine what might have happened if theybought a boat. It’s possible her vision ofspending quality time with her daughterswould come true. It’s also equally possible itwouldn’t happen the way she hoped. Wouldher daughters dread boating owing to theheavy cleaning required after each outing?Would they resist going boating because ittook time away from hanging out withfriends? If they brought friends along, would

426/564

they ignore Mom and Dad to focus on theirfriends? It would be a safe bet that two orthree years later, there would be unfulfilledexpectations from the boat, and yet not aclear understanding why.

By using curiosity to dive deep, we uncoverthe real motivation for an idea, like a boat.That exploration opens us to possibilit-ies—including other ways we can achievewhat we want. According to research, 86 per-cent of gridlock moves to dialogue if we canget to “the dream” or purpose behind anidea. We can more vigorously debate and ex-plore ideas when we understand the motiva-tion behind them.

good intentions pave the roadto…?

Making good business decisions daily re-quires discipline to quickly uncover the pur-pose behind an idea. With unlimited ideas

427/564

and limited resources, we can’t always affordto be slowed by drawn-out, cumbersomebusiness plans for everything we do. Thereare hundreds of decisions made every day ina company that require increased businesscuriosity. Conversational curiosity allows usto test the strategic fit or financial validity ofan idea early without detailed financial ana-lysis. For example, let’s say the team you’reworking on proposes an idea they think thecompany should invest in:

Idea: “We need to build a talent-manage-ment platform to launch employer-of-choiceinitiatives.”

While there would be ample room for find-ing out what different words meant—what ismeant by “talent management platform” or“employer-of-choice initiatives”—anotherway to spark curiosity is to uncover themotive driving the idea rather than leave it amystery. So the dialogue might flow like this:

428/564

CUT TO THE CHASE (C2C): I like thethinking. Just so I’m clear, if we hadthat platform as you’re envisioningit, what would that lead to for us asa business that we aren’t doingtoday?COLLEAGUE: I think it would improveour ability to get the right talent inthe door and keep them. With thelabor market forecasted to tightenover the next five or six years, I’mnot sure we’ll stay competitive if wedon’t launch a platform right away.We’re already having a hard timefilling some positions.C2C: Let’s say we were able to attractand retain top talent, which wouldbe great in this labor market. Whatdo you see that leading to for us as abusiness?

429/564

COLLEAGUE: We could get the rightpeople into the right jobs at theright time. And I’m talking abouteveryone from doctors and nursesto food services to administration.C2C: It might be an obvious ques-tion, but rather than guess, I’ll askit anyway. Where would the bene-fits of all that show up?COLLEAGUE: I think the quality of ourcare would go up, and we’d be ableto improve patient satisfactionscores.C2C: Good. Anything else?COLLEAGUE: I think it would alsohelp our reputation in the com-munity. Maybe even decrease ourvacancy rates.

430/564

Now we know what’s driving the talent-management idea, and we can estimate theimpact on the bottom line. We also knowthere’s more than one way to improve pa-tient satisfaction, quality, reputation, and va-cancy rates, and so we have options. Ratherthan first debating the merits of what plat-forms to choose from at the surface level,diving deep opens avenues for a more mean-ingful, and business-relevant, discussion.Along the way we get the value of connectingthe dots—the story behind the idea and theimpact at the end. Then a discussion of op-tions regarding talent-management plat-forms is more useful.

In summary, we’ve talked about four waysto spark conversational curiosity:

1. What do we mean? (clarity)2. What are we seeing? (context)3. What are we assuming?

(assumptions)

431/564

4. What does that lead to?(consequence)

We can use them in combination or ontheir own. Each has a different place where itis more likely to free our curiosity.

the soul of curiosity

As with any principle of egonomics, we cango through the motions or passionately de-vote ourselves to living curious. Techniqueswithout soul are just boxes on a list to bechecked off. At five years old, I (Dave) begantaking private piano lessons. Like any stu-dent, I learned scales, chords, fingeringdrills, and the like—all designed to make mean accomplished musician. I played in recit-als and competitions and did well. One after-noon, I attended a performance given by acellist I knew from my hometown namedJohn Davis. I was rapt as I listened. He

432/564

didn’t play a particularly difficult or showypiece of music. It wasn’t even a piece I recog-nized. But as he played, I was moved. That’swhen I realized he had something I didn’t.People could hear my music, but they couldfeel his.

At first I thought it was because he hadbeen playing for more years than I, or that hehad practiced more—and so I increased mypractice time. The more I practiced, the moreI became aware that even though I had thetechnical skill and could play notes with pre-cision, my music wasn’t alive. That changedfor me one day. Reeling from a painful ex-perience in my life, I sought solace in mymusic. I went to an old church where therewas a grand piano and I knew I would bealone. In the midst of my sadness, I wrotemy first song, and, more important, for thefirst time I felt music come from my soul in-stead of my fingers. Most songs are inspiredby a story that’s filled with emotion.

433/564

Musicians who aren’t curious and don’t getinvolved in the story may have impressivetechnical competence, but the music doesn’tcome from inside. John Davis had soul, andhis soulful playing awakened my soul. Curi-osity, when sustained with soul, embeds it-self into the very structure of the way we dobusiness.

the résumé of curiosity

Barry Diller is a product of intense curiosity.His accomplishments are nearly unmatchedin the business world. Diller was raised inBeverly Hills and started his career in themail room of the William Morris Agency (atalent and literary agency), after droppingout of UCLA after one semester. He washired by ABC in 1966 and was soon in chargeof negotiating broadcast rights to featurefilms. Three years later he was promoted tovice president of feature films and program

434/564

development. There, Diller and his col-leagues created the ABC Movie of the Weekand pioneered the concept of the made-for-television movie. Diller left ABC and servedten years as the chairman and CEO of Para-mount Pictures. With Diller in charge, thestudio produced multiple hits: Laverne &Shirley, Taxi, Cheers, and feature films ran-ging from Saturday Night Fever and Greaseto Raiders of the Lost Ark, to Indiana Jonesand the Temple of Doom, to Terms of En-dearment and Beverly Hills Cop.

From there he held positions of chairmanand CEO at Twentieth Century Fox. Dillerquit Fox in 1992 and purchased a $25 mil-lion stake in QVC. Diller is currently thechairman of Expedia and the chairman andCEO of InterActiveCorp, an interactive com-merce conglomerate and the parent of com-panies including Home Shopping Network,Ticketmaster, Match.com, and Citysearch. Sowhy the focus on one résumé? Listen to the

435/564

man whose résumé it is on what created it.“For me, the guiding principle in decidingwhich route to take in business has alwaysbeen to follow my own curiosity,” said Diller.“Of course, you also need a willfulness tomake real, practical use of that curiosity. Theone doesn’t work without the other.” In aquarter-page interview in Business 2.0,Diller mentions the word curiosity six times,and at his first mention of the word he tiesthe effectiveness of curiosity to the fusion ofopenness and order—trait curiosity.

By using one of the four techniques of con-versational curiosity, we create an environ-ment that sparks curiosity in the routine ofday-to-day business. If sustained with soul,that daily effort leads to the highest concen-tration of corporate curiosity, catching nu-ances that go unnoticed by others, and free-ing us from investing time, energy, andmoney in untested ideas and assumptions.We then have more resources available to

436/564

invest in truly worthwhile projects andproducts.

As we raise the level of curiosity in the waywe think and communicate, we’re bound tolearn things along the way that won’t alwaysbe easy to hear or say. That doesn’t meanthey won’t need to be heard or said. But hu-mility’s devotion to progress gives us twodistinct advantages in saying or hearingthem: it 1) builds the capacity to embracehard-to-hear truth (veracity), and 2) makesus more likely to speak the truth in the mostdifficult moments. Our appetite for veracityis the third and final principle of egonomics,and the subject of the final chapter.

9: curiosity key points

• There are two types of curiosity,“state” and “trait.” State

437/564

curiosity—the kind most peoplehave—waits on something tospark it. State curiosity is tem-porary. Quickly after we’re re-moved from the state thatsparked our curiosity, it’s fin-ished. Trait curiosity, on the oth-er hand, doesn’t wait to besparked: it does the sparking.

• People with trait curiosity have arare blend of order andopenness.

• When order overrides openness,curiosity loses freedom to ex-plore. If left to openness alone,curiosity loses structure and pur-pose. Trait curiosity requiresequal parts of both.

• Sometimes our desire to cure orfix something is the very thingthat gets in our way.

438/564

• People don’t lack the ability tobuild or courage to try. Researchsuggests we don’t lack imagina-tion, ambition, or ideas. We dolack prebuild, prelaunch, preexe-cution curiosity. It’s not the onlyfactor, but it’s a major one.When we use discipline and pa-tience to resist our impulse torun with an idea at first glance,we give curiosity time to breathe.

• Every company has processesdedicated and designed for in-novation and improvement. Thevalue of a given process dependson the quality of informationthat flows from the conversa-tions inside it.

• No matter how clear and well-ordered the steps of a process,the level of curiosity driving theconversations inside those steps

439/564

can decide the value created byeach step. In the white space ofthose steps, curiosity is process-neutral.

• Four ways to raise the level ofcuriosity in daily conversationsby combining openness and or-der include: 1) What do wemean?, 2) What are we seeing?,3) What are we assuming?, 4)What does that lead to?

440/564

10

veracity

On some positions, Cowardice asksthe question, “Is it safe?” Expedi-ency asks the question, “Is it polit-ic?” And Vanity comes along andasks the question, “Is it popular?”But Conscience asks the question,“Is it right?” And there comes atime when one must take a positionthat is neither safe, nor politic, norpopular, but he must do it becauseConscience tells him it is right.[Our] lives begin to end the day we

become silent about things thatmatter.

WILLIAM MORLEY PUNSHON

Have you noticed there’s often a gap betweenwhat executives think is going on and whatfrontline managers know is going on—andvice versa? What about the differencebetween what marketing thinks the market isripe for and what sales is convinced clientsreally want? What about when you and a col-league are on the same team, on the sameproject, in the same meeting—and yet youhardly see anything the same? What aboutthe gap between someone’s actual compet-ence and what that person thinks it is, andwhat everyone else experiences? What’s un-settling is what we don’t know, and what wedon’t know is buried beneath fear of sayingwhat’s unknown to someone else or of hear-ing what’s unknown to us. The only way toclose those gaps is for both sides to have the

443/564

courage to say the truth or listen and em-brace the truth when said. Veracity bridgesthe gaps ego creates.

Fused with humility and curiosity, veracityis the third principle of egonomics that keepsthe capital of ego working for us rather thanagainst us. Veracity’s Latin root, veritas,means “truth.” But why not say truth if that’swhat we mean? Truth refers to facts or real-ity; it implies accuracy and honesty. Truth isa destination. Veracity doesn’t differ fromtruth in its destination, but it differs in ac-tion. Veracity implies the habitual pursuit of,and adherence to, truth. Both pursuit andadherence matter immensely: pursuit in ar-riving at truth, and adherence in making achange once truth is discovered. Let’s ex-plore the pursuit of truth first.

