Audio Tidbits

Of course you have to get on your pony and ride, but don't be too quick -- or too slow for that matter. In this episode, I offer three keys to effective leadership. I think you will find them very useful perspectives as you lead others.

There is usually at least a tiny grain of truth hidden somewhere behind even the most absurd belief. For example, if you lend a book to someone, you might as well kiss it good-bye. You won't get it back without asking for it back, and maybe not even then. If you're a library, you'll probably get it back; but for anyone else, lending books is about the same as giving them away.

What is the belief? People don't return borrowed books when they borrow them from other people.

There is a grain of truth here. Some people aren't good about returning borrowed books and perhaps that's most people, depending on who you lend your books to.

Is this true on average? I don't know and doubt that you know either. Even so, I believe it. How about you? Do people return books other people lend to them?

Now suppose that I ask you to lend me a book. If you think people don't return borrowed books, you might give the book to me, not expecting it to be returned. However, if you think people are good and usually return borrowed books, you still may not lend it to me, depending on the value of the book to you. But why?

When we make choices involving other people, we are always playing the odds, using our own idiosyncratic computational system. We attach odds to their doing or not doing something, the likelihood of their behaving one way or another, the probability of their reacting as we expect or surprising us instead. Our action, behavior or involvement with them then depends on those calculations. First comes the calculation and then we act, based on our nearly instantaneous decision process.

When dealing with other people, we may occasionally stop and think, do some research, carefully consider why we will or will not make a particular choice, and otherwise be more deliberate than we typically are. Even then, we mostly focus on our side of the equation. Will we be better off or less well off, what is or is not in our interest, what will be the consequences for us if we do or do not proceed? Most of the time though, we just go with our first calculation. We make a flash judgment about the person and the situation and then do or not do whatever the calculation calls for.

Do we often get burned or disappointed? If not, we are definitely toward the safe end, running the risk of being too skeptical, too mistrusting. If we often are disappointed or get burned, we are too far toward the other end where naive and gullible come to mind.

As we see, whether borrowing a book or having any other interaction with people, we infrequently give much if any consideration to the criteria we use with respect to the other person, especially if we haven't spent much time and effort in getting to know them. -- And we have actually invested that level of time and energy in only a very small minority of people we know or come into contact with. – For most people, most of the time and in most situations, we put them into our sorting algorithm, assigning them to "average," on whatever sorting criteria we are used to using.

How do we know what is average? Well, we usually don't. It's like people who borrow books from other people. On average, do they return the borrowed books without needing to be reminded? We don't actually know; but nevertheless, we likely have a quick criterion we instantly apply whenever anyone asks to borrow a book, particularly if they want to borrow our first edition of a rare book or perhaps our checkbook.

Here's the rub. It's that idiosyncratic computational system and its algorithm. The automatic criteria we use to judge people and to make decisions and choices is based on averages, as we understand them. The problem is twofold. First, "average" is a tricky concept. If on average, men are more violent than women, knowing that tells us nothing about most men or most women, because most men are not more violent than most women. It's only at the extreme that men are more violent than women. If we drop the extremes from our algorithm,

There is usually at least a tiny grain of truth hidden somewhere behind even the most absurd belief. For example, if you lend a book to someone, you might as well kiss it good-bye. You won't get it back without asking for it back, and maybe not even then. If you're a library, you'll probably get it back; but for anyone else, lending books is about the same as giving them away.

What is the belief? People don't return borrowed books when they borrow them from other people.

There is a grain of truth here. Some people aren't good about returning borrowed books and perhaps that's most people, depending on who you lend your books to.

Is this true on average? I don't know and doubt that you know either. Even so, I believe it. How about you? Do people return books other people lend to them?

Now suppose that I ask you to lend me a book. If you think people don't return borrowed books, you might give the book to me, not expecting it to be returned. However, if you think people are good and usually return borrowed books, you still may not lend it to me, depending on the value of the book to you. But why?

When we make choices involving other people, we are always playing the odds, using our own idiosyncratic computational system. We attach odds to their doing or not doing something, the likelihood of their behaving one way or another, the probability of their reacting as we expect or surprising us instead. Our action, behavior or involvement with them then depends on those calculations. First comes the calculation and then we act, based on our nearly instantaneous decision process.

