Don McMinn

Problem: Nothing was more sacred aboard a ship than respecting the chain of command. On a ship, the captain reigns supreme. — Slade

Solution: In industries in which human error can lead to devastating consequences, it’s important to foster good communication that respects the hierarchy while allowing room for debate. No one makes a decision in a vacuum. — Slade

In her book, Into the Raging Sea, Rachel Slade describes the events leading up to the sinking of the container ship El Faro in 2015. It was the largest U.S. maritime accident since World War II. The incompetent and egotistical captain, Michael Davidson, steered the ship directly into the eye of Hurricane Joaquin. Thirty foot waves and 120-mph winds sank the ship and all 33 crew members died. The recovered black box had recorded 26 hours of conversation on the navigation bridge leading up to the sinking. The audio recording revealed that every officer and many of the crew on board knew the captain was making a fatal mistake, but no one spoke up because in maritime culture it is unacceptable to challenge a captain’s decisions. It is inappropriate to speak truth to power. 

It takes extreme courage to speak truth to power. Even for those who possess solid emotional fortitude, it can be challenging and uncomfortable. It can also be hazardous to your reputation and livelihood. Rarely does someone in authority seek out voices of opposition and when those voices speak without invitation or permission, they are often sanctioned. If the issues are major and the stakes high, it’s wise to have a back-up plan in case “power” overreacts. 

To be balanced and fair, sometimes the “truth-speaker” is misguided or uninformed, has an agenda to advance, or has impure motives for challenging authority. But more times than not, authority’s intimidation silences sound input.   

Twenty five years ago I served on staff at a church where the former pastor had led the church to build a 7,000-seat auditorium (the old sanctuary seated 1,100), and the church went from being debt-free to paying $50,000 per week in interest on the new loan. Interestingly, God “called the pastor into evangelism” several months before the building project was finished. 

How did this happen? Why didn’t businesspersons in the church speak up when they saw the impending train wreck? Two issues were responsible: he was a very charismatic person who could easily beguile people, and there were no checks and balances built into the governance of the church. Surely someone had doubts, but no one spoke truth to power. We (newly appointed staff members) were tasked with cleaning up the mess, which was virtually impossible.

The antidote to this toxic social disorder is continuous robust discussion. When robust discussion is part of the culture, unilateral mistakes are seldom made. But in its absence, someone needs to speak up. 

I’ll end with a story that illustrates the power of open and unfiltered conversation. 

In the 1980s Delta Air Lines suffered a series of embarrassing incidents involving pilot error. “We didn’t kill anyone,” said Jack Maher, then-head of pilot training, “but we’d had pilots get lost, landing at the wrong airports.” The incidents almost always could be traced back to a bad decision made by a Delta captain.

They hired psychologist Amos Tversky to help solve the problem. Amos told them, “You’re not going to change people’s decision making under duress. You aren’t going to stop pilots from making these mental errors.” He suggested that Delta change its decision-making environments. At that time, the cockpit culture of a commercial airliner did not encourage crew members to point out the mental errors of the man in charge. The way to stop the captain from landing the plane in the wrong airport, Tversky insisted, was to train others in the cockpit to question his judgment. 

Mayer said, “We changed the culture in the cockpit and the autocratic jerk became no longer acceptable. Those mistakes haven’t happened since” [from The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis, page 317].

When done appropriately and respectfully, I see little downside to speaking truth to power.

The American Psychological Association defines fundamental attribution error (FAE) as the tendency to overestimate the relationship between people’s behavior and their character and underestimate the relationship between their behavior and their circumstances. It also suggests that when we judge ourselves we tend to do the opposite: we underestimate the role that character plays and overestimate the influence of circumstances. 

When someone else messes up we are quick to judge him and attribute his problem to something wrong with his character; we tend to think that people do bad things because they are bad people. But when we look at ourselves in the same situation, rather than blame our character, we consider our circumstances.  

For instance, imagine you’re driving down the road when a reckless driver cuts you off and speeds forward, barely missing several other cars. You immediately think he’s a jerk, has anger problems, or may be inebriated; you assume his bad behavior is due to poor character. But if you knew that the driver has an injured person in the backseat and is rushing to the hospital, your judgment is informed by his circumstances, and you judge him differently.

When a colleague is late to a meeting we tend to label it as a character flaw (he’s inconsiderate, disorganized, self-absorbed); but when we’re late to a meeting, we justify it based on circumstances (our previous meeting ran late, traffic is bad, we had to finish a conversation with a customer). We tend to cut ourselves slack while holding others 100% accountable for their actions.

Sometimes behavior is linked to character and sometimes behavior is linked to circumstances. FAE simply suggests that when judging other people, we have a cognitive bias—we default to the behavior/character link and when we judge ourselves we favor the behavior/circumstances link. 

To correct for this error it’s helpful to invent a story that creates a positive explanation for people’s behavior. For instance, the next time someone cuts you off in traffic, think: “I hope he makes it to the hospital in time.” When someone doesn’t return your call, instead of thinking “He’s an inconsiderate jerk” think of some good reasons why he hasn’t called you back: perhaps he’s struggling with a major life-issue, or traveling for work, or he honestly just forgot to return your call.

We should presume benevolence toward others; we should choose to imagine a noble intent. 