In business, veracity is the pursuit of real-ity—the difference between what we think ishappening and what’s actually going on.That pursuit must be relentless because

444/564

what’s true in business or science today willchange. In the 1980s the egg industry was indecline because cholesterol was the motherof all unhealthy food. Then, upon furtherpursuit, science discovered there was goodcholesterol and bad cholesterol, and sud-denly eggs were allowed back into goodgraces. In fact, some now call eggs the “per-fect food.” In business, it’s hard to imagineinvesting in a product people could get easilyand free—like water. If you were an executiveat Coca-Cola or Pepsi twenty-five years ago,and someone expressed concern about a newcompetitor bringing plain water to market,how open-minded would you have stayed?And yet, Americans spend more than $9 bil-lion a year on bottled water, paying 120 to7,500 times as much per gallon for bottledwater as for tap. It outsells every beverageexcept pop. That’s why the key term in vera-city is pursuit.

445/564

To paraphrase Peter Drucker about pur-suit in his book Innovation and Entrepren-eurship, what we see has to be subjected torigorous, logical analysis. Intuition isn’t goodenough. In fact, intuition is no good at all ifwe use it as another way of merely sayingwhat we want something to be. The truthcomes from discovering the differencebetween what most everyone is quite sure isreality and what has become a new reality.Finding the new reality requires the willing-ness to say, “I don’t know enough to analyze,but I shall find out. I’ll go out, look around,ask questions, and listen.” Those are simplesteps—admit you don’t know, look around,ask questions, listen—but they’re less easy inpractice. They are possible.

Kent Thiry, CEO of DaVita, built a cultureof veracity and in turn rebuilt a company.DaVita is one of the largest chains of dialysiscenters in the United States, helping patientssuffering from chronic kidney failure. When

446/564

Thiry took over DaVita in October 1999, “thecompany was technically bankrupt,” he said.“It was being investigated by the SEC, suedby shareholders, had turnover at over twicethe current levels, was almost out of cash,and in general was not the happiest ofplaces. [We] were within three weeks ofmissing payroll. If the banks had asked forany significant payment, we would have hadto shut the doors. The only reason theydidn’t is they were worried if they did, theywould not get their money.” With Thiry asCEO, market capitalization grew from $200million to nearly $5 billion, and stock priceover the last five years increased fromroughly $10 a share to $47.60 currently. Em-ployee turnover was cut in half, and DaVitaexceeds the industry’s national average forclinical outcomes.

Thiry is willing to put brutal facts on thetable, even when no one else will. In an an-nual gathering of thousands of employees, he

447/564

asked if integrating a recently acquiredhealth care company was “fun.” The employ-ees said, “Yes!” In disbelief he countered,“Either you’re all on drugs or better than me,because integrations are a god-awful night-mare.” That honesty sends a clear message:“If you don’t say it, I will.” Over time, thatgives a culture a new level of permission tosay what’s really happening.

In the pursuit of truth, Thiry is hungry forit—good or bad—even about himself. In hisown performance review from thirteen seni-or executives, he received a “bad grade” forgiving too much negative feedback. “Theysay I’m not harder on them than I am on my-self,” said Thiry in an article by Carol Hy-mowitz for the Wall Street Journal, “but mynegativity isn’t constructive.” It’s the thirdyear he’s heard the same feedback, so he im-plemented a “daily scorecard for feedback toremind himself, and to change.” What’s im-pressive is not only the culture of veracity

448/564

Thiry built, but his openness in an interviewin something as public as the Wall StreetJournal to acknowledge, and embrace, thehard-to-hear truth about himself. It wouldhave been easy to hide it. He doesn’t.

got a leak?

To find the difference between our own ver-sion of reality and actual reality, how do weinvite people to explore what we see, andhow do we listen when invited—especiallywhen the truth is hard to say or jarring tohear? There are two questions to answer inthat pursuit: 1) when don’t we want thetruth?, and 2) why don’t we want it?

The lack of veracity in business is tied toan identity crisis. A quick metaphor explainswhy. Let’s say you’re going on vacation. Youcarefully plan the long road trip and map outthe sights you want to see. Before leaving,you check the fluid levels, tire pressure,

449/564

spare tire, and so on. One-third of the wayinto your trip you stop to get gas andsomething to eat. As you walk out of theChevron FoodMart, someone flags youdown. “I think your car is leakingsomething.” What would your reaction be?More than likely it would be interest and ap-preciation. “Really? Where? Is it leaking alot? Thanks for pointing that out.” Even ifyou’re an expert mechanic and checkedeverything just before you left, you’d stillcheck to see if the car’s leaking or not.

What if on closer inspection you discoveryour car isn’t really leaking, the stranger justthought it was. If it turns out nothing’swrong with your car, you’re fine with that asan outcome—in fact, happy. If there was aleak, you’re glad someone pointed it out andrelieved you didn’t discover it later—in themiddle of nowhere.

But that changes when we’re at work.

450/564

For example, let’s say you developed a go-to-market strategy and someone said, “Thisstrategy won’t work. It doesn’t factor in thedownturn in that market right now or howbuyer preferences are shifting.” As opposedto the leak in our car, we’re tempted to re-spond differently to this comment becausewe don’t take it as it’s intended—as a helpfulobservation. We think it reflects poorly onwho we are and challenges our identity. Ifwe don’t take it personally when ourcar is leaking, why do we take it per-sonally when our strategy is? Part of thereason is we don’t control what happens toour car; anything can happen to it at anytime. But in a corporate setting, we’re sup-posed to be in control. If someone points outa weakness, it feels like something we shouldhave controlled but didn’t. We believe thatleak brings our ability into question. Thebarrier to veracity is not that people are in-capable of seeing the truth or even

451/564

expressing it. So where’s the problem? In thereaction to truth when it’s revealed.

mum’s the word

As a result of typical reaction to candor, mostpeople believe truth telling is risky. In astudy by Amy Edmondson of HarvardUniversity and James Detert of Penn StateUniversity on why employees are hesitant tospeak up, they said, “Employees aren’t fail-ing to provide ideas or input because they’ve‘checked out’ and just don’t care, but becauseof fear.” Their work was triggered by a surveyof over 50,000 employees from one companywhere nearly 50 percent of all employeesfrom the boardroom to the mail room repor-ted it wasn’t safe to speak up or challengetraditional ways of doing things. From 190interviews of these employees, when askedwhy they weren’t speaking up, here’s asample of what they said:

452/564

• I had an idea about improvingour production efficiency that Iwanted to present to our sitemanager in a meeting. But I wasterrified because he sometimesyells, “That’s a dumb idea,” likean angry father when peoplespeak up to him. Since I’m a su-pervisor, I’m not in the unionand therefore know that if theydon’t like what I say, they caneasily get rid of me. So I didn’tspeak up, and I felt angry anddisappointed.

• You try to give feedback about aproduct from what you’re hear-ing in the field. But marketingand others inside don’t want tohear [it]…. If you speak up in ameeting about this, they thinkthat you are too negative and

453/564

you are almost not allowed totalk about this. And you think,“They should come with me for afew days and hear what custom-ers are saying,” but they don’twant to because it’s too negative.

• I tried to go further into a mar-ket analysis, and the site directorstarted shouting at me. I shouldhave said more but I didn’t be-cause you cannot foresee the re-actions of that man. Unpredict-able. I was fearing a very dis-turbing incident and I didn’t feellike fighting—because I usuallyhave no problem fighting for myideas. But when you are onground where you can’t controlthe problem, where it’s emotion-al, I can’t do anything.

• I didn’t want to push the situ-ation. I didn’t want the son of a

454/564

bitch to fire me. He was liable totake my damned badge rightthere and fire me. I can’t affordto lose my job.

• When I first joined the team, Iwas very excited. I have tons ofexperience [and was] looking forways to make things better—justasking a lot of questions. “Sowho’s responsible for that andhow does that work and howcome it’s not working? And whydon’t we do it that way?” [startscrying] Because I care a lot aboutthis company. I was told that thecomments that I was making,the questions that I was askingwere making other people un-comfortable. [My boss] asked meto really think hard abouteverything that I said. And tome—it isn’t safe. If I have to

455/564

think so hard about what I’m go-ing to say, then it isn’t safe.

Emotions like fear, anxiety, frustration,anger, and distrust arise when people don’tthink it’s safe to speak. Situations varywidely, but the feelings behind them don’t.People resent giving artificial support to anidea they think will fail, especially if theyknow something others don’t that will stop itfrom working. If they don’t believe anyonewill listen if they speak up, they keep quietwhile bad projects or corporate inefficiencieskeep sucking money from the bottom line.Mum’s the word.

turning up veracity

If the pursuit of and adherence to truth is tobecome habit, we need two specific abilities:hearing down and speaking up. A client of

456/564

ours facilitated a workshop for a senior busi-ness leader’s team. As they were discussingthe responsibility to speak up and heardown, one of the vice presidents said, “Idon’t feel comfortable speaking up all thetime. My ideas get shot down most of thetime. When I do speak up, I’m seen as therabble-rouser in the group.” His tone wascold and indifferent.

A nervous silence fell over the group. Afterwhat seemed like an eternity, the facilitatorsaid, “Well, you just spoke up about how youfeel now. Tell me why you did.” “It won’tmake a difference,” he said. “Maybe,” inter-jected the general manager, “it’s because theideas you share are so half-baked and unsup-ported by real research—you think?” The fa-cilitator called a break and pulled the GMaside. “That’s one of the guys that justdoesn’t fit into our culture,” the GM com-plained. “You heard his tone; he doesn’tknow how to deliver his message in the

457/564

correct way. I’m the GM—you’d think hecould respect that.” The facilitator asked if hehad considered the content of the messagesthe vice president delivers, without payingattention to the tone of delivery. “I’ve beenover and over this with him,” the GM said.“He’s the type that doesn’t really listen.”

“That really doesn’t answer my question,”the facilitator replied. In disbelief the GMasked, “Are you saying this is my fault?”“No,” our client replied, “I’m not saying it’sanyone’s fault. I’m just curious about thecontent of his message. If you set the toneaside, have you given any thought to itsvalidity?” “No,” the GM stated firmly. “Whyshould I?” After class, our facilitator talkedwith the GM and the VP alone. He talked tothe GM about how important it is in hearingdown to consider the content of the messageand, if necessary, disregard the way the mes-sage is shared, or the tone with which it’s de-livered. He reminded the GM to not take it

458/564

personally. He also talked to the VP aboutthe way he delivers his messages when hespeaks up, reminding him not to make it per-sonal. In the end, they both agreed that therewas much they each needed to work on, andthat their egos got in the way of what shouldhave been the primary focus—the business.

In using the words down and up, we’re re-ferring to reporting relationships at work,not to our value as people. Everyone hassomeone to whom they report, or someonewho reports to them. Hearing down meanswe listen in a way that encourages peoplewho report to us to speak their mind andprevents seeking acceptance from beingtheir—or our—highest priority. Speaking uprequires candor with those to whom we re-port, without putting either person in jeop-ardy. People tend to confuse criticism oftheir strategy with criticism of their identity.Consequently, we must speak up in a waythat doesn’t provoke others to be defensive

459/564

or showcase brilliance to defy what we say.When done right, speaking up opens mindsso truth is heard and culled from differentpoints of view.

hearing down

In humility’s pursuit of progress, and on thedeepest dives of curiosity, we’re bound to un-cover issues we wish we hadn’t. A majorbarrier to hearing down is our beliefthat dissent is disloyalty. If we viewdissent as disloyalty, we’ve closed ourmind. Dissenting from the current point ofview, or going opposite the momentum be-hind an idea, does not mean the dissenterisn’t a team player. In fact, the dissenter maybe the greatest asset we have.

