Tag: Mistakes

  • In search of life’s secret manual

    Want to find that secret manual that tells you how to behave in all situations, overcome life’s challenges, reach your potential, and connect with those around you? I spent years looking for such a manual, one that I was convinced everyone else had access to, but I didn’t. My answer now: read a book! Well, a novel, really. Or some poetry. A biography, if you must, but preferably not. Find a fiction best seller list and start reading. Why? Well first let me give you some background.

    Some years ago, probably around the time I started reading management books, but likely even before that, when I read technical books, history, or scientist biographies, I not only stopped reading novels, but I sort of proudly declared myself devoid of time to read fiction. Who could be bothered with fiction when there’s so much to learn from non-fiction? Well, me, for one. Or, at least I should have been.

    Another useful bit of useful background is the impostor syndrome. I could do a whole post about the impostor syndrome (and frankly, I’m kind of surprised I haven’t by now), but I think it’s a concept that is becoming pretty well known these days, so let me just summarize it as that common feeling we get that we are not really qualified to do what we are doing and that some day, someone will discover that we’ve just been faking it and the gig will be up. The origin of the impostor syndrome is easy to understand: we all know our own self doubts or struggles and yet, we don’t talk about them and more specifically, those we work and interact with don’t talk to us about their doubts and struggles – they only tell us all the great things they can do. Modern, curated social media tends to make that sense even worse. We end up with the misguided impression that everyone else knows what they’re doing and we know we don’t, so we feel like an impostor.

    One of the ways out of the syndrome is recognizing that everyone has feelings like this and everyone has their own doubts that they just don’t talk about. If you are an impostor, so is everyone else around you, so who cares any more?

    I admit I still find myself feeling like a professional impostor at times, but then I remember what I just said above and I remind myself that while there is always someone who knows more about a specific topic than I do, or more about more different things than I do, I also know more than others. I tend to go deeper than most people who are as broad and broader than most people who are as deep. That’s my trick and it’s been my strength and niche and it sort of keeps the professional impostor at bay.

    But what I only recently realized is that while the professional impostor was reasonably dealt with, the personal one has been front and center in my life for a long time, without me even being aware of it. I truly believed that everyone else in nearly every life context had the secret manual that I somehow never got a hold of. They all knew how to act, behave, and overcome life’s obstacles in ways that I simply didn’t. Why was I so messed up and struggling in things everyone else just got?

    Scot’s missing secret manual. Image made at canva.com.

    You’d think a look around my own extended family (and I don’t think we’re very different from most other families) would have assured me that wasn’t the case: plenty of failed relationships and divorces, various struggles with addictions, family members cutting each other off or not talking to each other…. Those aren’t the outcomes of people that have the secret manual. My family provided plenty of evidence that it wasn’t just me, but I didn’t really see it.

    So why didn’t I get the lesson that everyone struggles with life and it’s not just me when I had ample evidence within my own family? Well for one, although these struggles existed, we still never talked about them. We didn’t talk about the mistakes we were making or the doubts and uncertainties we had. So, although I saw the results of normal people struggling with life’s challenges, I could still safely ascribe the troubles to circumstances or one-off issues, not universal cluelessness as we all struggle with finding our path through life.

    Even my history and biography reading could have conveyed this message to me, but I didn’t hear it there either. Partially, because their purpose is usually not the struggle itself, but the resolution, thereby tending to actually increase the impostor feeling in the reader. And partially because, as with my family, I applied the inverse fundamental attribution error1 – I attributed good intentions and bad circumstances to others’ misfortunes and incompetency and failure to my own.

    My personal impostor was so strong that I saw others’ struggles and undesired outcomes, I vowed not to replicate them, and yet I continued to believe everyone else knew what to do and only I struggled to get through life and find happiness, connection, and fulfillment within it. Universal incompetence at solving life was right in front of me, but I was blind to it and believed I was the only incompetent one.

    Years ago, I started to include fiction back in my reading list, and meeting a poet at a friend’s gathering once, I began to read (and later write) some modern verse. I was listening to a lot singer songwriters (having already gone down the Blues rabbit hole years before). Who writes more songs of struggle and pain than singer/songwriter-types and Blues musicians? Every book, every verse, every lyric, every movie even – all were further evidence that to struggle, to mess up, to be lost, are all part of the human condition. And yet, still, I remained blind, and thought it was only me – that I was the only one without the secret manual.

