If You Love a Concept, Let It Go: Scaling Impact through Partnership

Posted on by Jacen Greene

“Possess something to make it profit you; take it as nothing to make it useful for you.” Laozi, Daodejing, Ryden translation. In his recent Stanford Social Innovation Review article “Scale = Partnership,” Roshan Paul argues that “the same market mechanism and economies of scale that enable a corporation to scale in the private sector don’t work as efficiently in the social sector.”

His analysis of an Ashoka Globalizer Program study show that the complexity of engaging new populations and the need for additional funding often scale faster than impact. True partnership – sharing your most important ideas and models – then becomes essential to successfully and rapidly scaling the impact of a beneficial innovation. What Roshan Paul fails to mention in his otherwise excellent article is that, put frankly, partnering sucks.

It’s hard, you no longer have full control over your own idea, and you don’t get all the credit for success. In a culture obsessed with the myth of the individual entrepreneur, there is very little incentive to share an innovative concept with outside partners. To create the greatest impact – ostensibly the primary goal of any true entrepreneur – therefore requires one of the most challenging tasks for any leader: giving up power and ignoring the demands of ego.

I’ve seen this become a stumbling block from some of the most promising social entrepreneurs I’ve worked with, but I’ve also seen it overcome with a surprising grace (although not necessarily with ease). One outstanding example is the development and launch of Central City Coffee, a gourmet coffee brand in Portland, Oregon that provides job training and employment to the formerly homeless and those in recovery. This social enterprise was developed in close partnership with a range of individuals and organizations, in a manner that could never have occurred with a singular owner.

Central City Coffee is a business program of Central City Concern (CCC), a nonprofit working to address homelessness and addiction in Portland, Oregon through a continuum of services including affordable housing, healthcare and recovery, job training and employment. Their major innovation, and success, lies in vertically integrating the essential services needed for someone to return to full self-sufficiency.

Despite this integration, partnerships remain an essential part of their model at all elves, from a manufacturer building bedbug-resistant bedframes developed by CCC staff to an employment program cleaning streets with the support of a local business alliance. Central City Coffee is a perfect example of this partnering model. Adrienne Karecki, then director of CCC’s business enterprises division, and David Griswold, founder of Sustainable Harvest, a social enterprise coffee importer, developed the original concept.

Both organizations were part of Portland State University’s (PSU) Social Innovation Incubator. As an employee of Sustainable Harvest at the time, I was tasked with moving the concept forward, but it quickly became clear that the company could not provide the type of support that CCC needed.

However, PSU MBA students working with the Incubator’s director, Cindy Cooper, had developed a feasibility study that showed the concept was viable – with a different approach. When I left Sustainable Harvest to become a freelance consultant, CCC hired me to refine the concept with extensive pro bono support form local coffee industry expert, Marcus Young.

We developed a partnership with Portland Roasting to handle the capital-intensive sourcing and roasting operations, while CCC would focus on the product development, marketing and sales of the new brand. Shortly before Adrienne left CCC, Marcus was hired to launch Central City Coffee. Their products are now available on store shelves. Central City Coffee was an example of leaders with a great idea sharing, supporting, and stepping away from it when needed – not based on their own interests, but with an understanding of what was necessary to make the venture successful.

The business was developed through extensive, evolving partnerships with individuals, businesses and universities. Each step of the way, Adrienne Karecki guided the process without ever compromising its ability to grow and scale. You won’t find her, or many of the other contributors, on the brand’s website – not because they’ve been left out, but because they don’t need to be listed. The company’s impact speaks for itself, and not to their egos.

As more businesses pursue collaboration in pursuit of greater impact, I hope they keep in mind Adrienne’s example: “The Sage acts but requires no thanks, accomplishes [her] tasks but does not abide in them” (Daodejing). Therein lies one of the most important approaches to authentic partnerships and real leadership.

Photo credit: Central Coffee Concern

 

The Future is yours – Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever

Posted on by Real Leaders

Every day, when watching the news, we see pictures of famine and floods, droughts and demonstrations, confronting us with the effects of increasing resource scarcity, climate change, food security, civil unrest and poverty. We see the increasing numbers of people left behind. Many wonder how on earth we are going to address all these challenges. They feel overwhelming and not a little confusing.

We should not lose sight of the fact that there is also plenty of ‘good’ to write home about. We’ve succeeded in nearly halving child mortality rates since 1990, for example, and polio cases have decreased by more than 99 percent since 1988. But this is still a time of volatility, revolution, of uncertainty and ambiguity and increasing complexity.

The challenges are pressing and distressing, and it can be difficult to know where to begin to address them — there are no quick fixes for what ails us. What many people forget is that we have an emerging power to make fundamental shifts in the state of the world – the power of youth. And we also have an evolving and emerging tool called technology.

The masterful 20th century designer Charles Eames once said, “Beyond the age of information is the age of choices.” We’re racing through the information age — more than 95 percent of all information on the planet is now in digital form, and four out of every six people is using the Internet — which means it’s time to use the information we have to make some of the serious choices we need to make about our future on planet earth.

