Today we're bringing you a two part podcast episode with my dear friends Sarah Greer and Adrian Peryer. They are co-founders of the Shared Vision practice who have developed a visual framework designed to lead executives through a series of structured components while building business strategy. During our discussion we'll learn how they center their sessions around a focus question, dedicate time to research before a session, and uniquely use the physical environment as a critical component of their practice.

Sarah often plays the role of the Designer, where in real-time she creates custom artwork drawn from the discussions in the room. Adrian usually assumes the role of the Facilitator, orchestrating the dialog and leading the group through steps of the practice. A third role, the Producer, journals the important themes, gauges the pace of discussions, and keeps a watchful eye on the body language of the group.

During a session, the facilitator will lead the group through three primary conversations, one each focused on Outcomes, Values, and Capabilities. Unlike many efforts at strategic planning, the Shared Vision approach keeps the participants grounded in the moment, they can't help but be drawn to the live drawing of their vision and plans taking place in front of them.

I hope you enjoy this two part series as much as we enjoyed recording it.

‎The BRIGHTON PARKast: Sarah Greer & Adrian Peryer: Strategic Planning (Part 1) on Apple Podcasts

‎Show The BRIGHTON PARKast, Ep Sarah Greer & Adrian Peryer: Strategic Planning (Part 1) - Nov 20, 2023

Apple Podcasts

‎The BRIGHTON PARKast: Sarah Greer & Adrian Peryer: Strategic Planning (Part 2) on Apple Podcasts

‎Show The BRIGHTON PARKast, Ep Sarah Greer & Adrian Peryer: Strategic Planning (Part 2) - Nov 20, 2023

Apple Podcasts

Kim and I first met several years ago while I served on the Intel Executive Board of Advisors and she was Intel's CIO. I immediately appreciated both her engagement with the group and her direct communication style. In this episode we dig into the intentional transformation she underwent from being the applier to the creator of technology. We discuss technical leadership, learn about the career journey Kim has taken, and talk about her transition to corporate board work. Kim has also been a long time advocate for a more inclusive workforce and an active champion for women in technology.

Kim Stevenson: Technical Leadership - The BRIGHTON PARKast (podcast)

00:56:52 - In this episode, we hear from Kim Stevenson. Kim has led world-class technology teams at some of the most iconic brands in the industry su…

Brighton Park CapitalBrighton Park Capital

In this episode of the BRIGHTON PARKast I'm joined by JJ Allaire, founder and CEO of Posit. Posit makes open source software for data science and scientific research and best is known for their multi-language development environment called RStudio. JJ has been an early internet pioneer as the inventor of the web publishing platform ColdFusion in the 1990s.

JJ has married his interest and education in political science with his passion for technology. It's evident throughout our conversation that JJ has dedicated his career to building something sustainable and therefore durable, defining success for Posit as a company still fulfilling it's mission 100 years from now.

In this episode we'll learn a bit about JJ's background, seeing how his early creative ideas can be traced to the modern data science tools he is still creating today. We will discuss the impact that the open source movement has had and how Posit sees this as a critical public good. And finally we will talk about why JJ created Posit as a Public Benefit Corporation, ensuring his leadership team weighs the impact of their corporate decisions on far more than the bottom line.

When we have learned something new, storing the knowledge deep in our cerebral cortex, we have reached a pivotal moment, we can never return to the person we were before this. We uncovered something that has changed us, we are wiser, in this dimension, than previously. Through a magical mix of basal ganglia activity and connecting synapses, we have increased the magnitude of our understanding.

In the precise point when the act of our study triggers an encoding of knowledge in our brain, we feel a slight euphoria, maybe a sense of accomplishment. We think "I've got it", we experience an "aha" moment. These moments are powerful, as if we recognize the knowledge gained and the reshaping of the person we are. We are awash, however fleetingly, in the momentary rush of dopamine and adrenaline in celebration of our mental accomplishments.

When we begin learning, discoveries happen frequently and with each it deepens our awareness of the vast depths of the material we have yet to tackle. Somehow its true that we know more and yet feel, in proportion, like we know less — its daunting, we know enough now to know our inadequacies. Mastery may seem out of reach.

It can be discouraging, acknowledging the scale of the body of work that lies in front of us. These eureka moments then act as small jolts of encouragement, providing a physical and mental reward for our efforts. They remind us that the journey is part of the purpose, sometimes more so than the destination.