When dealing with other people, we may occasionally stop and think, do some research, carefully consider why we will or will not make a particular choice, and otherwise be more deliberate than we typically are. Even then, we mostly focus on our side of the equation. Will we be better off or less well off, what is or is not in our interest, what will be the consequences for us if we do or do not proceed? Most of the time though, we just go with our first calculation. We make a flash judgment about the person and the situation and then do or not do whatever the calculation calls for.

Do we often get burned or disappointed? If not, we are definitely toward the safe end, running the risk of being too skeptical, too mistrusting. If we often are disappointed or get burned, we are too far toward the other end where naive and gullible come to mind.

As we see, whether borrowing a book or having any other interaction with people, we infrequently give much if any consideration to the criteria we use with respect to the other person, especially if we haven't spent much time and effort in getting to know them. -- And we have actually invested that level of time and energy in only a very small minority of people we know or come into contact with. – For most people, most of the time and in most situations, we put them into our sorting algorithm, assigning them to "average," on whatever sorting criteria we are used to using.

How do we know what is average? Well, we usually don't. It's like people who borrow books from other people. On average, do they return the borrowed books without needing to be reminded? We don't actually know; but nevertheless, we likely have a quick criterion we instantly apply whenever anyone asks to borrow a book, particularly if they want to borrow our first edition of a rare book or perhaps our checkbook.

Here's the rub. It's that idiosyncratic computational system and its algorithm. The automatic criteria we use to judge people and to make decisions and choices is based on averages, as we understand them. The problem is twofold. First, "average" is a tricky concept. If on average, men are more violent than women, knowing that tells us nothing about most men or most women, because most men are not more violent than most women. It's only at the extreme that men are more violent than women. If we drop the extremes from our algorithm,

The home turf of the Great Mouse has apparently been discovered by our intrepid hunters. On her home turf, the Great Mouse is not on her own. There she has allies and friendly forces. Our intrepid hunters are in for a battle. Will they prevail? Will they finally best the Great Mouse? Which side will prevail? Let's listen. Do recall that we earlier learned that the Great Mouse may only be a figment of the imaginations of our intrepid hunters. Is this the time we will finally learn the truth? I turn it over to your imagination and judgment.

The home turf of the Great Mouse has apparently been discovered by our intrepid hunters. On her home turf, the Great Mouse is not on her own. There she has allies and friendly forces. Our intrepid hunters are in for a battle. Will they prevail? Will they finally best the Great Mouse? Which side will prevail? Let's listen. Do recall that we earlier learned that the Great Mouse may only be a figment of the imaginations of our intrepid hunters. Is this the time we will finally learn the truth? I turn it over to your imagination and judgment.

• Have you noticed that some people have an unusual ability to get others to do what they want them to do?

• Have you noticed that things consistently turn out better for some people than for others?

• Have you noticed that some people seldom end up with the short end of the stick while others frequently come up short?

• Have you noticed that some people regularly follow through with whatever they undertake while others often falter or end up just quitting?

• Have you noticed that, for some people, their influence bubble expands over time, while for other people, their influence bubble stays small or may even contract over time?

Although you have likely already answered, "Yes," to all five questions, let's set some qualifications or conditions to make sure we are making an apples to apples comparison. Instead of thinking about everyone compared to everyone, let's limit ourselves to what we can call childhood reference groups. Think about you and your childhood reference group as I reframe the five questions.

Limiting yourself to people who grew up at about the same time and in a similar place as you and who experienced about the same social, educational, and economic circumstances as you, let's revisit the five questions.

• Do you know people from your childhood reference group, people like you who are better than others at getting people to do what they want them to do?

• Do you know people like you for whom things consistently turn out better than they do for others?

• Do you know people like you who seldom end up with the short end of the stick while others frequently come up short?

• Do you know people like you who consistently follow through with whatever they undertake while others often falter or end up just quitting?

• Do you know people like you who's influence bubble expands over time, while for others, their influence bubbles stay small or may even contract over time?

I have gone to some length to eliminate excuses and rationalizations. We all know people like us who have done better than we have relative to one or more of the five questions. Of course each of us was disadvantaged relative to some people not in our childhood reference group and advantaged relative to others. Some of us had a significant boost up from day one while others of us experienced a significant push down. The issue is not so much how well we have done compared to everyone else but rather how well we have done relative to people like us.

