Have you noticed that leaders don’t think in limiting “either-or” scenarios? For example:
“I don’t know if I should invest now during this pandemic or if I should stop until the economy recovers.”
“Should I go to graduate school or not?”
“Should we continue with this project as is or scrap it.”
These three questions are samples of questions we can hear all the time. Do you see what they have in common? They all limit our answers to two scenarios.
I don’ know what you call this, so for simplicity let’s just call it binary thinking. That’s binary thinking. And leaders don’t think in limiting “either-or” scenarios because they create and envision multiple solutions.
The statements and questions we make are so important because they determine how much thinking or non-thinking we get to do. If you’ve been following my blog you know how much I love questions (by the way, I’m making a journal with 365 awesome questions; coming soon). And that’s because the quality of our questions determines the usefulness of the answer.
How many sides does a coin have?
I’ve noticed that sometimes we, including myself at times, get stuck into this “either-or” thinking which I compare to a coin. If you said a coin has 2 sides you’re incorrect. A coin has three sides, but we’re condition to only seeing the front and the back (heads or tails).
I don’t know why we so easily limit ourselves to two options. Why do we instinctively limit our options? I don’t know the answer, but I would guess it’s due to lazy thinking and social conditioning. We’re so satisfied with the two most obvious scenarios that we don’t look for more alternatives.
But what would happen if we always looked for three, four, or five scenarios?
I read once that in a meeting an employee of Walt Disney said, “We have to think outside the box.” This employee presented two options- thinking inside the box or thinking outside the box. Unsatisfied with the limits of this way of thinking, Walt Disney responded by saying, “There is no box.”
There is no box.
Walt Disney
What would happen to our way of thinking if we just eliminated the box?
Our environment and culture also try to limit our thinking. The media wants us to see the two main political parties as either good or bad. When you ask someone about wanting to start a business they say not to because it’s too risky. Most ideas are either this or that. They’re all limiting.
Look for the third side of the coin and don’t let influencers, your environment, political leaders, or the media force you to pick one of two options in their scenarios.
Good leaders see beyond their environment and create more options and solutions. They don’t allow others to limit their thinking.
So, what can you do to train yourself to see more than two options?
[UPDATE: Due to the positive feedback I received on this series I turned it into a short book called “Lead Like Mike”. If you want to support me and read the ten posts all in one place you can now order the book here.]
Okay, so we finally made it to the final episode of “The Last Dance”. It took me a little longer than I wanted to write this series but I did it. If you haven’t, check out episode 9.
—–
“His [Michal Jordan] gift was that he was completely present. And that was the separator. The big downfall of a lot of players who are often gifted is thinking about failure… Michael Jordan didn’t allow what he couldn’t control to get inside his head”
As alluded to by the quote above by Mark Vincil, the author of a biography on Jordan. There was one overarching theme in episode 10. Mindset. What separated Jordan from his contemporaries was a mindset or “gift” for seeing constant improvement, hard work, and improving weaknesses as the prize.
When reading articles about Jordan, he’s usually described as one of the most “talented” basketball players in NBA history. The Cambridge dictionary defines talent as “(someone who has) a natural ability to be good at something, especially without being taught.”
If you know anything about Jordan (and other greats) describing him as athletically talented is insulting because it ignores so much of what he has done to succeed. There are tons of talented musicians playing in the subways of New York City. There are so many talented basketball players who didn’t make it to the NBA and many who made it but didn’t make an impact in the league.
The world is full of talented people who never come close to reaching their potential or joining the elite at what they do.
The other problem with easily slapping a “talented” label on people is that at the same time this creates an excuse for those of us who were not born prodigies or extraordinarily gifted. It’s an excuse that gives us an easy way out of not trying to excel at something because we believe we weren’t born with some innate talent or gift.
Whether you’re talented or not, you can’t master something without putting in the work. And you can’t put in the work without the right mental tools. What separated Jordan from other basketball players was more due to his mindset and less to his athletic ability.
