Don McMinn

I wrote this post while on a transatlantic cruise heading to the Iberian Peninsula. It took seven days to cross the pond. I love the seven days at sea because they offer hours to read, think, write…and to observe people (2,100 passengers and 999 crew members).

One night after dinner, the entertainment staff led a group of about 30 passengers gathered in one of the lounges in a game they called “Yes and No.” The rules were straightforward: individuals could volunteer to have a conversation with a staff member in which the volunteer could not say the words “yes” or “no”; nor could the volunteer shake his head up or down (indicating “yes” or “no” non-verbally). Any communication of “yes” or “no” disqualifed the volunteer. If the conversation continued for three minutes the volunteer would win a prize.  

A typical conversation sounded like this:

Crew member: Hi, what’s your name?

Volunteer: Matthew 

Crew member: Where are you from Matthew?

Matthew: Chicago.

Crew member: Chicago; great city; were you born there?

Matthew: No 

end of game…

I watched 11 people try. They all failed.

Reflecting on the experience, I immediately thought of that bold statement made by the apostle James: “No man can tame the tongue” (James 3:8). In the “Yes and No” game, the only restriction was to avoid saying two words—that was all—but no one could comply. 

A few hours after Mary and I observed the “Yes and No” game, I failed at a similar version of the game. Ephesians 4:29 says “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths” so the rule of that version of the game would be: see how long you can go without speaking an unwholesome word.

Mary and I had a tiff, during which I said some hurtful things…to the person I love the most. I was saddened by my words, I asked Mary’s forgiveness, and I vowed to do a better job filtering my speech.

Why is it so difficult to control our speech? My guess is, our speech is simply a verbalization of our thoughts and often we don’t filter our thoughts before they become sound waves. In James 1:19 we’re instructed to be “slow to speak,” but most of us are fast to speak. One way to slow down our speech is to simply understand that we need not say everything we think, so before we speak, we should take a millisecond to analyze what we’re about to say and when necessary, keep our mouth shut. In other words, before you turn your thoughts into words, run them through some filters:    

• • Are these words appropriate? 
  • Will they express grace and truth? 
  • Is this the right time and place to say these words? 
  • Will I regret saying these words? 
  • Are these words necessary? 
  • Will they be an improvement on silence?

It’s true—no man can tame the tongue—but that shouldn’t discourage us from trying. We’ll never gain total control but we can continually improve. 

[reminder]What are your thoughts about this essay?[/reminder]

In Stephen Covey’s insightful book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, one of the habits is to “start with the end in mind.” Before you begin a project, have a clear picture in your mind as to what the final product will look like. That’s good advice. 

But sometimes it’s best to adopt the opposite strategy: start a project even though you don’t know how it’s going to turn out, in which case you’ll “build the bridge as you walk on it.” 

The former strategy (start with the end in mind) is preferred because you can move fast, not waste resources and momentum through trial and error, easily communicate the project to team members, stay on budget, and enjoy a predictable process and conclusion. It’s a very efficient model. For example, if you’re going to build a house, have detailed drawings about every major and minor aspect before work commences, and the project can progress more smoothly. 

But sometimes you might have a young, unformed idea that you want to pursue (perhaps an entrepreneurial pursuit) and you don’t have a clue as to what the end might look like, in which case, you just need to start. For example, my daughter, Lauren, recently started a new business dealing with environmental sustainability. Her business plan was novel. When she launched the business all she could see were the first few steps (trademark the name, start an LLC, open a checking account, build a basic website, etc.). After that, she just “walked through the fog” each day (for the first few years) until a clear and viable business formed. 

Sometimes you do know exactly what you want to accomplish but don’t know how it’s going to happen, in which case, you also just need to start. For example, when I finished my undergraduate degree, I knew I wanted to earn a Ph.D. so I promptly registered for graduate school. I had no idea how I was going to pay for it, how I would negotiate school with the demands of a young family and work, what was involved in completing the degree, and whether or not I had the moxie to finish. The “end in mind” wasn’t ambiguous, but how to get there was. I naively launched into the unknown and five years later had the post nominal.

Perhaps I’m describing the difference between an explorer (someone who starts without the end in mind) and a pioneer (someone starts with the end in mind). An explorer has a general goal (ex. discover the new world) but is not sure how to get there; he has a compass but no map. A pioneer follows the path forged by the explorer (he has an end in mind), and may even improve the process. An explorer has a high tolerance for risk—failure is an option; for a pioneer, less so.

I’m not advocating that you identify exclusively with one approach or the other. In the course of life you’ll probably engage in both. I have found it helpful to recognize which role I’m adopting because the demands are different.

[reminder]What are your thoughts about this essay?[/reminder]

Many organizations are hampered by unhealthy attitudes among team members, including: territorialism (defending one’s turf), the silo effect (lack of communication and involvement among different divisions), posturing and manipulation, lack of shared knowledge (reluctance to share best practices), and competition among team members (competition between an organization and other similar organizations is healthy, but competition within an organization is undesirable).