Let's take another step. Keeping in mind when and where you started your life journey and the circumstances you experienced growing up, how completely are you fulfilling your potential? I have again reframed the five questions for your consideration.

• Are your persuasive strategies and skills serving you well?

Your ability to get people to do what you want them to do is an important element of your personal growth. Here I am not talking about power, force or control. Rather I am talking about your ability to persuade. It's a matter of how you relate to and interact with others. They do not do what you want them to do because they have to do it or because they have no better alternative. They do what you want them to do because they want to do it. They believe going along with you is their best choice. They trust you and have confidence in your judgment.

• Are your successes continuing to accumulate over time?

This can be a tricky question for some. We tend to think about success as if it were an event or achievable condition we may or may not have. We have or don't have success.

Actually success is not one condition or status. Rather it is an accumulation of smaller wins. We win some and lose some. Success is the net when wins and losses are tallied.

Perhaps more important is that success is not a product of only one area or life dimension. For example, we may have accumulated many financial wins with fewer losses, with an impressive fiscal net.

• Have you noticed that some people have an unusual ability to get others to do what they want them to do?

• Have you noticed that things consistently turn out better for some people than for others?

• Have you noticed that some people seldom end up with the short end of the stick while others frequently come up short?

• Have you noticed that some people regularly follow through with whatever they undertake while others often falter or end up just quitting?

• Have you noticed that, for some people, their influence bubble expands over time, while for other people, their influence bubble stays small or may even contract over time?

Although you have likely already answered, "Yes," to all five questions, let's set some qualifications or conditions to make sure we are making an apples to apples comparison. Instead of thinking about everyone compared to everyone, let's limit ourselves to what we can call childhood reference groups. Think about you and your childhood reference group as I reframe the five questions.

Limiting yourself to people who grew up at about the same time and in a similar place as you and who experienced about the same social, educational, and economic circumstances as you, let's revisit the five questions.

• Do you know people from your childhood reference group, people like you who are better than others at getting people to do what they want them to do?

• Do you know people like you for whom things consistently turn out better than they do for others?

• Do you know people like you who seldom end up with the short end of the stick while others frequently come up short?

• Do you know people like you who consistently follow through with whatever they undertake while others often falter or end up just quitting?

• Do you know people like you who's influence bubble expands over time, while for others, their influence bubbles stay small or may even contract over time?

I have gone to some length to eliminate excuses and rationalizations. We all know people like us who have done better than we have relative to one or more of the five questions. Of course each of us was disadvantaged relative to some people not in our childhood reference group and advantaged relative to others. Some of us had a significant boost up from day one while others of us experienced a significant push down. The issue is not so much how well we have done compared to everyone else but rather how well we have done relative to people like us.

Let's take another step. Keeping in mind when and where you started your life journey and the circumstances you experienced growing up, how completely are you fulfilling your potential? I have again reframed the five questions for your consideration.

• Are your persuasive strategies and skills serving you well?

Your ability to get people to do what you want them to do is an important element of your personal growth. Here I am not talking about power, force or control. Rather I am talking about your ability to persuade. It's a matter of how you relate to and interact with others. They do not do what you want them to do because they have to do it or because they have no better alternative. They do what you want them to do because they want to do it. They believe going along with you is their best choice. They trust you and have confidence in your judgment.

• Are your successes continuing to accumulate over time?

This can be a tricky question for some. We tend to think about success as if it were an event or achievable condition we may or may not have. We have or don't have success.

Actually success is not one condition or status. Rather it is an accumulation of smaller wins. We win some and lose some. Success is the net when wins and losses are tallied.

Perhaps more important is that success is not a product of only one area or life dimension. For example, we may have accumulated many financial wins with fewer losses, with an impressive fiscal net.

The Country Duck got his pickup truck stuck in the mucky muck. Where was his duck's luck? Listen to check out how it worked out, or did it?

The Country Duck got his pickup truck stuck in the mucky muck. Where was his duck's luck? Listen to check out how it worked out, or did it?

There are aliens hiding behind the virus. They don't want us to learn about their activities and their priorities. The good news is that they have been disclosed. Listen and learn the truth.