“I get a lot of joy out of being in something: a task, a book, a school program. The end of something brings a fear of grappling with where I’ve been and where I’d hoped to be.” -Julia Bedell, a writer living in Anchorage

The struggle to grasp the meaning of our study, to truly know and have mastery, has to be difficult, for if it were easy we'd fail to appreciate it, we could not harness the power that comprehension yields. We would scarcely think deeply enough, taking our proficiency for granted, to leverage the insights that our gains in knowledge provide. We need the effort and the challenge, for when we have moments of discovery, it is our expended energy that is returned to us as motivation. To be motivated is to be curious, a desire to know, which begins anew our cycling of learning.

The Paradox Pairs series is an exploration of the contradictory forces that surround us. A deeper study finds that these forces often complement each other if we can learn to tap into the strength of each. See the entire series by using the Paradox Pairs Index.

Melvin Kranzberg was a professor of history at Case Western University from 1952 until 1971. He then transferred to Georgia Tech where he taught from 1972 until 1988.  In 1958 Kranzberg founded the Society for the History of Technology, an organization today that continues to "encourage the study of the development of technology and its relations with society and culture".

Kranzberg's first Law of Technology states:

"Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral"

With this postulate he is calling attention to the impact that technology has on society. Problems occur when seemingly benign technologies are used at scale. To judge a technology is to instead judge the context to which the technology is applied.

For example, the chemical DDT killed many disease carrying insects which lead to higher crop yields (a good thing), yet also destroyed environmental ecosystems and it is extremely harmful to humans and other living creatures (a very bad thing). DDT was banned in the US in 1972, its effect on humans will still be felt for future generations. But in India, DDT reduced death by Malaria dramatically and so they accepted the ecological risks and its use continued. Not accounting for the impact of technology cannot simply be passed off as an iterative process, one who's messy development often serves as justification for taking no responsibility.

Kranzberg's first law should serve as a reminder for us to consider the short-term benefits along with the long-term impacts, weighing utopian hopes against future actualities. "Move fast and break things" is as foolish today as it was when DDT was first synthesized by an Austrian chemist in 1874.

Kranzberg's first law also exposes a paradox: Technological advancement inflates our expectations faster than it can actually meet them.

This is a paradox we use to temper our own statements and a lens by which we evaluate others with their bold, ambitious statements about the future.

The Paradox Pairs series is an exploration of the contradictory forces that surround us. A deeper study finds that these forces often complement each other if we can learn to tap into the strength of each. See the entire series by using the Paradox Pairs Index.

Tone is more than a sound, there is a measurement of quality to a tone, a timbre. A pitch played on a trumpet will sound vastly different than that same pitch played on a piano, this is due to harmonic overtones from the instrument and the material it's constructed from. It should sound different, a piano creates notes by a hammer striking a string and a trumpet by air blown through a mouthpiece into a shaped brass tube. What we like about a tone is subjective, you may prefer the clear, delicate sounds of a nylon stringed guitar where I may enjoy the bluesy twang from a steel-string slide guitar.

We can become accustomed to hearing a player's tone and, like an audio fingerprint, use it to identify a particular player from surprisingly few notes. Guitar players often say tone begins in the fingertips, yet there are innumerable variables that shape tone and timbre. Here is a partial list of elements that shape a guitars tone:

The goal isn't to create an exhaustive list, it's to demonstrate the vastly different components that come together to create a tone.

Of course tone exists in far more than musical contexts. The way we speak, the sound of our voice, the cadence, our pronunciations, our inflections, and even the words we choice add to our individual tone. Just as guitar players may aim to emulate a tone of another, we do the same when we listen to others speak, incorporating bits of different styles into our own practice.

Finding our voice takes practice and an intention. This combination being something Malcolm Gladwell refers to as deliberate practice:  the act of practicing a specific task numerous times until our skill has progressed enough to move on to the next task. Without intention our practice is wasted effort. Beginning musicians sometimes fall to the trap of practicing something they already do fairly well, unconsciously avoiding the tasks that pose more of a struggle. Yet harder tasks are where our opportunity for progress lies. Ironically, these same musicians tend to get frustrated with their slow progress of advancement, and may quit the instrument altogether.

Finding our voice, crafting a tone that conveys the meaning and intention behind our words, requires deliberate practice. Our speech carries weight, as anyone who has ever said the wrong thing can attest. While few of us will become orators, we all can be persuasive and at other times exclamatory, questioning, meek, or supportive based on the tone we use. We apply this tool, our voice, in innumerate settings, choosing when to participate and when to be part of the audience. When we want to use it to express our thoughts, share our values, or support others' ideas we ought to be able to apply it appropriately, leaving little doubt about what our message is and what it is we are conveying.

"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
- George Bernard Shaw

Training our voice and fine-tuning our tone isn't just for those that do public speaking, although that too requires deliberate practice. We recognize that every interaction presents itself as a possible learning opportunity as long as we are open to asking for and listening to feedback. Projecting that we are receptive to hearing other's thoughts begins with the tone we use when we engage with others.

