Bob's Books

Why this book:  I recently began hearing or reading references to this book – and I’d never heard of it.  So I did a bit of research, was intrigued, and  pressed my literature reading group to select it – noting that though it is la bit longer (630 pages) than our normal selection, it was time to again read a book of substance.  Indeed Angle of Repose had won the Pulitzer Prize for literature in 1972 and was ranked one of the top 100 novels in the English language in the 20th century.

Summary in 3 Sentences: The “story” is of a wheelchair-bound retired history professor researching and writing a biography of his   grandmother who had raised him, based on  her letters to her close friend back east after moving to the west in the 1870s with her new husband, the history professor’s grandfather.  It is fascinating that Stegner used as the model for the fictional grandmother a real woman, Mary Hallock Foote, whose letters he had obtained from her family, and from which he quoted liberally – so Angle of Repose is indeed part biography of the experiences of a real “gentlewoman” and her family, who lived in some very untamed and not-yet-civilized circumstances in the West.  But the story is also about the history professor and his impressions of what he learns about his grandparents, his guesses and assumptions about what is left out of the letters and what all that might mean to him, dealing with his own challenges in 1970.

My Impressions: I loved this book.   I keep reflecting on it, and how and why it had such an impact on me.  This is part of what I believe makes Angle of Repose truly great literature.   A very well developed writing style, and a very creative approach to weaving stories of courage and resilience, cultural change, love, marriage, anger and forgiveness, into a story that opens the door to understanding how American culture evolved.  It moves from the the refined center of Brahmin culture in upper class New York City, to the raw and unrefined version of American culture that was emerging in the American West in the late 19th century.  The book is presented in 9 parts and as such, it is a 9 course feast.  Like a great meal, it starts out a bit slow, and then builds in momentum, with each course adding to the last, each course bringing a new dimension and new depth to the meal.   But unlike a great meal, it does not climax toward the end and finish on a soft note with a satisfied sigh and a sweet dish “dessert” as an epilogue. The  momentum in Angle of Repose builds right up to the last chapter and the last page.

The characters in the story are people I could relate to in today’s terms – and their world  was comprehensible to me as not fundamentally different from my own, though very different on the surface.  Though much of it takes place in the American West of the 1870s and 1880s, Angle of Repose does not describe the world of cowboys and Indians that many of us grew up with on television or in movies – it describes a world more familiar to us.  Technological advances have certainly made a difference: Communication was slow and uncertain.  Travel was long and complicated.   There were dangers and health issues, and uncertainties which our society and science have since significantly mitigated.  But the old saw that “people are people”  is very evident here.  These are Americans, and the challenges, the disappointments, the drives and impulses that are very familiar to me are very much a part of the lives of the people in this world of 140-150 years ago.

The various environments in which Angle of Repose takes place are part of what makes this book fascinating, and Stegner’s wonderful writing makes them real and almost palpable, allowing the reader to experience and almost sense them.  From the world of Milton, NY,  and genteel New York City in which the book starts, to a mining camp in New Almaden (near San Jose), California, then to Santa Cruz, California, then Leadville, Colorado, then Michoacan, Mexico, then Boise, Idaho, and finally to a farm in Grass Valley in Northern California in 1970 (yes 1970 -which is the time and place in which the fictional author of the biography is writing)  we come to know our characters, their thoughts, concerns, their lives.

The “jewels in the crown” of this novel are the characters and how Stegner develops them.  These are no simple two-dimensional characters – each is a complex human being, with strengths weaknesses, palpable emotions, flawed, yet strong.  None of them got what they really wanted in life – none of them had their dreams fulfilled. Yet by and large, they refused to be victims, and carried on with courage and determination to make the best of what they had.

Stegner uses an unusual literary device to describe and develop his characters.  The novel is written in first person by an author researching the life of his grandmother, with the intent of publishing it as a biography.  We get to know the main characters through the eyes of one of their descendants, seeking to uncover facts about their lives to better understand them, their motivations, their disappointments, who they were.   He struggles with gaps in what he is able to ascertain from the evidence he has, so he adds his own conjecture and judgments, and in so doing we get to know the character of the fictional researcher writing the biography of his grandmother.

The perspective and life of our narrator, that researcher biographer, is a key part of Angle of Repose.   This researcher narrator is clearly a version of Stegner himself, since Stegner was using essentially the same real letters as his fictional character to create the story.   The narrator of Angle of Repose is clearly sharing much of Stegner’s own perspective on the historical characters whose lives he is recounting, as well as on the world of 1970 in which he lives.

In writing the book,  Stegner argued that the main characters in the historical narrative – Susan and Oliver Ward – though built largely on the real-life characters Mary Hallock Foote and Arthur De Wint Foote in the letters he was quoting, are indeed fictional.  We learn in the introduction that Stegner made clear that as a fiction writer, he used his creative license to create experiences and aspects of the characters in Angle of Repose that were not reflected in the actual letters upon which he based his story; he bent and shaped the historical characters and their experiences to fit the fictional story he sought to tell. We also learn in the introduction, that some of the actual ancestors of the Foote family accused Stegner in his story of Susan and Oliver Ward, of plagiarizing the lives of Mary and Arthur Foote, since he had based so much of Angle of Repose on  their real stories and personal letters.  It is an interesting aspect of this book.

Let me briefly add here that Jackson Benson’s  introduction to the book, written in 2000, provides a great context for understanding Stegner, his style, why and how he wrote the book. It also explains some of the controversy around the relationship between the fictional characters in the book, and the historical characters on whom they are based.

So much is fascinating about this book.  But I will simply provide a brief synopsis of my impressions of the 3 main characters in Angle of Repose.

Susan Ward– Since we get to know the story of the Ward family almost exclusively through Susan Ward’s letters to her girlhood friend Augusta, it is Susan we get to know best.  She is the central character of the narrative that takes place in the 1870s and 1880s.  She was a well-educated and thoughtful young Quaker woman of her time, and grew up aspiring to a life of engaging and charming conversation in the well-appointed parlors of the upper class homes in New York City.  Her very close girl-hood friend Augusta indeed did marry into that life-style, and throughout the book, we sense Susan’s envy of Augusta, as well as her desire to convince Augusta that Susan continued to maintain her standards of civility and culture, even in places as uncivilized as the mining camps of  New Almaden, Ca, and Leadville, Colorado.  She always wanted to be welcomed and easily fit into that world of which she dreamed and to which she aspired to return.

Susan was very much a product of Victorian morality and sensibilities, and had always sought to emulate the civility and gentility in the world of the English upper classes that she had experienced as a young woman in New York. She marries the engineer Oliver Ward with the intention of going west to follow his “career” for a few years, and then return to the New York with fascinating tales about life in America’s outback.  For indeed this is what the upper classes of England did in her day – live for a few years in the uncivilized colonies, then return to their cultured roots with tales of life among the barbarians and savages.  Susan never was able to fulfill her dream of returning to that life of comfort in well-heeled society.   She did return to New York from time to time, but only for short visits.  Though her lifelong dream was never fulfilled, over time, she did indeed evolve to becoming more adventurous herself, quietly and unconsciously adopting some of the values of the world in which she lived, and began to truly value the hardiness and resilience she had acquired.

It is easy to ridicule Susan from our 21st century perspective – her Victorian morality, her occasional snobbery and pretensions to upper class gentility.  But she was courageous and resilient and sought wherever she went to make the best of where she found herself.  Her struggles with her Stoic husband Oliver, who was very much in love with her and who did what he could to cater to her refined needs, is a constant sub-theme of the book.  While some may find her narrow in her prejudices and lacking the courage to truly stand up for what she wanted, I think that is an overly harsh judgment of a woman raised in the Victorian era.  She is in many ways a tragic figure, but faced her circumstance with courage and resilience, and was stronger and more positive than most men or women I know. This complexity of character is an important part of what makes her such fascinating character.

Oliver Ward– We only know Oliver through what Susan says of him in her letters and through a few reminiscences and comments of our narrator, who remembers his grandfather from when he was a young boy.  Oliver Ward is a very intelligent and honorable man, a man of great integrity and humility, conscientious and hard working, capable of great love and friendship. He is clearly an admirable character. And he is also a tragic one, since those virtues also made him vulnerable to opportunists and scalawags, and more than once he was a victim of betrayal, corruption and perfidy, which leads to sadness, disappointment and heart-ache both for him and for Susan and their family.  It is frustrating to see this good and innocent man miss opportunities, to see him be manipulated and his trust and good nature taken advantage of by selfish and unscrupulous opportunists.  At the same time, his virtues also brought him great friends, trust, support and other opportunities.  He too is a complex character who it is easy to love and admire, while also finding him frustrating.

Lyman Ward– is the biographer and narrator of this book, and it is through his eyes and voice that we get to know the world of Susan and Oliver Ward.   As he tells the story of his grandparents,  we also get to know him and his world.  The perspective of the book goes back and forth from lives of his grandparents in the 1870s and 80s, to 1970, when he is writing their biography.   From his insights and comments on the lives and circumstances of his grandparents, we also get insights into his character and values.  But we also watch him deal with being painfully confined to a wheel chair, unable turn his head, unable to do for himself much of what most of us take for granted in our own lives. He needs others to prepare his meals, to bathe him, to prepare him for bed, to get him dressed in the morning.  He is curious and conscientious about exploring the lives of his grandparents, but he is also angry and opinionated about his own life and times.   He is not at all shy about sharing his thoughts about the 60s culture in California and what he believes it is doing to America.   He is indeed something of a curmudgeon – a very intelligent and articulate one, and his sarcasm and cynicism are often amusing while also well informed and insightful.

I hope I have left no doubt that I truly loved this book and highly recommend it – but like all great literature, it is not a quick, light read. But it is very much worth the time and effort.

A few quotes that I thought I’d share, (page numbers from the 2014 Vintage paperback edition.)

Lyman Ward: There  was no reason Oliver Ward should not have been, except character. Pioneer or not, resource-raider or not, afflicted or not with the frontier faith that exploitation is development, and development is good, he was simply an honest man. His gift was not for money-making and the main chance. He was a a builder, not a raider. He trusted people (Grandmother thought too much), he was loved by animals and children and liked by men, he had an uncomplicated ambition to leave the world a little better for his passage through it, and his notion of to better it was to develop it for human use.            p 206

Lyman Ward:  I wonder if ever again Americans can have that experience of returning to a home place so intimately known, profoundly felt, deeply loved and absolutely submitted to?  It is not quite true that you can never go home again. I have done it, coming back here. But it gets less likely.  We have had too many divorces, we have consumed too much transportation, we have lived too shallowly in too many places.        p 303

Lyman Ward: What she resisted was being the wife of a failure and a woman with no home.  p 303

Lyman Ward: She came before the emancipation of women, and she herself was emancipated only partly….  The impulse and the talent were there, without either inspiring models or full opportunity.  A sort of Isabel Archer existed half-acknowledged in Grandmother, a spirit fresh, independent, adventurous, not really prudish in spite of the gentility. There was an ambitious women under the Quaker modesty and genteel conventions.   The light foot was for more than dancing, the bright eye for more than flirtations, the womanliness for more than mute submission to husband and hearth.                               p 350

Lyman Ward: One of the charming things about nineteenth-century America was its cultural patriotism – not jingoism, just patriotism, the feeling that no matter how colorful, exotic, and cultivated other countries might be, there  was no place so ultimately right, so morally sound, so in tune with the hopeful future as the USA. p 352

Lyman Ward: As a practitioner of hindsight, I know that Grandfather was trying to do, by personal initiative and with the financial resources of a small and struggling corporation, what only the immense power of the federal government ultimately proved able to do. That does not mean he was foolish or mistaken.  He was premature. His clock was set on pioneer time.  He met trains that had not yet arrived, he waited on platforms that hadn’t yet been built, beside tracks that might never be laid. Like many other Western pioneer, he had heard the clock of history strike, and counted the strokes wrong.  p 423

Lyman Ward: They were in no race for wealth…they were makers and doers, they wanted to take a piece of wilderness and turn it into a home for a civilization.  I suppose they were wrong – their whole civilization was wrong – but they were the antithesis of mean or greedy. Given the choice, any one of them would have chosen poverty, with the success of their projects, over wealth and its failure.  p 427

Lyman Ward: We have only switched prohibitions and hypocrisies with them.  We blink pain and death, they blinked nudity and human sex, or rather, talk about sex.  They deplored violations of the marriage bond and believed in the responsibilities of the unitary family and thought female virginity before marriage a guarantee of these, or at least a proper start.  But wild boys and young bachelors they winked at because they must, and both wandering husbands and unfaithful wives they understood, and girls who “got in trouble” they pitied as much as they censured. They could tell a good woman from a bad one, which is more than I can do any more.   p 498

Susan Ward: He is so good a man I want to weep, and what makes me want to weep most of all is my failure of faith in him. For I cannot help it.   p 537

Oliver Ward: But this general business of trusting people, I don’t know. I doubt if I can change. I believe in trusting people, do you see?  At least till they prove they can’t be trusted. What kind of life is it when you can’t?  p 551

Why this book: I was about to leave with a number of friends to do an 8 day bicycle tour of Burgundy, France, one of the worlds most famous wine regions.  My wife handed me this book and suggested I read it to learn more about the region I would be traveling through.  So I did.  And I’m glad I did.

