FOOTBALL

One fumble can lose the yardage gained in many plays.

I played chess frequently when I was young. I almost always lost. I may have lost so often because I chose to play against people who were older, or at least more experienced than I. This may have accounted for some of my losses, but there were two other issues that accounted for even more of my losses. I took too many chances, and I had no defense. This combination was a terminal flaw in my game.

Great success is almost always dependent on taking great chances. People who are motivated to excel should take chances because taking chances may result in spectacular wins. People who are motivated to excel should be extremely careful when they take chances because taking chances may result in spectacular losses.

People who take significant chances must have two commitments to maximize the probability that their chance taking will result in success. First, they must work very hard to overcome the risk. Second, they must be very vigilant in looking for unanticipated obstacles and threats, and they must have multiple backup plans for dealing with these obstacles and threats.

As I have grown older, my offense ability has diminished, but my defense ability has improved. I accomplish more despite my weakened offense because I spend less time compensating for a weak defense. I also accomplish more because my weakened offense is much less offensive than my previously excessive offense.

A strong offense is great, but only when it is balanced by a strong defense.

JUSTICE

Justice sometimes demands that I do more than what is simply just.

In Hebrew, the word that means “justice” also means “charity.” At first, the two meanings seem to be in conflict. If an act is “just” how can it also be charitable?

To many people, charity is something extra. You really are not obligated to be charitable, they believe. You act charitably when you want to do more than what you are obligated to do.

In reality, charity is not something extra. Acting charitably is an obligation to do more than what a strict reading of the law requires. It is an obligation to do more than your obligations. The obligation to act charitably at times is also part of acting justly.

Many people also believe that justice requires me to follow the letter of the law. In reality, justice is a privilege that enables me to demand that others treat me following the letter of the law. It is also a privilege that enables others to demand that I treat them following the letter of the law. Of course, neither I nor they are obligated to so demand. In many instances, it is just to not demand justice for oneself just as it is just to demand justice for others.

The letter of the law establishes a minimum standard of behavior below which I must not go. It does not establish a ceiling. I can always choose to follow a higher standard. Following a higher standard is both charitable and just.

LISTENING

I learn a lot more by listening than I do by talking.

Many people love to hear themselves talk, and I am no exception. As a person who loves to talk, I need to remind myself regularly to stop talking and start listening. Talking may be a good way to convey information or other content to others, but it is not a good way to gather information or other content from others.

Paradoxically, people who know the most need to learn the most. They also need to teach the most. Knowledgeable people find balancing their need to learn and their need to teach to be a very difficult task.

People who know the most need to learn the most because general knowledge must be focused and adapted to specific situations. When someone asks me a question, I cannot simply convey general knowledge. There is so much general knowledge to convey, I could spend all my time teaching others what they might need to know and never work on other important matters. Before I start conveying knowledge in response to a question, I must clearly determine the specific circumstances that surround the question. This involves asking the other person the right questions. It also involves listening to the other person to ensure that I really understand enough about the specific situation to focus and adapt what I need to teach to enable the other person to effectively deal with the issue. Time spent listening carefully dramatically reduces the time I need to teach the other person what she needs to know.

People who know the most also need to teach the most because frequently they are in the best position to determine the best approach to use to address a particular issue. Teaching obviously involves conveying information and other content, a task for which talking is well suited. It is less obvious that teaching also involves listening. How do I know that the person I am trying to teach has processed the content I have talked about properly? Frequently, the best way to make this determination is to ask questions and carefully listen to the answers. If the answers illustrate an understanding of the content, I have taught and the other party has learned. Talking about content without confirming the other person’s understanding is not teaching. It is lecturing. If I do not care whether or not the other person has learned the content, lecturing may be what I want to do. As a manager, I am totally disinterested in lecturing. I am only interested in ensuring that the other person learns what I believe he needs to learn to address the problem he asked me about. Because of this, I must listen carefully to what the other person says.

Listening may not be as much fun as talking for those of us who love to talk. It is at least as important as talking for those of us who need to learn and who need to teach.