The Paradox Pairs series is an exploration of the contradictory forces that surround us. A deeper study finds that these forces often complement each other if we can learn to tap into the strength of each. See the entire series by using the Paradox Pairs Index.

Trying to nail down a measurable definition of the term "sports dynasty" seems an impossible task. Yet we intuitively appreciate that it is a sustained level of success above the competition. Missing from this definition is any sense of timeline. Also missing is an indicator of what level of success rises to dynastic heights.

Is it enough to win 14 straight division titles but only a single World Series, like the Atlanta Braves did from 1991 to 2005? Maybe. Is it enough to win four consecutive AFC championships, as the Buffalo Bills did from 1990 to 1993, and lose all four subsequent Super Bowls? Likely not — especially when two of those losses were to the Dallas Cowboys, who are, less controvertibly, considered a dynasty (1991-1996), becoming the first team to win three Super Bowls in four years.

Dynasties aren't just for American sports, of course. Liverpool F.C. famously won eleven English Championships in eighteen years (1972-1990). A Dynasty. F.C. Bayern Munich have won the last eleven Bundesliga titles. A Dynasty. We'd be remiss not to mention the New Zealand All Blacks rugby team. The All Blacks are likely the most successful sports team ever, since forming in 1903 they have won 77% of all their matches. Certainly a dynasty.

If it's hard to win a championship, repeating as a champion seems exponentially daunting.  Somehow the Chicago Bulls won two three-peats (a portmanteau meaning three consecutive championships) in a span of eight years. A Dynasty. It certainly helped to have a superstar named Michael Jordan on the team. Although Bill Russell might remind us that his Boston Celtics won a cool eight championships consecutively (1959-1966 — can I get an "octopeat" anyone?) on their way to 13 titles in 20 years. Serious Dynasty.

Well, it's safe to add the Oklahoma Sooners women's softball team to the dynasty list. With their 3-1 win over Florida State this past week the Sooners capped a season that saw them win 53 consecutive games (a season record of 61-1), crowning them national champions once again, a three-peat. They've won five titles in the past seven years, and six titles in the past 10 years.

For every dynasty the pressure mounts with each victory, fans become emotionally vested in seeing the giants get toppled, cheering on the underdog. When Oklahoma coach Patty Gasso was asked how she was feeling after the victory she said, “the expectation is overwhelming, the pressure is overwhelming. This really was the roughest (title run) I’ve ever had to go through just because with lots of fans and the growth of the sport comes a lot of pressure. I think I’ve felt that." One thing for certain, her next season will ramp up the pressure to yet another level.

At some point every dynasty must come to an end, the landscape shifts, another team begins to make a run at history themselves. One season ends and the planning, recruiting, training, and coaching for the next season begins. Sports really aren't so much like business. Matches and seasons are finite, with clearly defined starts and ends. Sports have well defined rules of competition, success is defined by a score, and eventually, crowning a champion.

Our workplace isn't this way. Sure we have wins, and maybe we use metrics to proxy a score, we might measure our profit or transaction counts to compare with our competition. However, there are no champions, the season never ends. Ours is an infinite game, where the rules continuously evolve, the talent often act like pools of free agents, and success is not defined so easily by a calendar. Yet even in this type of environment we can create dynasties too.

The best of corporate dynasties are more than financially successful and are defined by an underlying purpose and mission to the work. Here are a few traits to dynastic businesses:

• a sense of belonging where community matters and inclusiveness is expected and nourished
• alumni hold the company in reverie, nostalgic about the time they spent working there
• products and services provide a common good
• brand affinity is high and trustworthy, they operate not just lawfully but ethically

The Sooners softball team found success by leveraging the incredible talents, skills, and hard work of the players and coaches. Every player and coach interviewed talked about the camaraderie, what it means to lift up those around you, to be a great team player. Every dynasty in sports and in business will have this common theme, it's not enough to simply have talented individuals, success only comes from bringing all together for a shared purpose, working collectively to win. Dynasties of one don't exist, because you can't get to the top by working alone.

The Paradox Pairs series is an exploration of the contradictory forces that surround us. A deeper study finds that these forces often complement each other if we can learn to tap into the strength of each. See the entire series by using the Paradox Pairs Index.

In the 2023 Women's College World Series the Oklahoma Sooners, two-time defending champions (2021 & 2022) and riding a 50-game winning streak, played the Stanford Cardinal. The tournament's double elimination rules meant that the Cardinal had to win to keep their hopes of going to the championship series alive. The game was tied 2-2 in extra innings when the Stanford coach made a crucial decision. With an Oklahoma runner already on third and two outs she elected to walk Jayda Coleman, the Sooner's leadoff hitter who had hit a home run earlier in the game.