Summary in 3 sentences: Germany had always recognized France as the world leader in cultivating and distilling fine wine, and when Germany occupied France at the outset of World War II, one of their many objectives was to control and exploit the French wine industry, plunder their stockpiles of great wine and champagne, and subordinate France’s legendary wine industry to the goals of the Third Reich. This book outlines how Germany sought to brutally fulfill that goal, the damage they did, as well as how the extensive network of French grape growers and distillers, from small farmers to the great houses and brokerage firms sought to and with some success thwarted Nazi efforts. There is much in the book about the large scale participation by those in the wine industry in the Resistance, but also addresses the uncomfortable issue of collaboration of some in the French wine industry with the Nazis and the Vichy government, and how it all turned out in the end.

My Impressions: Wine and War is meant to be a quick fun read for those interested in the topic – specific to France and World War II.  Though it is well researched and lists sources at the end, it is not meant to be an academic treatment of the subject.  It tells the story, with some history and background, largely through vignettes and stories of individuals wine growers and leaders in the wine industry who experienced and suffered the trauma of Nazi occupation, primarily in the Bordeaux, Burgundy, and Champagne regions of France.   The book would be more meaningful to someone who is already a wine connoisseur than it was for me, for whom wine is either red or white, tastes good or doesn’t.  But I learned a lot about wine, its history,  and the processes and challenges of creating fine wine with varying nuances that I didn’t know before. I know have a greater appreciation not only for the role of wine in World War II, but also for the art of selecting just the right wine to go with different types of food, and the art of the sommelier.

The individual stories were most interesting.  The book includes stories of grape farmers  who at great personal risk hid Jews and downed allied pilots from the Nazis, stories of the sons of these farmers who were conscripted into the German Army (from Alsace Lorraine) or were conscripted to work in factories in Germany. I read about leaders in the communities in the wine growing regions who through deception and subterfuge placated their new German bosses while also protecting the long term interests of the wine growers and distillers in the region.

Wine and War includes a lot about how many of those engaged in France’s wine industry supported the French Resistance during the war.  Their resistance to Nazi leadership and policies took many forms, from conducting sabotage operations, to less aggressive acts of non-support to Nazi programs, to passive resistance, to providing the Wehrmacht with poor quality wine in bottles with the highest quality labels.  The participation in Resistance operations increased  after they realized that the Vichy French government of Marshall Petain was not going to protect them from Nazi plundering and exploitation.  By 1943-44 the wine industry was broadly complicit in Resistance operations, which resulted in harsh reprisals by the SS and the Wehrmacht.

But the authors also give credit to some of the Germans who were sent by the Nazi regime to oversee the plundering and subordination of France’s wine industry. The Nazi regime sent experienced German wine merchants to France to be responsible for carrying out Third Reich orders regarding wine in France – and these key leaders were called “Weinfuhrer.”  In several cases, these Weinfuhrer had long standing family ties to the French wine growers and distillers in the regions assigned to them, and had a great appreciation for the history, traditions and quality of wine making in France.   Some of them insisted that Wehrmacht soldiers and other functionaries refrain from stealing and active sabotaging of French property, and that French wine makers be respected.   They walked a fine line between protecting their old friends and a tradition they respected, while also placating their Nazi bosses in Germany.   These Weinfuhrer recognized the imperative of protecting the traditions and quality of French wine, and of protecting their own relationships and credibility with those with whom they’d want to do business after the war.

The authors also shared the story of how, as the Allies were closing in on Paris toward the end of the war, the acting Mayor of Paris prevailed upon the German General von Choltitz, an old-school Prussian military officer, to not comply with Hitler’s direct order to destroy Paris upon withdrawing.  Against all his military training, he disobeyed Hitler’s order, and thereby preserved for humanity the integrity and beauty of much of Paris.  And then we read of his return visit to Paris 15 years after the war,  to the city he could have significantly destroyed, but which because of his insubordination, remains one of the great cities of the world.  It is an incredible story.

The villages I rode through on my bike tour of Burgundy that were mentioned in Wine and War as playing a role – greater or smaller – in the battle between the French and the Nazi regime over French wine:  Close de Vougeot, Santenay,  Chassagney Montrachet, Vezelay, Avallon, Saulieu, Nuits St-Geores, Laxe Corton, Auxerre, and the city of Beaune where we finished our tour, and which was and is a key city in Burgundy’s history.

Why this book: My current boss with whom I’m in a reading group at work, strongly recommended it.  He said it has a lot of relevance to some of the character and culture issues we are having in the SEAL Teams, and that it is a fun and provocative read,  so we took it on.

Summary in 3 sentences. Sean Avery was one of the “bad boys” in the NHL from 2001 – 2015, known as an intimidator, brawler,  and master “agitator” – an unofficial hockey term for a trash talker whose job it is to anger and get into the heads and upset the games of the opposing team.  He describes his life from growing up in a small town in Canada to his debut in the NHL, how he built his reputation as an aggressive player, agitator and someone who some loved, but many hated, through his trades from the Detroit Red Wings to the LA Kings to the New York Rangers, to the Dallas Stars, and finally back to the Rangers. Much of his story  is about his personal life, his “escapades” in various celebrity circles, heavy drinking, partying, his women, his fun and successes, but also his disappointments both on and off the ice, ending in his love affair and marriage, and the beginning of his post-hockey career.

My impressions:  I liked the book, and with some reservations, I liked Sean Avery as he presents himself in this book. Several of my friends who read it couldn’t stand him.  I’m always a bit skeptical of self-promotional memoirs (aren’t all memoirs to one degree or another self promotional?) since I’ve read a couple whereby I walked away with a very positive impression of the author,  but people who knew the author screamed BULLSHIT!  Matt Bissonette and Eric Greitens are two who come to mind.  That said, I did enjoy getting into the head of a clearly high-energy young professional athlete living the  dream or many young men –  being a professional sports star and celebrity, the fame, the money, the jet set, the women.  Opportunities for a lot of fun and adventure, as well opportunities for excess and self-destruction.  Avery took advantage of both.   The period of his memoir is between approximately his 18th and 32nd years of age, so a lot of energy, passion, ambition, a fair amount of immaturity and a lot of wild and crazy guy stuff.

Yeah, he is self-centered, and doesn’t take full responsibility for some of his bad breaks.  He is not at his best when playing the victim, and can be overly aggressive and cocky with attitude.  That said, there was also much to like about him. When we had our discussion about this book where I work with the Navy SEALs, the one member of our group who had not been a SEAL had no time for what he regarded as his completely unreflective narcissism and ambition, and one of the retired SEAL Captains, though acknowledging his very strong work ethic and team loyalty, did not believe those qualities outweighed the head aches his off-work aggressive behavior would cause.  I and the other SEAL Captain were more willing to give his positive attributes a chance, though both of us insisted he would need a very strong Chief Petty Officer to keep him in line.

What I liked about the guy Sean Avery portrays himself to be: He is clearly mentally tough and resilient.  He kept bouncing back when things weren’t going his way.  He is clearly very willing to work harder than most to be better and stay better than most.  He was ambitious and seemed truly anxious to be a contributing member of his team – that drove him and I liked that. He is clearly bold and aggressive, and seemed to care for his team mates – there were a couple of poignant stories when he was outraged that his coach or management didn’t take care of the individual players, treating them as tools to their own ends.  As he tells the stories of his several romances, he is generous toward the women after the break ups and seems to take much of the responsibility for the relationship not working out.  He makes sure we know that he had lots of casual sex partners, and other than that women were drawn to him, he doesn’t say much about that – one hopes that he similarly treated them with respect and that the enjoyment was mutual.  I was impressed with how he courted the love of his life – and current wife “Super-Model” Hillary Rhoda – slowly, becoming friends first, in what seemed to me to be a patient, classy way.  At the end of the book, he took a very unpopular stand for gay rights, and worked for Vogue magazine, much to the surprise and against the dominant culture of the NHL and at some cost to his macho reputation.

What bothered me about Sean Avery was that indeed he seemed more selfish and self-centered than he was aware – his decisions were often primarily about him and his short term aims. During the NHL strike, he needed work, and his agent was able to get him work playing professionally in Finland. He played a few games with his new Finnish team and apparently with no warning, and no sense of bad faith,  simply got on an airplane and left to return to America.  It seemed that playing hockey without the glamour, the privileges and spotlight of the NHL just didn’t suit him.   I’m sure the Finns weren’t impressed. I wasn’t.  I was surprised to see how viciously he attacked a player who fell in love with his wife’s sister, given that Avery had fallen in love with his close friend’s fiancé.  He often showed impulsive, immature and selfish behavior .  To his credit, he did express regret in the book – but I wasn’t sure it was because of the principle he violated or the harm it caused others, or the regret was primarily for the difficulties his behavior caused him.   As an “agitator” I wondered sometimes if there was any line he wouldn’t cross in harassing his opponents, if he thought it would help his team win. Some of what he did and said was way over the line to me, and apparently to many in the NHL as well.  Did he enjoy the spotlight of being the famous bad boy too much?

While I saw indicators of maturity and taking responsibility for things not going his way, Avery also shows an aggressive angry streak that he often didn’t control well and which made him a liability to himself and his teams.

He is an interesting character.  In Ice Capades he gives us the version of himself that he wants to share with the public – which says a lot about his values and who he is. He tries to be somewhat humble, but is not at all averse to tooting his own horn regarding his successes on and off the ice. But, he also wants to share some of his insights and the beginnings of wisdom that he has gained along the way to others it might help.

Reading what other say about him in the on-line press, it is clear that there is more to his angry and aggressive dark side than he shares in his book.  It is not unusual for ambitious and aggressive men (or women) to be generous to their friends and supporters, and vicious to their enemies, and we see that side of Sean Avery in Ice Capades. But occasionally we see him being aggressive and antagonizing others – just because he can, and can expect to get away with it.

To his credit, he has picked fights on the ice with some who he knew were bigger and stronger than he, and he expected to be pummeled for his insults and taunting – and he was, always fighting back, though often throwing the first punch.

Could better leadership and mentorship have made a difference?  One thing upon which  we all agreed in our discussion was that he needed strong leadership and he usually didn’t get it.  That strong Chief Petty Officer wasn’t around to guide, mentor, and hold him accountable.   He had some strong mentors, but the book never mentions anyone giving him advice or guidance to temper his behavior.  He was a small guy from a small town with a giant will to succeed and overcome his handicaps – he was very driven which has it’s pluses and liabilities.

This was very much unlike most of the books I read. It made an impression on me and I recommend it. It offers insights into the fast lane of celebrity life – those who move in circles with the rich and famous – from the perspective of a scared, but tough, ambitious and cocky young man in his 20s.

Why this book: I read Ill Met by Moonlight by the same author, and I really liked the man and loved his writing style.  I did some research and found that this book is his account of what he did for the remainder of WWII, as a member of the British SOE (Special Operations Executive) in Crete, Greece, Macedonia, and Thailand.  I was not disappointed.