    I’m not sure what eventually opened my eyes, but they did open and I began to share some of my doubts and struggles with others and I got back not just sympathy and empathy, but an understanding of others’ life struggles as well. We began to talk about what we never talk about and I became more open to the idea that maybe it wasn’t just me. Maybe it’s all of us. I now see this in every book I read, movie I watch, song I hear. This message is everywhere, yet, apparently, it’s also surprisingly easy to ignore.

    I now wonder if this isn’t the primary purpose of literature, stories, movies, poetry, music, theatre (has to be spelled in the British style in this context): to talk about what we don’t talk about to help people realize we are not alone, we all struggle, and no one has all the answers. It was there in front of me, in front of all of us, all this time. We just have to see it and we have to be willing to talk about it and share our doubts and struggles with each other. It is through this work that we will overcome our obstacles and connect with humanity around us in ways impossible in curated social media.

    The secret manual? I’m beginning to think this is it. We all struggle. We are all impostors. There is no secret manual. This is the secret manual. It’s not a secret. Talk about it. Share it with someone. That’s how we get through this. Together.



    1 The fundamental attribution error – our tendency to apply malice or ill intent to other people’s behaviors and environmental circumstances and good intentions to our own. The person that cuts us off on the road is a jerk and a lousy driver; when we cut someone off it’s because we were distracted and inadvertently made a mistake. It’s interesting that I’ve never thought before about how the impostor syndrome actually reverses this logic. Either way, though, the assumption generally remains an error.

  • Learning from an amygdala hijack

    Last week I was hijacked.

    By my amygdala.

    I should have known better. I do know better. But last week, I didn’t prevent it when I could have and boom – I was hijacked by my amygdala.  An amygdala hijack (google the web for lots more on the subject) basically occurs when your adrenaline increases and you find yourself reacting in a far more emotional way than the situation warrants.  It is usually a sign of feeling threatened resulting in your amygdala kicking in to help you protect yourself. The result, at least in our modern world where we are more often confronted by an aggressive colleague rather than a saber-tooth tiger, is often an overreaction that can  cause more trouble and more long-lasting damage than the initial situation itself.

    The key to avoiding the amygdala hijack is to see it coming and stop it before it stops you. Listen to your feelings and ask yourself why you are feeling the way you are. In most cases, you can make yourself realize that you feel threatened in some way that probably wasn’t intended and you can work more calmly and more systematically to address the issue rather than jumping immediately and aggressively into fight or flight mode.  If you know what your hot buttons are, you can usually identify them as the cause for your high emotions and can then cancel the amygdala’s red alert and act more rationally.

    Image of a person probably rightfully under an amygdala hijack courtesy of http://fightorflightsurvival.blogspot.com/2012/11/mind-control.html.

    Alas, in one particular instance last week, I did none of this. I felt threatened and I attacked back.  Luckily, the “threat maker” stopped and took control of the situation, allowing me to see the hijacking that was going on and stop it.  In the end, I thanked my colleague for taking the time to do so, but I wished I had stopped it myself.  So, what happened?

    I had earlier received an email I did not like from this colleague.  I felt she (or maybe it was a he? 😉 ) was threatening my team and telling me what I was allowed to do with them.  That was not of course, what she meant, as it turns out, but this is one my hot buttons, and I got angry over the email and told myself that she was not going to get away with that. No one was going to limit the progress of my team.  Who does she think she is?  It was at this point that I should have caught myself. My reaction was over and above what was appropriate for the email. And it was an email after all; they are so easily misinterpreted that you should never get mad over an email. I knew that, but I did not stop myself. I allowed the hijacking to begin.  Seeing my hostile reaction, I should have stopped myself right there and asked myself what else my colleague could have meant in her email. If I were giving her the benefit of the doubt, what was she trying to tell me?  With this framework in mind, I should have talked to her at the next opportunity to see what she really meant. If necessary, I could calmly indentify my fears and help her understand the performance and independence of my team are important to me, but that probably would not have been necessary; she was not threatening me or my team at all, but I didn’t see that. I was being hijacked.