This brought to the plate slugger Tiare Jennings, a Junior who is one of the best hitters in the country. On the mound for the Cardinal was freshman NiJaree Canady, likely the nation's best pitcher, allowing the fewest runs and most strikeouts per game in the country. Jennings had strikeout only eight times in her 165 at bats this season, four of those were while facing Canady. This was a calculated decision by the coach to get a matchup, that by the numbers, favored the Cardinal.

Things were going to the Cardinal plan as Canady quickly got two strikes on Jennings. The next pitch was fouled off, keeping the count no balls and two strikes. The fourth pitch was a curveball that Jennings, with a controlled swing, dropped in right-center field, a double that scored both runners, winning Oklahoma the game.

We often falsely judge a decision by the outcome that ensues. Deciding to walk a batter to face one of the best hitters in the country is a gutsy call. If Canady had managed to throw strike three, we'd laud coach Allister's brilliant decision. In this case, she instead faced tough questions in the post game press briefing about her "questionable" choice. Allister made the right decision and got the worst outcome.

“I think we’d make the same decision again,” she said. “Obviously hindsight is 20/20, and it didn’t end up the way we wanted it to, but we liked the matchup.

“At this point, you can’t be careful. You’ve got to trust your gut and go with the best decision.”
- Jessica Allister, Stanford softball coach

Decisions set our course, they don't guarantee our results. Before a scenario plays out the best decision makers are using all available data, team and individual expertise and experience, and weighing the options to make a choice. What coach Allister alludes to as a gut call is far from it, her instinct is informed by the years of playing and coaching the game, knowing her player's abilities and talents, weighing the potential paths that could be chosen. "We liked the matchup," she said, that's not a gut call, that's a master of her craft using her mastery to decide on a course of action.

Decisions give us the necessary clarity to move forward, they set a direction and give us purpose. A decision provides us the opportunity to achieve a desired outcome. Outcomes are the results of our execution compared to our expectations, not a measurement of how well we make decisions.

The Paradox Pairs series is an exploration of the contradictory forces that surround us. A deeper study finds that these forces often complement each other if we can learn to tap into the strength of each. See the entire series by using the Paradox Pairs Index.

Principles act as foundations for our decision making and our actions. They capture the chain of reasoning that we apply to how we operate. By establishing our principles, writing them down, and communicating them, we are aligning our values with our business direction and methods.

Previously we explored the first half of a dozen core principles that were outcomes of a technology strategy session I held in 2018. Updated for 2023 to incorporate our study of paradoxes, we complete the set below.

Stay Agile

Time to market is a competitive advantage and delivering business value more often allows us to learn at a higher rate. We are willing to take calculated risks to get to market quickly because we recognize that many of our decisions and actions are reversible. Too much flexibility disrupts our flow, causing us to switch direction too often. We regulate our agility by always creating a plan and setting time-to-live expiration dates on our decisions — prompting us to revisit — preventing future problems. Rather than an excuse for low quality, we embrace “fail fast” as an opportunity to learn.

Be Resourceful

We search for existing solutions, standards, and best practices from outside of our walls. We favor "buy" over "build" except where a feature or data set is truly crucial to our market differentiation. We avoid the fear of “Not Invented Here”, believing that reuse is more important than recreating and know when integration is more valuable than invention.

Share What You Know

We decide with data, document the outcomes, and share our learnings and successes, knowing that poor decisions can be just as valuable as good ones if there is something from which others can benefit. We embrace a culture of inner-sourcing, where our outputs are open and contributions are encouraged. Knowledge is not organizational power, knowledge is fuel for our creations, it creates value when given freely.

Value Your Time

We recognize that our time is valuable and avoid needless repetition. We proactively seek ways to automate preferring to invest our time in higher-order problems. We purposefully leverage various communication channels and hold each other accountable that our meetings are purposeful, with clear agendas and stakeholders. We schedule time for deep work, mental breaks, and physical activity; knowing that sustainable high performance requires investments in our minds and bodies. If expectations are unclear or we lack context, we pause — seeking answers will pay dividends in later efficiencies and higher quality outcomes.

Act Like An Owner

We believe that true ownership requires that we approach every task with an open mind and view nothing as beneath us. We resist building silos and viewing problems as “not our job”. At the same time, we are accountable for the decisions we make and offer warranty in what we produce. We know that fear of reprisal restricts the flow of information, so we step toward problems, shunning blame and seeking solutions.