Let’s go back 2,500 years to an era whendissent was usually viewed as disloyalty, andnearly intolerable. In his time, Alexander theGreat conquered the most powerful nations

460/564

of the world. Of those nations, Persia was themost difficult, primarily because of the milit-ary power and genius of its king, Darius.After several battles, Alexander finally beatDarius and added the Persian throne to hiscollection. But only a few years after beatingDarius, Alexander died. Shortly after hisdeath, the Greeks retreated from Persia.Since Darius had died in battle, his son Xer-xes took the throne of Persia.

First on Xerxes’ list of priorities was rees-tablishing Persia’s dominance. He beganconquering nations, but despite all his con-quests, Xerxes felt Persia would be inferioruntil he conquered what his father Dariuscouldn’t: Greece. As Herodotus tells it, to re-veal his intentions, Xerxes gathered hisgenerals:

“For this cause I have now calledyou together, that I may makeknown to you what I desire to do.

461/564

My intent is to…march an armythrough Europe against Greecethat thereby I may obtain ven-geance from the Athenians for thewrongs committed by them againstthe Persians and against myfather.”

After Xerxes’ declaration, a council mem-ber named Mardonius responded,

“Of a truth, my lord, you surpass,not only all living Persians, butlikewise those yet unborn. Mosttrue and right is each word youhave now uttered…but best of all,your resolve not to let the Greekswho live in Europe—a worthlesscrew—mock us anymore.”

But not everyone present felt the same asthe cheerleading Mardonius. Many of the

462/564

generals had been with Xerxes’ father whenhe first battled the Greeks, and they recalledthe brutal defeats. But despite their memor-ies, most council members were silent, afraidto step out of line with Xerxes’ agenda forwar. However, a man named Artabanus, whohad also fought with Xerxes’ father againstthe Greeks, broke the silence.

“O King! It is impossible, if no morethan one opinion is uttered, tomake choice of the best: a man isforced then to follow whatever ad-vice may have been given him.”

Artabanus then reminded Xerxes of thesevere problems Persia had had fighting theGreeks, and the current lack of legitimacy foranother war.

“Think then no more of incurringso great a danger when no need

463/564

presses, but follow the advice Itender. Break up this meeting, andwhen you have well considered thematter, and settled what you willdo, declare to us your resolve.”

That was Artabanus’s dissent. Now he fol-lows it with loyalty.

“If, however, we must go to warwith this people, at least allow theking to abide at home in Persia.Then let [Mardonius] and me bothstake our children on the issue, andchoose your men, and taking withwhatever number of troops youwould like, lead forth our armies tobattle.”

Despite the loyalty, Xerxes wasn’t exactlyappreciate of the veracity.

464/564

“Artabanus, you are my father’sbrother—that shall save you fromreceiving your due of your sillywords [perhaps prison or death],”he said. “One shame however I willlay upon you, coward and faint-hearted as you are—you shall notcome with me to fight these Greeks,but shall tarry here with thewomen.”

Then Xerxes broke up the meeting, but theadvice of Artabanus “disquieted him.” Thenext morning Xerxes reconvened his leaders.

“Men of Persia, forgive me if I alterthe resolve to which I came solately. Consider that I have not yetreached the full growth of my wis-dom, and that they who urge me toengage in this war leave me not tomyself for a moment. When I heard

465/564

the advice of Artabanus, my youngblood suddenly boiled; and I spokewords against him little befittinghis years; now however I confessmy fault, and am resolved to followhis counsel. Understand then that Ihave changed my intent with re-spect to carrying war into Greece,and cease to trouble yourselves.”

“When they heard these words,” records thehistorian Herodotus, “the Persians were fullof joy.” Twenty-five hundred years later, thesame danger of confusing dissent with dis-loyalty persists.

A call center manager was sharing an ini-tial sketch of a plan for performance incent-ives with a large group of employees. Shedidn’t hear much feedback, good or bad, asshe was sharing it. Uneasy with the silence,she pushed for feedback. At last, two em-ployees spoke up with concerns about parts

466/564

of the plan. She thanked them for speakingup. After the meeting, both came and apolo-gized for not being supportive. She explainedthat their feedback was exactly what she wasafter and assured them apologies weren’t ne-cessary. She realized she had to change theculture’s belief that debate, disagreement,and dissent showed lack of support. Realdisloyalty is keeping silent whensomething needs to be said.

the positivity of negativity

Most dissent is not disloyalty. More oftenthan not, there’s positive intent behind anegative comment or different viewpoint.When those who report to us speak up, wecan find it hard to listen if we perceive whatthey’re saying is bad news. However, mosthard-to-hear truths, no matter how negative,are in another way an expression of positivevalue. If people complain that red tape and

467/564

bureaucracy get in the way, at the same timethey’re expressing a desire for freedom to getthings done. Creating a culture where truthis heard requires we see the positive side ofnegative facts.

speaking up

Hearing down is only half the equation inour pursuit of truth. If we want those “above”to hear down, those speaking up have a re-sponsibility equal to those who should belistening. There are many people we couldpoint to as examples of speaking up, but fewwould be better than Edward R. Murrow. Hemay be the most distinguished figure in thehistory of broadcast journalism. His careerbegan at CBS in 1935 and crossed radio andtelevision news. In 1961, Murrow left CBS tobecome director of the United States Inform-ation Agency for the Kennedy administra-tion. By that time, his colleagues were

468/564

already referring to him as a “legend of cour-age, integrity, social responsibility, and ex-cellence and emblematic of the highest idealsof both broadcast news and the television in-dustry in general.” Pulitzer Prize–winningjournalist David Halberstam observed in hisbook The Powers That Be that Murrow was“one of those rare legendary figures who wasas good as his myth.”

At a time when Senator Joseph McCarthywas publicly accusing dozens of Americancitizens of being Communists—with little orno evidence—and getting away with it, Mur-row spoke up despite the risk that he couldbe McCarthy’s next target. But it’s importantto note that Murrow didn’t save speaking upfor those he disagreed with or who were at adistance. On October 15, 1958, at a celebrat-ory dinner held in his honor, and surroundedby peers whom he loved and with whom hecollaborated, he delivered a veracious assess-ment of his own industry. As you read an

469/564

excerpt of his speech, notice how he chooseshis words to speak up.

This just might do nobody anygood. At the end of this discourse afew people may accuse this report-er of fouling his own comfortablenest, and your organization maybe accused of having given hospit-ality to heretical and even danger-ous thoughts. [It] is my desire, ifnot my duty, to try to talk to youjourneymen with some candorabout what is happening to radioand television. [If] what I have tosay is irresponsible, then I aloneam responsible for the saying of it.[T]here exists in mind no reason-able grounds for personal com-plaint. I have no feud, either withmy employers, any sponsors, orwith the professional critics of

470/564

radio and television. But I amseized with an abiding fear regard-ing what these two instruments aredoing to our society, our culture,and our heritage.

[O]ur history will be what wemake it. And if there are any his-torians about fifty or a hundredyears from now, and there shouldbe preserved the kinescopes for oneweek of all three networks, theywill there find recorded in blackand white, or color, evidence ofdecadence, escapism and insula-tion from the realities of the worldin which we live. [T]elevision in themain insulates us from the realitiesof the world in which we live. Ifthis state of affairs continues, wemay alter an advertising slogan toread: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

471/564

Murrow spoke up to those he worked with,to his employer, and to anyone else whoneeded it—including himself. He didn’tshrink for fear of what others would think.He spoke candidly and directly and openedminds to truth.

If we want people to open theirminds to truth, we need as much hu-mility and courage to speak up as oth-ers need in hearing down. When speak-ing up, what we say, how we say it, and whatwe intend play a big part in where the con-versation goes. While it’s true that somethings are better left unsaid, too often silencestifles progress. Most of us have been in ameeting where silence prevails even thougheveryone knows the truth is being avoided.There are dozens of reasons we keep quiet:“silence is golden,” “better safe than sorry,”somebody else will speak up, they probablyalready know, it won’t make a differenceanyway, they have seniority, you’re new,

472/564

they’re new, we fear the unknown, and onand on.

One of the main reasons we don’t speak upis fear. There are two primary fears that keepus quiet: fear of being labeled and fear ofsaying what we’re not afraid to think.

fear of being labeled

We don’t speak up for fear others will labelus. We’re afraid that bringing up a negativeequals being a negative person, or that if wesay something brutally honest, then we’renot “nice.” Or it could be we think if we statethe obvious or ask an obvious question, we’llseem uneducated or stupid. When we strainto manage perceptions others have of us,that effort kills truth in the process. The fearwe feel that prevents us from speaking upwas clearly illustrated to me (Steve) while Iwas a freshman in college.

473/564

My psychology 101 class was held in anauditorium that seated a thousand students.The professor was onstage with a micro-phone and a slide show, cruising through theday’s lecture. Rarely did anyone ask ques-tions; we just took notes and tests. One dayas the professor lectured, I couldn’t under-stand what he was talking about. I lookedaround the room to see if anyone else was inthe same boat. But everyone, even myfriends sitting next to me, looked like theywere getting it. So I continued to stareblankly toward the stage below. Since no oneseemed to be taking a lot of notes, I assumedthis was either pretty straightforward or un-important stuff. What’s more, I told myself Iwas probably the only one in the auditoriumwho didn’t get it.

A couple of minutes later I still couldn’tfollow the ideas. Finally, out of desperation, Iraised my hand from the balcony, told him Ididn’t understand, and asked a question

474/564

about what he was saying. My questiondidn’t come without fear that I would look“dumb” or that it would seem like I hadn’tbeen listening. The professor thanked meand began to reexplain the ideas in a differ-ent way. Not only did I start to understand,but I noticed nearly everyone else franticallytaking notes. I wasn’t the only one in leftfield. When we’re feeling peer pressure, self-imposed or not, we don’t ask questions orsay what’s on our mind for fear we’ll belabeled. Losing veracity is often the price wepay to maintain an image—ours, or someoneelse’s.

In one of many experiments on how wemisperceive what others think of us, KennethSavitsky of Williams College and NicholasEpley and Thomas Gilovich of Cornell hadparticipants attempt to solve a set of ana-grams—words whose letters are jumbled inrandom order—in full view of another personwho would observe their performance.

475/564

Before working on the word puzzles, thesolvers were asked to estimate how the ob-servers would judge them on things like in-telligence, competence, honesty, and so on,both before and after the task. On the otherhand, observers were told to state their actu-al impressions with no premeditatedthoughts either way. Before taking the test,solvers were told, “Those who do well ontests such as this one tend to be individualswho are clear thinkers and who are highly in-telligent” and that “few people get all the an-swers correct, but most people tend to dowell.”

As the solver attempted to unscramble theword puzzles, the experimenter respondedout loud “correct” or “incorrect,” while theobserver looked on. When finished, the ex-perimenter revealed the score. What neitherthe solver nor the observer knew was thatthe test was designed to be very difficult,with only two or three easy answers—so

476/564

difficult in fact that the average “solver” onlysolved 2.6 anagrams of the 16.