Summary in 3 Sentences:  After the author’s successful abduction of General Kreipe from Crete described in Ill Met by Moonlight, he was sent back to Crete to continue working with Cretan partisans to harass and interdict Nazi forces on the Island.  He was happy there and loved his Cretan fighters but was recalled to Cairo and sent to work with Greek partisans in the mountains of Macedonia fighting the Nazis. Though they had some successes, this was a less-than-satisfying experience for a number of reasons, and as the German forces were withdrawing toward the end of the war, he was recalled again, and this time was sent with two other SOE comrades to parachute into Thailand (then called Siam), to work with the Siamese partisans fighting the Japanese and ultimately to negotiate their surrender, prevent atrocities against allied prisoners,  and assert the authority of the Allies to help restore order in a country that had been occupied by the Japanese for five years.

My Impressions:  If you liked Ill Met by Moonlight because you liked the man who told the story, and the manner in which he told it, you will also like A War of Shadows. This book is not the story behind a single uniquely successful special operation, and is not filled with danger, amazing resourcefulness and close calls.  But it is the same man, with the same sensibilities, the same clear and engaging writing style, telling about how he spent the rest of the war, sharing his observations, frustrations, and perspectives in less glamorous circumstances, operating with little support in remote areas.  The voice of Billy Moss in this book is less enthusiastic, less aggressive, sadder but wiser, than in Ill Met.

Whereas Ill Met by Moonlight was his diary as a young  idealistic and hard charging officer, new to special operations and loving his work, A War of Shadows is written after the war, and one can sense an air of disillusion and disenchantment after seeing so much death, suffering and the absurdities of war.  Though still a disciplined and competent officer, he and his SOE partners are at the mercy of incompetent staffs, decisions they get no voice in, and the vagaries of war.

As a junior officer, he gets little vote in where he goes.  After co-leading the operation that successfully kidnapped General Kreipe and delivered him to Allied headquarters in Cairo, Moss returned to Crete to work with his beloved partisans to continue to harass and keep the hated Nazi’s off balance and preoccupied.  He has a few minor successes, but just as he feels his work is gaining momentum, he is unaccountably recalled to Cairo and told that he is being sent to Macedonia to join the few SOE operatives supporting partisans there.

Arriving in Macedonia he is surprised at how different that theater of operations is from Crete.  Here, the partisans have no real sense of urgency, little commitment, little initiative, little discipline. The Greeks who he and a small contingent of SOE are there to support are divided among themselves, and can’t be trusted. Some partisan groups are communist zealots, hate the capitalist Allies almost as much as the Nazis, and are more interested in positioning themselves to take power at the end of the war than they are in fighting the Germans.  Other Greek partisan groups are not communist but are unreliable in the extreme.  They talk with great courage, but will not plan nor rehearse thoroughly, nor put themselves at risk against the disciplined Nazi forces.  They expect the SOE operatives to give them whatever they want, and then also to do the fighting – to assume the risk in the fight against the invaders of their country.  When the partisans take German prisoners, they simply kill them. There is no sense of civilized warfare, or honor in the Western sense, in how they fight.  When Billy and his SOE partners objected, the partisans simply shrugged their shoulders and ignored them.

In this section of the book, Billy Moss describes working, moving, living in the remote Macedonian countryside, conducting a few successful raids and sabotage operations, but also a number of missed opportunities, aborted operations and mission failures due to their unreliable partisan partners. Billy Moss was impressive in his patience and diplomacy in working with the leaders of these undisciplined guerrilla forces, but his frustration was palpable and understandable. This frustration was very reminiscent to me of my experience working with special forces counterparts in militaries with long traditions of officer privilege, and no strong tradition of disciplined training.  And this frustration is very consistent with what my colleagues have experienced working with Iraqi and Afghani forces fighting Al Quade, Taliban, and ISIS.

As the war in Europe was coming to a close and the Germans were hastily withdrawing from Greece and Macedonia, Billy Moss was recalled again to Cairo, this time to be returned to his conventional army regiment, but he successfully petitioned to stay with the SOE.  He was then sent to the far Eastern theater of war to fight in the continuing war against the Japanese.  Staging out of Ceylon he parachuted with two of his SOE comrades into the jungles of what was then known as Siam, now known as Thailand to support Siamese guerrilla bands in their operations against the Japanese.

They parachuted into the jungle with a considerable amount of equipment to support themselves and their partisan allies.  When they were met by the Siamese guerrillas on the ground, they found that those who had prepared the equipment had not only failed to include the radios they needed for communication, but also left out other key items, and only put in right-foot boots to provide to the partisan armies.  Through their partisan contacts they communicated this mistake back to their Headquarters in Ceylon, who responded that the needed equipment would be sent forthwith. They waited 3 weeks, during which there was little to do, but swim, go hunting, drink rice whiskey, smoke – simply hang out. Reminiscent of Catch 22.

As Billy Moss tells this story, there are no hair-raising, movie-worthy special operations missions, but fascinating descriptions of life deep in the jungle with the partisans, negotiating, deciding what to do next and how, and learning to deal with a whole new environment, culture, and new partners. And he is amusing in his description of how three SOE friends amused themselves often with little else to do.

Shortly after finally getting the equipment, they were notified of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the subsequent surrender of Japan.  Regardless of the surrender, the Japanese army was still in Siam and still controlled the Siamese peninsula.  The SOE operatives now were tasked with tracking Japanese movements and ensuring that Allied prisoners (there were about 300 or so) were not massacred, and to be prepared to accept surrender of the Japanese forces in that area of Siam.

The final section of the book is his description of working WITH the Japanese and the local authorities to reestablish civil order in a remote part of Siam which had been occupied by the Japanese for 5 years.  In this transition period, law and order were tenuous and fragile.  Renegade bands of military deserters and criminals were at large, and as in Macedonia, communist insurgents were positioning themselves to take over after the war. Billy Moss and his two SOE partner represented the force and the authority of the Western Allies to the local civil authorities, and their word and desires were essentially law. But all knew that they were there only temporarily, and there were only three of them.

Several months after VJ day, Billy Moss is finally given leave to detach and return to Cairo to spend Christmas with his wife.   But on the way home he is waylaid in India – as India too breaks out into an insurrection against British rule, and he is unable to get home.  The book concludes with him finally getting to see his wife and celebrate Christmas with her – in April 1946.

The copy of A War of Shadows I read is a 2015 reprint of what was first published in the early 1950s.  This later reprint includes a short bio of Billy Moss at the conclusion, which adds some details to his life story, and some context to both Ill Met by Moonlight and A War of Shadows.  This man whose writing and perspective I liked and admired so much, was affected more by the war than comes out in his writing.  In a WWII version of PTSD, he apparently became an adrenaline junkie and an alcoholic, costing him his family, and eventually his life.  As a journalist he seems to have continued a futile pursuit of the thrill and camaraderie he had experienced in the SOE, and it appears he died of alcoholism in Jamaica at age 44 where he eventually landed, living alone as a journalist, writing feature pieces for the local newspaper.  Such a remote and inauspicious circumstance to end the life of such a talented and and sensitive man.

Why this book: Selected to be read and reviewed by All American Leadership Faculty Reading Group for our bimonthly reading group session.

Summary in 3 Sentences:  Dr Atul  Gawande shares his research-based “manifesto,” supported by many engaging stories for how following simple checklists can be stunningly effective in reducing errors and improving results in a variety of settings.  Much of the book is based on his experience developing  and using checklists as part of surgery, and he describes his efforts with the World Health Organization to universalize this simple process for saving lives and preventing errors.  He also explores with more fascinating examples how checklists have  revolutionized safety in aviation and engineering, and are increasingly used by the most successful chefs in high-end cooking, and by venture capitalists in financial investing.

My Impressions:  The author shows us how the seemingly self-evident process of creating simple checklists can make a profound difference in improving how people and organizations function.  In situations where leaders face numerous variables and potential distractions, potentially must make many decisions, large and small, it is easy to get distracted and lose focus.  Checklists ensure that simple and critically important steps are taken, not skipped inadvertently due to distraction,  nor ignored when emotion or other factors may get in the way.

Sounds obvious, right?  The Checklist Manifesto gives many examples of how effective checklists can be, at so little cost in time, effort and attention, to ensure things are done right, and the right things are done. He explores the worlds of surgery, aviation, engineering, cooking in high-end restaurants, and finance.  These very diverse fields show how this simple process can be adapted to any activity which demands discipline and process to ensure the simple but critical functions are taken care of before too much attention is given to the more complex functions.  Checklists have been shown to serve as a “cognitive safety net” to account for the “flaws in memory, attention, and thoroughness.” (p48)

Gawande is a surgeon and much of his book deals with his experience using and promoting checklists in the operating room.  He led the World Health Organizations effort to recommend that checklists become an international standard for surgery, and his description of the research and his  work with the WHO is fascinating and informative.  Research has shown that at least half of the deaths and major complications that follow surgery have been due to avoidable mistakes.   He offers numerous examples of mistakes that surgical teams have made that have cost people their lives or many extra months of recovery –  that could have been avoided had the surgical team gone thru a simple checklist at certain key stages of a surgical procedure.  He includes his own experience in surgery, in which checklists have been critical to saving the lives of his patients.

The checklist made its debut on the large stage of professional activity in aviation, and was so effective, it has become standard practice in commercial aviation the world over, in helping aircrews ensure that key steps and procedures are followed during routine, non-routine or emergency situations.

He also looks at how checklists have transformed the world of complex engineering, where so many different trades and specialties must coordinate and collaborate to create a large and complex structure.  In engineering, he found that checklists often include an unexpected imperative: Simply that people from different disciplines key to building the structure have met and spoken with each other.  In engineering, as in so many other fields, communications gaps and miscommunications are the source of many serious failures.

At the conclusion of the book he introduces us to to three highly successful venture capitalists who have used checklists for making sure that their investments meet rational and agreed upon criteria.  They seek to avoid what they call “cocaine brain” when an investor or an institution falls in love with a company or project for whatever reason, and invests without putting checks in all the key boxes to ensure a dispassionate due-diligence  analysis has been done.  These “cocaine brain” investments that have not been carefully scrutinized can cost a company millions of dollars and immeasurable disruption and distraction.  He shares how the “airline captain” methodical checklist-driven approach to investing has resulted in dramatically fewer firings of senior managers, and significantly higher returns on investments, compared to investors using other styles and approaches to investment decision making.  (p171)

The Checklist Manifesto also shares examples of ineffective and even counter-productive checklists.  These are checklists that try to do too much, are too long, too complicated, are vague or imprecise, hard to use, impractical.   Boeing has a team of people who create checklists for their aircraft – and this team puts enormous energy and research into making sure the checklists are short, clear, precise (without being too detailed,) and easily understood. The checklists Boeing provides are invariably modified by users to better fit the context in which they will be used.   Boeing found that creating a great checklist took multiple iterations, and constant feedback, and some compromise.  But on one thing the Boeing team is  adamant: A checklist must be tested in the real world, which is inevitably more complicated than expected.  (p124)

There is a lot of basic, good leadership advice in this book.  Using the checklist process allows leaders to evaluate team members’ conscientiousness and discipline.  Gawande echoes McChrystal in Team of Teams and Marquet in Turn the Ship Around in pointing out that efforts to dictate every step from the center (or the top) will fail.   But discipline, and well ingrained processes and procedures (checklists) to ensure that fundamentals are covered make it easier for leaders to push decision making down to those closest to emerging problems.  Checklists also have the effect of distributing power; the surgeon cannot begin surgery until the nurse has gone through the checklist and gives the go-ahead.