Make it Simpler

We recognize that our value is not predicated on complex solutions, that complexity can be subjective, and that what we understand may not be well-understood by others. We celebrate the elegance of simplicity, favoring concise, easy-to-share solutions.  Most importantly, we avoid trying to solve future problems, but instead anticipate them and produce solutions that can later adapt.

The Paradox Pairs series is an exploration of the contradictory forces that surround us.  A deeper study finds that these forces often complement each other if we can learn to tap into the strength of each. See the entire series by using the Paradox Pairs Index.

The spark of an idea that turned into the Paradox Pairs began in 2018 during a multi-day strategy session, as I briefly alluded to here. Another output from that session was a set of principles that described how we wanted to operate. We knew that defining and documenting our values and principles was a critical first step in shaping our actions. With our list as a reference point, we could then begin to structure our longer term strategy and guide our businesses with intention.

Here's how I summarized it at the time:

We are operating under the belief that we first need to define our values and principles which can shape our behaviors to establish our technology strategy to help construct the future business direction.

We created a dozen core principles, in this article we will cover the first six, updated for 2023. Isn't it interesting how many of our paradox pairs show up in these descriptions?

Inclusion By Default

We are stronger and more effective when we embrace a diversity of thought, when we draw from a wide range of experiences, and when we allow ourselves the opportunity to actively listen to others with different perspectives. We know our teams are stronger when every member feels a sense of belonging by being their true self, without the pressure of conformity in either action or thought. We get the best results when we accept others as who they are rather than who we may wish them to be. We want to learn from and connect with others so that we don't miss out on the best of experiences, thoughts, ideas, and perspectives.

Disagree and Commit

We challenge decisions when we disagree, even in the face of social pressure. We seek to understand — not undermine. We do not compromise for convenience, but rather for the sake of the common goal. Most importantly, we know when to “disagree and commit”, and once a course of action has been set, we are all-in as a team and committed to the outcome. There is no credit given for "I told you so"s, future success is shared equally, and if we miss our target it is a learning opportunity equally too.

Be Empowered

We believe that our success and growth are powered by our ability to make decisions without the constraints of bureaucratic oversight. However, we understand that we win or lose as a team and must leverage our shared experiences to guide new decisions. We embrace empowerment over autonomy, understanding that our true success comes from our abilitiy to honor mutually agreed upon operating principles.

Know the Value You Create

We think that the best way to feel empowered, productive, and valued is to understand where our work fits into the big picture — context is king. We believe that transparency at all levels is critical to feeling fulfilled as we strive to excel in our craft. The merit of information is amplified when it is shared rather than hoarded. We seek to understand the purpose of what we create, and illustrate the value for what we request.

Punch Above Your Weight

We recognize that every day is an opportunity to excel far beyond what’s comfortable, to push ourselves and expand our abilities. We don't succeed or fail, we succeed or learn. We believe our actions, aspirations, and responsibilities should not be limited by our titles or job descriptions. We challenge ourselves and raise the bar with ambitious goals and kill criteria. We aim to work smarter rather than harder.

Be Curious

We feel that curiosity is the single most important characteristic of a learning organization. We embrace the unknown and view it as an opportunity to develop ourselves. We ask questions often, regardless of how they may be perceived. We are fascinated by the “why”, ask it repeatedly, and believe understanding will lead to better outcomes. We recognize that self-awareness comes from asking "what" and avoiding unintended consequences comes from asking "how".

The Paradox Pairs series is an exploration of the contradictory forces that surround us. A deeper study finds that these forces often complement each other if we can learn to tap into the strength of each. See the entire series by using the Paradox Pairs Index.

We are living in the early days of algorithmic content creation. Today's tools, which are marketed as generative artificial intelligence, are in actuality, highly scaled, predictive algorithms based on a vast amount of preexisting work. A large-scale language model (LLM), such as the infamous ChatGPT, indiscriminately ingests the content of the Internet as a training set. When prompted, LLMs respond by applying a formula to predict the words it displays. The output is entirely based on what others have created previously, re-spun with enough randomness to alter the output of similar prompts on subsequent responses. Regardless of how it works, the application of LLMs are, and will continue to, dramatically shape the way we work.

LLMs are significantly flawed. They violate copyrights, plagiarize, amplify biases and stereotypes, they lie with confidence, and they lack restrictions and controls to prevent propaganda and falsities. LLMs make us dumber, because they reduce the friction of creation which diminishes our ability to learn. Yet despite all of this, even if LLMs made no further advances in their technology, their impact is already astounding. Reports of efficiency gains that measure more than 30% are becoming wide spread across a variety of jobs: writers, reporters, translators, customer service consultants, data analysts, software engineers, and many others. LLMs are here to stay. The technology press reports this as mostly doom and gloom, a sign foretelling the end of our jobs, heralding the age of general artificial intelligence, and the replacement of humans with our computer overlords. This narrative ignores any agency we have in how we apply technology, and while it is sensational, it also ignores how adaptable we are to change.

