The Idea: Getting curious about three or four things during the next handful of months will lead you to your next purpose project or even help you re-frame and re-energize your current purpose project.
Why This Matters: I propose two things: 1)we find purpose in the place where our love overlaps with the needs of this world; and, 2) that it is impossible to really love something unless you are deeply and endlessly curious about it.
Since curiosity is a vital ingredient to love, it is important that you practice curiosity - unless you're OK with losing love in your life.
The Idea in Action: Below I share the "results" of my recent dive into getting curious. The first curiosity showed me how to be healthier and more effective in life. The second helped me understand my heart a little better. The third has helped me better understand you, especially those of you who serve a charitable non-profit.
Why This Matters: I propose two things: 1)we find purpose in the place where our love overlaps with the needs of this world; and, 2) that it is impossible to really love something unless you are deeply and endlessly curious about it.
Since curiosity is a vital ingredient to love, it is important that you practice curiosity - unless you're OK with losing love in your life.
The Idea in Action: Below I share the "results" of my recent dive into getting curious. The first curiosity showed me how to be healthier and more effective in life. The second helped me understand my heart a little better. The third has helped me better understand you, especially those of you who serve a charitable non-profit.
Curiosity 1: Athlete
I got curious about athletes last November when I woke up one morning and disliked what I saw in the mirror. After I jumped on the scale (216 pounds!) I decided to do something about it. Here are a couple photos of me half-naked and accountable - this one is me in April of this year (5 months after the shock) at about 206 pounds and this one is me earlier this month at 170 pounds. I got curious and I lost 46 pounds.
First, I had to be clear with myself what question I was curious about. It turns out that losing weight wasn't that interesting to me (it's generally there are simple solutions that's hard to implement). I figured out what I really wanted was health and weight was just a measure of progress (though things like body fat percentage, blood tests and athletic ability are better measures). So my real question became "How can I feel stronger, have more energy and simply be healthy?"
I went looking for answers and testing those answers in the real world. When I learned something about nutrition I would act and observe what happened. When I learned something about exercise or body hacks I would pick the most promising ideas and see what happened. I was getting somewhere...slowly...losing 10 pounds in five months but still not feeling that great.
Then I got lucky and stumbled onto the website of a personal trainer named Shin Ohtake. He begins the introduction to his MAXWorkouts ebook by saying:
I got curious about athletes last November when I woke up one morning and disliked what I saw in the mirror. After I jumped on the scale (216 pounds!) I decided to do something about it. Here are a couple photos of me half-naked and accountable - this one is me in April of this year (5 months after the shock) at about 206 pounds and this one is me earlier this month at 170 pounds. I got curious and I lost 46 pounds.
First, I had to be clear with myself what question I was curious about. It turns out that losing weight wasn't that interesting to me (it's generally there are simple solutions that's hard to implement). I figured out what I really wanted was health and weight was just a measure of progress (though things like body fat percentage, blood tests and athletic ability are better measures). So my real question became "How can I feel stronger, have more energy and simply be healthy?"
I went looking for answers and testing those answers in the real world. When I learned something about nutrition I would act and observe what happened. When I learned something about exercise or body hacks I would pick the most promising ideas and see what happened. I was getting somewhere...slowly...losing 10 pounds in five months but still not feeling that great.
Then I got lucky and stumbled onto the website of a personal trainer named Shin Ohtake. He begins the introduction to his MAXWorkouts ebook by saying:
It’s all about achieving your goals when it comes to fitness. Whether you're trying to lose that last bit of stubborn fat, build lean muscle, or just break through that fitness plateau you’ve been stuck on for the last 6 months, each goal is very different but equally important. In order to help my clients achieve their goal, I’ve found that implementing measurable standards is incredibly helpful because it holds us both accountable.
How many times can you lift a certain weight? How long can you sustain a certain speed for a given exercise? How many times are you able to do a round of exercises in a given time period? How much weight can you lift? These are just some of the ways you can measure and view your progression.