The research discovered solvers overes-timated the extent to which observers werethinking badly of them, and underestimatedcharitable thoughts in their behalf. Solversalso overestimated how harshly observerswould judge them if they did poorly on thetest before they had even taken the test. Inother words, we’re harder on ourselves thanothers are on us, even when we make mis-takes. Fear of what others will think is oftenunrealistic. “One may refrain from speakingin public, from expressing one’s true feel-ings…all because of an unnecessarily strongfear of how others would react if things didnot go as well as one hoped,” the researcherssaid in conclusion. “People’s excessive fear ofsocial censure often comes back to hauntthem, as research has documented that withhindsight the biggest regrets in people’s livestend to involve things they had not done but

477/564

wished they had, rather than things they haddone and wish they had not.” Let’s not allowexaggerated fear to persist as a barricadebetween us and veracity.

fear of saying what we’re notafraid to think

The second reason we don’t speak up is a dif-ferent kind of fear. I (Dave) learned that thehard way. In a performance review, I askedfor specific suggestions on what I could do toget promoted. I was given a few general sug-gestions and told, in so many words, “It’sjust a matter of time. Your future is bright inthis company.” Subsequent performance re-views weren’t any different. But in the mean-time, I saw three peers on other teams getpromoted ahead of me. That made memad—at my boss. I thought, “He has to knowwhy others are advancing. If they’re doingsomething I’m not, why won’t he say

478/564

something—especially when I specifically askfor feedback?” Because it was frustrating notto get feedback, I decided to get good at giv-ing feedback to others. That’s when I learnedabout a fear I had never fully appreciated.

To be meaningful, feedback has to be spe-cific and real. What surprised me—and thisis the unexpected reason we don’t speakup—is how afraid I was to say what I was notafraid to think. It’s hard to say to a colleague,“I don’t think you deserve credit for the suc-cess of this project. In fact, you’re more of anobstacle than a contributor.” It’s not hard tothink those things, but it’s a different storywhen we have to say them. As it turns out,even leaders have a hard time speakingup—including to those they lead.

two prerequisites for speaking up

A major factor in getting people to listen istheir perception of our motive. Let’s return

479/564

to our gas station analogy for a moment. Ifwe tell strangers their car is leaking, thereare two main reasons they’re open to ourspeaking up: 1) our comment is prompted byconcern rather than a self-serving motive orjudgment (we have nothing to gain or lose byspeaking up), and 2) our observation, whichmay or may not be accurate, isn’t about theiridentity. It’s about an object—their car—andsomething we’ve seen that they haven’t.

Now, imagine how their reaction changesif we approach them and say, “You really dida lousy job of tying down that load. You’re li-able to cause an accident when that all comesundone. You should fix it.” Now they’ll per-ceive their ability, intelligence, judgment, orwhatever is under attack: their identity is indanger. Now we’re in different territory. Ourperceived motive in speaking up, and theway we do it, either increases or dramaticallydecreases the likelihood that our messagewill be heard and respected.

480/564

the language of speaking up

When speaking up, say hard truths in a waythat won’t create harsh responses. In otherwords, deliver the brutal facts without beingbrutal. The language of speaking up doesn’teliminate fear, but it does allow us to saywhat’s on our mind in a way that reducesrisk. Here are three steps designed to keepminds open when speaking up:

1. Establish permission.2. Make your intentions clear.3. Be candid.

You may not need all three, depending onthe context of the situation and your rela-tionship with the people in the room, butyou’re likely to need at least one.

1. establish permission

481/564

According to research by Dr. John Gottman,the tone of the first three minutes of discus-sion predicts how a problem will end, evenfive years from the time it surfaced. He has arule: “If it starts negative, it stays negative.”If people detect we’re on the hunt to blameor judge, they get defensive. Remember, themore dangerous we think a situation is, themore likely we are to shut down and protectidentity. The same is true of others. Estab-lishing permission is simple, like ringing thedoorbell at a close friend’s home before youwalk in; no matter how well you know yourfriend, let your friend invite you in. Here aresome examples:

• Could I share something that’sbeen on my mind that I can’tseem to shake?

• At the risk of sounding like I justdon’t get it—and maybe Idon’t—could I ask a question?

482/564

• I’ve thought a lot about this, andthere’s something I need to puton the table. Maybe it will betough to talk about, maybe itwon’t. I don’t want the fact thatit may be tough to get in the wayof at least thinking it through.

• It could just be me, but it seemswe’re missing something in ourdiscussion. Maybe we’re not, andwe can quickly move past it. Andmaybe there’s something to it.

2. make your intent clear

Once we’ve established permission to saywhat’s on our mind, making our intent clearincreases the odds others will hear our mes-sage without misinterpretation. “Whatstronger breastplate,” said Shakespeare’s

483/564

Henry VI, “than a heart untainted?” Remem-ber, humility’s intent is devotion to progress.Now is a good time to remember that. Thereare at least three reasons we should makeour intent clear:

1. We let others know why we’re bring-ing up a question; it keeps them fromguessing about our intent or assign-ing us a negative one.

2. We reduce the chance that words willinterfere with our message.

3. A public statement of our intent re-minds us to be committed to thatintent.

Sometimes, especially in tense situations,we can’t find the right words. Even when wefind the right words, sometimes they’re mis-read. But if our intent is right, it keeps iden-tity safe and the conversation focused onideas. Here are examples of gaining permis-sion combined with making our intent clear:

484/564

• I’d like to put something on thetable that’s bothering me. Rightnow, I’m not convinced the logicbehind this is sound. At first Iput off saying anything, thinkingmy comment might come acrossas negative. It may seem likethat, but I want the best idea towin, whether it’s my idea or not.If there’s a hole in my rationale,point it out and I’ll let go of it. Ifyour logic is faulty, I expect thesame from you. If we’re allwrong, we can come up with an-other idea.

• I like the way we challenge ideasas a team: it’s healthy. At thesame time it doesn’t seem likewe challenge ourselves enoughwhen it comes to whether ourideas will benefit the company as

485/564

a whole even though we likethem. I think the proposal on thetable might hurt the businessunintentionally. Maybe I’mwrong, but it seems to me that inour enthusiasm, we’re overlook-ing something.

• I think we should kill this. Thatdoesn’t mean we should, but I’mmore and more convinced that’sa very real option. That’s hardfor me to say, especially sinceI’ve been such an advocate ofthis project, but I don’t think it’sgoing to meet customer needsthe way we want it to.

In the examples above, instead of saying,“We’re wrong,” we said, “I’m not sure the lo-gic behind this idea is sound.” Rather thansaying, “We’re making a mistake,” we said,“The proposal on the table might hurt the

486/564

business unintentionally.” When intent isclear, it’s easier for others to focus on themessage rather than question our intent ormisconstrue it as an attack on their identity.

3. be candid

Candor is our effort to assert the facts, asbest we can, and put them on the table forexamination. This is the moment oftruth—when we say what’s on our mind asclearly and candidly as possible.

One manager we interviewed in our re-search shared a story about candor in a crit-ical meeting with the CEO and the vice pres-ident of sales. The meeting was prompted bya sudden, behind-the-scenes withdrawal ofresources. Three weeks before the meeting,the manager received approval to hire twopeople critical to the business unit’s newstrategy. The management team interviewedseveral candidates and were ready to make

487/564

offers. Before extending offers, the necessarypaperwork was sent to human resources. Therequests were rejected. When the managerasked the reason for the rejection, he wastold, “[The CEO] called last week and can-celed these requisitions.”

With repeated conflicting messages, themanagement team felt the CEO had becomenearly unreachable. His elusiveness sappedenormous energy from the entire businessunit. The CEO had once referred to thisgroup as an “island of excellence in a sea ofmediocrity,” but his actions didn’t back uphis words. Since these positions were criticalto their strategy, the manager arranged ameeting with the CEO to find out why he hadreversed his position and pulled support.

The meeting, scheduled for two hours,began at 10:00 a.m. sharp. “My purpose inagreeing to this meeting is to understandyour concerns and talk through your propos-al,” the CEO said. “My whole purpose is to

488/564

listen to you. I have no other agenda. I won-der, however, if you would allow me just afew minutes to set some context for ourmeeting.” The team agreed. For the nextthirty-seven minutes the CEO talked withouttaking a breath. Complete with whiteboarddiagrams, he rehearsed what seemed likeevery line he had delivered the previous twoyears. The team sat in disbelief, waiting theirturn. At 10:38 a.m. he sat down from his lec-ture and said, “The time is now all yours. I’mall ears.”

One team member, on his way to a clientengagement, was attending the meeting viacell phone over the conference line. His timewas cut short because he had to board an air-plane. “I respect your message, and at thispoint I don’t have much to say,” he began.“And even if I did, I don’t have much time tosay it. My concern is this meeting is an ex-ample of your style and how you run ourcompany. This meeting is the last time we’re

489/564

going to talk about our proposal. You’vetaken almost half our allotted time to re-hearse your ideas about the direction of thecompany. What I don’t understand is howyou expect to understand our proposal if youdon’t allow us adequate time to present it.You acknowledged up front your purposewas to listen, and now I don’t see how that’spossible.”

The room was silent. Stunned by thecandor, the CEO looked around the room tosee if the speaker was joking or serious. Hop-ing to recover, the CEO turned the re-mainder of the meeting over to those left inthe room. Given that this was the meetingwhere the CEO had committed to make a fi-nal decision one way or the other, he hadpledged to read the proposal before themeeting. As the team dove into the contentof their proposal, it became clear he hadn’tread it in any depth, despite his promise.“I’ve read the proposal,” he said, “but I don’t

490/564

see the connections to our strategy.” Whenasked what specifically didn’t fit, he couldn’tanswer. His amnesia didn’t match his ex-traordinary mind for numbers or near-pho-tographic memory at other times. “You haveone of the brightest minds I know,” said thegeneral manager, “and yet you don’t seem torecall any specifics about our proposal. Thatmakes us think you’re not really listening orinterested.”

The agreement before the meeting wasthat the CEO would make a decision. But theCEO refused to say what he was really think-ing and made another “delay” move. “BeforeI make a decision,” he said, “I’ll read yourproposal one more time.” In yet another can-did response, one colleague said, “I’m notsure I understand what difference reading itagain will make. We’ve talked through all thekey elements today. When we talk to you, weget head nodding and a noncommittal an-swer. We’re equally okay with a yes or no

491/564

decision, but we didn’t come here looking foranother ‘maybe.’” Another colleague, whohad a reputation for being patient and ableto open and advance difficult conversations,stepped in. He tried being “nice,” askedopen-ended questions, used Socratic reason-ing, showed understanding, and so on. Then,suddenly, rather calm discussion trans-formed into confrontation.

The same man interrupted the CEO, chal-lenged his strategy, questioned his logic,contested his points, and drew out both gunsfor high-IQ shooting. He aggressively ques-tioned the CEO and escalated the intensity ofthe conversation. After the meeting his sur-prised colleagues asked him why he haddone so. “Well,” he responded, “if whatyou’re doing isn’t working, try something dif-ferent. This was as different as I knew how togo, and we still couldn’t reach him. We stilldidn’t get an answer.” Finally, a decisioncame.