    So, the next day when our paths crossed in the hall, I was still annoyed at this email so when she asked me what I thought about it, I got aggressive.  It briefly escalated from there as I told her that she couldn’t tell me how to run my team, etc., until she took a breath and started a sentence with something like “Scot, I’m feeling a little bit … now” and started to tell me how she was feeling about our interaction.  The adrenaline was still pumping in me (I could feel my heart beating), so I wasted no time in telling her how I was feeling, as well.  It wasn’t nice, but acknowledging why I was feeling angry started my hijack recovery process. It was the step I should have taken when I got that earlier email.  (And in hindsight, my colleague’s “I feel” statement seems like a very good way to respond to an amygdala hijack in someone else.)  I started to calm down and realize what just happened.  I began to realize why I was upset and how that was not really a result of anything my colleague had actually said or done.  I was able to calm down and listen and talk to my colleague in the way I normally do to solve problems for mutual benefit. After a few more moments, we got to the core of the issue and reached a good agreement.  Where only a few moments ago, I was ready to go to battle with this person, I now felt we had formed a successful partnership in understanding and meeting our mutual needs.

    What a great outcome that I would have missed out on completely had my colleague not helped me tame my amygdala. I am grateful to her for doing so and I made a note to myself to pay more attention to these situations in the future. Watch my emotions, watch where they are coming from, and when I feel that rush of adrenaline when there isn’t a wild animal leaping towards me, take a step back and address the issue calmly.


    As an enneagram 3, being in touch with his emotions is not one of Scot’s natural strengths. Being so, however, has great benefits both personally and professionally, so it is an area he constantly works to improve, with some success and the occasional setback.

  • Healthy Conflcit

    I recently picked up a copy of A Grand and Bold Thing by Ann Finkbeiner. It’s a book about the original Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). I actually haven’t read it yet, so I’ll probably say more about the book later, but I have had some fun flipping through the pages and reading/re-living various random passages and episodes. One thing I noticed by this quick perusal is that Finkbeiner seems to have chosen to focus her book on Jim Gunn (of course) and the Princeton / FermiLab tension that defined the project for a large part of its life. Upon reflecting on this choice, I realized there was no shortage of conflict within the SDSS and not limited to these two powerhouses. Yet, when I remember the years I spent with the SDSS, conflict is not one of the first things I think about.

    No, instead I think about people’s drive and dedication to the project. I think about a group of people faced with a limited amount of time and money doing whatever it took to get their shared project done. I think about a talented group of people making each other better. And yes, I think of conflict, but a conflict born out of this shared mission, a drive to succeed, and ultimately, enough trust in each other that discordant views could be aired and the right answer would get chosen, regardless of its origin. I even remember instances where conflict was created as a mehanism to help spur progress.

    So yes, there was conflict, Plenty of it.  Did people get bent out of shape, angry, annoyed? Did some people cross the line and make personal attacks? Did things sometimes get out of hand? Yes, yes, yes. And certainly some of this conflict could have, should have even, been avoided, but my point here is that for this project, conflict worked very well. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey was (and still is) an unmitigated success.

    That conflict was so alive and flourishing I take as a sign of a healthy organization where trust and security were high enough to allow open conflict.

    I certainly don’t generally condone creating conflict to try and improve productivity (although it can have its instances). What I do condone, though, is creating an atmosphere where conflict can and does naturally arise. Only when people are being honest with each other, have passion about what they are doing, and are generally united with a common ultimate goal in mind, does healthy conflict arise. Before you try creating conflict, try creating an atmosphere of trust and security. Seek out and listen to dissenting views. Fix the system, not the person, when mistakes are made. Establish a culture of openness and trust. Help people feel secure enough in their positions to know that mistakes are not personal failings and that false harmony is not the key to a productive workforce.  These things will create an atmosphere where honest conflict can arise, pushing, pushing, pushing at the boundaries of your project to do things better, faster, cheaper.  If you don’t have open conflict, you probably don’t have a very high performing organization.

    Another thing I think about when I think about the SDSS is the difference between projects and institutions. Projects have a limited set or resources and time to complete a task. They therefore have to be focused and directed or else their project will fail. Institutions don’t have these same constraints.With a more or less guaranteed stream of funds, they merely have to do better this year than last year. Things can wait for an institution where they can’t in a project. What’s even more interesting here, though, is that there is nothing preventing institutions from acting like projects, despite their more steady funding. I think adopting many of a project’s methods and mentalities will help propel an institution to continued excellence and to not be content with simple steady improvement.