For some, this may seem foreign and too athletically inclined. My response to that has always been the same. I look at all my clients as athletes and I encourage them to see themselves as athletes as well. Athletes are judged only on results and they’ll put in as much work as needed to attain their performance goals. And it’s really no different from anyone else pursuing their own goals whether it’s based on performance or physical appearance.
I am an athlete and so are you. Neat!
Of course world class and professional athletes, and even those amateur but totally committed triathletes and ultra-runners, eat differently, work differently, plan differently and measure themselves differently than the rest of us. So my new question became "What makes athletes so different?"
I found the most useful answer to this question in the "Champions" episode of the TED Radio Hour (you can download and listen to the episode here). I will summarize the takeaways below. But, please note how "doing things differently" is not just powerful for sports or athletics but is also exceptionally useful in the work we do.
I'm not sure there is anything to stop you and me from keeping our own mighty purposes front of mind, focusing on executing specific short-term goals that keep us moving forward, creatively dancing around or leaping over obstacles, and pursuing mastery in our work - except that its hard work being an athlete.
Of course world class and professional athletes, and even those amateur but totally committed triathletes and ultra-runners, eat differently, work differently, plan differently and measure themselves differently than the rest of us. So my new question became "What makes athletes so different?"
I found the most useful answer to this question in the "Champions" episode of the TED Radio Hour (you can download and listen to the episode here). I will summarize the takeaways below. But, please note how "doing things differently" is not just powerful for sports or athletics but is also exceptionally useful in the work we do.
- Athletes are better at picking an ultimate aim (or purpose or goal) and keeping that at top of mind. [Champion distance swimmer Diana Nyad's story right at the beginning of the episode.]
- Athletes are better at setting short-term goals that are proximate, measurable and actionable. We saw this in the excerpt from Shin Ohtake's book (i.e. how many of x can you do?). Also, the best athletes are skilled at overriding the artificial limits the brain puts on the body - they are better at convincing their minds how important it is to power through artificial constraints. Finally athletes are addicted to improvement, not winning - pushing for daily progress. [Sports Journalist David Epstein and legendary ultra-runner Pam Reed at 12:30 in the episode.]
- Obstacles can only do two things - stop you in your tracks or force you to get creative. You choose. People generally quit on a goal when they stop perceiving progress. The best athletes are different - they get creative and find a different way. [Champion snowboarder and double leg amputee Amy Purdy at 34:10 in the episode.]
- Athletes are better at going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm - the more painful the failure, the bigger the motivator. The best athletes seek mastery - loving the process and knowing that winning today is meaningless unless you can do it again tomorrow. [Yale University School of Art Professor Sara Lewis at 42:45 in the episode.]
I'm not sure there is anything to stop you and me from keeping our own mighty purposes front of mind, focusing on executing specific short-term goals that keep us moving forward, creatively dancing around or leaping over obstacles, and pursuing mastery in our work - except that its hard work being an athlete.
Curiosity 2: Being "Complete" Through "Having" Another Person
While I think everything I write is personal, I do my best to not share what is private because...well...it's private. But this curiosity may be more private than personal.
A couple years ago I shared the two secret creativity (and purpose) techniques of the author Honore de Balzac from the book Write Like the Masters. Recently I got curious about another idea from that book: Ian Fleming's use of four primary archetypes to structure his [James] Bond novels - the Superhero, the Monster, the Sage, and especially the Anima.
What is the Anima? This from the book:
While I think everything I write is personal, I do my best to not share what is private because...well...it's private. But this curiosity may be more private than personal.
A couple years ago I shared the two secret creativity (and purpose) techniques of the author Honore de Balzac from the book Write Like the Masters. Recently I got curious about another idea from that book: Ian Fleming's use of four primary archetypes to structure his [James] Bond novels - the Superhero, the Monster, the Sage, and especially the Anima.
