How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

A friend once asked if I thought it necessary to suffer in order to succeed - it seemed like a trick question. After hemming and hawing a bit, I had to confess that although I wished to think otherwise, I sadly believed that suffering leads to success.

And it should be no surprise. Judeo-Christian enshrines suffering as a test of faith and valor, one from which the sufferer somehow emerges greater than he entered (Book of Job, for example), closer to salvation. Take a look around at the countless variations on the "no-pain no-gain" mantra, particularly as regards athletic training and performance. Nietzsche's famous quote "what does not kill me makes me stronger", taken out of context, figures prominently in this Western mindset according to which success stems from hard work, which in turn requires effort and therefore suffering.  

Indeed, it can seem like sweet justice that those who succeed should have to sweat for it. Under this system, the lazy have only themselves to blame for their mediocrity while the mediocre are made to feel guilty that they are not working hard enough. Meanwhile, the industrious can forever hope to be rewarded for their pain - except that it doesn’t always work out. Why is that? 

Continuing with the sports analogy, it's quite clear that it's possible to train too much, to inflict so much suffering on one's body that it cannot benefit from the training. It's also possible to do wasteful work that yields limited or negative returns. Identifying useful work and finding the sweet point between effort and rest is the task of the coach. Looking further, the notion of pleasure is paramount: one can only excel at a task that provides enjoyment, even if effort is necessary. Indeed, that is Nietzsche's overarching point in Ecce Homo: 

"Now by what signs are a well-made human being recognized? They are recognized by the fact that such a person is pleasant to our senses; he is carved from one whole block of wood which is hard, delicate and fragrant at once. He enjoys only that which is good for him; his pleasure, his desire ceases when the limits of that which is good for him are overstepped. He divines cures for injuries; he knows how to turn misfortune to his own advantage; that which does not kill him makes him stronger. " 

Let's leave the athletic pitch to enter the shop floor. Workers, who extend themselves physically and psychologically, are much like athletes. Days are long, repetitive tasks cause injuries, and bodies age and whither at ill-conceived work stations - with well-known impacts on productivity. In the corporation at large, busyness is rewarded through so many indicators, most of which are essentially proxy measures of suffering. And yet, powering through pain, the ethos of bygone eras, has shown its limits. Unsurprisingly, concepts like lean come from outside the Judeo-Christian cultural sphere.  

Workers, we can all agree, should seek to maximize production while minimizing their suffering (which we can expand to include all waste). Nietzsche provides perspective and a few hints: seek pleasure and 'that which is good' when looking for optimization. A "well-made" person will know when his/her limit has been reached, will learn from mistakes, and find solutions to recurring problems. But there is more; Nietzsche's "well-made" person  

"… instinctively gathers his material from all he sees, hears and experiences. He is a selective principle; he rejects much. He is always in his own company whether his intercourse be with books, with men or with landscapes; he honors the things he chooses, the things he acknowledges, the things he trusts. " 

In these few lines we find some key ingredients to an innovative optimization process. We have left the realm of suffering for gain and entered the domain of progress through thoughtful observation, self-awareness, personal commitment, education, intuition, and (ultimately) pleasure.  

Today, I am changing my vision and trying to reject suffering as a basis for success. Effort is necessary to improve, but pleasure is a key driver. This is easier said than done. Abandoning suffering for pleasure requires trust and confidence.   

1. Self-confidence because(a) if underlings suffer, the boss gets stature fromimposing the suffering, and (b)each individual must believe in his/her sustained desire to strive in a positive-reward environment that markedly departs from western cultural norms  
2. Trust because, under a pleasure-based management model, management must trust its underlings to continue to work efficiently and innovate without fear of punishment - this despite the pernicious notion that underlings are somehow "lazy" (otherwise, they'd have worked hard and become part of management!) 

The benefits are potentially significant: workers will use their innate wisdom to improve their performance, as long as that they operate in an environment that gives them choices, and even more so if they can use the services of a well-meaning 'coach'. In short, management must trust that workers are "well-made" and engaged employees. This can be a difficult step to make for those raised in the worship of pain as a pathway to success, but it is a step on the long path to  kinder and wiser management.

Shaving and the art of questioning

A few days ago, I was about to start shaving when my 6 year old daughter (Lucie) entered the bathroom. She wanted to discuss our upcoming day together, but quickly started asking me questions about shaving. Every step of the way, she asked me what I was doing, what my objective was, why I used a particular tool or product, etc... She also asked me to explain or clarify what she didn't understand. (She also told me every time I missed a spot.) I use a shave brush, and so the process is slightly more involved than with a can of shaving cream - she also wanted to know why I prefer the brush. 

