I’ve been reading Annie Duke’s Thinking In Bets and just finished the chapter where she covers Suzy Welch’s 10-10-10 rule.

The short version: When you have a decision to make, think about the consequences of the decision paths 10 minutes, 10 months, and 10 years later.

It’s a fascinating framework, and as I’ve thought about it this week, I’ve learned a few things:

1. It’s useless for the vast majority of decisions we make – and that’s a good thing. You don’t use the 10-10-10 system to determine if you want pizza or Thai for takeout tonight. If the answers for the 10-month and 10-year questions are “I don’t care” or “I doubt I’ll even remember”, that’s a nudge that fighting for pizza over Thai is not worth your time. 
   
2. Remind yourself that we tend to overestimate short-term adverse effects and underestimate long-term positive effects.
   
3. The marketing of 10-10-10 is excellent. It’s easy to remember. That said, learning how to tweak the future periods of consideration is an advanced way to use this system. Through a 10-10-10 analysis, some decisions may not have an answer, but through a 1 day, 1-year, 40-year lens, become apparent. Tweak as needed

Annie’s website and links to buy her books
Suzy Welch’s 10-10-10 system

1.) People on the fence vote for the outcomes they assume the majority want, even if they lean in the opposite direction.

2.) The effort, risk, or perceived cost to express their opposing or nuanced opinion is overridden by the convenience of conformity and/or apathy.

3.) We are bad at assumptions. Therefore, we are bad at assuming what the majority wants.

4.) Observable minorities look like majorities.

If you combine 1-4, minority positions can easily win a majority vote because of flawed perceptions and the perceived cost to disagree.

The frequency illusion amplifies the effect of “new” and tricks us into quickly thinking that it is “most.”

Follow the incentive of the sources feeding you information. Lenses are focused on driving dollars via clicks and longer visits, not facts.

The incentive is to entertain, not inform.

You are a terrible estimator of the social cost to be different.

Inspired by https://youarenotsosmart.com/2019/07/02/yanss-157-the-psychology-behind-why-people-dont-speak-out-against-and-even-defend-norms-they-secretly-despise/

Cicero thought that the only life worth living is dedicated in substantial part to good outcomes you cannot possibly live to see (or benefit from)

Iteration: Greatness is not measured by the accumulation of things during your lifetime but rather by your existence’s net present value.

Even small things can yield exponential returns for future generations.

A few years ago, I was mentoring a young leader, focusing on how he was communicating with his direct reports in team meetings.

He was intelligent, hardworking, charismatic, and a confident speaker – but when it came to delivering tough messages, he was making a critical mistake.

“They are making us work overtime, but think about all of the money we are going to make. I don’t want to do it either, but we’re going to make the most of it as a team.”

“They are raising our quotas, but I’ve got a plan on how we are going to dominate the rankings and get big bonus checks!”

At first glance, one may be tempted to praise the optimism that he was delivering in the face of adversity. He wasn’t wallowing in the bad news. He had a plan. He was focused not on the bad news but his reaction to it.

His communication was good, but not great.

I followed up with one question.

Who is “they”?

If you go back and look at the messages above, the source of the bad news had a name.

That name is They.

They are making us work overtime.

They are raising our quotas.

When a leader blames an unnamed, undefined third party for bad news, it plants seeds of discontent. You may win the day or the week, but the faceless “they” becomes a shadow that hangs over every moment.

“They don’t care about us.”

“They don’t understand the strain of this request.”

“They are really in control.”

Employees cannot put a face to They. Employees cannot talk to They and understand why They are raising quotas, adding overtime, or creating some other discomfort.

A nameless, faceless, invisible agitator is ultimately in control—cynicism flourishes.

Leaders who consistently blame a “they” will create employees that praise the manager but hate the company. It’s a catalyst for unexplained burn-out and job frustration.

So what’s the solution?

Good organizations should focus on eliminating “they” from top to bottom. Openness, clarity, communication. Educating employees on the connectedness of decisions. Ensure everyone understands how it aligns with the company’s mission and goals. Most importantly, check for incentive alignment throughout

…but let’s be honest, a lot of companies struggle to do this. What can a front-line leader do if the company is not making it easy on them?

If possible, educate yourself and others on who They are. Give They a name, a face, and a voice. Allow They to come and speak to your team and explain why They make Their decisions. You and your team may not like what They have to say, but knowing and disagreeing is better than letting frustration and cynicism towards a faceless agitator flourish.

If this is not an option, leaders need to take on the role of They. It may seem unfair, but it would be better for your team’s long-term health to take on the responsibility yourself, even if the organization is flawed behind you.