What is the Anima? This from the book:
The Anima figure...is represented by the good female characters...which today are called Bond girls. Collectively they personify the feminine elements of the personality, the subtle considerateness that is largely absent from Bond's male-dominated character. The Anima characters are attractive not only in the physical sense but also because they represent this other side of the personality which the hero put himself in alignment with in order to reach true maturity.
To put this another way - in a primordial and fundamental way the male Superhero needs a female Anima to be complete .
This is not that new of an idea. According to the philosopher Plato (427 BCE - 347 BCE) a playwright he knew told a story where humans were originally created with four arms, four legs and two faces. Some people had a male face and a female face, some had two male faces and some had two female faces. Eventually Zeus got grumpy and split all the humans in half, cursing humans from then on to continually search for their other half. People who find their other half and "join" with it are complete and the rest of us aren't.
This idea dominates our culture. The message is clear to people of all genders: you are not a complete person unless you find and possess your other half.
Recently I was sharing this idea with a mentor and I took a few moments to find a handful of pop-culture examples.
This is not that new of an idea. According to the philosopher Plato (427 BCE - 347 BCE) a playwright he knew told a story where humans were originally created with four arms, four legs and two faces. Some people had a male face and a female face, some had two male faces and some had two female faces. Eventually Zeus got grumpy and split all the humans in half, cursing humans from then on to continually search for their other half. People who find their other half and "join" with it are complete and the rest of us aren't.
This idea dominates our culture. The message is clear to people of all genders: you are not a complete person unless you find and possess your other half.
Recently I was sharing this idea with a mentor and I took a few moments to find a handful of pop-culture examples.
| To the right is an example of what happens when a man's Anima is taken from him. This is from the excellent movie John Wick. In case the audience misses the point about the hero's post-Anima incompleteness, the song being played in the background during the first couple of minutes is "Think" by the female duo Kaleida. The refrain goes "I am your light, your light, your light, think of me because you're always in the dark." | |
| | It seems like the heart of music is about a person's search for "the one" or "love" and how everything will go happily-ever-after once one finds it. But I picked the chart topping song to the left because of how obviously the guy only gets his super powers of coolness along with his whole future because the woman (the Anima) picked him. If you want a good laugh jump to 2:40 and watch for about 40 seconds. |
There are likely millions of examples but I'll share just a few more:
The funny thing for me is that I am sympathetic to this "you need someone else to be complete" view of life. I can relate because I think I had an Anima of my own.
A number of years ago I ran for State Assembly. I only had one formal fundraiser which meant that I only needed to give one formal fundraising speech. I know I spoke about the need to return "leadership with integrity to the 98th district" and something about removing the corrupting forces of special interest dollars from politics. But, the real message was "Right there is my wife Susan. Anything of worth I have done during my life and any good I have done with my life is because of her. Thank you Susan!". I am pretty sure I spoke those exact words and a few variants throughout my speech. I was absolutely sure it was true.
And, this is where this curiosity gets personal. Susan, my everything and missing piece of me, isn't my wife anymore. So the real the question for me for over the past year now hasn't been "What's this Anima thing?" because I knew that.
At first the question was "How can I live with this obvious, large, bleeding and screaming hole in my soul?" - maybe get up and do something worthwhile.
Then it became "Does it make any sense for another person to 'complete me'?" - probably not.
Now the question is "How can I love myself enough to know I am complete all by myself?"
I'm not sure I have a good answer to that final question. I'm not even sure I'm asking the right question yet. But I am pretty sure I won't find the answer in the movie theater, on the radio or in another person.
- This movie is about a brilliant young woman who has to decide whether to live or die based somewhat on how much her loving family needs her but really on how things are with her boyfriend.
- In his book Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul John Eldredge argues that a man must have "a beauty to fight for".
- In this quality song by pop-folk singer Mason Jennings two people reject all possibilities for meaning in their lives and are only satisfied when each decide that life's purposes is one another.