492/564

No.So what’s the good news about the candor

of that interaction? The answer is a decision.This management team turned an eternalyellow light to red by advancing the discus-sion. In doing so, they created two greenlights; the CEO could focus resources onwhat he really believed in, and the businessunit was no longer distracted by continuing adiscussion that didn’t have support andresources.

When we’re candid, we can’t expect theworld to shift in our direction because we’vebroken the cold silence with tough facts.Veracity also doesn’t assume we’re unbiased.Our perceptions may be right, and they mayjust as easily be wrong. In either case, com-panies are better off when people speak up.

adherence

493/564

As we conclude the book, let’s talk about thesecond meaning of veracity: adherence totruth. That usually means change, andchange is the very point of egonomics. Whileit’s true that knowledge is power, there is aclear difference in the power of knowingversus the discipline of becoming. If our pur-suit reveals truth, and we don’t change, thepursuit was worthless. If we resist truthwhen faced with it, we build egotistical scartissue that makes future resistance morelikely. Not long ago we were in a taxi in Bo-ston. The driver wanted to talk. We didn’t.He won.

TAXI DRIVER:…had quadruple bypassabout a year ago.US: Wow. How did it go?TAXI DRIVER: Oh, it went well. I’mtaking stress classes, trying to eat

494/564

right, trying not to get too woundup when I’m driving.US: That’s good. Congratulations.TAXI DRIVER: I can’t quit thatdamned smoking, though. My doc-tor says it’s going to kill me, but Ijust can’t do it. I’ll probably die witha cigarette in my mouth.

He probably will.But before ego tempts us to place

ourselves above the discipline of the taxidriver, imagine for a moment that over thelast few months you’ve experienced numb-ness in your left arm and occasionally aslight tightness in your chest. Concernedenough to check it out, you set an appoint-ment with your physician. Upon your arriv-ing at the hospital, your doctor expressesenough concern that she decides to run some

495/564

tests. After an EKG, an angiogram, andstress tests you return to your doctor’s officefor the results.

She informs you there’s good news andbad news. You want the bad news first, soshe delivers it: you need triple bypass sur-gery. It’s more serious than you thought.After a moment to absorb the bad news, youask for the good news. “From everything Ican tell,” the doctor says, “this isn’t heredit-ary. You don’t have a genetic predispositionto this problem. Once we perform the sur-gery, this can be prevented from ever hap-pening again if you take care of yourself, spe-cifically by your diet and exercise.” If youheard those words directly from your doctor,would you adhere to them?

Yes?Maybe you would, but here’s something to

consider before you answer. Not long afterour cab ride, Alan Deutschman wrote an art-icle on change for Fast Company entitled

496/564

“Change or Die.” “What if you were giventhat choice? For real. What if it weren’t rhet-oric that confuses corporate performancewith life or death, but actual life or death?Yours. What if a doctor said you had to maketough changes in the way you think andact—or your time would end soon? Couldyou change? Here are the scientifically stud-ied odds: nine to one. That’s nine to oneagainst you.”

In the article, Deutschman cites Dr. Ed-ward Miller, dean of the medical school andCEO at Johns Hopkins University. About600,000 people have bypasses every year inthe United States, and 1.3 million heart pa-tients have angioplasties at a total cost ofabout $30 billion. Approximately 50 percentof the bypass grafts clog up in a few years,and the angioplasties in a few months. Ac-cording to Dr. Miller, the way to decrease thenumber of patients returning for repeat sur-gery is a simple change to a healthier

497/564

lifestyle, but that change is rare. “If you lookat people after coronary-artery bypass graft-ing two years later, 90% of them have notchanged their lifestyle,” Miller said, “andthat’s been studied over and over and overagain. And so we’re missing some link inthere. Even though they know they have avery bad disease and they know they shouldchange their lifestyle, for whatever reason,they can’t.”

So now what’s your answer—would youchange?

It’s probably still yes. We haven’t askedthat question of a group yet and hadsomeone answer, “No. I prefer open-heartsurgery or death.” But even under the threatof life or death, the majority stays the same.And if people don’t change under the threatof life or death, what are the odds they’llchange the way they work?

when no change is change

498/564

Because the odds are so ominous, here’ssomething to think about. If we don’t makethe choice to change, we will change anyway.We change every day—without any effort.People who stay the same move backward.When we stand still, people pass us, and soour status changes. The early warning signsare signals we’re stuck in neutral or—moreaccurately—in reverse as the world passes us.The business world grades performance on acurve, and someone is pushing that curveupward right now. Even if it’s just one per-son who pushes that curve, everyone else willbe measured by a higher standard.

It’s also possible our world isn’t changing.Maybe it’s static, and what we’ve writtendoesn’t apply. Certainly the oil industrydoesn’t appear to change as dramatically astechnology. Maybe we’re safe. In the eco-nomics of change, we won’t change unlesswhat we’re earning (money, growth,

499/564

opportunities, contribution) isn’t goodenough—unless we’re not satisfied. Noamount of rhetoric can force people to pro-gress. A decision to take the next step is anindividual choice, and we will make thatchoice when the pain is intense enough thatrelief becomes a high priority. Or it could bethat the opportunity in front of us makes usrestless with the current state of affairs.

Organizations—and people—most inter-ested in change generally fall into two cat-egories: already great or dying. It’s the oneswho are “good enough” who rarely make amove and opt for mediocrity. But whereverwe are, if we want to change, now is the time.“This is no time to engage in the luxury ofcooling off,” said Martin Luther King, Jr., “orto take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.”The point of departure for change is irrelev-ant. It’s the departure itself that mat-ters—one moment at a time.

500/564

Note: A free survey to assess your team’s ef-fectiveness on the principles of humility,curiosity, and veracity is available atwww.egonomicsbook.com.

10: veracity key points

• Veracity doesn’t differ fromtruth in its destination, but in ac-tion. Veracity implies the habitu-al pursuit of, and adherence to,truth. Both pursuit and adher-ence matter immensely, pursuitin arriving at truth, and adher-ence in making a change oncetruth is discovered.

• In business, veracity is the pur-suit of reality—the difference

501/564

between what we think is hap-pening, and what’s actually hap-pening. Pursuit must be relent-less because what’s true in busi-ness or science today willchange.

• Veracity in business sufferswhen identities are threatened.

• The barrier to veracity is not thatpeople are incapable of seeingthe truth or even expressing it.The reaction to hard-to-heartruth when revealed isn’t usuallyfavorable. As a result of the typ-ical reaction to candor, mostpeople believe truth telling isrisky.

• If the pursuit of truth is to be-come an individual and culturalhabit, we need two specific abil-ities: hearing down and speak-ing up.

502/564

• A major barrier to hearing downis our belief that dissent is dis-loyalty. If we view dissent as dis-loyalty, we’ve closed our mind.More often than not, there’s pos-itive intent behind a negativecomment.

• If we want those “above” to heardown, those speaking up have aresponsibility equal to those whoshould be listening.

• We need as much humility tospeak up as others need in hear-ing down. When speaking up,what we say, how we say it, andour intent plays a big part inwhere the conversation goes.While it’s true that some thingsare better left unsaid, too oftensilence stifles progress.

• One of the main reasons wedon’t speak up is fear. There are

503/564

two primary fears that keep usquiet: fear of being labeled andfear of saying what we’re notafraid to think.

• There are three steps for speak-ing up effectively: 1) establishpermission, 2) make your inten-tions clear, 3) be candid.

• The second half of veracity’smeaning is adherence to truth.That usually means change.While it’s true that knowledge ispower, there is a clear differencein the power of knowing versusthe discipline of becoming.

504/564

appendix

early warning signs—beliefs

Most of us are influenced by more than oneof the early warning signs of ego. We mayhave tendencies toward one sign, like beingdefensive, but everyone has experiencedmore than one sign at different times. Thesigns show up in the moment and turn ourstrengths into counterfeits. Since we makedecisions based on beliefs, breaking the habitof any early warning sign—even momentar-ily—requires we examine beliefs that driveour tendencies. Our beliefs are based on anequation—a series of “this plus this equalsthis” or “if-then” logic. But the math we do inour heads doesn’t always add up: the beliefswe have may be anything but true. If we can

identify the faulty equations in our minds,we can break bad habits.

The first item under each early warningsign lists healthy viewpoints when our levelof that sign is about right. Next we list indic-ations we’ve crossed the line and severalquestions that test beliefs that could bepushing us over the line. While we may nothave all these beliefs, we probably have atleast one.

early warning signs—primaryemotions or attitudes

There is often a difference between what wesay or do and what we’re thinking or feeling.Even though we might say the right words,sometimes we feel different. While what wefeel or think can be masked by the rightwords or actions, our intentions and feelingsare always true, although not always re-vealed. What we’re feeling lets us know if our

506/564

ego is causing us to feel an inappropriatelevel of a particular warning sign. Finally, welist the primary emotions or attitudes relatedto that early warning sign. If we feel one ormore of the related emotions or attitudes forthat sign, we should double-check to makesure we’re not preoccupied with that particu-lar warning sign.

early warning sign 1: beingcomparative

when it’s about right: internal competitionI want and expect to win.

when we cross the line

• I see nearly everyone as a rival.

507/564

• I have a hard time when othersare recognized for theirperformance.

beliefs we can test

• Will competition discourage tal-ented but less-competitivepeople from contributing?

• Does competition always equalbetter team performance?

• Have you seen competition hurtteam performance?

• Do all team members value com-petition equally?

• Will all team members respondto competition in a positive way?

• Will competition hurtcollaboration?

508/564

• In this situation, is competitionthe best way to elevate teamperformance?

early warning sign 2: beingdefensive

when it’s about right: expertise

Good ideas are worth defending.

509/564

when we cross the line

• I shouldn’t have to defend myideas.

beliefs we can test

• If people challenge the idea, arethey really challenging mepersonally?

• Will the challenge hold up?• If the challenge prevails, will I be

seen as a loser (dumb, less cap-able, or hasty)?

• Is challenge negative?• Will challenge take away any

credit I deserve for my effort?

510/564

early warning sign 3: showcasingbrilliance

when it’s about right: expertiseI have unique perspective and expertise.

when we cross the line

• I give advice, even when I’m notasked.

• I have all the answers.

511/564

beliefs we can test

• If I give advice, even when notasked, is my expertise alwaysrelevant?

• Is now the best time to share myexpertise?

• Is this the best way to share myexpertise?

• Is my advice true, or is theresome bias in what I’m saying?

• Just because I give my opinion,does that mean it will be heardand others will value it?

512/564

early warning sign 4: seekingacceptance

when it’s about right: disagreement

I want people to like my ideas but, disagree-ment can be productive.

when we cross the line

• Disagreement is another form ofattack.

• I’m troubled when someone dis-agrees with my point of view.

513/564

beliefs we can test

• If people disagree with an idea,does that mean they don’t likethe person who shared the idea?

• If people don’t like my idea, doesthat mean they think less of me?

• If people like my idea, does it al-ways mean they like me?

• If people disagree with an idea,is it always because they’reobjective?

• If people disagree with part ofmy idea, does that mean thewhole idea is bad?

• If people disagree with my idea,does that mean they have a bet-ter idea?

• If a few people disagree with myidea, does that mean everyonewill have the same reaction?

514/564

• Don’t all of the best ideas requiresome modification before they’retruly great?