    Scot remembers one of his first days with the SDSS. Standing around the breakfast table, he commented how exciting it was to be involved in the project at the such an early stage (official survey operations having not yet started). A visiting, real longterm Sloanie simply laughed and said that this was actually closer to the end of the project than it was the beginning. A very valuable perspective was thus quickly gained.

  • Are we too generous in hiring and keeping employees?

    A recent article I read about how to hire the right people for the right jobs gives a statistic attributed to the US Department of Labor that 50% of all new employees are gone within the first six months of the job.  I’ve tried but failed to verify this number; I even get different answers when I try to find out what the overall average turnover rate is.  So, I take this statistic with a grain of salt (although it may be true, say in the fast food world, for example), but it did get me thinking.  I’ve seen a number of new hires who clearly demonstrated, within their first six months on the job, that they really weren’t going to work out, yet I’ve rarely (if ever) seen them leave, neither on their own accord or through dismissal.

    While I suspect this situation is true in the business world, too, I would bet it’s more prevalent in academia and less prevalent in the highest performing institutions in and out of the real world.    Correctly hiring and firing people is a difficult task.   I won’t discuss hiring here, other than to say sometimes you hire the right person, but put him in the wrong job, or give her the wrong supervisor. A person underperforming in a new job may simply be in the wrong seat on the bus, to use a Good to Great analogy.  I don’t have any magical means to determine if it’s the person or the position that’s wrong, so I just note it as another area where careful attention to the process and good management are again needed.

    Academia – and observatories are run more like academic than commercial institutions, for better or worse – has a specific mission to train and educate.  This educational mission, I believe, is one reason for the reluctance to let a new employee go who isn’t performing.  Perhaps they just need more training, or more time to learn the system, goes the logic.  Additionally, through the  fundamental trait of academic life called tenure, people have grown accustomed to having underperformers remain on staff with nothing that can be done to move them on.  This sort of tone, combined with a general desire to avoid confrontation and spend as little time as possible in managing, means poor hiring decisions are rarely actively corrected.

    While I’m all for giving the right person in the wrong position a chance, there are multiple reasons why we should be more responsive to removing  new employees that are simply that aren’t going to work out.   First of all, keeping these employees is bad for business (remember, astronomy is a business) as they obviously won’t be performing as well as your star employees.  Perhaps even more important, though, is that keeping these people on board is bad for morale and makes the rest of your staff work also less efficient – both through morale loss and having to cover for the poor job of the subpar employee.  When someone is hired who clearly isn’t right for an organization (or a position), most people can tell right away; it’s not a secret held only by a few manager or HR staff.  When employees see new hires with poor performance being kept on, they lose respect for managers (and HR) and lose motivation to perform at their best,seeing as how poor performance is apparently enough to stay on the job.  One bad hire can lower the performance of an entire group or division.  And finally, as both Jim Collins in Good to Great and Buckingham and Coffman in First, Break all the Rules say, you aren’t doing anyone – you, your organization, or the employee – any good by keeping on people who are simply not going to work out.  You lose performance and the employee loses a chance to actually find employment that is a better match to his skills.

    So, all this is really to say that the hiring process does not end when the new employee starts her first day on the job. Managers and HR personnel should be continually assessing employees’ performance and fit to their jobs, making corrections as necessary – and making it clear to the new hires that their evaluations don’t end when they get the job!

    [4Jun10: A reader pointed out I have oversimplified things here- see the comments below for what I really meant to say and please continue the discussion, if you like.]




    Like any other management decision, mistakes can be made in deciding whom to hire. The best leaders Scot has seen are those who can recognize their mistakes and correct them – whether they be in hiring or anything else. Luckily, Scot hasn’t (or so he hopes) yet been anyone’s hiring mistake.

  • Learn from your mistakes

    I was recently sitting in on an oversight meeting of Gemini management.  Most of the meeting was spent in executive (ie. private) sessions, but during one of the two public sessions, one main topic was to explore how and what we have learned from past mistakes.  This discussion made me realize that learning from mistakes is not an easy thing to do for many institutions. I’m not saying here that Gemini is doing all these things wrong, but I have seen all these issues first hand at various places, including Gemini. I’m sure that if asked, most people would say that they, personally, learn from their mistakes.  Yet, institutions and corporations often don’t.  Why not?