In his book Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise, Anders Ericsson makes a strong argument that prodigies don’t exist. To shatter a lot of the commonly held prodigy misconceptions, he uses Mozart, who started playing concerts at the age of five, as an example. He argues that Mozart’s father, a trained musician himself, dedicated his life to creating an environment where his son’s interest in the piano could flourish. According to Ericcson, Mozart started learning the piano before he could walk. Ericcson argues success for “prodigies” like Mozart came from constant “deliberate practice”, commitment, and a desire for mastery.
But there are other experts who argue that prodigies and super talented people are born that way because there are traits that come easily and naturally to them without any training.
So, whom should we believe?
I think both can be true to some extent and they’re not mutually exclusive. My middle daughter has a clear natural athletic advantage over her sisters that she was born. My three daughters train in tennis the same amount of hours weekly, have the same coaching, and started taking tennis lessons at the same age but my middle daughter has a clear physical advantage.
But even with this athletic advantage, it will still take years of effort, focus, and Ericcson’s “deliberate practice” for my middle daughter to truly excel. Without the right mindset and hard work, my middle daughter’s innate athletic ability is useless.
Instead of debating nature versus nurture, psychologists have recently started to focus more on how to create an environment where anyone can improve and even excel at their craft.
Was Jordan talented? I’m sure he had some innate athletic talent. But it’s nearly impossible to measure how much his talent is responsible for his success because he worked as if talent didn’t exist. Kobe Byant, another NBA great, was known as someone who worked as hard if not harder than Jordan.
So, how do we measure talent here?
Well, we don’t.
LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLE #10: You don’t have to be the greatest just better than you were yesterday.
So, how do we do all this? Develop a mindset that sees hard work, self-discipline, and deliberate practice as a reward.
At each stage in Jordan’s basketball career you see clues into the mind of someone who never thought about his talent or was satisfied. His mind was like a GPS locked into a destination of excellence. This is all about mindset.
I think Jordan’s great innate competitive advantage was a love for the game, a desire to improve, and an obsession to compete which sometimes went too far.
Psychologist, author, and researcher Carol Deck coined the term “growth mindset” which she defined as when “people believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work—brains and talent are just the starting point. This view creates a love of learning and a resilience that is essential for great accomplishment.”
Jordan had a growth mindset. He’s been quoted as saying, Jordan himself said, “Everybody has talent, but ability takes hard work.” And that mindset has followed him from the basketball from to business as evidenced by the fact that he makes more money in retirement than when he played.
So, how does this apply to the real-world?
Think like a craftsman who slowly and intentionally improves at that thing you are most interested in. You can bring that mindset into an area of life that’s important to you from marriage to personal finances to our careers and hobbies. What would you like to improve or even master in your lifetime?
So, how intentional are you about getting better at your craft, whatever that might be?
—–
And if you liked this series and want to increase your leadership I.Q check out my book, “Leader by Choice.”
Some of the reviews:
—“I think everyone can benefit from reading this, but especially those who feel they are held back by their past.”
—“I read a lot of leadership books but few are as accessible, personal, and action-oriented as this one.”
—“This was just the book I needed (as someone who has been in middle management for a while, but feeling stuck. Mid life!).”
—“Leader by Choice is a must read! Do yourself, or someone you care about, a favor and order the paperback version of this book.”
[UPDATE: Due to the positive feedback I received on this series I turned it into a short book called “Lead Like Mike”. If you want to support me and read the ten posts all in one place you can now order the book here.]
Welcome back! If you haven’t, check out episode 8. It’s about emotional intelligence.
My favorite thing about the Chicago Bulls from the Jordan era was that they seemed like a team of superheroes because each player had one overarching superpower. Jordan was the scorer. Dennis Rodman was a rebounding master. Steve Kerr made over 50% of his three-point shots. And Scottie Pippen was the wingman.
Everyone had one specific role. These roles were by design and not by chance. Jordan was the leader. But if he tried to score 60 points every knight the team would lose. The team won when everyone was given space to play their role and contribute.
“Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships.”
Michael Jordan
Jordan’s hunger for winning was bigger than his personal ego so when his coach Phill Jackson told him to do less so that others can do more he understood. In episode 9 we learned about the most well-known game of Jordan’s life. What has always been referred to as “The Flu game” during the 1996 finals against the Utah Jazz. Turns out it wasn’t the flu.