515/564

notes

1. ego and the bottom line

“Every good thought that we have”: WilliamLaw in The Forbes Book of Business Quota-tions, ed. Ted Goodman (New York: BlackDog and Leventhal Publishers 1997), 682.

Over half of all businesspeople estimate egocosts their company: MarcumSmith, LC sur-vey of 837 businesspeople. “Considering theeffect of ego on conversations, decisions, andmeetings, how much would you estimate egois costing your organization as a percentageof annual revenue?” Revenue cost estimate:0 percent: 3 percent; 1 percent to 5 percent:17 percent; 6 percent to 10 percent: 34 per-cent; 11 to 15 percent: 19 percent; 16 percent

to 20 percent: 27 percent. Error rate + or –5percent. Employee size: fewer than 250 em-ployees, 38 percent; 251 to 500 employees, 9percent; 501 to 1,000 employees, 9 percent;1,001 to 2,500 employees, 10 percent; morethan 2,500 employees, 34 percent. Annualrevenue: less than 25 million, 43 percent; 25to 100 million, 10 percent; 100 to 500 mil-lion, 14 percent; more than 500 million, 31percent. Rank distribution: individual con-tributor, 22 percent; manager, 34 percent;senior manager, 12 percent; executive, 21percent; C-suite, 3 percent; board member, 7percent.

Fannie Mae was listed as one of only elevencompanies: Jim Collins, Good to Great (NewYork: HarperCollins, 2001), 25.

“Fannie Mae reaches $400 million settle-ment”: Reuters, CNNMoney, May 23, 2006,

517/564

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/23/news/companies/fannie.reut/index.htm.

“Fannie Mae thought itself so different, sospecial, and so powerful”: Bethany McLean,“The Fall of Fannie Mae,” Fortune, January24, 2005.

Roy Baumeister…and Liqing Zhang…con-ducted a series of experiments: LiqingZhang and Roy F. Baumeister, “Your Moneyor Your Self-Esteem: Threatened EgotismPromotes Costly Entrapment in Losing En-deavors,” Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin 32 (2006): 881–93.

Over one-third of all failed business de-cisions are driven by ego: “ Smart Compan-ies, Dumb Decisions,” Fast Company, Octo-ber 1997, 160; Paul C. Nutt, Making ToughDecisions (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,1989).

518/564

News articles berate ego-trippers: “Don’tLet Ego Kill the Startup,” BusinessWeek On-line, Special Report, October 25, 2005, ht-tp://www.business week.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc20051025_043783.htm;“Ego Slams T.O.,” USA Today, November 8,2005, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005–11–08-owens-edit_x.htm.

“I believe what you say”: Collins, Good toGreat, 35–36.

“In a certain sense, they may have beenplaying chicken up there”: Jon Krakauer,“True Everest: Into Thin Air, ” Outside, ht-tp://outside.away.com/outside/destina-tions/199609/199609_into_thin_air_11.html.

519/564

“Other businesspeople can do that”: Carol J.Loomis, “Why Carly’s Big Bet Is Failing,”Fortune, February 7, 2006, 60.

“It must watch for clues”: Marcus Bucking-ham and Donald O. Clifton, Now DiscoverYour Strengths (New York: Free Press,2001), 5.

In getting full access to that talent: Mar-cumSmith, LC survey of 837 businesspeople.“At work, how often do you observe ego neg-atively affecting conversations, decisions, ormeetings?” hourly, 15 percent; daily, 48 per-cent; weekly, 31 percent; quarterly, 3 per-cent; annually, 0 percent; never, 3 percent.Error rate, + or –5 percent. Employee num-ber: fewer than 250 employees, 38 percent;251 to 500 employees, 9 percent; 501 to1,000 employees, 9 percent; 1,001 to 2,500employees, 10 percent; more than 2,500 em-ployees, 34 percent. Company revenue: less

520/564

than 25 million, 43 percent; 25 to 100 mil-lion, 10 percent; 100 to 500 million, 14 per-cent; more than 500 million, 33 percent.Position distribution: individual contributor,22 percent; manager, 34 percent; seniormanager, 12 percent; executive, 21 percent;C-suite, 4 percent; board member, 7 percent.

“If those cultures are as prevalent”: AnneFisher, “Starting a New Job? Don’t Blow It, ”Fortune, March 7, 2005, ht-tp://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/03/07/8253411/in-dex.htm. Fisher was referencing a study byRight Management Consultants.

we shouldn’t be surprised: “65% of WorkersLooking Around Says Survey,” Reuters,CNNMoney, January 30, 2006, 1.

“While there are certainly other factors”:Gardiner Morse, “Hidden Harassment,”

521/564

Harvard Business Review (June 1, 2005):28. Morse was referring to research byChristine Pearson of the Garvin School of In-ternational Management at Thunderbird andChristine Porath at USC’s Marshall School ofBusiness that studied “uncivil experiences”of more than 2,400 workers, managers, andexecutives in the United States and Canada.

“at $50,000 per employee”: William G.Bliss, “Cost of Employee Turnover,” The Ad-visor, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/06/8367928/index.htm; Calculations were alsomade using the U.S. Census Bureau’s Statist-ics about Business Size (including SmallBusinesses); Employers and Non-Employers,1997, Employment Size of EmploymentFirms, 2001; and U.S. Annual EmploymentTurnover Rates by Industry and by Geo-graphic Region through August 2004.

522/564

scarcest, most valuable resource: GeoffreyColvin, “Catch a Rising Star,” Fortune/CNNMoney, January 30, 2006, ht-tp://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/06/8367928/in-dex.html.

By the year 2010: Louis E. Boone and DavidL. Kurtz, Contemporary Business 2006(New York: Thomson South-Western, 2006),24.

“There’s an imminent leadership crisis”:Colvin, “Catch a Rising Star.”

2. the ego balance sheet

“Ego is our silent partner”: The Forbes Bookof Business Quotations, ed. Ted Goodman(New York: Black Dog and Leventhal Pub-lishers, 1997), 238.

523/564

“The competitor to be feared”: The ForbesBook of Business Quotations, 160.

A meta-analysis of 265 studies: Alfie Kohn,No Contest (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Com-pany, 1986), 47–48.

“We should take care”: Albert Einstein,quoted at http://www.bartleby.com/66/87/18587.html.

John Gottman and Julie Gottman, “The Artand Science of Love,” marriage retreat inSeattle, Washington, February 11–12, 2006;John M. Gottman and Nan Silver, The SevenPrinciples for Making Marriage Work (NewYork: Three Rivers Press, 2000), 4.

In one survey: “Integrity Matters,” FastCompany, September 2005, 52.

524/564

“Truth, when not sought after”: The ForbesBook of Business Quotations, 858.

“Jeff, I’m your biggest fan”: John A. Byrne,“The Fast Company Interview: Jeff Immelt,”Fast Company, July 2005, 61–64.

3. early warning sign 1

“Every man in the world”: Jerome Agel andWalter D. Glanze, Pearls of Wisdom: A Har-vest of Quotations from All Ages (New York:HarperCollins, 1987), 30.

“[Competition] is here; we cannot evade it”:Andrew Carnegie, quote at, http://www.bar-tleby.com/66/60/10560.html.

“A foe by being over-heeded”: Jean de LaFontaine, The Original Fables of La Fon-taine, trans. Frederick Colin Tilney, (Ted-dington, UK: Echo Library, 2006).

525/564

“That’s a classic mistake”: Elizabeth Esfa-hani, “How to Extend a Franchise,” Business2.0 (December 2004), 102; available at ht-tp://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2004/12/01/8192532/index.htm.

In one study, researchers asked people torank: J. K. Beggan, “On the Social Nature ofNonsocial Perception: The Mere OwnershipEffect,” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 62 (1992): 229–37.

In another study, researchers found thatwe’re influenced: Brett W. Pelham, MatthewC. Mirenderg, and John T. Jones, “WhySusie Sells Seashells by the Seashore: Impli-cit Egoism and Major Life Decisions,” Journ-al of Personality and Social Psychology 82(2002): 469–87.

526/564

how likely particular celebrities were toreach heaven: Douglas Stanglin, “Oprah: aHeavenly Body?” U.S. News & World Re-port, March 31, 1997, ht-tp://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/970331/archive_005829.htm.

rank increased happiness: Colin Allen,“Rank Determines Job Satisfaction,” Psycho-logy Today, October 6, 2003, http://psycho-logytoday.com/articles/pto-20031006–000002.html.

“Pride gets no pleasure out of havingsomething”: C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001).

“disheartened and depressed”: Oprah Win-frey, “What I Know for Sure,” OprahMagazine Supplement, Fifth AnniversaryEdition, May 2005, 22–23.

527/564

“What it looks like now”: Sydney Finkelsteinand Shade H. Sanford, “Learning from Cor-porate Mistakes: The Rise and Fall of Iridi-um,” Organizational Dynamics 29 (2000):138–48.

“Competition whose motive is merely tocompete”: Henry Ford, The Forbes Book ofBusiness Quotations, ed. Ted Goodman(New York: Black Dog and Leventhal Pub-lishers, 1997), 160.

“If you base your strategy”: MelanieWarner, “How to Think Competitively,”Business 2.0 (December 2004): 111.

“He’s welcome to say whatever he’d like”:John Battelle, “The 70 Percent Solution,”Business 2.0 (December 2005): 136.

528/564

“Everyone engaged in creative work is sub-ject to persecution”: Frank Lloyd Wright,Testament (New York: Horizon Press, 1957),15.

2002 revenue: EDS financial resultsgathered from www.eds.com, 4Q 2002; andFY Earnings Results, February 6, 2003.Strategies reported were from interviewswith EDS managers at the time of the story.

“If anything, Donovan provided clear-cutevidence”: Ives Galarcep, “Donovan Needs toLeave His Comfort Zone,” ESPNSoccernet(June 23, 2006), ht-tp://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=372268&root=world cup&cc=5901.

Until Toyota…world’s largest automobilemanufacturer: Micheline Maynard andJames Brooke, “Toyota May Top G.M. asBiggest Car Maker in 2006,” New York

529/564

Times, December 20, 2005, ht-tp://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/busi-ness/worldbusiness/20cnd-toyota.html?ex-=1292734800&en=52ce2c484a4b-cbaf&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss.

4. early warning sign 2

“Men often oppose”: Alexander Hamilton,The Federalist 70 (March 15, 1788), ht-tp://constitution.org/fed/federa70.htm.

“I look for bright people with strong person-alities”: Kay Barnes, “Fast Talk: The Busi-ness of Politics,” Fast Company, October2004, 57.

“I’m sure that I’m supposed to act all sorryor sad or guilty”: Mike Dodd, “Recognizing‘I’m 14 years late,’ Rose Admits He Bet onBaseball,” USA Today, January 5, 2004,

530/564

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2004–01–05-rose_x.htm.

“anyone I offended”: Alan Ehrenhalt, “TheArt of Apology,” Governing (January 18,2000), http://www.governing.com/view/vu011800.htm.

“guys with Confederate flags on their pickuptrucks”: “Dean: ‘I apologize for flag remark,’”CNN.com (November 7, 2003), ht-tp://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/06/elec04.prez.dean.flag/index.html.

“Receives negative feedback”: Stephen R.Covey, 7 Habits 360 Research, 1989–2002.