Most of these roadblocks can be eliminated by one major concept: when all employees work together toward a common goal, and no one cares who gets credit for progress, the workplace-environment becomes more healthy.

There are many reasons why this attitude is so beneficial.

 Most progress is made by teams, not individuals.

In their must-read book, The Knowledge Illusion, Sloman and Fernbach discuss the fact that most major accomplishments are the work of teams of people, not individuals. They give the example of the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012. It was a monumental event; it helped physicists understand the most fundamental theory of how the physical world works. In 2013 Peter Higgs and Francois Englert won the Nobel Prize in physics for their contributions to the effort. But the truth is, the Higgs boson would never have been discovered without the efforts of thousands of physicists, engineers, and students from almost forty countries. Nearly 3,000 key physics papers contributed to the discovery, and the people who funded, built, and ran the $6.4 billion CERN supercollider in which the observations were made obviously played an indispensable part.

In an organization, major progress is made by teams of people so credit should be widely distributed.

Employees should be primarily focused on the success of the organization, not personal advancement or aggrandizement.

As an employee, my overriding goal should be to contribute to the success of the organization. I am a servant to the organization; I should not intentionally use my position for personal gain. If the organization succeeds, I should be happy, even if my contribution is not acknowledged. 

When you contribute to the success of a project, you gain invaluable experience that makes you a better person.

Throughout our lives and careers, we should continually develop personal core competencies that will accumulate and shape us into highly competent and productive people. These skills are best developed in real-life “boots on the ground” experiences, often provided by the organizations you serve. These training opportunities are invaluable. So even when your effort is not acknowledged, you’re gaining indispensable assets that make you a better person.

When you contribute to the success of a project, you will feel satisfied and contented with your good work. 

When you work hard and produce results, you can enjoy a sense of accomplishment and contentment. You’ll also enjoy quite peace and satisfaction that comes from doing a good job. The apostle Paul taught, “Do your work as unto the Lord.”

More will be accomplished if everyone has this attitude.

If I am inordinately focused on whether or not I will be properly acknowledged for my work, I may slow down my pace of work, withhold helpful input, or even quit working on a project. If this attitude is widespread among team members it will inhibit progress, but if it’s not a factor, the team can reach its full potential.

This attitude is an expression of a powerful truth: prefer others.

The apostle Paul taught, “Put yourself aside, and help others get ahead” (Philippians 2:4, The Message). This verse espouses one of the deepest principles of Christ-like living: we are to prefer others and help them get ahead. We should rejoice in another person’s success, even if it means the diminution of our own.  

In most cases, individuals who contribute to the success of an organization will eventually be recognized. 

In the long run, if you continually contribute to the well-being of your organization, you will probably be recognized. Not always, but usually. 

[Note to leaders. In this essay, I’m not suggesting that you ignore the accomplishments of individuals. You should acknowledge and reward individuals who excel. This essay is a message to team members who do not receive the accolades they deserve. Consider: Are there unsung heroes in your organization that you have failed to recognize?]

[reminder]What are your thoughts about this essay?[/reminder]

In his celebrated book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman distinguishes between two types of thinking; he calls them System 1 and System 2 thinking. System 1 thinking engages our intuition. System 2 thinking requires deliberation and reflection.

Our intuition gives a fast response to stimuli; deliberation and reflection take more time and effort. Intuition can save us time and effort—when ordering from the menu at a seafood restaurant, we may intuit that the restaurant’s seafood is better than its red meat—and is particularly helpful when a quick decision is needed and the stakes are not high (pun intended). At other times, deliberation is best.  

For instance, answer these two riddles:

1. A bat and a ball costs $1.10. The bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
2. In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake?

If we rely on our intuition, our answer to the first riddle will probably be: The ball cost 10 cents. And our answer to the second riddle will be: It will take 24 days for the patch to cover half of the lake. Both answers are wrong. Before responding with the seemingly apparent answers, a slower, more methodical approach would more likely yield the correct answers-5 cents and 47 days. 

Both systems are useful, so we need to discern when to use each one. If we analyzed every issue and decision we face in life (System 2 thinking), our lives would grind to a halt. But if we solely rely on System 1 thinking, we’ll often be misled. 

Consider the following scenarios. Which ones would benefit from each type of thinking?

• You’re hiring a new team member. 
• You’re considering a new job.
• You’re choosing a paint color for your bathroom.
• Your ordering dinner at a restaurant.

Sometimes, we may realize that an issue is very important (for instance, choosing a spouse) so we do slow down the decision-making process, but we still don’t engage in System 2 thinking—we just continue to marinate in our intuition, which tends to strengthen our confidence in it. Instead, we should intentionally seek a more deliberate understanding of the issue. 

One of the best ways to safeguard against being misled by our intuition is to have robust dialogue with other people regarding important issues, because intuition is an individualistic response and groups are uniquely qualified to engage in deliberate thinking (unless the group suffers from groupthink). 

[reminder]What are your thoughts about this essay?[/reminder]