Of course, shaving is not something I spend a great deal of time thinking about: I do it on autopilot, in the morning, sometimes while half awake and mostly while thinking about something else. Her questions forced me to consider my shaving process step by step, and to find a reason for everything I was doing.  

As I finished, I realized that between my automatic behavior and her pointed questions, this had been quite like a process audit in a professional environment. However, unlike in most process audits I've participated in, a few things struck me about her demeanor :   

1. the sense of wonder in her tone and questions - as if what I was doing was the most  amazing and important thing in the world (at least at that moment)  
2. the innocence with which she approached shaving - she has no preconceived notions about how it should be done and has a completely open mind 
3. the way in which she phrased her questions - she knows nothing about shaving (I'm clearly the expert), and so her manner was humble and positively inquisitive  
4. the kindness underlying her questions - she genuinely cares about me and (at that moment) expressed her care by wanting to know more about shaving   
5. the trust and confidence between us that allowed her to ask probing questions without threatening me and allowed me to answer in a frank and non-defensive manner, knowing I would not be judged for them

Of course, father-daughter interactions are quite different from intra-company or consultant-client relations, but I believe that I learned a lesson. The next time that I find myself observing a process and asking questions about it, I'll try to remember Lucie's 5 keys to a successful audit :  

1. wonder and amazement - I am privileged to observe an expert working his/her craft  
2. innocence - I will try to abandon any knowledge of the task to approach it with a fresh and open mind 
3. posture and phrasing - I will inquire humbly about what the expert is doing and my questions will be gentle  
4. kindness - I will care deeply about the individual and extend him/her the kindness I wish to receive in return  
5. trust - I will take the time to build a relationship based on trust and show myself worthy of the same 

Kindness in your organization

In a recent Atlantic article on successful marriage (that thorniest of relationships), Emily Esfahani Smith defines practicing kindness as "being generous to your partner's intentions". She explains that kindness is a mindset that assumes that the intention of the other person is positive. As an example, if someone is hurting your feelings, it is because of a misunderstanding, not because of an evil intention to hurt. 

This generosity towards others' intentions - we might also call it goodwill - is fundamental in the types of organizations that this blog concerns itself with. Tackling a problem or engaging someone with kindness is a way to recast the problem or relationship on a positive footing, and even more importantly, to stop a negative situation from spiraling out of control. 

That positive cast is crucial if one is looking for innovative or breakthrough solutions. If the debate comprises blaming and recrimination (downward spiral) there is no room for growth, exploration, and mutually beneficial feedback loops. Kindness, as considered here, is a fundamental ingredient in the very survival of the organization, particularly in a challenging environment. 

Treating others with kindness is particularly hard in corporate environments, where mutually exclusive 'success' is often conceived only as a zero-sum gain - a take-no-prisoners war of sorts. There are plenty of anecdotes of psychotic bosses that enjoy inflicting pay on subordinates, and a whole cottage industry of cathartic cultural items devoted to it. In fact, being kind to others can even be perceived as a sign of weakness, but only if it is misunderstood: being kind does not mean accepting anything or foolishly applauding any idiotic idea. The kind person can criticize, but in a positive and uplifting way, and will provide the other with a face-saving exit: "I know you've worked very hard on this project, and the results are encouraging, but sadly they do not meet the objectives that we'd set. What do you propose that we do?" 

The hope lies in that most of us (humans) like to be treated kindly, because it's simply much nicer than the alternative. We don't want our intentions misunderstood, and we certainly aren't all out to 'get' the other guy and inflict pain. Those not trying to step over others on their way to the top (the vast majority) just want to do their job as best as possible, in as meaningful a way as possible, and to be treated with kindness. 

What to do, then, to ensure that kindness is the default position in your organization given that it is not something "normal"? As with all cultural shifts, it is a long-term endeavor requiring significant top-brass buy-in. The most important person, in this case, is the organization's spiritual leader (a CEO, a chairperson, a sponsor, a coach, a widely respected employee) who can start and sustain a cultural shift towards the acceptability of failure, the importance of mutual goodwill, and the imperative of trust/confidence. These are the key elements of kindness that an organization must nurture on a daily basis. 

How will you know you've succeeded? I would state that it is when you can make yours psychologist Ty Tashiro's advice (quoted in the above article) : "A lot of times, a [person] is trying to do the right thing even if it’s executed poorly. So appreciate the intent."