ChatGPT is widely used by students to write essays and complete homework. Employees are secretly using LLMs to accomplish tasks at work. Schools may call this cheating, employers see the technology as a way to reduce headcount. And here's where the potential paradox lies. If we use LLMs as a way to zero out our wage costs all we achieve is parity with today's worker for less expense. The questioning is along the lines of, "why do I need 10 people to do our work when 2 people using ChatGPT produces the same output?"

Instead we can reframe our work by shifting the activities we do: allowing LLMs to complete the mundane, repetitive work frees the humans to do value-added work. Who cares that ChatGPT writes the code for yet another image gallery or responds with detailed steps to help a customer use a product. No company today has enough staff to do all of the work they have identified, whether it's a startup or a massive enterprise. Every single company has a backlog, a long list of "what ifs" to explore, a never-ending amount of things to do that we just haven't gotten to yet. The companies that leverage LLMs in this way will accelerate and disrupt, seizing the arbitrage created when their competitors let the number crunchers convince them that LLMs are the perfect opportunity to reduce headcount. Furthermore, our employees in these forward acting companies will maintain psychological safety, rather than being threatened by AI they will embrace it. The gutted competition employees, those that remain, conversely will feel more threatened, waiting for the shoe to drop on their dismal jobs, further reducing their quality and output.

When embracing generative AI we face a choice, we have agency: we can reduce headcount and keep productivity the same in the name of cost savings, or we can reshape the work our humans do and invest in value creation to accelerate further into the market.

The Paradox Pairs series is an exploration of the contradictory forces that surround us. A deeper study finds that these forces often complement each other if we can learn to tap into the strength of each. See the entire series by using the Paradox Pairs Index.

We are of the world, and therefore we bring that world into our workplace. To pretend it doesn't exist while you write code, analyze data, stock inventory, or answer phones is a fool's game. Work cannot be a sanitized environment unless you are willing to settle for sanitized, bland results. We must meet our employees where they are — as people with outside interests, pressures, fears, and ambitions.

Mental and physical health, political strife, social currents, parenting or family responsibilities, and financial pressures are all examples of things that aren't simply left at the doors of our businesses while still expecting people to do their best work. If we are asking employees to bring their full self to work, to feel a sense of belonging in our environment, then supporting them means we must lead with empathy. Empathy is the means by which we leverage the diversity of our tribe. All types of empathy require listening and observing, quieting our inner dialog to allow for reflection on the narrative of others.

It's not uncommon for leaders to receive coaching on being more empathetic to their employees. The idea is that by making employees feel valued, by understanding their feelings and thoughts, they will be motivated and produce better results. This theory holds true — in surveys employees report that they are more engaged, more creative, and willing to work longer hours for an empathetic boss. So let's dig deeper into three types of empathy and learn why the most common, emotional empathy, has a limit.

The easiest, and therefore most common, type of empathy to access is that of emotional empathy, feeling what others feel. When the word empathy is used by itself, the person is most often referring to emotional empathy. It is a mechanism of resonance, a replication of feelings from one to another. Our feelings are blended, by degrees, from our engagements. We connect with another because we literally feel the emotion that they are experiencing. Our connection builds trust and understanding, the other person has been seen and heard. However, too much emotional empathy can cause burnout and change our behavior, as noted by Kim Scott's term, ruinous empathy. When this occurs we are affected so greatly that we defer our feedback, dumb down our message, or avoid a course of action entirely.

We can offset a ruinous reaction by engaging in two other types of empathy. Cognitive empathy, rather than causing us to feel the emotions of others, seeks to understand what is driving someone else's heart and mind. It takes the role of a detective rather than a confidant. This is especially helpful when we have lived very different experiences. Compassionate empathy is driven by a motivation to improve someone else's well being, a mission to accomplish rather than a feeling to resolve.

Emotional empathy causes us to solve for how we are now feeling, a mirror of others. Cognitive empathy still seeks resolution, yet solely for others, our feelings are not included nor considered. Compassionate empathy focuses on the good we can do. Cognitive and compassionate empathy offer protections from burnout, in fact they can act as energizers when completing work on behalf of others. These three types of empathy are loosely correlated, which means we must be vigilant to dismissing those that display a different type of empathy than we do.