It was a surprise to read how checklists have been resisted at every turn.   Even after presenting irrefutable data that show how effective checklists have been, many leaders are unwilling to adopt them, and prefer to trust people’s intuition, and trained habitual practice to make sure key steps are taken.  They don’t want to give authority over to the holder and enforcer of a checklist.  There is a sense that checklists add rigidity to a process and reduce the autonomy of the experienced leader.  Gawande makes the case that this prejudice has resulted in great costs.  He argues that checklists add discipline and process, but don’t take away the need for judgment. Judgment is always required he says, but “judgment aided – even enhanced – by procedure.” (p79)

He has a great sentence which summarizes his views on the resistance to checklists:

We don’t like checklists. They can be painstaking. They’re not much fun. But I don’ think the issue here is mere laziness. There’s something deeper, more visceral going on when people walk away not only from saving lives, but from making money.  It somehow feels beneath us to use a checklist, an embarrassment. It runs counter to deeply held beliefs about how the truly great among us – those we aspire to be – handle situations of high stakes and complexity. The truly great are daring . They improvise. They do not have protocols and checklists.   Maybe our idea of heroism needs updating. (p173)

Some key points and insights I got from The Checklist Manifesto:

• Checklists can ensure consistency in performing the basics and fundamentals.
• There are three types of problems – each of which requires some consistency in approach and some basics that must be done to ensure a good outcome:
  • Simple problems – Follow a simple procedure and  you get the result  -like a recipe for baking a cake.
  • Complicated problems – A series of predictable processes that require multiple people, multiple teams, specialized expertise, that require timing and coordination. Like sending a rocket to the moon.
  • Complex problems – Every situation is different and even the variables are different or unknown. Each problem requires a new approach. Like raising a child. 49
• Checklists get the dumb stuff out of the way, the routines our brain shouldn’t  have to occupy itself with.  177
• Checklists free up the leaders to consider complexities and contingencies, since they know that the basics will be taken care of. 177
• Amazing how effective it is to include steps to ensure that key people have communicated with each other.  In surgery, this simply includes the requirement that those on the team introduce themselves to each other before surgery begins.
• He refers to the “activation phenomenon,” giving everyone a chance – or even forcing them – to say something and communicate with the others on the team,  which activates their sense of participation in and responsibility for the outcome. 108
• Pilots use their checklists for two reasons: “First they are trained to do so…. Second, the checklists have proved their worth – they work.” (p121)
• You must decide whether you want a DO-CONFIRM checklist, or a READ-DO checklist 123
• A rule of thumb is to keep a checklist to between five and nine items, and should last between 60 and 90 seconds to run through.  After 90 seconds, it becomes a distraction and people start shortcutting.  123
• Points of controversy in implementing a checklist to a procedure:   Who has the authority to start the process – get everyone’s attention to kick off the checklist? Who has the authority to  bring the process to a halt? 137
• A tension exists between brevity and effectiveness. 138
• Using the checklist involved a major cultural change – a shift in authority, responsibility, and expectations about care..146
• One of the key functions of the checklist:  It grabs everyone’s attention and bring focus onto what is important – right now.  153
• The Hawthorne effect – a byproduct of being observed in a study rather than proof of the checklist’s power.
• There was also a notable correlation between teamwork scores and results for patients – the greater the improvement in teamwork, the greater the drop in complications. 157
• Gawande noted that if someone discovered a new drug that could cut down the surgical complications with anything remotely like the effectiveness of the checklist, we would have television and minor celebrities extolling its virtues.  158
• He notes that it DOES matter whether surgeons believe in the process.  “Just ticking boxes is not the ultimate goal here. Embracing a culture of teamwork and discipline is.”  160
• The “rock star” status of surgeons and aviators is diminished when processes create a much greater consistency in excellent performance.  As a culture, we value having “the right stuff” and audacity in high risk environments.   Following checklists and Standard Operating Procedures feels like the exact opposite. 161
• One of the venture capitalists found that using the checklist did increase the up-front work load. But eventually they were able to evaluate many more investments in far less time overall, with the benefit of making fewer mistakes. 168
• In the financial markets using a checklist to help make investment decisions created efficiency – one more edge over their competitors. They created a process that was not only more thorough, but also faster.  168-69
• We’re obsessed in medicine with having great components – the best drugs, the best devices, the best specialists – but pay little attention to how to make them fit together well.  184
• We don’t study routine failures.. we don’t look for the patterns of our recurrent mistakes or devise and refine potential solutions for them…When we look closely, we recognize the same balls being dropped over and over, even by those of great ability and determination.    185-86
• No matter how routine an operation is, the patients never seem to be.  189

Why this book: It was selected by the All American Leadership Faculty reading group that I participate, to read and discuss. We were able to reach out to Dan Coyle and he joined us for our on-line discussion – a real treat.  After our session, as a group we decided that The Culture Code should become a corner stone of AAL’s leadership curriculum.

Summary in 3 Sentences:   Daniel Coyle has studied a multitude of successful organizations which seem to have great organizational cultures, in which people enjoy their work, working with each other to succeed as a team.   His analysis finds that these cultures all share three qualities: a shared sense of psychological safety, shared willingness to be vulnerable with each other, and a sense of shared purpose.   The book is broken down into three sections, each describing his research and a multitude of stories and anecdotes that support that particular quality.

My Impressions:  One of the best books I’ve read on creating a strong and sustainable culture – what I and my friends in All American Leadership have called an “elite” culture.  The principles are sound, the stories are compelling, and it is well told – easily accessible, easy and fun to read. I think it is a good companion book to Switch by Chip and Dan Heath – which uses a different, yet related 3-part taxonomy of motivating people to become more engaged in their work and in their team.  I have told a number of people that The Culture Code and Legacy are the two books I”ve read that best speak to what works in the cultures of the best SEAL Teams.

Coyle approaches his subject using three fundamental principles of great cultures: Safety, Vulnerability, and Purpose.  He breaks the chapters in the book into those three sections with vignettes and research to substantiates his case.  His main point:  A sense of safety opens the door to creativity and engagement;  the willingness of people within an organization to be vulnerable and honest with each other (doesn’t honesty make us vulnerable?) brings them together and creates trust; and finally Purpose – a goal, a value, a raison d’être that brings the team together, energizes the team, and facilitates overcoming personal differences.

He uses several examples of successful groups who exemplify the principles he espouses for great cultures.  He uses  stories from airline pilots dealing with a critical situation, the Houston Spurs (NBA team,) Pixar, (the famous animated movie company,) the Navy SEALs, Gramercy Tavern, (a highly successful restaurant chain in NYC,)  Saturday Night Live writers and comedians, the Panthers, (a group of Serbian international criminals,) Bell Labs, IDEO, Johnson and Johnson, Portuguese police, hospitals, and more.  He even shares what we humans can learn from starlings flying in a flock, and slime mold moving toward the light.

In each of his examples,  successful groups demand completely candid feedback, in which people are willing to share vulnerability and failure with each other, in order to make the group, the process, the result better.  In one telling passage, a “newby” on the job is facing her first day in a challenging position.  Her boss tells her, “So here’s how we’ll know if you had a good day.  If you ask for help ten times, then we’ll know it was good. If you try to do it all alone…(his voice trails off, the implication was clear – it will be a catastrophe.)”

I found his description of “the Nyquist method” particularly intriguing.  It is named for a quiet and unflamboyant engineer in Bell Labs the mid 20th century named Harry Nyquist.  Nyquist he describes as “the most important person in one of the most creative places in history (who) turned out to be a person almost everyone would overlook.”  148  People who play the Nyquist role in an organization radiate a safe, nurturing vibe, possess deep knowledge that spans many domains, and have a knack for asking questions that ignite motivation and ideas.  He calls them spark plugs, roving catalysts, with great influence, but whose impact is often underappreciated.

The final section on shared purpose offered ideas I found insightful and useful.  Coyle talks about how the “story” or the narrative of an organization can create mental models and the high-purpose environment that can create and reinforce an upward “virtual spiral.”  Connecting people to the story, the larger purpose, can be very powerful.  He talks about “Learning velocity” as a key indicator of a group’s culture.

In that section on purpose, he connects what works for humans with what works for one of the simplest organisms on earth – slime molds.  The biological analogies are instructive.  With slime mold, if there’s no food, the cells connect with one another; if connected, they stay connected and move toward the light; if they reach the light, stay connected and climb.  211 And from that very simple example, he describes decision-making heuristics that tie to the common purpose, that serve as guidelines in complex or emotionally challenging situations.

I loved this book , the message, Coyle’s voice and style. He concludes each of the three sections with key action take-aways to answer the so-what question.  I recommend this book to anyone interested in improving their organization’s culture.

Possible Weakness:  In The Culture Code, Dan Coyle doesn’t anticipate counter-arguments nor offer counter-examples, or potential mine-fields to his thesis.   Where or when, or in what organizational contexts might efforts to create psychological safety or shared vulnerability not work, or even be counterproductive?  I recall in Leadership BS   the author Jeffery Pfeffer gave examples of MBA students leaving business school with what he called “feel good” concepts about good leadership, and then trying to apply them in the “real world” and getting hammered in the dog-eat-dog, hard-nosed, results-oriented cultures that are most common in the corporate world.   Pfeffer argued that academics who teach such idealistic concepts, without addressing the realities of most Machiavellian cultures, are doing a disservice to their students.  Coyle doesn’t address how and why well-intentioned efforts to change toxic cultures led by self-serving leaders may fail, and even hurt the lives and careers of those promoting the changes.  He doesn’t point out that many or most leaders simply won’t be willing to adopt the practices he advocates –  no matter how much they may admire the ideal.   In his book Everybody Matters, Bob Chapman alludes to the difficulties he had bringing similar idealistic principles into the culture of Barry-Wehmiller,  but I also didn’t feel he gave adequate space to the many challenges of applying similar concepts.

NOTABLE QUOTES 

(I include a lot of quotes below, because I expect to be referring to this book a lot and having these quotes readily available will facilitate my review when I come back to it.  I hope they help others as well.  Page numbers from the 2018 hardback edition.)

• When business school students appear to be collaborating, in fact they are engaged in a process psychologist call “status management.”  Who is in charge? Is it okay to criticize someone’s idea?  What are the rules here?  xvii
• The actions of the kindergartners appear disorganized on the surface. But when you view them as a single entity, their behavior is efficient and effective. They are not competing for status.   xvii…
• We’ll see that being smart is overrated, that showing fallibility is crucial, and that being nice is not nearly as important as you might think.  xix

Skill 1: BUILD SAFETY

• Most of all he radiates an idea that is something like, Hey, this is all really comfortable and engaging, and I’m curious about what everybody else has to say.…Jonathan succeeds without taking any of the actions we normally associate with a strong leader. 6
• “Human signaling looks like other animal signaling,…you can measure interest levels, who the alpa his, who’s cooperating, who’s mimicking.  9
• The proto-language that humans use to form safe connection is made up of belonging cues.  (which are) behaviors that create safe connection in groups….their function is to answer the ancient ever-present questions glowing in our brains: Are we safe here? What’s our future with these people? Are there dangers lurking?  10-11
• Belonging cues possess three basic qualities: 1.Energy; 2. Individualization; 3. Future Orientation. These cues add up to a message that can be described with a single phrase: You are safe here. They seek to notify our ever-vigilant brains that they can stop worrying about dangers and shift into connection mode, a condition called psychological safety. 11
• It’s possible to predict performance by ignoring all the informational content in the exchange and focusing on a handful of belonging cures.  13
• Team performance is driven by five measurable factors:
  • Everyone in the group talks and listens in roughly equal measure, keeping contributions short.
  • Members maintain high levels of eye contact, and their conversations and gestures are energetic,
  •  Members communicate directly with one another not just with the team leader.
  • Members carry on back-channel or side conversations within the team.
  • Members periodically break, go exploring outside the team, and bring information back to share with the others.
• These factors ignore every individual skill and attribute we associate with high-performing groups, and replace them with behaviors we would normally consider so primitive as to be trivial.  14-15
• Words are noise.  Group performance depends on behavior that communicates one powerful overarching idea: We are safe and connected.  15
• Most cultures followed one of three basic models: The star model (hiring the best people), the professional model (developing the best skill sets), and the commitment model (developing shared values and strong emotional bonds.)  The commitment model consistently led to the highest rates of success. 21
• When you receive a belonging cue, the amygdala switches roles and starts to use its immense unconscious neural horsepower to build and sustain your social bonds.  25
• When it was over Popovich (coach of Houston Spurs) asked questions, and those questions are always the same: personal, direct, focused on the big picture. What did you think of it?  What would you have done in that situation? … The message he wants to deliver: There are bigger things than basketball to which we are all connected. 53
• The Spurs eat together approximately as often as they play basketball together.  54
• One misconception about highly successful cultures is that they are happy, lighthearted places. This is mostly not the case.  They are energized and engaged, but at their core their members are oriented less around achieving happiness than around solving hard problems together.  55
• Magical feedback: “I am giving you these comments because I have very high expectation and I know that you can reach them.” This sentence contains three separate cues: 1. You are part of this group. 2. This group is special; we have high standards here; 3. I believe you can reach those standards.   These signals provide a clear message:  Here is safe place to give effort.  56
• Tony Hsieh: ” I try to help things happen organically.  If you set things up right, the connection happens.” 65
• Beneath Hsieh’s unconventional approach  lies a mathematical structure based on what he calls collisions. Collisions – defined as serendipitous personal encounters – are, he believes, the lifeblood of any organization, the key driver of creativity, community, and cohesion.  66
• Tony Hsieh: Meet people.  Ask them who else you should meet.  You’ll figure it out. 68
• The most successful projects were those driven by sets of individuals who formed what Allen called “clusters of high communicators.” 69
• Proximity functions as a kind of connective drug.  Get close, and our tendency to connect lights up….we don’t get consistently closed to someone unless it’s morally safe.