    For one, you first have to be willing to acknowledge the mistake. This step can be a key roadblock for some. If you don’t have an atmosphere where honest inward looking thought and speech is encouraged, mistakes get covered up, denied, assigned to something else, and not brought out as potential lessons and means for improvement.  If you believe in hiding bad news in an (ultimately futile) effort to look good, then you will never learn from mistakes.

    Second, you need an environment where the mistake is viewed in context of the system that allowed the mistake to happen and that allowed its effect to be as big as it was.   What you don’t need is an environment of blame – where mistakes are dealt with admonishments of “don’t do that again”. What you need is a faultless exploration of what in the system could be changed to prevent future similar mistakes.  Making and acknowledging mistakes is not about placing blame, but about fixing the system. People will always make mistakes, but you want the system in which they work to be as fault-tolerant, and fault-preventive (if I can coin a new compound word) as possible.

    Mistakes will be made as a natural part of the learning and improvement process. It’s what you do with them that is important. Are your mistakes opportunities for improvement, or shameful things you hide and ignore?

    Finally, you have to really broaden your horizons and fix the system, not the symptom.  To make up a hypothetical example, if an instrument is damaged because a heating circuit failed (OK, the event is not so hypothetical, but the implicit bad response outlined below is), you could simply decide to remove the heating circuit from the instrument when it’s repaired.  That fixes the symptom and you certainly must address the symptom, or you look really foolish if the same accident happens again, but you can’t stop there.  What allowed this single point of failure to exist in the first place?  What allowed the failure to occur unnoticed?  Was there real-time monitoring?  Was anyone overseeing the project? Was anyone contacted? Was there a timer on the heater?  Are other possible single-point failures being identified and backed up and/or isolated by a fail-safe or some other subsystem?  If you don’t start asking yourself these types of questions, there will be no learning from your mistakes.  On the other hand, if you  are not afraid  to take a rigorously honest look at what other similar vulnerabilities might exist, if you are willing to go beyond placing individual blame and look at how the process allowed both the single point failure to exist in the first place and for the eventual failure to go unnoticed and un-contained, then you are probably on a continual course of improvement and empowerment.  Isn’t that a better place to be than only a few instances of bad luck away from a repeat of a mistake you chose not to learn from?


    Scot remembers several bits of advice he received about mistakes. His water-skiing cousin told him if he wasn’t  falling, he wasn’t trying hard enough. His graduate advisor told him “wisdom is that sinking feeling that you’ve made this mistake before.” He learned from these people and others that making mistakes is part of life.  Making the same mistake twice, doesn’t have to be.

  • Flaunt your flaws: Don’t communicate the Toyota Way

    A while back, the Gemini Directorate tasked an internal team to develop suggestions and techniques for better communications and task management within Gemini.  We took our mission very seriously and researched what many successful and unsuccessful companies have done to address these issues themselves.  Sometimes we found support for our own biases and ways of doing things, while other times, we learned new ways that were an improvement on what we were doing and thinking ourselves.  A recurring theme of our report was the importance of developing more varied, and open communications.   As I discussed in my semi-review of The Five Dysfunctions of a Team , the basis of teamwork is trust.  I don’t think anyone will accuse me of going out on a limb when I say the basis of trust is good communication.  The key word here is good for  not just any communications will do the trick; there must be a history of full, honest, and open communications for trust to develop.  People often think they are communicating when they say anything, and  they are by one definition of the word, but they aren’t building trust and a sense of teamwork unless that communication is received and is both honest and open.

    I was reminded of this report of ours after reading an editorial on the current Toyota recall disaster. Toyota’s response to the problem is fairly typical and only served to exacerbate its predicament and cost them a valuable loss of community trust.  Bad news?  First ignore it, maybe it will go away. Still there?  Downplay it; things aren’t nearly as bad as they seem.  Still not enough? Say you’re looking into things. You’ll take care of it.  What? The people demand more?  You have to act?  OK, admit to maybe you may have done something less than ideal and you regret it if something bad might have happened for something you might have done or not.  What?  They mean it? You really have to do something? Well, maybe now you will have to really take action, but if you waited until this point to act, chances are your problem is a lot bigger than it was in the beginning and chances are that you won’t get the credit for having done the right thing once you finally appear forced into doing so.  In this instance, one thing is clear: do not emulate the Toyota way!

