Even Temperament - The Key to Optimal Long Term Performance

I've been reading Snowball - the biography of Warren Buffett. One of the characteristics of Warren Buffett that shows up repeatedly is his even temperament. When times are good and the market is going crazy, Buffett does not get "drunk with the Kool-Aid". When the market tanks and everybody is over-reacting in a state of fear and panic, Buffett maintains his composure.

The book talks about Warren's ability to create a shell around him when dealing with emotionally charged situations (such as when he needed to shut down Dempster mills.) This ability allows him to respond in the most optimal manner possible. In order to avoid becoming totally desensitized Warren brings on the emotional shield only when needed. Thus, one of keys to Warren Buffetts success appears to be his even temperament.

I've begun to conclude that an even temperament holds the key to success in most endeavors. A pumped, up mindset can only work for a few minutes since it calls on the fight or flight response. On the other hand, anything that requires more than a few minutes of effort requires a relaxed focus. And this can be attained only by maintaining a semi-detached state.

In organizations an even temperament becomes all the more important because of group dynamics, office politics, market uncertainty and competition. Thinking further about the problem, I came up with a framework in evaluating people:

The best people are those who have an even temperament and are talented. What about your star engineer who is prone to temper tantrums? It's a tricky question ... but I think that they are almost always more trouble than they are worth. And what about even-tempered people who are not very suited for their current job? They'd do well to have a role shift. Or get some additional training and skill building. Of course, if the person in question neither has talent nor an even tempered, then he is an ideal candidate to be fired!

Some might argue that there are some great leaders who are pumped and not necessarily even tempered and who have succeeded. For example, Steve Ballmer (see video below) is known to be highly emotional. He is even said to have thrown a chair in a fit of anger. My sense is that such personalities are not necessarily good for the organization. In the long run, they simply make the organization  turn on itself and increase the amount of organizational politics, turf wars and territory disputes. 

What To Do When Things Go Wrong

From the book Killing Floor by Lee Child

"Evaluate. Long experience had taught me to evaluate and assess. When the unexpected gets dumped on you, don't waste time. Don't figure out how or why it happened. Don't recriminate. Don't figure out whose fault it is. Don't work out how to avoid the same mistake next time. All of that you do later. If you survive. First of all you evaluate. Analyze the situation. Identify the downside. Assess the upside. Plan accordingly. Do all that and you give yourself a better chance of getting through to the other stuff later."

An excellent lesson for corporate teams facing an unexpected crisis.

Infographic from Guy Kawasaki

The Chief Oxytocin Officer

One of the challenges the human resources departments of corporations face is that they are unable to get clear, quantitative feedback on various policies and programs that they implement. Employee satisfaction surveys are really an aggregate of individual subjective responses. There can be many a slip between what is felt by employees, how that is expressed by these employees in surveys and how the results are interpreted by management.

So is there a way to quantitatively measure employee morale and feelings of oneness?

Oxytocin known as the love hormone or cuddle hormone is known to increase trust, generosity and empathy and decrease fear. It is the biologically opposite of cortisol (also known as the stress hormone.)

Oxytocin production is said to increase among people who share a pleasant experience such as a meal, a laugh, a hug or a high-five.

What if a corporation created the position of a Chief Oxytocin Officer whose role would be to create organizational systems that increase the production of oxytocin and reduce the production of cortisol among employees? What if there were a simple way to measure the amount of oxytocin and cortisol coursing through the bodies of personnel? What if this COO (Chief Oxytocin Officer ... not Chief Operating Officer) were rewarded based on the level of oxytocin increases and cortisol decreases in the workforce?

This would provide an objective and quantitative measure to let management know whether it's employee retention programs were actually working.

While we wait for the science to catch up with our wishes, it's a good idea to watch the video below by author Ori Brafman. Ori talks about how to build instant connections and devotes a fair amount of time to discussing the role of Oxytocin in human relationships (NOTE: the video is cut off a little on the right ... this has probably something to do with Google's blogger software or the video itself ... but the content is quite enjoyable even with a part of it being cut off.) If you'd like to see the video in all it's glory, go here.

Organizational Autophagy - Or The Power of Lesser Resources

In cell biology, autophagy, or autophagocytosis is a major mechanism by which a starving cell reallocates nutrients from unnecessary processes to more-essential processes. In other words, when a cell in your body is starved of glucose and other forms of fuel, it begins to eat itself. But in order to ensure that it stays alive it attempts to first eat the parts that are unhealthy, old or useless. Autophagy is said to be important in cell renewal, cancer prevention and reducing the rate of aging. So going without food occasionally can be good for you. Also, this is one of the major reasons why extremely low calorie diets are said to help extend longevity and improve vitality.

Now what would happen if we applied this model to an organization?

What if we assumed that most organizations (be it corporations, divisions of corporations, government bodies or non-profits) are overfed? Many of the larger ones have too many resources at their disposal. They have too large a budget, too many people and too many projects and initiatives.

What if we starved these organizations by reducing their resources?

Let's say we cut the staff of a large organization by 50% and their operating budgets by 50%.

If what happens at an organizational level is similar to what happens at a cell level, it's possible that these same organizations will begin to "eat" themselves. They will cut out unnecessary layers of flab and middle management. They will be forced to reduce the number of projects and initiatives that they are pursuing. They will begin to cut out most activities and focus on all but the most important activities for which they have been birthed in the first place.

This is one way to explain the reasons for some spectacular turnarounds such as the one that happened at GE under Jack Welch in the 80's and early 90's.

What do you think?

Good Boss. Bad Boss.

Here is an amazing talk by Bob Sutton at Stanford. Absolutely worth the time that you spend listening to it.

Leaders Are People Who Can Emote

This excellent article was pointed to me by Chetan Dhruve.

The authors provide evidence to show that from an evolutionary perspective we have evolved to follow those people who can emote well. People who use metaphors in their speech, display strength and convey a sense of intelligence are more likely to be picked as leaders over people who may be more competent but are less personable.

In other words, we're more likely to pick a good looking actor with a strong personality as leader. The person who is merely super-competent will often be overlooked.

However, evolution has provided another adaptation - followers resent greedy or power-hungry leaders and will figure out ways to dilute their power or over-throw such leaders. The tools that followers have include gossip, sarcastic comments and open rebellion.

The key takeaway for people who want to become leaders?
If you're competent spend some time and resources developing your ability to emote, connect and communicate with people.

If you're already in a position of power as a result of your good looks or ability to emote, tread cautiously, control your appetite for more power and deliver on your promises. .Your followers possess the tools to cause your downfall.