What actually happened, according to Jordan, was that he ordered a late-night pizza, but he felt a bit strange when five dudes delivered it. It’s possible they all wanted to get a sneak peek of Air Jordan himself. Tim Grover, Jordan’s longtime trainer, said he immediately “got a bad feeling” about all of these guys delivering one pizza.
“I ate the pizza all by myself,” Jordan said. “I wake up about 2:30 [a.m.] throwing up left and right. It really wasn’t the ‘Flu Game.’ It was food poisoning.”
Grover shows up to Jordan’s room and finds him “curled up in a ball shaking.” Jordan spends the next day vomiting, resting, and receiving fluids intravenously. Despite his mother telling him to rest and almost zero sleep, he plays in game 5.
No way Jordan would sit this out.
Woozy, looking visibly weak, Jordan recalls his thought process at the time during an interview in the documentary. “I’m going to try,” “If anything, I can be a decoy.”
As soon as the game started everyone could see that something was terribly wrong and that’s where the “flu game” was born. The most memorable scene that game is when Jordan sinks a clutch three-pointer for the win and then melts into Scottie Pippen’s arms as he’s partially carried off the court. Jordan ended that night with 38 points, seven rebounds, five assists, and three steals.
Bulls superstar Michael Jordan collapses in the arms of teammate Scottie Pippen at the end of Game 5 of the 1997 NBA Finals in Salt Lake City. Jordan, fighting illness, scored 38 points as the Bulls took a 3-2 lead in the series. (Susan Ragan/AP)
Even with Jordan sick, everyone on the team instinctively knew their roles. The team won.
Then came game six.
Recalling that final game Steve Kerr said “I hadn’t performed very well in the Finals”. “I was struggling. I was so hard on myself. As a role player, I’d get five shots a game. Every shot took on way too much importance.”
In the final minutes of the game, Phil Jackson drew a play for Jordan to take the last shot. Anticipating the double-team, Jordan covers his mouth with a cup (to block the TV cameras from hearing/seeing him speak) and whispers to Steve Kerr to be ready to take the last shot.
Kerr responds over-enthusiastically making it totally obvious that Jordan was going to pass him the ball by almost yelling “If he comes off, I’ll be ready!”
Just as planned, John Stockton from the Utah Jazz left Kerr to double-team Jordan. As soon as Stockton arrived, Jordan passed the ball to Kerr who takes the long-range shot and sinks it in. The Chicago Bulls won the 1997 NBA championship.
Image Courtesy: Sports Illustrated by Manny Millan
LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLE #9: Choose your starting five.
In both of these two wins, Jordan was the leading scorer and played amazing so his teammates get overshadowed but in both examples, they won because they made each other better and each player had a specific role or contribution to make it. Be intentional about surrounding yourself with a winning team.
Who are your starting five?
Imagine if we looked at our relationships in that way.
Personal development expert, Jim Rohn, said, you are the average of the five people you spend the most time with.
Who are the five you spend the most time with?
And are they helping you?
Are your relationships interdependent (mutually beneficial)?
You can’t choose your family, right? But you can pick your friendships and network. It’s so critical to surround ourselves with people we can learn from and grow from because those relationships create our environment.
I once heard someone say something like if you’re the smartest person in the room, you need to change rooms.
Your environment is key.
So, why not surround yourself with the key people (friendships, network, coaches, mentors, etc) that make you better and inspire you to be, do, and have more? Do you have people or experts you can ask about investing, marriage, health, career advice, faith, or whatever is important to you?
It’s teamwork that makes the dream work. Superman worked by himself, but everyone else needs help.
There’s an African proverb that says, “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” Having a team or a few specific role players in your life you can turn to for help, support, advice, and community is so helpful.
“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”
African Proverb
The fastest way to create the changes we want in our lives is by placing ourselves in an environment where those things are already happening. If you hang out with people who love to exercise you’ll start exercising.
If you spend most of your time with people who are great with money and investing you’ll learn from them.
What would happen if you hang out with people who strive for excellence? You’ll probably be influenced.
We humans are not as creative as we think we are. Generally speaking, we are more likely to blend into our environments whether they are positive or negative.
I know this is a big generalization. But peer pressure is real. However, there can be both positive and negative peer pressure.
So, are you being intentional about creating a winning team?