With this as a backdrop, Unilever, in partnership with the Cambridge Programme for Sustainable Leadership and Ashoka Changemakers, has launched a search for practical and tangible innovations created by young people that help make sustainable living commonplace: the Unilever Sustainable Living Entrepreneurs Awards [www.changemakers.com/SustLiving]

I am a firm believer in the power of youth (I have three boys myself, all in their twenties). The youth of today, by the way, are 50% of the population in emerging markets and 100% of its future population. Their imagination, their strength of purpose, their genuine concern are all things that attract me to young entrepreneurs. Yet we don’t always harness that power, and too often we exclude many of the young from the most important issues. We want to change that. I am also a believer in the power of technology.

The change in Egypt two years ago was organised by Facebook, with a running commentary on Twitter and illustrated on Youtube. There are, famously, more mobile phones in India, than toilets. And who better to utilize the power of technology than the youth for whom it is second-nature? And to utilise it to deliver social responsibility, not egocentricity, to the market, and to crowd out profiteering by creating more space for volunteering.

This is why I am optimistic that tackling the world’s pressing challenges is a real possibility. I would even go so far as to say that tackling them is a probability. The technology we now have at our fingertips allows for the spread of good ideas faster than ever before. It allows forward-thinking leaders to scale-up proven solutions to change the way the world does business—it’s not just about reducing negative impacts, but also about making positive contributions.

The young give us hope because young people are certain their best days still lie ahead – which explains why they’re absolutely convinced they can change the world for the better. As their parents, teachers, neighbours and friends, we want nothing more than to leave young people with a world of opportunity, which gives our work meaning. And meaning for us? Responsible, equitable growth that is decoupled from environmental impact and makes a positive contribution to society. This kind of meaning, this mission, will be the new normal in business. It must be.

Sustainability makes good business sense and we’re all on the same team at the end of the day. That’s the truth about the human condition. We have caused, directly and indirectly and over time, a great majority of the challenges our communities struggle with today. It’s up to us to properly address them.

Unilever is working on it, but we won’t succeed alone. If we all act together; business, governments, NGOs and citizens – and especially the young – just imagine the good we could create. We not only need the help the young can give us, but their enthusiasm, ambition, drive and ideas too. Today over half the world’s population is under 30. In some countries the figure is more like two-thirds. This gives me hope.

There is a new, more entrepreneurial spirit among today’s young people. Young people have the opportunity, the responsibility and duty to be that catalysts for change. They all have the potential to be leaders and change-makers. To paraphrase a line by the great British playwright George Bernard Shaw, and made famous by the US politician Robert F. Kennedy:

“Some people see the world as it is and ask: what can I do? Young people see the world as it could be and say: together we can.”

Will you join us?

Paul Polman, CEO Unilever
 

Vain Ambition

Posted on by Will Marre

The reason that nothing gets done in Washington D.C. is vain ambition. It’s a lesson for all of us in the downside of vanity. Have you read “This Town?” It’s written by the chief national corresponded for the New York Times Magazine. He rather proudly says that he is a part of the political -media- lobbyists’ club that runs America for us.

He calls Washington D.C. “suck up city” and compares it to high school… one where the students never graduate. It’s a surreal town where cheerleaders put on endless parties and jocks play politics. You see the deal is, whenever you get to Washington, you never want to leave. The sense of power, fame and specialness is just simply too intoxicating.

Like high school, the main motivation is personal vanity. 

People want to be popular and will do anything to go to the right parties, have the right friends, and have plenty of money to do what popular kids do. Imagine waking up every morning wondering who has said what to whom about you. Imagine being obsessed with whose news program you’re going to be interviewed on and whose sound bite might make the 24-hour news cycle.

Imagine having your mind constantly churning about what gossip you can create to make yourself more important and more popular right now. Imagine worrying about whether you’re going to get the invitation to a state dinner or the right party. Yes, it’s just like perpetual high school. Sure, when people first get elected they might come to Washington on a mission to serve the rest of us. They may even be sincere about their current convictions.

But convictions don’t run our political system… money does. 

And there is plenty of money and lots of lobbying jobs in Washington to go around for anyone who’s had a ticket to the party. That’s why no one leaves. It may sound awful at first, but psychologically, it’s pretty darn addictive… especially for the vain part of us. The addictive force of vanity is not limited to Washington. In my 35 years of helping high achieving leaders to fulfill their dreams, I’ve witnessed the push and pull between vain ambition and moral ambition.

It’s no secret that lots of high achievers are driven by an inner voice that spurs them to do whatever it takes to please their unpleasable or absent father. And there are others that are striving to fulfill the high expectations of adoring and supportive mothers. When this is the case, there is an unquenchable thirst for recognition.

But no achievement, no fame, and no amount of money can fill a bucket with a hole in the bottom of it.