• Build Safety – Ideas for Action: 75-88

  • Overcomucate your listening (w body language, and avoid interruptions)
  • Spotlight your fallibility early on – especially if you’re a leader  – it’s an invitation to create a deeper connection
  • Embrace the Messenger – That way they’ll feel safe to tell you the truth next time. .
  • Preview Future Connection – create small but telling connections between now and  a vision of the future.
  • Overdo Thank-Yous – it has less to do with the thanks than affirming the relationship. Expressions of gratitude are crucial belonging cues.
  • Be painstaking in the hiring process Deciding who’s in and who’s out is the most powerful signal any group sends. The best organizations approach their hiring accordingly.
  • Eliminate Bad Apples.  Show low tolerance for bad behavior.  
  • Create Safe, Collisions-rich spaces Create spaces that maximize interaction and “chance” collisions. 
  • Make sure Everyone has a voice.  – creates belonging by placing power and trust in the hands of the people doing the work.
  • Pick up Trash – it shows an attention to detail, a serving mindset, and that no matter who we are, we have to take care of the spaces we inhabit
  • Capitalize on Threshold Moments – especially in on-boarding and anytime anyone or the organization enters a new phase.  Create a positive sense of expectation and commitment.
  • Avoid giving Sandwich feedback –  Two separate conversations – Negative thru personal dialogue; Positives through ultra clear bursts of recognition and praise.
  • Embrace Fun. Laughter is the most fundamental sign of safety and connection.  “If you ain’t having fun doing it, you ain’t doing it right.”

Skill 2: SHARE VULNERABILITY`

• At some level, we intuitively know that vulnerability tends to spark cooperation and trust.  103
• “People then to think of vulnerably in a touchy-feely way, but that’s not what’s happening. It’s about sending a really clear signal that you have weaknesses, that you could use help.”  (Jeff Polzera professor of organizational behavior at Harvard.  104
• Increasing people’s sense of power – that is, tweaking a situation to make them feel more invulnerable – dramatically diminished their willingness to cooperate.  106
• The link between vulnerability and cooperation applies not only to individuals, but also to groups.  106
• In other words, the feelings of trust and closeness sparked by the vulnerability loop were transferred in full strength to someone who simply happened to  be in the room.  The vulnerability loop, in other words, is contagious. 107
• Vulnerability doesn’t’ come after trust – it precedes it.  107
• Most of us instinctively see vulnerability was a condition to be hidden.  But science shows that when it comes to creating cooperation, vulnerability is not a risk but a psychological requirement.  111
• Each (vulnerability) loop was different, yet they shared a deeper pattern: an acknowledgement of limits, a keen awareness of the group nature of the endeavor. The signal being sent was the same: You have a role here.  I need you.  112
• Cooperation ..is a group muscle that is built according to a specific pattern of repeated interaction, and the pattern is always the same: a circle of people engaged in the risky, occasionally painful, ultimately rewarding process of being vulnerable together.  113
• A Harold (an improv comedy game) asks you to disobey every natural instinct in your brain and instead to give yourself selflessly to the group. In short, it’s a comedy version of Log PT (used by the SEALs in basic training.)  128
• In other words, the Panthers were a little bit like comedians doing a  Harold, or SEALs doing Log PT – small teams solving problems in a constant state of vulnerability and interconnection.
• “One of the best things I’ve found to improve a team’s cohesion is to send them to do some hard, hard training. There’s something about hanging off a cliff together, and being wet and cold and miserable together that makes a team come together ”  Dave Cooper, retired SEAL Master Chief  140
• The goal of an AAR is not to excavate truth for truth’s sake, or to assign credit and blame, but rather to build a shared mental model that can be applied to future missions.  141
• “When we talk about courage, we think it’s going against an enemy with a machine gun.  The real courage is seeing the truth and speaking the truth to each other. People never want to be the person who says, ‘Wait a second, what’s really going on here?’  But inside the squadron, that is the culture, and that’s why we’re successful.”  Dave Cooper, retired SEAL Master Chief 145
• It’s not about decisiveness – it’s about discovery. For me, that has to do with asking the right questions the right way.”  Roshi Givechi of IDEO  151
• “I’m more of a nudger.  I nudge the choreography and try to create the conditions for good things to happen.”  Roshi Givechi of IDEO 152
• She (Givechi) isn’t trying to drag you somewhere, ever.  She’s truly seeing you from your position, and that’s her power.  153
• “It’s very hard to be empathic when you’re talking… But now when you’re listening. When you’re really listening, you lose time. There’s no sense of yourself, because it’s not about you.  It’s all about this task – to connect completely to that person.” Dr Carl Marci, neurologist 157

• Share Vulnerability – Ideas for Action  158-16

1. Make sure the Leader is Vulnerable First and Often  by small, frequently repeated moments of vulnerability. Leaders should ask their people 3 questions;
   • What is one thing I do I should continue to do
   • -What one thing should I do more often.
   • -What can I do to make you more effective.
2. Overcommunicate Expectations  to cooperate.  Let your people know that the more complex he problem, the more help you’ll need to solve it.
3. When Forming New Groups, Focus on Two Critical Moments – The first vulnerability and the first disagreement.
4. Listen like a trampoline. The most effective listeners do four things:
   • Interact to make the other person feel safe and supported
   • Take a helping, cooperative stance
   • Occasionally ask questions that gently and constructively challenge old assumptions
   • Make occasional suggestions to open up alternative paths.
5. In Conversation, Resist the Temptation to Reflexively Add Value by forgoing easy opportunities to offer solutions and make suggestions. Instead, often use the phrase,  “Say more about that.”
6. Use Candor- Generating Practices like AARs, Brain Trusts, and Red Teaming to include using a team of experienced leaders with no formal authority over the project to offer frank and open critique.
7. Aim for Candor; Avoid Brutal Honesty – to avoid people feeling hurt, attacked or demoralized.
8. Embrace the Discomfort – a group with the habit of vulnerability has learned to endure emotional pain and  a sense of inefficiency.
9. Align Language with Action. Find ways to adjust language to reinforce inter-dependence.
10. Build a Wall Between Performance Review and Professional Development. Performance review is judgmental and threatening.  Development is about identifying and supporting opportunities for growth
11. Use Flash Mentoring. Unlike traditional mentoring lasting months or  years, flash mentoring is only a few hours.
12. Make the Leader Occasionally Disappear – Huddle the group for a purpose, and then don’t show up; let them take charge of what needs to be done.

Skill 3: ESTABLISH PURPOSE 

• Purpose isn’t about tapping into some mystical internal drive but rather about creating simple beacons that focus attention and engagement on the shared goal.  Successful cultures do this by relentlessly seeking ways to tell and retell their story. To do this, they build what we’ll call high-purpose environments.  180
• High-purpose environments…provide two simple locators that every navigation process requires: Here is where we are and Here is where we want to go.  180
• It’s called mental contrasting…Envision a reachable goal, and Envision the obstacles. 181
• That shared future could be a goal or a behavior.. it doesn’t matter.  What matters is establishing this link (where we are, where we want to go) and consistently creating engagement around it. What matters is telling the story.  182
• One of the measures of any group’s culture is its learning velocity – how quickly it improves its performance of a new skill.  193
• Why do some groups succeed at learning new skills and others fail?  There are real time signals that show how team members connect (or not) in implementing the new skills in their work. These signals consisted of fife basic types: 195-196
  • Framing – conceptualizing new skills as  learning experiences, as opposed to add-ons to existing practices.
  • Roles – successful teams are told explicitly why their individual and collective skills were important.
  • Rehearsal – successful teams did elaborate preparation and dry runs of the new skills.
  • Explicit encouragement to speak up – Problems were posted out and team members  were coached thru the feedback process
  • Active Reflection — to discuss applicability of lessons learned.
• (What mattered) was simple steady pulse of real-time signals that channeled attention toward the larger goal… (flooding) the environment with the narrative links between what they were doing and what it meant.  197
• High proficiency environments help a group deliver a well-defined, reliable performance, while high-creativity environments help a group create something new.  (This) highlights two basic challenges facing any group: consistency and innovation.  199
• A bad interaction: “Either they’re disinterested – ‘I’m Just doing my job…or they’re angry at the other person or the situations. And if I were to see that, I would know that there’s a deeper prelim here, because the number-one job is to take care of each other. I  didn’t always know that , but I know it now.” Danny Meyer CEO of Gramercy restaurants.  203
• “That’s when I keen that i had to find a way to build a language, to teach behavior. I could no longer just model the behavior and trust that people would understand and do it. I had to start naming stuff.”  Danny Meyer CEO, Gramercy restaurants.  206
• “The results indicate that Union Square Cafe achieves its differentiation strategy of ‘enlightened hospitality’ through a synergistic set of human resource management practices involving three key practices: selection of employees based on emotional capabilities, respectful treatment of employees, and management through a simple stet of rules that stimulate complex and intricate behaviors benefiting customers.”  Susan Salgado about a Gramercy restaurant.  209
• Slime molds, honeybees, ants, and many other species use decision-making heuristics…heuristics provide guidance by creating if/then scenarios in vivid, memorable way… (creating) a conceptual beacon, creating situational awareness and providing clarity in times of potential confusion.  212
• “Give a good idea to a mediocre team, and they’ll find a way to screw it up. Give a mediocre idea to a good team, and they’ll find a way to make it better. The goal needs to be to get the team right, get them moving in the right direction, and get them to see where they are making mistakes and where they are succeeding.” Ed Catmull president and cofounder of Pixar.  220
• Each gathering brings team members together in a  asafew, flat, high-candor environment and lets them point out problems and generate ideas that move the team stepwise, toward a better solution.
• Ed-isms (referring to Ed Catmull, president of Pixar)
  • Hire people smarter than you.
  • Fail early, Fail often
  • Listen to everyone’s ideas.
  • Face toward the problems.
  • B-level work is bad for your soul.
  • It’s more important to invest in good people than in good ideas.
• The fundamental difference between leading for proficiency and leading for creativity: Myer (of Gramercy) needs people to know and feel exactly what to do, while Catmull (of Pixar) needs people to discover that for themselves. 223
• (To create a great creative culture) “It takes time. You have to go through some failures and some screw-ups, and survive them, and support each other through them. And then after that happens, you really begin to trust on another.”  Ed Catmull president of Pixar 226
• Building creative purpose isn’t really about creativity.  It’s about building ownership, providing support, and aligning group energy toward the arduous, error-filled, ultimately fulfilling journey of making something new.  226

• Establish Purpose – Ideas for Action 227-235

  • Successful cultures seem to use the a to crystallize their purpose and to be the crucible that helps the group discover what it could be. 228
  • High-purpose environments don’t descend on groups from on high; they are dug out of the ground, over and over, as a group navigates its problems together and evolves to meet the challenges of a fast-changing world.  228

1. Name and Rank Your Priorities. Most successful groups end up with five or fewer priorities, and not coincidentally, in-group relationships are at the top of the list.
2. Be Ten Times as Clear About Your Priorities as You Think You Should Be. Most executives are stunned at what a small percentage of the people in their organizations know their top 3 priorities.
3. Figure Out Where Your Group Aims for Proficiency and Where it Aims for Creativity.
   • Proficiency purpose: Machine-like reliability requires clear models of excellence, high-repetition, specific rules of thumb, and highlighting success at the fundamentals.
   • Creativity Purpose:  Carefully attend to team composition and dynamics, protect the team’s creative autonomy, make it safe to fail, give honest but respectful feedback, celebrate initiative.
4. Embrace the Use of Catchphrases – simple, action-oriented, forthright, and even cheesy are easy to remember, and to repeat.
5. Measure What Really Matters.  Creat simple universal measures that place focus on what matters.  Goal is not precision, but to create awareness and align behaviors toward the group’s mission.
6. Use Artifacts. Display articles and items that represent the values and purpose of the organization.
7. Focus on Bar-Setting Behaviors. Spotlight a single task and use it to define the group’s identity and to set the bar for expectations.