The funny thing for me is that I am sympathetic to this "you need someone else to be complete" view of life. I can relate because I think I had an Anima of my own.
A number of years ago I ran for State Assembly. I only had one formal fundraiser which meant that I only needed to give one formal fundraising speech. I know I spoke about the need to return "leadership with integrity to the 98th district" and something about removing the corrupting forces of special interest dollars from politics. But, the real message was "Right there is my wife Susan. Anything of worth I have done during my life and any good I have done with my life is because of her. Thank you Susan!". I am pretty sure I spoke those exact words and a few variants throughout my speech. I was absolutely sure it was true.
And, this is where this curiosity gets personal. Susan, my everything and missing piece of me, isn't my wife anymore. So the real the question for me for over the past year now hasn't been "What's this Anima thing?" because I knew that.
At first the question was "How can I live with this obvious, large, bleeding and screaming hole in my soul?" - maybe get up and do something worthwhile.
Then it became "Does it make any sense for another person to 'complete me'?" - probably not.
Now the question is "How can I love myself enough to know I am complete all by myself?"
I'm not sure I have a good answer to that final question. I'm not even sure I'm asking the right question yet. But I am pretty sure I won't find the answer in the movie theater, on the radio or in another person.
Curiosity 3: You at War
I'd like you to start by watching these two clips. The first is from the 1981 movie Gandhi. The second is some footage from Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama in 1965 (the clip I'd like you to see goes from 2:24 to 3:53).
I'd like you to start by watching these two clips. The first is from the 1981 movie Gandhi. The second is some footage from Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama in 1965 (the clip I'd like you to see goes from 2:24 to 3:53).
| | |
When I saw the recreation of Bloody Sunday in the 2014 film Selma I was moved and internally "paused" by a question - "What do I care about and believe in enough that I would knowingly walk into harm or even death, and not fight back?"
After looking at the video clips above, what do you believe in enough to do the same?
It may be uncomfortable and challenging to confront this question about ourselves. Let's extend that discomfort and consider the non-profits, companies and institutions we serve. How many of us, and how many of our board members and colleagues, would do the same for the missions behind our organizations? How far would you and the people you serve with go to advance, or even complete, your mission?
I have begun thinking about and working with a handful of related hypotheses about non-profits. Here they are in no particular order:
If these hypotheses are right, or at least functionally useful, then that means a lot of what counts as "best practice" in the social sector is only good enough to help organizations survive a long time (less valuable) and not enough to actually create real change (much more valuable).
For years in my coaching, strategy and leadership work I have been a relentless pusher of professionalism, business-like behavior and best practices in service of a cause. I know the power and value of best practice, but it is simply not good enough.
To make clear why best practice is not good enough let's consider what John Carver, a great thought leader around the practices of non-profit governance and leadership, says the primary duty of a non-profit executive is. He says, and I agree, that the CEO of a non-profit must make decisions and take actions to fulfill the mission and serve the moral ownership of the organization as long as those decisions and actions are ethical, legal and prudent.
Compare Mr. Carver's ethical, legal and prudent standard to the actions of the people in the two clips above. Note that, while the demonstrators were operating ethically, there was nothing legal or prudent about their actions. By definition exposing yourself to death-line-risk is imprudent! Best practices were not going to get them justice.
I think I will have more to say about organizations at war in the future but I'd like to talk now about a growing worry I have.
Through my coaching and other engagements I get to work with non-profit leaders from around the country every day. I am really interested in, curious about and care for these smart, spiritual and accomplished servant leaders. I even used to be one of them. Yes I see what makes them great but I also see the loneliness, struggle and conflict each of them face.
The best of these folks never took the job out of a prudent sense of career advancement, and they certainly didn't do it to get rich. There is often an assumption that when you step up to serve the world will see that and respond by being gentle and helpful, and that the people you will be working with and for will honor you and love you and be there to lend a hand in any useful way. That doesn't often happen - it seems more often than not that these leaders are at war the moment they step into their role and it's no fun fighting for survival.