    The Toyota President: wondering why he didn't act sooner? Reuters

    So here, I want to take some thoughts from our working group report, expand upon them a bit, and start off by wondering why people often do not communicate openly, why they often hide the whole truth and paint a friendlier, but inaccurate picture of the situation.  Why aren’t full open disclosures at all times the norm?

    For one, people worry that someone will misinterpret something they say, causing great grief and frustration for all involved. Yes, this will happen, but the cause is often a lack of complete information. Complete information provides the context and the motivation behind an action or a situation.  The solution, then, is not to further hold back even more information, but rather to provide more information to remedy the confusion. Rumors, speculation, and misinterpretation all arise from incomplete communication. When people only get a small fragment of information through indirect means, they extrapolate and infer to fill in the gaps in their knowledge.  Once you start providing regular amounts of real information, people will understand the context and motivations better and will be less likely to get the wrong impression or jump to the wrong conclusion. Your audience will learn how to interpret your news. This broader understanding will end up returning to you in new ideas and solutions to problems from sources never tapped before.

    Second, people worry what effect negative information will have on their reputations. Many organizations, however (I cited Redfin and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey through specific examples in the full report and would be happy to talk more about their efforts here, if there’s interest), proved that communicating your problems as well as your successes actually helps your reputation. No organization is problem-free and those that report to be so are undoubtedly viewed with suspicion and distrust When you hide information, you implicitly are stating that you are doing things others will not like. This is not the image you usually want to project.

    Finally, some hoard information to seemingly protect their jobs. What these people do not realize is that everyone else is just as busy as they are and few of us have time to take over someone else’s job even if all the instructions on how to do so were readily available. In any growing, exploring, exciting organization (like Gemini), there are always important new projects people could be doing if only there were more time. If, by distributing your knowledge out to the community, you can offload some of your tasks, you can begin new tasks that would not get done otherwise. No one’s importance to a high-efficiency organization is determined solely by what information they know.

    Furthermore, information hoarding causes severe inefficiency in information transfer. Someone needing information cannot simply go to a reference source to find it, but must first find out (usually after several failed attempts) who the information custodian is, then try to extract the information. Instead of a quick web search or visit to a document library, many people become involved in the information quest and when the single source is ultimately discovered his/her reputation is not enhanced by the unique knowledge, but lessened by it being so difficult to find.

    So, returning to the issue of trust, I note an article from the July/August 2008 Harvard Business Review discussing the common traits of CEOs in a selection of companies that have transformed themselves into high efficiency organizations [the emphasis below is their’s]:

    The CEOs we studied [created a link between the people who do the work and the performance they must deliver] by combining four strategies. First, they earned the trust of their organizations through their openness to the unvarnished truth. Second, they were deeply engaged with their people, and their exchanges were direct and personal; employees in the companies we studied had a particularly close connection with the CEO and were seldom surprised to meet him or her. Third, having earned legitimacy and trust, these CEOs were able to mobilize their people around a focused agenda. Finally, while they were all strong individuals, these senior leaders realized that they could succeed only as part of a committed leadership team, and they devoted considerable efforts to building their firm’s collective leadership capabilities.

    The emphasis in this excerpt is about building trust within an organization, but the concepts apply equally well to building trust outside an organization as well.  By communicating openly with your public early, you provide transparency and engender trust.  You forestall the temptation to jump to conclusions and to assume the worst.  Your form a sense of team and you  implicitly bring in your community in helping to solve the problem, rather than leaving them to wonder why you aren’t doing enough already.  You turn your customer base into a community, wanting you, often working with you, to succeed.  In this information age, your customers will find out what you’re trying to hide sooner or later and you’ll be well ahead of the game if you are the one supplying that information and engaging your community in an appropriate solution from the start.


    Scot finds he has enough to do other than keeping track of and worse, remembering what information he told to whom, so approached the tenet of open and honest communications simply as an incredible boost to efficiency. The beneficial side-effects were a nice added bonus.