Even if “They” are making you work overtime or raise quotas, leaders should use “We” or even “I” when delivering the message. Leaders are better off having their employees angry or frustrated with someone they can speak to than letting their employees get increasingly upset with someone or something they cannot communicate with.

Today’s post is an iteration of a lesson learned from Daniel Pink, who gives Robert Reich credit for teaching him.

All information fits into three categories:

• Things we know we know
• Things we know we don’t know
• Things we don’t know we don’t know

These categories are also called known-knowns, known-unknows, and unknown-unknowns.

Unknown-unknowns are the most significant piece of the pie – for everyone.

Even for areas where we have mastery (known-knowns), there is no guarantee of success.

You may know the right solution to a problem, but you still fail if you cannot convince others of this.

Communication, timing, leadership, emotional intelligence, and countless other factors can render known-knowns useless.

For things we know we don’t know (known unknowns), friends and colleagues provide tremendous value.

“I don’t know how to do that, but I know someone that does.”

Two people with a shared known-unknown also have a higher chance of success than if they acted alone.

There may be ten options available, and you may not know the correct answer, but you know for sure that one of the 10 is wrong. Acting alone, you have a 1 in 9 chance of success.

Now, using your professional network, you seek advice from two others. Neither of them knows the correct answer either, but they can each eliminate 2 of the remaining nine options through knowledge and experience.

Together, the three of you have a 1 in 5 chance of success vs. the 1 in 9 chance of success you had if you had acted alone.

Friends reduce failure.

Hidden away in the extra features of Marvel’s Studio’s Avengers: Infinity War is a mini-documentary titled “Strange Alchemy.”

The movie producer and directors describe strange alchemy as “combining things that don’t seem like they belong together.”

By putting characters together in unique combinations, fans benefited from odd combos that create tension, humor, and uncertainty.

Strange alchemy has entertainment value. The movie did over two billion at the box office and served as the setup for Avengers: Endgame, which did 2.8 billion.

Strange alchemy also works for individuals.

You just need to trade characters for characteristics.

• The data analyst with a knack for sales.
• The technical accountant with theatrical public speaking skills.
• The financial leader with that can create artful visualizations.
• The executive assistant that is also a skilled photographer.

The combinations are endless.

The responsibility is two-fold.

Individuals should spend time reflecting and seeking feedback from others to understand their strange alchemy. Worry less about same-ness and more about being able to articulate your unique combination of characteristics.

Employers, hiring managers, and leaders should do the same from the other side of the table. Reflect on the strange alchemy that you would love to add to your team. Your team probably needs some strange alchemy – you just need to spend time defining and searching for it.

Can I have some feedback?

A powerful question. An invitation to be humbled on the path to improvement.

A moment to be nudged, corrected or redirected.

An opportunity to start the process of taking good to great.

Simply asking for feedback is not enough.

Feedback needs framework.

The feedback that you seek needs specificity.

Are you looking for a transformational change or short-term wins?

“Move faster” means different things to the sprinter and the marathoner.

Are you trading responsiveness for inefficiency?

What is the value of “I respond quickly to text messages and instant messages?”

Does it end up in your annual review? Is it a measurable goal that you have set yourself?

Is your company willing to pay you or promote you based on how quickly you respond?

The answer (for nearly everyone) is no.

Your end-of-year review, your measurable results are based on your focused work. 

You create  – sales, relationships, content, analysis, or any number of other things.

Interruptions impede creation.

The ding and the buzz of “someone needs me” inhibiting the need for focused work.

Unless you are measured and paid to be interrupted, it’s a poor use of your time to prioritize it.

Most characteristics are purchased over time.

Good or bad, through consistency of action, we buy, then own, character attributes. 

Yet rare moments are presented to us where we have the opportunity to buy character attributes at a discount.

One who has lived a life as timid or shy may be presented with the chance to buy bravery and heroism because of how they act during an intense moment.

At this moment, bravery which may otherwise take a lifetime to “own,” can be bought at a discount. A single action. A quick sale. 

One who has lived a noble life may be lured in by the persuasive marketing of dishonesty in a moment of weakness – and pay the price for months afterward.

We buy attributes and character associations with our actions. 

Most are earned slowly, but be mindful of opportunities when characteristics are on sale. 

Some are cheap to buy but expensive to own.

Others are rarely even for sale but provide lifetime value.

Doing nothing.

Doing something.

Doing something frequently.

Doing something with intensity.

Doing something correctly.

Doing something correctly with frequency and intensity.

Mastery.

Doing something correctly with frequency and intensity to maintain mastery.

Avoiding hubris to maintain mastery.

Seeking out improvement so that mastery does not erode.

Seeking out associations to expand mastery.

Teaching.