RELATIONSHIPS

Art is not about painting, sculpture, or any particular medium. Art is about beauty. Loving, caring, mutually satisfying relationships are the most beautiful of all human endeavors. The best medium for creating art and relationships is free but cannot be fashioned by one person alone. Will you help me create beautiful art?

I have always considered myself to be a highly intelligent and creative person, and my intelligence and creativity are closely related to the essence of my self-concept. As a young teenager, I discovered that I have absolutely no artistic talents when it comes to drawing, painting, sculpture, etc. This bothered me a lot as a teenager. If I am so smart and creative, why am I so far below average when it comes to these fun activities?

In graduate school, I remember discussing the controversy regarding a single general intelligence factor versus many specific intelligence factors. In the intervening 30 years, I think that we have come to realize that there is one general intelligence factor that strongly influences a person’s abilities across a wide variety of functions and there are many specific intelligence factors that have far less general intellectual impact but have very strong impact on specific intellectual pursuits.

I clearly did not inherit any of the specific intellectual factors that improve artistic ability. I am also certain that I did not inherit any particular exceptionality at forming relationships. Nevertheless, I believe that I have been fortunate to form some really beautiful relationships over the years and that these relationships are among the truly most beautiful artworks in existence. No, I am not a great artist. Great artists are very rare, and very few people have the potential to produce great art in the classical sense. But I do have the ability to engage in a beautiful relationship. I believe that everyone has this ability. The only “materials” needed are another person with whom you share a strong interest and a sincere desire to make a mutually satisfying commitment.

Try it. You may discover a previously unidentified affinity for creating art.

FAULT

Finding out who was at fault is a waste of time.

Religion has contributed much to the growth of civilization, but the concept of fault may not be one of its positive contributions.

As a religious person, I believe in a personal G-d who is concerned with my performance, holds me responsible for my actions, and finds fault with me when I do not fulfill those responsibilities. He is G-d, the Supreme Being, and if He wants to do that, He does not need my approbation.

I am concerned with people’s performance. I also hold them responsible for their actions. When something occurs that is less than excellent, I have no interest in finding out who was at fault. That is G-d’s job. My job is to work with the parties involved to determine the best way to fix the problem, improve the quality, or otherwise make the outcome more satisfying to the parties. Finding fault does not contribute to this process. In fact, it frequently interferes with the process because it takes so much time and contributes nothing.

If you have an absolute need to determine who was at fault, let me help you. It was my fault. Now, how can we make this situation better?

FREEDOM TO LEARN

People do not learn what they are taught. People learn what they need to know. Effective teaching frequently starts by helping people determine what they need to know. Sometimes it starts by stimulating a need to know. Effective teaching continues by giving people the opportunity to experience what they need to know.

Carl Rogers was a psychologist who is famous for proposing the theory that expressing empathy for a patient is a key component in effective psychotherapy. This theory has been so ubiquitously adopted that few, if any, professionals question it.

Rogers is less well known for his book “Freedom to Learn” which proposed that people learn best when they need to know what they are learning. Rogers questioned the effectiveness of teaching what the teacher (or the principal, or the Board of Education, or the parents) wants children to know since few children experience a need to know history, or algebra, or any of the other subjects that are commonly found in school curricula. Instead of forcing children to learn what others determine they need to know, Rogers proposed that children be given the freedom to learn what they need to know.

Roger’s proposal in this area is now more than three decades old, and few schools have adopted it. This may be because most school decision-makers are unfamiliar with his theory. I suspect, however, that the “freedom to learn” theory has been rejected by almost all school decision-makers because they do not agree with its applicability to a formal school environment. All children must develop a standard set of skills and knowledge regardless of what they want or do not want, they seem to believe. Maybe they are right.

Even if they are right regarding formal schooling, they are wrong once a person finishes his formal schooling and enters the world of work. In the world of work, general skills are very important but the assumption is that workers have already mastered those general skills. The skills that workers need to develop in the world of work are specific to their field of work and their specific position within the organization for which they work.