We need to give each other a break.

Here’s a short video on the subject created by the UT Austin McCombs School of Business. 

In the past ten years I’ve led groups of friends on annual trips to Paris, London, Europe, the Mediterranean, Baltic States, Russia, and North Africa. We’ve never had a malfunction or bad experience; just memorable, life-enhancing moments.

I invite you to join me on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to one of the great historical and geographical countries in the Southern Hemisphere—Peru. We’ll start our trip in Lima, then travel to Cusco—the gateway to the Sacred Valley and home to the Inca civilization. We’ll visit Machu Picchu, one of the wonders of the ancient world. Then we’ll travel to the Amazon Rainforest and spend three days at the Inkaterra Reserva Amazonica lodge in the diverse Puerto Maldonado area. (In 2013, it was selected by National Geographic Traveler magazine was one of the world’s 25 best eco-lodges.) We’ll travel on airplanes, trains, buses, vans, boats, and shoes.

Mary and I took this trip in July, 2018. It was one of our favorite trips of all time (we’ve been to 47 countries). We always felt safe, the accommodations are elegant and authentic, the food is world-renowned, the geography is diverse (metropolitan Lima, the Andes mountains, Amazon Rainforest), and Peruvians are friendly—the trip was incredible.   

This trip was originally scheduled for May 6-15, 2020 but due to the coronavirus it has been rescheduled to May 12-21, 2021.

It’s been said that one of the joys of traveling is not only where you go but who you go with and who you meet along the way. This tour group will be limited to 50 interesting ladies and gentlemen who travel well—friends of mine who enjoy exploring great places. 

Travel takes time and money, but it’s worth the investment. You’ll be stretched and challenged, and you’ll learn more about the world in which you live and the life you live in the world. 

I hope you’ll join me on this memorable trip to Peru. 

Here’s a brochure about the trip. Peru-Brochure-2021

Don McMinn

[reminder]Questions about the trip?[/reminder]

Most people don’t take the time to think systematically about the future. Leaders do. — Burt Nanus

Good leaders always think about the future of their organization and how it can be better than the present. They are obsessed with “seeing” that which does not exist. These “unseen improvements” are prompted by the mission of an organization and fleshed out through vision and goals.

Let’s start with definition of terms.  

• Mission defines why the organization exists. It seldom changes and is usually never completed. It answers the question, “Why do we exist?” It is typically one sentence or a short paragraph. 
• Vision gives the organization direction and defines its uniqueness (how it differs from other organizations with the same mission). It answers the question, “How will we fulfill our mission?” Vision is malleable and doable. An organization usually has multiple vision statements, all in support of the mission.
• Goals are action steps that will ultimately help fulfill each vision statement. Goals usually include numbers and dates—metrics that can be measured.

Sometimes it’s difficult to tell the difference between a vision and a goal. For instance, consider each of these statements; is it a vision or a goal?

• Get everyone in the U.K. online by the end of 2012 (Martha Fox’s statement when she was appointed the U.K.’s first digital champion).
• Build 150 affordable, green, storm-resistant homes for families living in the Lower 9^th Ward of New Orleans (from Make It Right, a non-profit started by Brad Pitt). 
• The United States should commit itself, before this decade is out, to landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. (President Kennedy, proposal to Congress on May 25, 1961)
• In the next 24 months, double the amount of products we offer. 

I think each statement could be considered either a vision or a goal, and each will serve its organization well as long as it contributes toward the mission. View vision and goals as a continuum of activity. 

Vision and goals are similar because they both:

• Address the future, not the past or present.
• Aspire to a future that is better than the present.
• Refer to things that can be accomplished, not just high ideals.

Vision and goals can differ in that:

• Vision speaks to broader aspirations and may take longer to accomplish.
• Goals are very concrete and most can be accomplished in months, not years.
• Vision answers the question: What can we do that will make our organization effective? Goals answer the question: What can we do next to make our organization effective?

My main purpose in writing this post is to extol the value of goals and show their importance. They are, perhaps, the key element in the future-continuum of an organization (mission—vision—goals). 

Consider:

• Without goals, mission and vision will not be accomplished. Once you’ve determined mission and vision, the work is yet to begin. There is a subtle but critical gap between vision and goals; if you don’t connect the two, your organization will stall.
• Sometimes vision statements are elusive and difficult to codify, in which case goals can provide needed stimulus. The author of Ecclesiastes wrote, “Whatever your hands find to do, do it with all your might.” When you’re fully engaged in an organization and see something you can do that will be beneficial, do it. The actions may even help clarify vision.
• Sometimes valid vision statements become too familiar and common, which can lead to passivity. Goals will provide a sense of urgency and activate dormant resources. They serve as organizational steroids.
• Consider the adage, “It’s easier to steer a moving ship than one that’s sitting in the dock.” Goals will get the organization “moving” and make steering easier. 
• If goals are in sync with the mission, there is no downside to pursuing them. All resources required will be well spent.

As a leader, always be able to complete these sentences. 

Next week, our organization will make progress by ____________________.

In the next six months, our organization will make progress by ______________.

In the next two years, our organization will make progress by _______________.

Shorter time frames will be goals; longer time frames will sound more like vision. Both are healthy and will improve the organization.