There is usually a moment early on in the coaching engagement where a leader admits, with some shame in their voice, that they are struggling and feeling lost. Their assumption is that no one else worthwhile is having a hard time, because the world says it rains blessings upon the servant leader. The funny thing is, the thing they can't see, is that everyone like them is having a hard time because the world says one thing and does something else. When my son was born I whispered to him over and over that the world is good, but the truth is that it is also really bad.
A brave handful of the servant leaders I work with have agreed to help me with my new purpose project. They have agreed to let me record some of our coaching sessions and share these conversations with you and this community. They are doing this because they want you to know that you are not alone in the painful and emotional struggle of leadership.
What will these conversations be like? I'm not sure; they won't be scripted and I won't be searching for angst. I do know that they will be honest, vulnerable and, I believe, helpful. We'll start with a short series of conversations, and if you find them powerful and useful we'll keep going. Expect to see the first conversation here in a few weeks.
After looking at the video clips above, what do you believe in enough to do the same?
It may be uncomfortable and challenging to confront this question about ourselves. Let's extend that discomfort and consider the non-profits, companies and institutions we serve. How many of us, and how many of our board members and colleagues, would do the same for the missions behind our organizations? How far would you and the people you serve with go to advance, or even complete, your mission?
I have begun thinking about and working with a handful of related hypotheses about non-profits. Here they are in no particular order:
- The analogy of non-profit as a business (or even a social enterprise) is flawed. A better analogy is between non-profit and a nation - especially if that non-profit serves a cause, or seeks right wrongs, battle injustice and evil, or guard against violations of fundamental human dignity .
- Nations only have two states of being - at peace and at war.
- Whenever individuals, groups or organizations expose themselves to death-line-risk they are at war, whether they know it or not. Death-line-risk is described well in Jim Collins' and Morten Hansen's book Great By Choice, and is basically anything that can kill or severely damage you, whether physical, emotional, spiritual or material.
- It is only worth exposing yourself to death-line-risk in service to a cause you truly believe in, love and care about.
- Just like the duty of a nation's army at peace is to prepare for war, it is the duty of the non-profit at peace to prepare for war, and to go to war when programs, services and civil discourse is not enough to create the changes the cause it serves demands.
If these hypotheses are right, or at least functionally useful, then that means a lot of what counts as "best practice" in the social sector is only good enough to help organizations survive a long time (less valuable) and not enough to actually create real change (much more valuable).
For years in my coaching, strategy and leadership work I have been a relentless pusher of professionalism, business-like behavior and best practices in service of a cause. I know the power and value of best practice, but it is simply not good enough.
To make clear why best practice is not good enough let's consider what John Carver, a great thought leader around the practices of non-profit governance and leadership, says the primary duty of a non-profit executive is. He says, and I agree, that the CEO of a non-profit must make decisions and take actions to fulfill the mission and serve the moral ownership of the organization as long as those decisions and actions are ethical, legal and prudent.
Compare Mr. Carver's ethical, legal and prudent standard to the actions of the people in the two clips above. Note that, while the demonstrators were operating ethically, there was nothing legal or prudent about their actions. By definition exposing yourself to death-line-risk is imprudent! Best practices were not going to get them justice.
I think I will have more to say about organizations at war in the future but I'd like to talk now about a growing worry I have.
Through my coaching and other engagements I get to work with non-profit leaders from around the country every day. I am really interested in, curious about and care for these smart, spiritual and accomplished servant leaders. I even used to be one of them. Yes I see what makes them great but I also see the loneliness, struggle and conflict each of them face.
The best of these folks never took the job out of a prudent sense of career advancement, and they certainly didn't do it to get rich. There is often an assumption that when you step up to serve the world will see that and respond by being gentle and helpful, and that the people you will be working with and for will honor you and love you and be there to lend a hand in any useful way. That doesn't often happen - it seems more often than not that these leaders are at war the moment they step into their role and it's no fun fighting for survival.
