Territory vs. Hierarchy

/in , /by

In Steven Pressfield’s book, The War Of Art, he describes how, in the animal kingdom, individuals define themselves either by their rank within a hierarchy (a hen in a pecking order, a wolf in a pack) or by their connection to a territory (a home base, a hunting ground, a turf).

It’s also how humans define their place in the world and find security.

Of the two orientations, hierarchical is the default setting. We naturally run in packs and cliques, we know who the top dog and underdog are. We define ourselves by the position within the schoolyard, the gang, the club. An individual who defines themselves by their place in the pecking order will compete and compare themselves to others based on popularity and rankings. School, advertising, the entire materialist culture hammers home to us from birth to define ourselves by others’ opinions. Drink this beer. Buy these clothes. Get this job. Live in this house, and everyone will love you.

In the animal world there is also a territorial orientation. Every fall, a bear would pass through our former neighborhood on his way to find a place to hibernate. All the bird feeders and berry branches and garbage cans in the area were his. While he was around, no animal dared try to intrude on his territory.
Humans have territories, too. Taylor Swift’s territory is the stage. Connor McDavid’s territory is the rink. When Bill Gates pulls into the parking lot at Microsoft, he’s in his territory. When I’m in front of an audience of difference makers I’m in mine.

According to Pressfield, a territory provides sustenance. Runners and rock climbers and kayakers and yogis and painters and ranchers and entrepreneurs feel a helluva lot better after they’ve spent time in their territory. A territory sustains us without external input. A territory can only be claimed alone. A territory can only be claimed by work. And a territory returns exactly what you put in.

What’s your territory?

Redefining Empathy and Resilience in the Workplace.

/in , /by

Some perspectives for leaders to consider:

  1. Taking care of yourself. This has nothing to do with self-centeredness. It has to do with ensuring that your leadership comes from overflow not from emptiness. You can’t give what you don’t have. To inspire others, you must be inspired.
  2. Redefining empathy. Empathy has emerged as a critical component of effective leadership, reshaping how organizations approach workplace dynamics and employee well-being. But empathy isn’t about coddling people, making it easy, rescuing people from their unhappiness, or lowering your standards and expectations. Empathy fatigue often comes from working harder than the person we have empathy for. In the recovery and addictions field this is called enabling. Empathy, instead, is about supporting people, feeling with them, helping them find and develop the resources they require to do their job, and then being in their corner through the tough challenges that come with that responsibility. If empathy isn’t empowering people, it’s not empathy.
  3. Hiring strong people. Work is hard. That’s why we call it work. Don’t use psychological safety as a weapon to hobble your manager. Managers have an accountability to hold themselves and their team to high standards that will require strength. Nobody takes pride in doing things that are easy. Let people know what is expected of them before you hire them and when they come on board. And make sure they’re up to the challenge. Hire people who are strong givers and are willing to do their part to co-create an inspiring, caring culture that will produce the right results.
  4. Making results your highest priority. Organizations are not in the business of taking care of people. Organizations are in the business of getting results. Of course, you won’t get results – and certainly not long term – if you don’t take care of people. We also won’t get the needed results if we burn our leaders out. Making results matter isn’t just good for organizations. It’s good for the mental health of the people who work in those organizations. It’s good for us all to be contributing to the world by producing meaningful results. It’s good for human beings to set our “problems” aside, lean into the grind, and push through to the other side. Getting stronger is what builds resiliency, not getting let off the hook. Just be sure that the results you are working on together are both challenging and meaningful and remember the purpose of business: it’s a tool to create what matters in life.

If you are interested in diving more deeply into the topic of redefining empathy and resilience, join me tomorrow – February 21st – for our complimentary webinar.

How to recognize when your team is out of sync – and how to get back on track.

/in , , , /by

Addressing the issue promptly is a crucial leadership skill.

Key indicators that your team may be out of sync:

  1. Disengagement: People coming late to meetings, reduced accountability, uneven distribution of work.
  2. Lack of Trust: People not opening up, shutting down, unacknowledged tension.
  3. Ineffective Leadership: Poor delegation, unclear direction, purpose, and expectations, decreased standards, a lack of accountability.

Strategies To Get Back On Track:

  1. Meet with each team member to identify root causes. Be open about your concerns. Find out why people are disengaged or lack trust, and get feedback on your leadership. Create a safe space for team members to share concerns and feedback.
  2. Assess whether the root causes stem from team dynamics, unresolved conflict, poor leadership, or individual hornets killing the bees.
  3. Address concerns directly. Acknowledge publicly that the team is out of sync and you are committed to solve the problem. Be open with your team about your intentions, your agreements, and your support requirements.

hashtag#leadership hashtag#team hashtag#alignment

Two Kinds of AI: Artificial Intelligence vs. Authentic Interaction

/in , , , , , /by

When I asked AI the difference between artificial intelligence (AI) and authentic interaction (AI), here’s what I got: “artificial intelligence (AI) and authentic interaction (AI) represent fundamentally different approaches to human connection and problem-solving. While artificial intelligence relies on algorithms and data analysis to simulate human-like responses, authentic interaction involves genuine human engagement, emotional understanding, and nuanced communication.”

However, only a human being can experience the difference between the two – to fully know the difference.

Artificial Intelligence is a great tool but there are severe limitations when it comes to human contact and connection. We can get so lost in the world of artificial intelligence that we don’t even know we are lost. As I say to my university students, “AI will help you write a better paper, but AI won’t help you be a better counsellor. For that, the art of authentic interaction must be mastered.”

I would love to hear your thoughts on the difference between the two AIs – Artificial Intelligence and Authentic Interaction.

Nothing in life is permanent – is this inspiring or terrifying?

/in , , , /by

Knowing everything can change in an instant can be good or bad, depending on your state of mind.

Helen Keller was an American author, political activist, lecturer, and advocate for disability rights who lost her sight and hearing at 19 months old due to illness. She became the first deafblind person in the United States to earn a university degree, and wrote fourteen books and hundreds of speeches and essays. She said, “Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.”

Uncertainty is part of life. Accepting uncertainty opens a field of possibilities and solutions that spontaneously emerge out of the chaos. Within this field of impermanence lies the fun, adventure, magic, and mystery of life.

We all have bad days – even weeks. How do you know when it’s a you vs. them problem?

/in , , , , , /by

It’s never a you vs. them problem. It’s always a you and them problem. In every relationship challenge there are always two sides. When facing a relationship problem, the accountability approach asks: “How am I contributing to the problem I am complaining about?” This question implies a commitment to look at your side of the issue.

While the other person is also contributing to the problem, all you can control is your side of the street. It’s not necessarily 50/50, but there is always something you can learn and do differently. This replaces blame with personal responsibility and understanding.