Working against empathy by acting in tribal groups and using "us vs them" language excludes people, especially when groups come into conflict or are seen as a direct threat. Even as our interactions tend toward the transactional we still remain highly influenced by those we engage with. This provides an opportunity for us to establish more empathetic norms. Cooperation requires connection, and connection requires empathy. We may think our mindsets are fixed — we either have empathy or we do not — the truth is that we can learn by experiencing empathy ourselves, seeking those that model the behavior we desire.

Supplement your thinking about empathy with this excellent conversation between cognitive scientist, and host of the podcast A Slight Change of Plans, Maya Shankar and Stanford psychology professor Jamil Zaki.

How to Build Empathy and Avoid Burnout | A Slight Change of Plans

Jamil Zaki explains that there are different types of empathy and we can learn to be more discerning about when we apply them.

Pushkin Industries

The Paradox Pairs series is an exploration of the contradictory forces that surround us.  A deeper study finds that these forces often complement each other if we can learn to tap into the strength of each. See the entire series by viewing the Paradox Pairs Index.

When we share an experience with another our responses are amplified. If we read a book or watch a show that we know others are reading or watching we tend to pay more attention. Influence flows in both directions, this is true even when someone is speaking to an audience from stage, we are always looking for queues. Our desire to tune our message to an audience will even alter the words we use and the meaning we convey. We can recognize how our narrative is landing and may soften its impact when we notice a tepid response or double down on a theme when listeners respond positively.

This influence can be so strong we can end up tailoring our message into something that no longer matches our beliefs. We may speak in generalities rather than specifics or we may commit to action beyond where we feel comfortable. Have you ever said something you didn't mean nor intended to say? Have you signed up for a course of action that greatly differs from your preferred plan? Or maybe you stopped short of giving the constructive criticism you planned because the recipient appeared distressed.

In the worst cases we are influenced to elaborate too much and too often that we become trapped by our tailored messages, creating internal stress. In the Pali language of Buddhist the word papañca represents the proliferation of stress caused by inhabiting our thoughts of the past or the future. When we get trapped this way it is natural for us to feel anxiety over how things should have been or what our now committed, yet not supported, action will lead to.

"Stress is not an inherent property of events themselves, it is a function of how we label and react to them."
-Bessel van der Kolk

Clearly we've done ourselves a disservice when we get caught up in the emotional response to our storytelling. Equally, we've done our audience the same. They have missed out on our full perspective, on valuable information, on critical feedback. This storytelling trap is what author Kim Scott calls ruinous empathy in her book Radical Candor. "Ruinous Empathy is what happens when you want to spare someone’s short-term feelings, so you don’t tell them something they need to know. It’s praise that isn’t specific enough to help the person understand what was good or criticism that is sugar-coated and unclear. Or simply silence," writes Scott.

In our work we harness the power of storytelling, which connects us to each other. We resist the trap of capitalism that obscures the work, balancing both the value of our efforts with the results of our outcomes. We care about the people we engage and also the message we need to convey. And when we are on the receiving end we remain receptive to the gifts that others are giving us by reciprocating these behaviors.

The Paradox Pairs series is an exploration of the contradictory forces that surround us.  A deeper study finds that these forces often complement each other if we can learn to tap into the strength of each. See the entire series by viewing the Paradox Pairs Index.

Much of our paradox exploration has been about establishing the principles by which we desire to operate, especially when we are betwixt contrasting forces. Allowing our values to help direct our course of action provides us helpful guidance on the path to making better decisions and producing improved results. Over time these values and principles evolve into a set of rules that have served us well. So well, in fact, that we may forget the association to the initial principle altogether. When this happens we may follow a rule simply because we are so accustomed to it. "This is just the way we do things," is an explanation we might hear or say.

Yet we don't want to blindly follow rules. We have missed the mark if we follow our rule and violate our principle — it is much better to honor the principle and violate the rule. Now this doesn't mean we cannot change our principles, surely we can, and should, with a conscious effort and thoughtful consideration. In fact, it's healthy to reevaluate our principles from time to time, ensuring that our beliefs and actions remain fresh and valid. We can apply an expiration date to our values, as a countdown timer, like we explored in Reconsideration & Judgement, to know when its time to review again.

A musician, when starting out, is taught the rules of rhythm. You may recall our reference to a musician's goal of playing "in the pocket" from our exploration of Perfection & Style. The purpose is to be in time with the rest of the band, establishing a known cadence to make the music sound synchronous. A novice musician may often count out loud to establish this tempo — 1, 2, 3, 4 — 1, 2, 3, 4. An intermediate musician will be more comfortable with a swing feel, where notes may intentionally fall just shy or just after the beat. This adds color and style to a performance, enhancing phrasing and giving the music more feeling. An advanced player may deviate more drastically, floating away from the tempo and expressing something unexpected, an action referred to as "throwing it away". A first principle of music is to express emotions, and sometimes the rules we learn prevent the kind of emotion the musician wants to convey. When this happens we break the rules.