Why this Book:  Selected by my literature reading group.  We wanted something a bit shorter and lighter than out last book The Goldfinch, and this came highly recommended.

Summary in 3 Sentences:  This is two parallel stories – of a 12 year old young man in a Chinese family living in Seattle in 1942, and of the same man 44 years later coming to terms with middle age and his memories of that challenging period of his younger life.  In 1942 our protagonist develops a crush on a girl of Japanese descent and together, the two of them deal with the prejudices and racism of the day towards Asians, as America is at war with Japan.  There is a moving love story, but much of the book  explores the cultural tensions between Anglo Americans and Asian immigrants,  the injustices of the relocation of Japanese Americans into camps during WWII, and in-family tensions between American born Asians and their traditional parents.  

My Impressions:  I enjoyed the book – at about 300 pages it is not too long and an interesting story – a coming of age novel with the twist of it dealing with Chinese-Japanese Americans during WWII.  The emotional hook is the love story between Henry – our young protagonist, and his mature and wise Japanese girlfriend Keiko – each about 12-13 years old.  But the back story is the vicious racism that Japanese Americans – young and old – had to endure after the US went to war with Japan.

The book brings to light a lesser known story  about how the Chinese also hated the Japanese for what they had been doing in China for years before Pearl Harbor,  and as a result, they were fervent supporters of the US in its war with Japan. Yet most Americans can’t tell a Chinese from a Japanese, and the racism toward Japanese was extended to many Chinese.

A secondary theme of the book was the cross-generational challenge in Henry’s Chinese household. Henry felt himself to be very American, but his father was a very traditional Chinese father who demanded complete obedience from his son.  Henry had to hide his relationship with Keiko from his parents because of his father’s hatred of all things Japanese, and when he found out – the family fractured and young Henry had very divided loyalties.

Keiko and Henry both considered themselves to be very American, and loyal to their American culture,  but were forced to endure the taunts and abuses of anglo schoolmates, especially from a few of the bullies.  This tension between their own sense of being culturally American, and yet being rejected by mainstream of American culture creates the strong undercurrent that moves the novel along.

The author injects Sheldon into the story, an African American jazz saxophonist who adds another dimension to the issue of racism in America.   Quintessentially American, yet also an outsider to mainstream American culture, Sheldon is a mentor to Henry, supports him with his insights and wisdom, and occasionally even protects him from some of the more vicious of his tormenters.

And then we get to know Henry as a middle-aged man, 44 years later, not too long after the death of his Chinese American wife of over 30years.  He has lived his whole life in Seattle, raised a son, retired from his career, and is now alone and trying to find his way.  His son is fully American, much more assimilated into American culture than Henry had been, and he helps his father to find his way.   The relationship between Henry and his son contrasts with Henry’s own difficult father-son dynamic in 1942.  In Henry’s son’s  full assimilation into American culture, we see the degree to which Asians have been almost fully integrated into American life since the time of Henry’s boyhood.

The evolution of anti-Asian racism, the changes in generational dynamics over 40+ years and the compelling love story between young Henry and Keiko make up the themes of the book. There is an interesting twist at the end which ties up some loose ends.  Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet is an enjoyable read with some interesting insights into Japanese-Chinese-American cultural issues in the 1940s. The characters are probably not as well developed as I might have liked, but they were believable and enjoyable to follow.

Not the best novel I’ve ever read, but worth my time and I enjoyed it.

Why this book:  Selected by my literature reading group.  Interesting that a number of those in the reading group had already read it and wanted to read it again – even though it’s 770 pages long.  This book has been widely acclaimed and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for literature.

Summary in 4 sentences:  The story is told in first person from the perspective of a young man sharing his thoughts, fears, and perceptions of the world during a difficult 10 or so year period of his life – it could be called a “coming of age” novel.  It begins when as a 13 year old boy living with his divorced mother in NYC, he and his mother are in the NYC Metropolitan Museum of Art when a terrorist bomb explodes, killing his mother and seemingly everyone in the vicinity,  but he somehow survives. When he comes to after the explosion, he is with an older man who just before he dies hands him his ring, an address, and a painting – “The Goldfinch” – a very valuable painting from the Museum.  Our protagonist leaves the museum unseen with the painting, and the rest of the book is about his struggles over the next 10+ years to come to terms with that event, feeling essentially alone in a chaotic world where he has no roots, trying to find his own identity and some sort of happiness – while secretly having in his possession a stolen and invaluable work of art from the Museum.

My impressions:  The story in The Goldfinch is like a labyrinth – twisting and turning and it is often unclear where it is going, and what the point is.  The story itself is NOT is NOT what makes this books special – what is compelling is the cast of very interesting characters, the truly exceptional writing of Donna Tartt and the underlying morality play that one only sees at the end. The book culminates in the last 30 or so pages.  In the young man’s thoughts and perspectives looking back, the entire story made sense to me.  The story was interesting enough, but the conclusion made the book truly exceptional.   I felt I really did need to go through the whole book for the conclusion to have its intended impact.

The book begins with our protagonist in a hotel room in Amsterdam, in considerable despair over his prospects, and then pretty rapidly, goes back 10 or so years to the beginning of the story that got him there.

As a 13 year old boy, Theo, our protagonist, is left adrift in the world after his mother is killed in a terrorist bombing while the two of them are Metropolitan Museum of Art.  He had always been  a shy but smart boy, very close to his mother, not terribly assertive, and a target to the bullies in elementary and junior high school.  Now, without a trusted adult to help him, he is faced with social workers, school counselors, a host of “helpful” people who he didn’t trust, didn’t like, feeling sorry for him, trying to help him.

First he lives with the family of one of his friends, then his alcoholic estranged father shows up with his girlfriend and takes him to Las Vegas.  There, as a latchkey kid, he gets into drugs, trouble and connects with Boris (more on him later) a young Polish kid who likewise is somewhat adrift in American society.  Their bizarre alcohol and drug induced adventures culminate when Theo’s father is suddenly no longer in the picture, then Theo leaves Las Vegas and Boris, and makes it back to New York City, at which point he’s about 16 years old.  He reconnects with people he’d known there as a younger man, finds his way into college, but still feels lost and alienated. Then the story jumps ahead eight years to when he is a young adult running an antique store and selling counterfeit furniture at exorbitant prices. And then his old friend Boris comes back into his life.

Throughout all of this, he has the painting of The Goldfinch, painted in 1654 by the Dutch painter Carel Fabritius.  The authorities know it is missing and a significant reward is offered for it.  Young Theo is very aware that he has in his possession an invaluable work of art that he had stolen.  Ever since that day in the museum when he walked out with the paining, fear and paranoia are always in the background of his life.   He is very afraid of being found out, yet the painting has something of a spell on him: His mother was a gifted art historian and the painting represents to him his mother’s passion for art and his connection to her – one thing of value he has as a result of the tragedy of the explosion that killed her.

Throughout the book, we are inside Theo’s head, sharing his fears, anxieties, concerns, and he has a lot of them. He doesn’t have much fun or joy – and unable to relax and amuse himself, he readily lets Boris take him down the path of alcohol and drugs.   He is suffering from a type of PTSD after the loss of his mother and any semblance of order in his life.  The things and people he should be able to count on, seem always to let him down – except for eventually, the owner of an antique store, the partner of the dying man who handed him the painting after the explosion.  This man – Hobie – is honest and truly cares for and trusts Theo.  But Theo is even unable to trust him completely and ultimately betrays him as well.

When he reconnects with Boris, Theo is a young adult, and his life is beginning to fray.  Theo then lets Boris pull him into the dark underworld of traffickers in stolen art.   Eventually, the story comes around to where the book began – Theo in despair in Amsterdam.  The conclusion and resolution of the various tensions in the story are surprising and very well done. And then we get to Theo’s insights and lessons learned about life – looking back.

Boris is a very important character in the book  – certainly the book’s most interesting character.  He is a complex mix of wisdom and chicanery, of philosopher and short sighted hedonist, a man of integrity and a con man and opportunistic thief.  Typical of how we perceive mafia and other criminals, the law is of little interest to him other than as an obstacle to overcome in order to get what he wants.  But personal honor, loyalty and friendship are valued above all. Boris is in some ways heroic, in some ways bad, but never evil.  He has a number of redeeming qualities.  He is Theo’s tempter and nemesis, as well as his mentor, inspiration, and savior.

There is a very interesting passage, in which Boris is discussing the complexities of good and evil with Theo and chastising him for his constant second-guessing:

“Where does it ever say , anywhere, that only bad can come from bad actions?  Maybe sometimes – the wrong way is the right way? You can take the wrong path and it still comes out where you want to be? Or spin it another way, sometimes you can do everything wrong and it still turns out  to be right?… I have never drawn such a sharp line between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as you. For me: that line is often false.  The two are never disconnected.  One can’t exist with the other. As long as I am acting out of love, I feel I am doing best I know how.  But you – wrapped up in judgment, always regretting the past, cursing yourself, blaming yourself, asking ‘what if,’  ‘what if.’   ‘Life is cruel.’ ‘ I wish I had died instead of.’   Well – think about this. What if all your actions and choices, good or bad, make no difference to God? What if the pattern is pre-set? No no – hang on – this is a question worth struggling with….”

In the end, Theo seems to have taken some of Boris’s perspective on board, and shares how he has come to realize how very complicated life indeed is, how nothing is simple, nothing is what it seems.   Any efforts to understand people or actions as either good or bad are incomplete and short sighted.

In one particularly powerful passage toward the end, he asks, “How do we know what’s right for us? Every shrink, every career counselor, every Disney princess knows the answer: ‘Be Yourself.’ ‘Follow your heart.’ ”  But then he asks,

“What if one’s heart, for its own unfathomable reasons, leads one willfully and in a cloud of unspeakable radiance away from health, domesticity, civic responsibility and strong social connections and all the blandly-held common virtues, and instead straight towards a beautiful flair of ruin, self immolation, disaster?….If your deepest self is singing and coaxing you straight toward the bonfire, is it better to turn away?…Ignore all the perverse glory your heart is screaming at you? Set yourself on the course that will lead you dutifully towards the norm, reasonable hours and regular medical check-ups, stable relationships and steady career advancement, the New York Times and brunch on Sunday, all with the promise of being somehow a better person? Or – like Boris – is it better to throw yourself head first and laughing into the holy rage calling your name?”

Theo spent his life hovering between these two ends of the spectrum, never completely deciding one way or the other. Boris represented the rebellious soul, while all around him there were reminders of the pressure to get back in line and be a part of respectable society.   In the end, he is still uncertain and ambivalent  – it’s complicated.   He is still trying to figure things out, but has a wisdom and thoughtfulness that put him on his way to having values that he is willing to stand by, even though he sees no God or over-arching meaning.