“I am not a crook”: Carroll Kilpatrick, “Nix-on Tells Editors, ‘I’m Not a Crook,’” Wash-ington Post, November 18, 1973, A1.

531/564

“It depends on what the meaning of theword ‘is’ is”: President William J. Clinton,Grand Jury testimony, 1998, http://www.lib-rary.unt.edu/GovInfo/impeach/answer-pr1.pdf.

“I wish you would have given me this writ-ten question ahead of time”: “President Ad-dresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Con-ference,” the White House, press conferenceof the President; the East Room, PresidentGeorge W. Bush, April 13, 2004, ht-tp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413–20.html.

“It’s an excellent question”: Mike Allen,“Next Question Please,” Washington Post,December 1, 2004, C1.

the more positive we are about ourselves:Shelley E. Taylor and Jonathan D. Brown,“Illusion and Well-Being: A Social

532/564

Psychological Perspective on MentalHealth,” Psychological Bulletin 103 (1988):193–210.

Holding an overly flattering view of one’spersonality: Mark R. Leary, The Curse of theSelf (New York: Oxford University Press,2004), 71.

You can’t shut out the world: Arnold Glas-gow, The Forbes Book of Business Quota-tions, ed. Ted Goodman (New York: BlackDog and Leventhal Publishers, 1997), 935.

“Do we have to change”: David Leonhardt,“McDonald’s: Can It Regain Its GoldenTouch?” BusinessWeek, March 9, 1998,70–77.

“The company was considered to be lost”:Todd Benjamin, “Carlos Ghosn: Nissan’sTurnaround Artist,” CNN.com (June 6,

533/564

2005), http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/04/20/boardroom.ghosn/.

Nissan is on track: “ Nissan Turns Around!”ICFAI: Center for Management Research,2003, http://www.icmr.icfai.org/casestud-ies/catalogue/Business%20Strategy1/BSTR073.htm.

“You’re not missionaries”: Jeremy Cato, “In-dustry Update: A Conversation with NissanPresident, Carlos Ghosn,” Canadian Driver,http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jc/ghosn.htm.

5. early warning sign 3

“This woman said I was acting like God”:Attributed to Woody Allen.

In a study of over 10,000 real-time workingrelationships: Tiziana Casciaro and Miguel

534/564

Sousa Lobo, “Competent Jerks, LovableFools, and the Formation of Social Net-works,” Harvard Business Review (June2005): 92–99.

“gives the segregator a false sense of superi-ority”: The Papers of Martin Luther King,Jr.: Desegregation and the Future, vol. 3,Birth of a New Age, December 1955–Decem-ber 1956 (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1997), http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/papers/vol3/561215.004-Desegrega-tion_and_the_Fu-ture,_Address_at_the_Annual_Luncheon_of_the_Nation-al_Committee_for_Rural_Schools.htm.

“He embraced his authoritative nature”:Seth Mnookin, Hard News (New York: Ran-dom House), xvii, xx, 227.

535/564

Many accident investigations do not go farenough: Columbia Accident InvestigationBoard; Report, vol. 1 (2003): 97.

“The larger the island of knowledge”: RalphW. Sockman, quoted atwww.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/ral-phwsoc104775.html.

In times of change: Eric Hoffer, The Ordealof Change (New York: Harper, 1967), 237.

“The illiterate of the 21st century”: AlvinToffler, quoted in Educational Technologyin the 21st Century. Joint Hearing before theCommittee on Science and the Committee onEconomic and Educational Opportunities.House of Representatives, 104th Cong., 1stsess., 1996, 240.

“There’s good evidence that once physiciansleave their residency”: T. DeAngelis, “Better

536/564

Self-assessment Equals Better Medical Judg-ments,” APA Online 34 (February 2003), ht-tp://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/bet-ter.html. DeAngelis was referring to researchby Larry Gruppen, University of MichiganMedical School.

“Our individual differences”: Scott E. Page,The Difference (New Jersey, PrincetonUniversity Press, 2007), i–ii.

“high-power group were almost three timesmore likely”: The Science Daily, January 11,2007, http://www.sciencedaily.com/re-leases/2007/01/070110124121.htm.

“The research has wide-ranging implica-tions”: Adam D. Galinsky, Joe C. Magee, M.Ena Inesi, and Deborah H. Gruenfeld,“Power and Perspectives Not Taken,” Psy-chological Science 17 (December 2006):1068–74.

537/564

To put it another way: Paul C. Nutt, WhyDecisions Fail (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2002), xi.

Steve Jobs’s picture is on the cover: BrentSchlender, “How Big Can Apple Get?” For-tune, February 21, 2005, ht-tp://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/02/21/8251769/in-dex.htm.

6. early warning sign 4

“Here is a secret that no one has told you”: “Tom Brokaw’s Commencement Address,”May 15, 2000, http://www.providence.edu/About+PC/College+News/Hid-den+Press+Kit+Items/Brokaw+Ad-dress.htm.

538/564

Nearly three hundred adolescents were sur-veyed: Mark R. Leary, The Curse of the Self(New York: Oxford University Press, 2004),126–27.

Performance on video games: Leary, TheCurse of the Self, 138–39.

Those who told corporate recruiters whatthey love to hear: Kim Girard, “The Fine Artof Sucking Up: Brownnosing, at Least in ItsMilder Forms, Can Work Wonders as aShort-Term Career Booster. Just Don’tOverdo It,” Business 2.0 (April 1, 2003), ht-tp://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2003/04/01/339807/in-dex.htm. Girard was referencing Jenny Chat-man’s research.

I’m really excited about your proposal: Gir-ard, “The Fine Art of Sucking Up,” 120.

539/564

“Exit champions need to be fearless”: Isa-belle Royer, “Why Bad Projects Are So Hardto Kill,” Harvard Business Review 81(February 2003): 56.

“If I tell you who I am”: John Powell, WhyAm I Afraid to Tell You Who I Am? Insightsinto Personal Growth (Texas: Thomas MoreAssociation 1995).

7. humility

“True humility is intelligent self-respect”:Ralph W. Sockman, quoted at ht-tp://thinkexist.com/quotes/ral-ph_w._sockman.

Our experience is that people are hungry forthe answers: MarcumSmith, LC survey of837 executives, managers, and individualcontributors. “Do you wish your organization

540/564

were more humble?” Yes, 83 percent; no, 17percent; error rate + or –5 percent.

“You can say this much for Disney CEO BobIger”: Peter Lauria, “Iger’s Apparent Humil-ity Seen as Strength,” New York Post, Janu-ary 22, 2006, 27.

“One of the most difficult things for God todo”: Scoop Jackson, “One Defining Mo-ment,” ESPN Page 2, May 9, 2006.

58 percent of workers believe most top exec-utives: Betsy Morris, Rutgers and Universityof Connecticut poll, Fortune, July 11, 2006,http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/10/magazines/fortune/rule5.fortune/index.htm.

Economists have long assumed: JerryUseem, “How to Build a Great Team,” For-tune, June 1, 2006, http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/31/magazines/fortune/

541/564

intro_greatteams_fortune_061206/in-dex.htm.

“That man over there says that women”: So-journer Truth (Isabella Baumfree), “Ain’t I aWoman?,” 1851: Account by Frances Gage,1881. Available at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/sojtruth-woman.html.

“Despite their proven success”: RoderickKramer, “The Great Intimidators,” HarvardBusiness Review 84 (February 2006): 96.

“For the first time in my life”: Taylor Hart-man, The Color Code (New York: Fireside,1999), 19–20.

“Many of the more conventional books onleadership”: Janet Zich, “Genius & Folly,”Stanford Business 69 (May 2001), ht-tp://www.gsb.stanford.edu/community/bmag/sbsm0105/

542/564

features_genius_folly.html. An interviewwith Dr. Roderick Kramer.

“by force of personality”: Kirk H. Beetz.“Steve Jobs,” http://www.referenceforbusi-ness.com/biography/F-L/Jobs-Steve-1955.html. Beetz is an expert encyclo-pedia writer.

“And then I got fired”: Steve Jobs, Com-mencement Address, Stanford Report, June14, 2005, http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html.

“Every year he’s mellowed and matured”:Katherine M. Hafner and Richard Brandt,“Steve Jobs: Can He Do It Again?” Busi-nessWeek, August 25, 1997, 5.

Although he was still certain: Beetz, “SteveJobs.”

543/564

“I’m pretty sure none of this would havehappened”: Jobs, Commencement Address.

“We haven’t written it yet”: Edna Gunder-sen, “U2: How to Dismantle a Ticking TimeBomb,” USA Today, June 30, 2005, 3D.

“Cars now spend 8 hours in paint”: CharlesFishman, “No Satisfaction at Toyota,” FastCompany, December 2006/January 2007,82, http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/111/open_no-satisfaction.html.

“only the paranoid survive”: Andrew S.Grove, Only the Paranoid Survive (NewYork: Currency, 1996).

8. humility, part ii

“What the eye is to the body”: John Wesley,“On a Single Eye,” Sermon 118, 1872.

544/564

“Unless one considers alternatives”: Peter F.Drucker, The Effective Executive (New York:HarperCollins, 1966), 148.

“You need executives”: Jim Collins, Good toGreat (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 60.

“Then I propose”: Drucker, The Effective Ex-ecutive, 148.

“All right, Rogers”: U.S. Senate, Committeeon Commerce. Subcommittee on Communic-ations, Hearings on S. 1242, Extension ofAuthorizations under the Public Broadcast-ing Act of 1967, 1969 National EducationalTelevision Hearings, 91st Cong., 1st sess.,April 30 and May 1, 1969, Y 4.C 73/2 (Wash-ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice, 1969), 91–95.

“diffuse physiological arousal”: “TheMathematics of Love: A Talk with John

545/564

Gottman,” TheEdge.org., April 14, 2004, ht-tp://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gottman05/gottman05_index.html.

“neural tripwire”: Daniel Goleman, Emo-tional Intelligence (New York: Bantam,1995), 16.

“cool down”: John Gottman and JulieGottman, “The Art and Science of Love,”marriage retreat in Seattle, Washington,February 11–12, 2006.

“It’s tough for guys like Brett Favre”: ColinCowherd, “The Herd,” ESPN-Radio, May 11,2006.

“I’d just like to talk”: U.S. Senate, Hearingon S. 1242…1969 National Educational Tele-vision Hearings.

546/564

“When Lego decided in 1999”: Nelson D.Schwartz, “One Brick at a Time,” Fortune,June 6, 2006, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/06/12/8379252/.

Carl Rogers was one of the most influentialpsychologists: Carl Rogers’s works includeOn Becoming a Person, Client-CenteredTherapy, Freedom to Learn for the 80’s, AWay of Being, Carl Rogers on PersonalPower, and Becoming Partners: Marriageand Its Alternatives. Biographical sketchprovided by Rogers’s daughter, NatalieRogers.

“Here’s the scene”: Brent Schlender, “Pixar’sMagic Man,” Fortune, May 17, 2006, ht-tp://money.cnn.com/2006/05/15/magazines/fortune/pix-ar_futureof_fortune_052906/index.htm.

9. curiosity

547/564

“Genuine ignorance is profitable because”:John Dewey, quoted at ht-tp://www.en.thinkexist.com/search/searchquotation.asp?search=genuine+ignor-ance&q=author%3A%22John+Dewey%22.