In the work environment, freedom to learn what is needed to perform one’s specific responsibilities and/or develop the skills and knowledge needed to advance to the next level is critical to efficient learning. As a leader, one of my important tasks is to help subordinates determine what they need to know. This is relatively easy for people who are eager to advance and are aware of their deficiencies. For people with less motivation and/or for people who are unaware of their deficiencies, my task is harder. Most people feel threatened when their deficiencies are exposed. Instead of discussing a subordinate’s deficiencies, it is better to discuss what the subordinate needs to do to be even better. To accomplish this, I must take the time to point out and express appreciation for some of the person’s areas of relative strength. Everyone has areas of relative strength. Determining what they are may be relatively difficult in some cases but always worth the effort. Once my subordinate knows that he is appreciated, the notion that he can be even better is easier to accept. The realization that he needs to know more and/or develop additional skills and the motivation to do so follow naturally from this realization.

Once a subordinate knows what he needs to learn and is motivated to learn this knowledge and skill, my responsibility shifts to helping him find ways to achieve this learning without unduly interfering with his other work and home responsibilities. This, too, may be very difficult.

One way of reducing the difficulty of finding ways for the subordinate to achieve what he needs to learn without interfering with his other responsibilities is to ensure that he knows how he will benefit from his increased knowledge and skills. In some cases knowing that he will know more and/or have improved skills is enough of an outcome to motivate the subordinate. In most cases, additional motivation may be needed. If the additional knowledge and skills will enable the individual to advance within the organization with a concomitant increase in compensation, making the relationship between his learning and his promotion and compensation increase should be enough.

If the increase in knowledge and/or skills will not result in a promotion and/or increased compensation, the employee may not see how he will benefit from increased knowledge and skill. True, increased knowledge and skill may help me do my job better, but how will it help me? The problem here is that many employees do not see what they get when they do a better job.

I believe that management is not doing its job properly if employees do not see the value in doing a better job. In a well-run organization, the mission of the organization is a unifying concern among all employees, management and labor alike. Employees who value the organization’s mission and understand how they contribute to its attainment, do not need external motivation to learn knowledge and skills that help them perform their duties better. An employee who values the mission of the organization and understands how he contributes to its attainment is motivated to learn new knowledge and skills to help him contribute more to the agency’s mission.

If management spends more time explaining the agency’s mission and how each member of the organization contributes to its attainment will not be required to spend nearly as much time and energy thinking of external ways to motivate its staff.

THE “INS” AND THE “OUTS”

Think of the absolutely greatest people of all time. Did they dedicate their lives to the “ins” or to the “outs?” Were they themselves “ins” or “outs?”

When I was younger, I wanted to be one of the “in” people. Being “in” seemed to be so wonderful. The “in” people seemed to have all the good friends and all of the great fun.

I have never been one of the “in” people, and I no longer want to be one of the “in” people. Maybe I am rationalizing. After all, everyone seems to be subject to the “sour grapes” response when they cannot have what they really want. Maybe not. I hope that I am mature enough to know that being “in” is not the wonderful situation that so many people seem to think it is.

As an Orthodox Jew, the life work of Jesus does not figure into my religious belief system. Nevertheless, I am very appreciative of the great concern he displayed toward the unfortunate people he encountered during his life. Clearly, Jesus was much more concerned with the “outs” than with the “ins” of his time.

Perhaps of greater significance to this issue, Jesus himself was one of the “outs,” at least in the eyes of the “ins” of his time. Jesus was not a social climber, and he did not exert effort to achieve status in the eyes of the rich and famous. Being “in” just was not one of his goals.

I have not done a survey of all the great religions of the world, but I am confident that all great religious leaders of all time spent enormous energy on helping those who are less fortunate. I am also confident that these great leaders themselves were pointedly “out.” To go a step further, I believe that being “out” is actually a prerequisite for being a great religious leader. All great religious leaders preached radical social change in favor of the “outs.” This type of preaching inevitably is threatening to the “ins.” Is it any wonder that so many of the great religious leaders throughout history were persecuted and killed by the ruling classes, by the “ins?”

Next time you find yourself feeling jealous of the “ins,” remember your favorite religious figure and what he or she valued.

Next time you are feeling superior because you have attained the status of being “in,” remember Jesus or whomever you believe to be the paragon of religious achievement and what he or she valued.