Aside: A great example of throwing it away can be found in Tim Pierce's break down of Jared James Nichols guitar solo.

The Paradox Pairs series is an exploration of the contradictory forces that surround us.  A deeper study finds that these forces often complement each other if we can learn to tap into the strength of each. See the entire series by using the Paradox Pairs Index.

Following the tradition that started in 2004, each Spring, on April 15th, Major League Baseball commemorates the anniversary of Jackie Robinson's MLB debut in 1947 by dressing every MLB player in the number 42, Robinson's since retired jersey number.

While Robinson wasn't the very first Black major league baseball player, he is correctly credited with breaking the color barrier in the "modern" era. The "modern" era, in MLB parlance, is a sanitized marketing term that refers to end of the "Gentleman's Agreement" of 1887, the period of 67 years where owners of both minor and major league teams secretly agreed to deny contracts to Black players.

Robinson's exceptional athletic ability and personal charisma combined with social conditions that finally overcame baseball's unwritten restriction on Black players in the leagues. Before Jackie stepped onto the field as a Brooklyn Dodger in 1947 the previous Black MLB players were a pair of brothers, Moses and Weldy Walker, who both played for the Toledo Blue Stockings of the American League way back in 1884.

While Jackie was the first player after the end of the Gentleman's Agreement in the National League, it was Larry Doby, three months after Robinson's debut, who became the first Black player in the American league, signing with the Cleveland Indians in July of 1947. Doby was already a champion, having lead his prior team, the Newark Eagles, to the Negro league title in 1946. In 1948, Doby helped the Indians win the World Series, appearing in 121 games and batting over .300 for the season. Larry's legendary teammate during that championship year was another Black rookie, at the surprising age of 42, named Satchel Paige. Larry would go on to become a seven-time all-star center fielder, and lead the league in runs batted in and home runs in 1954, a year where he finished second in most valuable player votes.

Like Robinson, Doby dealt with countless and overt racism and bigotry throughout his career. Doby was born in the segregated South in 1923, and required to attend a Black only school in Camden, South Carolina. Heading into high school Doby moved to Patterson, New Jersey where he played baseball, football, and track. His Patterson Eastside high school football team won the state championships and were invited to play in Florida, however the promoter wouldn't allow Doby, the only Black player, to participate. His teammates boycotted the game in support of Larry.

When making his MLB debut and meeting his fellow teammates, several of them wouldn't shake his hand and two turned their back to him during introductions. It was five-time world series champion Joe Gordon who eased the tensions in the clubhouse when he asked Doby to play catch with him.

"I walked down that line, stuck out my hand, and very few hands came back in return.
- Larry Doby

The count of Black players steadily rose throughout and after the careers of both Robinson and Doby, peaking in 1975 around 19%. In 2023 that number has fallen to about 7%, far under representing Black athletes. According to USA Today's analysis of the 2023 starting rosters only 6.1% of players are Black, a decreasing trend in recent years. There are twice as many players from the Dominican Republic, a country with a population of only 11 million people, than there are Black players on starting rosters. In 2022, for the first time since 1950, three years after Robinson and Doby's debut, no US-born Black players competed in the World Series. Gentlemen's agreement indeed.

USA TODAY’s study revealed that five teams don’t have a single Black player on their major-league roster with nine other clubs having just one.
- Bob Nightengale, USA TODAY

The numbers are even worse in college baseball, which accounts for a bit more than 10% of MLB recruits. Per the NCAA's published data, if you remove HBCU colleges from the mix, only 3% of baseball athletes are Black and head coach positions account for a measly 1% of the job. Dusty Baker, of the Houston Astros, and Dave Roberts, of the Los Angles Dodgers, remain the only two MLB head coaches, the same as last year. Although Tony Beasley briefly held the interim manager role of the Texas Rangers for 48 games last season before he was replaced by veteran coach Bruce Bochy.

MLB needs to do much, much better. It must.

I look forward to Jackie Robinson's Day each year because it serves to me as a reminder of how much work still remains to be done to make athletics, and much broader than that, our society, more inclusive. Sports is meant to be entertainment, an escape from our daily toils, where a common love of the game binds us. Yet how can this be, when we look on the playing field and are so easily reminded about the lack of opportunity, reminded of the systems that create and sustain biases and grow divisions especially around race and gender? No, sport is not an escape from our reality, in fact, it's a symptom of it, just take a closer look.