Also in the end, his nihilism can give way to joy. “…and yet to know as well, despite all this, as cruelly as the game is stacked, that it’s possible to play it with a kind of joy?”

Art, love, beauty are to be found in what he refers to as the middle space between our minds and reality.  There is much in this book about beauty and art, as well as the sufferings of fallible human beings.

During our reading group discussion we realized an important similarity between The Goldfinch, and the last book we read, Zorba the Greek:  Both are first person narratives from the perspective of men who are unsure of themselves and their masculinity, each cautious and reserved, and with a tendency to over-think issues and challenges.  And both men were contrasted with strong, assertive and uninhibited characters with a disdain for conventional responsibilities, a strong sense of personal freedom, and a promiscuity toward mischief and unfettered self-expression. Indeed Zorba and Boris have a lot in common.

The Goldfinch is a very worthy read.

Why this book:  Selected by TWO reading groups I am part of: All American Leadership’s Open Reading Group and Naval Special Warfare Center’s Commodore’s Reading Group.

Summary in 3 Sentences: Chip and Dan  Heath look at the impediments to change –  in organizations, but also in  each of us as individuals, and they provide straightforward insights from their research to help leaders change the culture of their organization by changing people’s behavior.   To bring about lasting change, the leader must engage the people in their organization in three dimensions:   The Head (reason &rationality), The Heart (feeling & desire), and The Environment (the context in which decisions are made) – though the Heaths  use a different metaphor for each of these.  The authors offer numerous compelling examples and case studies to make their case, and the book is written to be enjoyable, impactful and relatively easy and straightforward to read.

My Impressions: Bottom Line Up Front: I didn’t read any ideas in this book that I hadn’t seen elsewhere, but the authors did a brilliant job bringing together a broad array of  insights into human behavior into a coherent easy to understand  whole.   I’ve already strongly recommended this book to several leaders I know who are trying to positively influence the cultures in the organizations they lead.  Ideally this book would be read by several people in the leadership team of an organization, and used as a common framework to consider steps that might make a positive difference in their organization.

The Heath brothers use a metaphor they borrowed from the book The Happiness Hypothesis, which models our decisions based on the analogy of an elephant, its rider and the path the elephant and rider are travelling.  The rider represents reason and rationality, which needs to know and understand the why, the how, and the variables in a decision. The informed rider then guides the elephant, which represents our feelings, emotions, and inclinations.  Appropriately enough, the elephant (emotions) is much bigger and stronger than the rider (reason & rationality.)   The path on which the rider and the elephant are traveling represents the context in which we are acting.  The book makes the point that the nature of the path often drives decisions that the rider chooses, and whether the elephant will choose to comply, or not.

Each of these aspects of our decision making gets a full section of the book, and each section is subdivided into three chapters:  The section entitled “Direct the Driver” includes “Find the Bright Spots,” “Script the Critical Moves,” and “Point to the Destination.”  The section entitled “Motivate the Elephant” includes “Find the Feeling,” “Shrink the Change,” and “Grow your People.”   The final section, “Shape the Path” includes: ”Tweak the Environment,”  ”Build Habits,” and “Rally the Herd.”

Switch makes the point that way too many leaders try to institute changes by primarily speaking  to “the rider” – the intellect – that is, by offering reasons and justifications for what needs to change, believing that is all people need in order to act.  These leaders ignore the reality that people’s decisions and actions over the long run are primarily driven by emotional motivations.  Most of us put energy into what engages our emotions and desires, much more so than simply doing what someone has convinced us we ought to do. The Heath brothers don’t discount the need to explain why and provide direction and specific goals that make sense – in fact they insist this is necessary. But it isn’t enough to make a long term difference.

Direct the Rider (clarify the situation and do what makes sense)  There is a fair amount of Simon Sinek in this section – in how they identify the need to explain why, and give direction, clarify goals.  They also make the point that general goals are ineffective – leaders need to script very specific actions that will become the basis for change.  The chapter on finding the bright spots, asks the simple question: “What’s working now and how can we do more of it?” And it suggests that leaders find and exploit an  organization’s “positive deviants” – those who are doing well in spite of all the issues that need to be changed or fixed. Echoes of Appreciative Inquiry and Now Discovery your Strengths.

Motivate the Elephant (Engage the heart and feeling) This section did well in reinforcing a point that most of us know – that to institute change, leaders must engage peoples hearts and emotions – and without that, explanations, rationality and dispassionate understanding won’t create much momentum.   I thought the chapters “Shrink the Change” and “Grow Your People” were excellent in their practical wisdom. Shrink the change gives multiple examples of creating big change with small steps.  Grow your people gives multiple examples of inspiring people to do much more than they believe they are capabler of.

Shape the Path  (tweaking the environment) In the final section he explores how research shows that people’s behavior is largely driven by what their environment encourages and rewards.  This insight I keep seeing again and again – and the Heath brothers refer to the Fundamental Attribution Problem that blames bad behavior on bad character, rather assigning any responsibility to an environment that often (intentionally or unintentionally) incentivizes and facilitates bad behavior.  Part of me resists this dodging of personal accountability, but I have come to recognize the reality that most people – including yours truly – are much more likely to do “the right thing” or behave in a manner that supports larger objectives in an environment which encourages the desired behavior. If I’m hungry, and all there is to eat are donuts and sweet rolls, and no fruit or vegetables, I’ll eat donuts and sweet rolls.   But just put out fruit and vegetables, and I’ll eat F&V.  Give me both, and I’ll usually eat the F&V (but not always!)   “Shape the Path” shares insights from the book Nudge which offers many examples of how leaders have changed the environment to help people make good decisions they may not make on their own.

I really liked this book in its simple and well-articulated combining of insights from a variety of sources into practical guidance.  A companion book, that reinforces from a somewhat different direction many of the insights in Switch is Daniel Coyle’s The Culture Code.

———————————-

Below are some of the insights and quotes I found most interesting (page numbers from the 2010 hardcover edition):

To change behavior, you’ve got to direct the Rider, motivate the Elephant, and shape the Path. If you an do all three at once, dramatic change can happen, even if you don’t have lots of power or resources behind you.  19

Will power is a limited resource.  Making decisions, especially important or difficult decisions use up that limited reservoir of strength of will. 50

Decision Paralysis – the more options we have, even good ones, the more exhausted we get.  Choice no longer liberates, it can debilitate.   The so-what:  Make important decisions when we’re fresh; protect key decision makers from decisions they don’t need to make, in order to preserve that reservoir of decision making energy for the important stuff. 50-51

Ambiguity and Uncertainty can also paralyze.  These can be enemies of change – since in the face of ambiguity and uncertainty, we usually take the most familiar path – the path of least resistence –  which almost always is the status quo. 52-53

I loved the abbreviation “TBU”  True But Useless – information that merely confuses an issue and doesn’t help find a solution. 28

Knowledge alone does not change behavior. 30

Solutions-focused therapy– doesn’t focus on what got us here.  It focuses on what we need to do to change.  These therapists use the Miracle Question – “Suppose you go to bed tonight and sleep well.  Sometime in the middle of the night, while you were sleeping, a miracle happens and all of the troubles that brought you here were resolved. When you wake up, what’s the first small sign you’d see that would make you think, “Well, something good must have happened?”  What would that look like, and what do we need to do to take that small step toward getting to a solution? 34-36

Exception Question – when was the last time things were working for you – what was happening?  What did that look and feel like? How did you behave? 38

Any successful change requires the translation of ambiguous goals into concrete behaviors.  In short, to make a switch, you need to script the critical moves. 54

That’s why scripting is important- you’ve got to think about the specific behavior that  you’d want to see in a tough moment. 56

Until you can ladder your way down from a change idea to a specific behavior, you’re not ready to lead a switch. 63

(They) succeeded by formulating solutions that were strikingly smaller than the problems they were intended to solve 71

SMART goals presume the emotion; they don’t generate it.  82

Destination postcards – pictures of a future that hard work can make possible – can be incredibly inspiring. 85

If you’re worried about the possibility of rationalizations… you need to squeeze ambiguity from your goal.  You need a black-and-white goal..an all-or-nothing goal… (which)  leaves nowhere to hide 86-87

When you’re at the beginning, don’t obsess about the middle, because the middle is going to look different once you get there. Just look for a strong beginning and a strong ending and get moving.  93

(from The Heart of Change) In highly successful change efforts, people find ways to help others see the problems or solutions in ways that influence emotions, not just thought.  105

Trying to fight inertia and indifference with analytical arguments is like tossing  a fire extinguisher to someone who’s drowning.  The solution doesn’t match the problem. 107

When people fail to change, it’s not usually because of an understanding problem. …We know there’s a difference between knowing how to act and being motivated to act. 112

We’re all lousy self-evaluators….. (over-estimating our capabilities) is known as positive illusion.   Positive Illusions pose an enormous problem with regard to change. 114-115

Attila the Accountant was meticulous about following the rules to a fault.  115

Negative emotions tend to have a “narrowing effect” on our thoughts.

Positive emotions are designed to broaden and build our repertoire of thoughts and actions.  Joy for example, makes us want to play. 122

People find it more motivating to be partly finished with a longer journey than to be at the starting gate of a shorter one….One way to motivate action is to make people feel as though they’re already closer to the finish line than they might have thought.  127

The sense of progress is critical, because the Elephant in us is easily demoralized.  It’s easily spooked….It needs reassurance, even for the very first step of the journey. 129

Starting an unpleasant task is always worse than continuing it. 131

Another way to shrink change is to think of small wins. 136

When you engineer early successes, what you’re really doing is engineering hope.  Hope is precious to a change effort. It’s Elephant fuel. 141

You want to select small wins that have two traits: (1) They’re meaningful. (2) They’re “within immediate reach.” 145

When people make choices, they tend to rely on one of two basic models of decision making: the consequences model or the identity model.  153

We’re not just born with an identity; we adopt identities throughout our lives.  153-54

Any change effort that violates someone’s identity is likely doomed to failure.  154

Their little-yes seemed to pave the way for the big-yes.  159

…he may become in his own eyes, the kind of person who does this sort of thing..who takes action on things he believes in, who cooperates with good causes.  160

It shows us that peole are receptive to developing new identities, that identities “grow” from small beginnings.  161

Everything is hard before it is easy.  166

To create and sustain change, you’ve got to act more like a coach and less like a scorekeeper.  168

IDEO designers sketched out a project mood chart that predicts how people will feel at different phases of a project.  It’s a U-shaped curve with a peak of positive emotion , labeled “hope,” at the beginning, and a second peak of positive emotion, labeled “confidence,” at the end. In between the two peaks is a negative emotional valley labeled “insight.”168

They are creating the expectation of failure …because what comes next is hardship and toil and frustration.  169

You can shrink the change, or grow your people (or, preferably, both). 176

What looks like a person problem is often a situation problem. 180

…people have a systematic tendency to ignore the situational forces that shape other people’s behavior… this deep rooted tendency is the “Fundamental Attribution Error.” The error lies in our inclination to attributer people’s behavior to the way they are rather than to the situation they are in.  180 (Bob’s note: It is obviously some of both, depending on the individual, how strong their character, beliefs, values vs environmental and contextual pressure.)

Tweaking the environment is about making the right behavior a little bit easier and the wrong behaviors a little bit harder.  183

If you change the path, you’ll change the behavior.  185

You know you’ve got a smart solution when everyone hates it and it still works – and in fact works so well that people’s hate turns to enthusiasm.  190

What looks like a “character problem” is often correctible when you change the environment. 202

Why are habits so important? They are, in essence, behavioral autopilot. They allow lots of good behaviors to happen without the Rider taking charge. Remember that the Rider’s sefl-control is exhaustible, so it’s a huge plus if some positive things can happen “free” on autopilot  207

An “action trigger” (is when) you’ve made a decision to execute a certain action when you encounter a certain situational trigger.   (Bob’s note: much combat training is about creating automatic action triggers.)