“So, you’re onto a winner?”: “Got a BigIdea?” accessed at www.virgin.com/aboutvirgin/gotabigidea.

“We’re all virgins at business”: RichardBranson, “Losing My Virginity,” ht-tp://www.virgin.com/aboutvirgin/all-aboutvirgin/richardsautobiography/de-fault.asp.

“They have a sufficient sense of security”:David Beswick, “An Introduction to theStudy of Curiosity,” Centre for Applied Edu-cational Research, University of Melbourne,

548/564

May 10, 2000, http://www.beswick.info/psychres/curiosityintro.htm.

“questions will be asked”: Beswick, ibid.Beswick’s relevant writings also include“From Curiosity to Identity: Wonder, Curios-ity, Purpose, and Identity; The Function ofIdentity in the Psychology of Intrinsic Motiv-ation,” http://www.beswick.info/psychres/CuriosityIdentity.htm.

Between 1968 and 1974, Walter Mischel ofStanford University: Yuichi Shoda, WalterMischel, and Philip K. Peak, “PredictingAdolescent Cognitive and Self-RegulatoryCompetencies from Preschool Delay of Grati-fication,” Developmental Psychology 26(1990): 978–86.

“We humans seem to be extremely good”:Thomas Gilovich, How We Know What Isn’tSo (New York: Free Press, 1991), 58.

549/564

101 new patents are applied for: Statisticsdrawn from U.S. Patent Office, Small Busi-ness Administration, Dun and Bradstreet,U.S. Department of Labor; Robert McMathand Thom Forbes, What Were They Think-ing? (New York: Times Books, 1998); DonDebelak, “Want Some of This?,” Entrepren-eur, June 2002, ht-tp://www.entrepreneur.com/magazine/en-trepreneur/2002/june/51926-2.html; “Over-due and Over Budget, Over and Over Again,”The Economist, June 9, 2005.

“What resources did you need”: RosabethMoss Kanter, The Change Masters (NewYork: Simon & Schuster, 1983), 213–14.

“Wherever you are, look around”: DavidKelley, “The Deep Dive,” ABC Nightline,February 9, 1999.

550/564

“Jolt us out of our assumptions”: Peter F.Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship(New York: Harper & Row, 1986), 50.

“The more an organization knows”: ThomasDavenport with Laurence Prusak, Informa-tion Ecology, (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1997).

“Uh, cool…but it doesn’t do what we need itto do”: Jena McGregor, “Fabulous Failuresof Successful People,” BusinessWeek, July10, 2006, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_28/b3992001.htm.

“For me, the guiding principle in deciding”:Duff McDonald, “How to Find the HiddenValue,” Business 2.0, December 2004, 102.

10. veracity

551/564

“On some positions, Cowardice asks thequestion”: Martin Luther King, Jr., quotingnineteenth-century preacher William MorleyPunshon in a personal letter to Gene Patter-son, the Pulitzer Prize–winning editor of theAtlanta Constitution; Roy Peter Clark, “Cor-respondence: The Preacher and the Editor,”St. Petersburg Times, January 19, 2003, ht-tp://www.sptimes.com/2003/01/19/Per-spective/Correspondence__The_p.shtml.

“Our lives begin to end the day”: MartinLuther King, Jr., “A Proper Sense of Priorit-ies,” February 6, 1968, Washington, D.C.

If you were an executive at Coca-Cola: Mi-chael Shermer, “Bottled Twaddle,” ScientificAmerican, July 2003, ht-tp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art-icleID=000007F0-6DBD-1ED9-8E1C809EC588EF21.201“I don’t know enough to analyze”: Peter F.

552/564

Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship(New York: Harper & Row, 1986), 50.

“The company was technically bankrupt”:Carol Hymowitz, “Executives Who BuildTruth-Telling Cultures Learn Fast fromWhat Works,” Wall Street Journal, June 13,2006, B1; Ray Pelosi, “Corporate Spotlight:DaVita,” American Health Executive, Sup-plement, November 2004, RedCoatPublish-ing.com, ht-tp://www.redcoatpublishing.com/spot-lights/sl_11_04_he_DaVita.asp.

“Employees aren’t failing to provide ideas”:James R. Detert and Amy C. Edmondson,“Latent Voice Episodes: The Situation-Spe-cific Nature of Speaking Up at Work,” Har-vard Business School Working Paper Series,no. 6–024, October 31, 2005.

553/564

“For this cause I have now called you to-gether”: Herodotus, The Histories (NewYork: Everyman’s Library, 1952).

“legend of courage, integrity, social re-sponsibility”: David Halberstam, ThePowers That Be (Urbana: University ofIllinois Press, 2000).

“This just might do nobody any good”: Ed-ward R. Murrow, Keynote Address, RTNDAConvention, Chicago, October 15, 1958, Mu-seum of Broadcast Communications.

“One may refrain from speaking in public”:Kenneth Savitsky, Nicholas Epley, and Tho-mas Gilovich, “Do Others Judge Us asHarshly as We Think? Overestimating theImpact of Our Failures, Shortcomings, andMishaps,” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 81 (2001): 44–56.

554/564

“If it starts negative”: John Gottman andJulie Gottman, “The Art and Science ofLove,” marriage retreat in Seattle, Washing-ton, February 11–12, 2006.

“What stronger breastplate”: WilliamShakespeare, Henry VI, Part II, III, ii.

“What if you were given that choice?”: AlanDeutschman, “Change or Die,” Fast Com-pany, May 2005, 54.

“This is no time to engage in the luxury ofcooling off”: Martin Luther King, Jr., “I Havea Dream,” August 28, 1963.

555/564

acknowledgments

Stanford Professor Coit Blacker once saideach of us is the “elaborate construction ofothers.” Not only are we personally the elab-orate construction of loving, wise teachers,so is this book. Our work exists because timeand again, people went out of their way tohelp, with no obligation. This book tappedevery ounce of mental, physical, and spiritualenergy we possessed. When we were per-plexed and exhausted, business leaders,scholars, colleagues, clients, and friends lib-erated us through encouragement, hard-to-hear feedback, granted interviews, swiftlyanswered emails, completed surveys, chal-lenged our ideas, and added insightand—candidly—prayers. Many of ourgreatest breakthroughs were the direct result

of the humility, curiosity, and veracity ofhundreds of people—not two.

With deep gratitude, we thank: TatianaChristensen, Esq.; Nancy Hancock; TimothyBothell, PhD; Lisa Harkness; Greg Link; RonBeck; Greg Steed; Christie Shaw; GregHartle; Stephen Quesenberry, Esq.; WallaceGoddard, PhD; Cherise Davis; Iyar Koren;Molly Takeda, PhD; Kathryn Moon; JasonPierson; Claudia Simon; Bill Goodwin;Nancy Spencer; Gerry Spence, Esq.; BryanHuddleston; Crickett Willardsen; NatalieDew; Jahn Prince; Lisa Bearnson; SimonBillsberry; Ivan Cage; Stephanie Ashton; Dr.James Parkin; Jim Thyen; Jack Welch; An-gela Habingreither; Mindy Hunter; DayniaLewis; Bridget Penney; Madonna Elsbury;Gregg DeWaele; Mahan Khalsa; Robin Beck;Ben Johnston; Mark Matheson; CatherineMcCann; Eric Nuttall; Blake Modersitzki;Steve Moreschi; Edith Strommen; Jeff Tho-mas; Paul Peterson; Hal Howard; Dr. Todd

557/564

Nilson; Chris Willardsen; Einar Schow; DeonLewis; Paulie Measom; Dave Harkness;Charles Lynn Frost; Lahn Simmons; PaulJackson; Steve Schade; Denise Snyder; BryceThacker; Kirk Hall; Gordy Janiec; KyleHunter; John Davenport; Stephen M. R.Covey; Ian Edwards; Lisa Hartle; DavidMoon; Les Barber; Shelly Thacker; LesMcGuire; Giselle Fox; Micah Christensen;Terry Johnson; Bret Van Leeuwen; KeriAnderson; Dr. Aaron Jensen; Steve Robin-ette; Michael Simon; Debbie Orton; MindyHall; Susan Stoll; Alice Cogdill; Alex Pulsi-pher; Morgan Ashton; Julie Hall; CraigPeterson; David Lamping; Ben Pratt; DaveSenior; Garrett Lyman; Jared Lundquist;Jim Hopkins; Malcolm Burt, Esq; Joe Tho-mas; Mark Dalley; Greg Pyper; Bruce Dew;Todd Stephens; Allie Davenport; Paul Coon;Von Orgill; Perry Santia; Glen Steinman; andBarry Bauer.

558/564

We also thank everyone who sent chapterreviews and personal stories to our ReviewBoard blog. We learned something from eachone shared.

Special thanks to Amy Edmondson of Har-vard University, Scott Page at the Universityof Michigan, and Jim Detert of Penn StateUniversity for sharing their insightful workand research with us. You don’t always getthe privilege of meeting those who shapeyour work; that doesn’t mean we’re any lessgrateful to William Zinsser, Jim Collins, andPeter F. Drucker for their profound affect onour thinking and writing.

Last, but not least, we thank our familiesand express our love and appreciation fortheir amazing support and sacrifice, espe-cially during our 24/7 disappearance of July2006. Thank you, Karen, Lindsay, Jeff, andSpencer. Thank you, Kitty, Alec, Caden, andNickolaus.

559/564

September 1, 2006560/564

about marcumsmith, lc

David Marcum and Steven Smith foundedMarcumSmith, LC, in 2002. We travel theworld helping organizations utilize the cor-porate asset of ego while limiting its liabilit-ies. MarcumSmith, LC, works with organiza-tions in a variety of industries: conglomer-ate, high tech, government, insurance, ser-vice, finance, utilities, telecommunications,health care, and media. Our client list in-cludes companies from the Fortune 500,America’s Most Admired Companies, andthe 100 Best Companies to Work For. Ineach case, we deliver our content from thetop of the corporate ladder to the watercool-er in a professional but very uncorporateway. When we go to our graves, we hope tobe compared to Apple or Virgin-insightful,unique content, stylish design, and pure

business relevance. Imagine a leadershipclass designed by people who hate to wastetime and drag themselves through leadershiptraining as much as you do. We think of hu-mility, curiosity, and veracity as the playbookfor a new generation of businesspeople, or anold generation ready to think differently andreach for the next level of leadership. Weteach techniques and deliver tools for optim-izing that playbook.

At MarcumSmith, LC, we acknowledge ourambitious goal to raise every business’sawareness to the truth about ego-what itcosts and what return it delivers when man-aged effectively. Fiftyone percent of busi-nesspeople estimate that ego costs theircompany 6 to 15 percent of annual revenue;21 percent say that cost ranges from 16 to 20percent. But any cost to a company is toohigh. To deliver on that ambition, we offeron-site teaching and train-the-trainer certi-fications. Participants in our workshops, and

562/564

teams we consult with, credit us with a 48.9percent improvement in their effectiveness.We also deliver keynotes, public workshops,executive coaching, and consulting. If you’recurious, reach us at 877.EGO.INSIGHT(877.346.4674), www.marcumsmith.com, orwww.egonomicsbook.com.

563/564

@Created by PDF to ePub