There is usually a moment early on in the coaching engagement where a leader admits, with some shame in their voice, that they are struggling and feeling lost. Their assumption is that no one else worthwhile is having a hard time, because the world says it rains blessings upon the servant leader. The funny thing is, the thing they can't see, is that everyone like them is having a hard time because the world says one thing and does something else. When my son was born I whispered to him over and over that the world is good, but the truth is that it is also really bad.
A brave handful of the servant leaders I work with have agreed to help me with my new purpose project. They have agreed to let me record some of our coaching sessions and share these conversations with you and this community. They are doing this because they want you to know that you are not alone in the painful and emotional struggle of leadership.
What will these conversations be like? I'm not sure; they won't be scripted and I won't be searching for angst. I do know that they will be honest, vulnerable and, I believe, helpful. We'll start with a short series of conversations, and if you find them powerful and useful we'll keep going. Expect to see the first conversation here in a few weeks.
Conversation is Better
This post would be worlds better if it were part of a conversation with you than just the entirety of a lecture at you. So here's the ask; can you use the comments area below to share the things you're curious or even worried about these days? What are you hoping to hear in the recorded conversations with leaders? Are you struggling and willing to share your story with this community? What are your suggestions, criticisms and thoughts about the three things I've been working on?
Thank you,
Sterling Lynk
P.S. - I am indebted to a highly talented client of mine named Lauren Andraski. She volunteered to do the laborious work of editing this letter. Thank you Lauren!
One thing she observed is that curiosity is really a verb (an action) and not a noun (a thing). She's right. Being curious means taking action, digging in and trying stuff - just like I did with the three curiosities I shared with you.
P.P.S. - In their book Think Like a Freak (here's a nice review on Forbes.com) economist Steven Levitt and journalist Stephen Dubner encourage us to approach life like a child does. Children are curious and they are less afraid to ask the basic questions and admit they don't know something. Kids also are a whole lot better at having fun, thinking small (versus getting lost thinking big), being unafraid of pointing out of the obvious and asking questions they care about, all while lacking any pretense.
Zen Buddhism has a concept called beginner's mind and refers to having an attitude of openness, eagerness and lacking/ignoring preconceptions and assumptions when observing yourself and the world. Beginner's mind is part of living well.
The journalists, economists and Buddhists are right - don't just get curious now but stay that way until you die.
This post would be worlds better if it were part of a conversation with you than just the entirety of a lecture at you. So here's the ask; can you use the comments area below to share the things you're curious or even worried about these days? What are you hoping to hear in the recorded conversations with leaders? Are you struggling and willing to share your story with this community? What are your suggestions, criticisms and thoughts about the three things I've been working on?
Thank you,
Sterling Lynk
P.S. - I am indebted to a highly talented client of mine named Lauren Andraski. She volunteered to do the laborious work of editing this letter. Thank you Lauren!
One thing she observed is that curiosity is really a verb (an action) and not a noun (a thing). She's right. Being curious means taking action, digging in and trying stuff - just like I did with the three curiosities I shared with you.
P.P.S. - In their book Think Like a Freak (here's a nice review on Forbes.com) economist Steven Levitt and journalist Stephen Dubner encourage us to approach life like a child does. Children are curious and they are less afraid to ask the basic questions and admit they don't know something. Kids also are a whole lot better at having fun, thinking small (versus getting lost thinking big), being unafraid of pointing out of the obvious and asking questions they care about, all while lacking any pretense.
Zen Buddhism has a concept called beginner's mind and refers to having an attitude of openness, eagerness and lacking/ignoring preconceptions and assumptions when observing yourself and the world. Beginner's mind is part of living well.
The journalists, economists and Buddhists are right - don't just get curious now but stay that way until you die.