Preloading a decision… is passing the control of our behavior on to the environment… protecting goals from tempting distractions, bad habits, or competing goals. 210

How to shape the Path… two strategies: (1) tweaking the environment and (2) building habits.   There’s a tool that perfectly combines these two strategies.. the humble checklist.  220

Check lists can help people avoid blind spots in a complex environment. 221

It’s easier to persevere on a long journey when you’re traveling with a herd.  224

In ambiguous situations…people look to others for cues about how to interpret the event. 226

In situations where your herd has embraced the right behavior, publicize it.  229

Change was coming into conflict with culture, and let’s face it, a new rule is no match for a culture.  244

Researchers who study social movements call situations like this “free spaces” – small scale meetings where reformers can gather and ready themselves for collective action, without being observed by members of the dominant group.  246

If you want to change the culture of your organization, you’ve got to get the reformers together. They need a free space….(and) Counterintuitively, you’ve got to let your organization have an identity conflict.  247

Animal trainers rarely use punishment these days… instead they set a behavioral destination and then use “approximations,” meaning that there reward each tiny step toward the destination.  251

Change isn’t an event; it’s a process.  253

Inertia may be a formidable opponent in the early going of your sewitch, at some point inertia will shift from resisting change to supporting it.  Small changes can snowball to big changes.   255

Why this book:  This is actually an essay and not a book. It is perhaps Emerson’s best known and most influential essay and it came up in a discussion with a close friend who like me is a fan of R.W. Emerson.  We  both recalled how impressed we were with this essay when we had read it before,  and decided to read it again and see what it can teach us now. This was my 3rd time reading it. But not my last.

Summary in 3 Sentences: This is Ralph Waldo Emerson’s manifesto on what he believes man should aspire to be or become – not mankind, but each person.  He describes his Self Reliant Man as free, independent and to whatever degree possible, self-sufficient, responsible and decisive, in contrast to the majority of men who are afraid to assume risk and decide for themselves how to live, so they simply default to social convention to tell them how to live.  Emerson’s manifesto is spiritual insofar as he states that most men abandon their God-given duty to fulfill their human potential out of fear  – fear of disapproval, fear of failure, fear of their own power, fear of death.

Main points in this essay:  Much of his essay is a description of what Emerson variously refers to as the “Self Reliant Man” or the “True Man.”   I’ll stick with Self Reliant Man.   I am understanding it as referring to non-gender specific “man,” though in keeping with his time and culture, Emerson probably meant men specifically.    He describes how the Self Reliant Man behaves, thinks, chooses to live, in part by contrasting him with those who are NOT  Self-Reliant Men. These he variously calls conformists, cowards, clients, the mob, sots.

The Self Reliant Man decides for himself what is best and does not let his beliefs, commitments, values be swayed by a desire to fit in, or to propitiate the beliefs, values, commitments of others.  He is not afraid of disapproval.  He is ready to stand alone, and accept the consequences. “Be it known unto you that henceforward I obey no law less than the eternal law.”  “If you can love me for what I am, we shall be the happier. If you cannot, I will still seek to deserve that you should.  I will not hide my tastes or aversions.”

He mocks most men as “…timorous, desponding whimperers.. afraid of the truth, afraid of fortune, afraid of death, and afraid of each other.”  Their occupations, avocations, pleasures, marriages, religions, careers – their ives – were chosen by others -by social convention – not by themselves.  He calls them “parlor soldiers… (who) shun the rugged battle of fate, where strength is born.”  The Self Reliant Man does consider what society and convention offers, but also considers as legitimate options for himself what society disapproves, or may oppose, and looks into his own heart to decide what is right for him.  He is proud, unafraid, and willing to accept the costs of standing apart from the parlor soldiers.

The primary source of our Self Reliant Man’s wisdom and self-reliance is his trust in his intuition.  The Self Reliant Man believes strongly that his intuition is in touch with Truth, and is connected to a greater wisdom that exists outside of himself.  In trying to understand this almost mystical sensibility, I am reminded of Jung’s collective unconscious and Plato’s mystical belief in our connection to the light outside the cave.  Emerson believed that our intuition is a reflection of our divine soul.  His Self Reliant Man has faith in this “truth” and looks to his intuition for guidance, while most men look for guidance in the approving or disapproving eyes of their social group.   Self-Reliant Men know that their intuition “proceeds from the same source whence their life and being also proceed.”   Intuition is the window into the soul, and “the relations of the soul to the divine spirit are so pure that it is profane to seek to interpose helps.”

Throughout this essay,  Emerson refers to God, the Almighty, the ever-blessed ONE, and essentially says that the Self Reliant Man is the great person God created each of us to be. Most of us however, yield to the temptations of comfort, security, and conformity, and therefore never achieve greatness. Most of us never become “self reliant” –  never become the Self Reliant Man, never become Nietzsche’s ubermensch, nor Aristotle’s magnanimous man.  In fact, like Nietzsche some 50 years later, Emerson calls upon man to make himself godlike  – to “cast off the common motives of humanity .. to trust himself for a taskmaster.”  Emerson sets the bar high – to become god-like – and elsewhere challenges us to become at one with God.  “As soon as the man is at one with God, he will not beg.”

Emerson attacks the religious conventions of his day, but he does so subtly.   He is no Martin Luther though he refers to Martin Luther as a model.   I wonder if he is careful here – almost hypocritically so – pulling his punches and make his points in a way that will not overly antagonize the sensibilities of his more religious readers.  This does speak to one of my criticisms of this essay: If we do not compromise some, do not pull our punches sometimes, do not accept and appreciate those who may not have the strength or desire to become “self reliant,” the ensuing ostracism and marginalization may not allow us to positively impact those “timorous desponding whimperers” that make up the  majority of mankind.

I did appreciate his comment on prayer noting that “Prayer that craves a particular commodity, anything less than all good, is vicious.”   Prayer – and he implies all religion – should contemplate life and all that happens from the highest, most beneficent perspective – a God’s eye view. And yet man has allowed his religion to descend into the swamp of narrow human prejudices.  The Self Reliant Man despises men who beg God.

His insistence on living in the present – to be in touch with nature contains echoes of Buddhism and today’s meditation and mindfulness movement.    He says that man “does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or, heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on tiptoe to foresee the future.”

He ridicules those who love to travel.  He claims that the fetish for travel is a means for people to distract themselves from themselves – and thereby they miss the beauty that exists all around them.  “Traveling is a fool’s paradise.”  Most men are enamored of the “shiny objects” and curiosities of things foreign or outside their own experience, often missing that which is truly good and wonderful in their own midst.  The fetish for new and exciting distracts us from the real quality that is found inside ourselves, in our own hearts, in how we’ve created our own lives.  Many of us choose to travel rather than be with ourselves, rather than to learn to appreciate and savor the world we have created for ourselves, and live in.

There is so much Nietzsche in this essay.  From extolling the superior and independent man, to lambasting the herd of normal men, the mob,  who simply believe what others believe, do what others expect them to do, and live “off the shelf lives.”  I hear Nietzsche (and even Machiavelli) in his statement that power is the essential measure of right.

Emerson’s Self Reliant Man, his integrity, his faith in himself, his courage and spiritual resilience are – to use an expression I recently learned –  Unfuckwithable!

I find this essay very inspiring.  I love his poetic language and metaphors.  There is a reason that this essay has been called the manifesto of the American character.  The American in me loves this essay.

My response to some of what I read in Self Reliance – Emerson’s essay was a powerful statement in its day, and pointed to the stifling conformity that he saw in small town living in early 19th century Concord, Mass.  In Aristotelian fashion I think he may have overshot the golden mean between mindless conformity and reckless, un-inhibited social rebellion.  I don’t believe he was too concerned with people taking his self-reliance too far; he was more concerned with getting people to think for themselves and be willing to be somewhat more independent, somewhat more nonconformist.  But I’m not sure he didn’t overshoot his mark.

I don’t think he gave enough credit to the value of “interdependence” and community.  We are never completely “self- reliant.”  We need others to grow, to live, to become strong, to become self-reliant.  We need others to feed our bodies, and minds, to nurture our “spirit,” to give us the tools to create an independent spirit.  And many of those who Emerson derides as living boring and unfulfilled lives, provide the food, clothing, shelter social institutions in our communities that allow the strong to become great.  Emerson wasn’t concerned about too many people following his advice.  His philosophy – as was Nietzsche’s –  advocated that the strong few step forward, lead,  and inspire others to get out of their comfort zones.  I think his is an unapologetically elitist philosophy – but Emerson doesn’t admit that.

He makes the statement that “For nonconformity, the world whips you with its displeasure.”  In some cases the world may kill you, or your family and friends for your nonconformity.  In some cases, it may be heroic suicide to buck social conventions. In some cases it may be a rational choice to pick one’s battles, go along to get along, and live to fight another day.

His imperative to stand alone, must be understood in context.  To stand alone, to declare oneself  “self reliant” may have challenges more dramatic than the disapproval of the ladies home league, or the minister, or the guardians of convention and conformity in one’s social group.  It is important to recall that heroes who would fit Emerson’s Self Reliant Man model have often been killed for their beliefs – Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King to name a few well known examples.  This is not an argument against Emerson’s Self Reliant Man – these are all heroes because of the sacrifice they made, and their sacrifice needs to be part of the discussion.

While I enjoyed his sharp and witty rebukes of the common herd of people, not everyone can be Emerson’s Self-Reliant Man.  We must love the weaker ones too, we need them too. And we must love that part of ourselves that we see in them – for aren’t we all guilty of some of what he accuses and despises in his common man?  We must recognize ourselves in them, while we simultaneously seek to NOT be them, seek to overcome our own inertia that pulls out to comfort and complacency, so that we may lead and inspire others to be better, and perhaps more self reliant.

Regarding his thoughts on intuition – In my heart of hearts I am very much in synch with his views.  However, my recent readings of Yuval Harari (Sapiens and Homo Deus) and Sam Harris (Waking Up) demand that I understand the rationalist and materialist perspective, and that I seriously question whether we indeed have an immortal soul, or that our intuitions are connected to a universal God-spirit that has designs on our well-being.   Courage and honesty demand that I be prepared to live well while accepting that there may not be a greater being of which we all are a part. As I read his comments on soul and intuition and God, my analytical training wants to pin him down on these mushy concepts.

A great review of this essay and a somewhat different perspective is from my friend Yolla who inspired me to re-read and re-examine this essay.  Her review can be read here.

Great lines and famous quotes from Self Reliance:

• In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts.
• And we are now men…not minors and invalids in a protected corner, not cowards fleeing before a revolution, but guides, redeemers and benefactors, obeying the Almighty effort and advancing on Chaos and the Dark.
• God will not have his work made manifest by cowards.
• Society everywhere is in conspiracy agains the manhood of every one of its members…The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs.
• Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist.
• For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure.
• A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, and philosophers and divines.
• To be great is to be misunderstood.
• Men imagine that they communicate their virtue or vice only by overt actions, and do not see that virtue or vice emit a breath every moment.
• The force of character is cumulative.
• Instead of the gong for dinner, let us hear the Spartan fife. (I love this one!)
• Honor is venerable to us because it is no ephemera. It is always ancient virtue…is self-dependent, self derived, and therefore of an old immaculate pedigree, even if shown in a young person.  (not sure I fully agree after seeing what passes for honor in the Mafia, ISIS and other radical sects)
• Let us affront and reprimand the smooth mediocrity and squalid contentment of the times.
• Power is, in nature, the essential measure of right.  Nature suffers nothing to remain in her kingdoms which cannot help itself.
• Insist on yourself; never imitate.
• All men plume themselves on the improvement of society, and no man improves.  …Society never advances.
• …the white man has lost his aboriginal strength.
• The civilized man has built a coach, but has lost the use of his feet….and it may be a question …whether we have not lost by refinement some energy, by a Christianity, entrenched in establishments and forms, some vigor of wild virtue.
• Society is a wave. The wave moves onward, but the water of which it is composed does not.
• ..The reliance on Property, including the reliance on governments which protect it, is the want of self-reliance.
• (Most men) measure their esteem of each other by what each has, not by what each is.
• Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring  you peace but the triumph of principle.