Nevertheless, that doesn’t stop people from spending their whole lives trying. The problem is vanity is a powerful motivator but a lousy conscience. That’s why we so often see talented people work like dogs in the pursuit of things that have no intrinsic significance… of things that don’t create any real human value. Too often they sacrifice their health, their relationships, and their lifestyle for “success” that doesn’t really matter. It’s hard to see things clearly, I grant you that.

Our whole modern media world where everyone can try to build a personal brand and create personal fame by blogging, podcasting, videos, and tweeting has made us all a little crazy. Me included. The voice of vanity is never fully silenced. I think the only way to stay grounded is daily reflection.

I’ve developed a morning ritual in which I consciously think of what I’m really grateful for and the most important things I can do for others that day. 

I am never grateful for the things driven by vanity but rather for all of the things that neither money nor fame can buy. I am very fortunate. The years have taught me how important a psychologically healthy lifestyle is. It causes me to think daily about what’s most important to make sure that I create the time to attend to those things.

If there is one practie that has guided my life it is that… and I needed it. 

When I graduated from high school, my ambition was to be governor of California. Not because I had some unique agenda, but because it sounded good. It was my vanity speaking. Somehow, with the help of wise parents, humble teachers, and suffering at just the right moments, I traveled a better path. I am so glad I graduated from high school… if only our leaders would.

 

When It’s Bad To Be Great

Posted on by Real Leaders Inc.

Based on current standards of business leadership, David Novak is a superstar. He is the CEO of Yum! Brands. The company that brings you the great foods of Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut. They have nearly 40,000 locations worldwide and open a new one every 14 hours. David is a star because he really knows how to make money for shareholders and he knows how to build a team of high-performing leaders to operate a complicated global business.

For shareholders, he’s turned Yum! into a money machine. Yum! restaurants have some of the highest operating margins and lowest costs in the business. He had the vision and the guts to move into countries like China and India full force before the rest of his competitors got wind that every human being likes salty, greasy food. So now Yum! operates in 130 countries selling pizza, mashed potatoes, tacos and rivers of soda to billions of poor people.

The good news for Yum! shareholders is that this is highly profitable. Yum! stock has returned 16.5% compounded annually since 1997. That’s pretty yummy. His blow-away financial results makes Novak an executive rock star. Fortune magazine (August 12, 2013) just published a gushing piece about how great a leader Novak is. And he is. I’ve only met David Novak once.

I was assisting with a leadership training, which he attended. He is a warm and sincere person who genuinely cares about his managers and the quality of the culture of the company he leads. That is the substance of the Fortune article… that David Novak is one hell of a great leader. All I can say is what a waste.

What a waste of talent, brainpower, creativity, and financial resources.

What a waste of time and effort of tens of thousands of people who wake up every morning to make the world just a little bit worse. If that sounds harsh, it’s meant to.

In a world of 7 billion people, can we enthusiastically condone a business operating in a moral vacuum in which employees get up every morning and work their guts out to make and sell stuff that is actually designed to hurt people? 

And as Charles Kinney writes in Bloomberg BusinessWeek, there’s no disputing that 1,000 calorie lunch made up of popcorn chicken, honey mustard dipping sauce, potato wedges and a 20 ounce Pepsi isn’t harmful. As he points out, obesity and heart disease is exploding in high-growth emerging markets where American fast food companies have seduced millions into habitually eating junk. 45% of Chinese men are now overweight. In every single new market that American fast food has penetrated, obesity has gone up, along with diabetes.

Is it really an overstatement to point out the emerging vicious cycle where global food chains make billions through ruining the health of people while spending on diabetes medicine to treat them skyrockets?

Maybe I’m missing something. Yum! Brands congratulates itself by saying it puts the health and nutritional needs of the customers first. After all, they discontinued their kids meal at Taco Bell. Wall Street analysts commented on what a clever PR move this was since kids meals accounted for less than one half of one percent of Taco Bell sales. Does that sound cynical to you? Of course, if you asked an executive of Yum! Brands how they sleep at night, they would say very well.

They would say if their meals are consumed only occasionally or in the proper amounts, that fried chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy can be part of a healthy diet. Hmmmm… but that’s not the business strategy of fast food companies. Marketing people try to identify heavy, repeat customers because theses are the customers most valued by retain food chains because In over 35 years of working with executives, I’ve never been in a business meeting where the discussion centered on how to get people to use less of their product. Never.

Perhaps my concerns are nonsense. I frequently listen to economists and others who claim that the role of the capitalist is not to make decisions for consumers, but rather to provide them with what they want. So the theory is if people want to eat themselves to death or lose all their money in Las Vegas or smoke cigarettes that’s their business.

But is preying on human weakness a legitimate business model?

It certainly isn’t a moral one. The first law of morality is to do all that you can to prevent avoidable suffering. So how can we celebrate super competent leadership of big companies whose business success relies on people making bad choices… creating suffering. Is that really the best we can do? Really? There are so many lousy leaders that it is very frustrating for me to see someone who is truly gifted like David Novak spend his life building a great company that sells shit. Haven’t we lost the whole point?

If each one of us is invested in our talent, energy, creativity and capital in products and services that help people live healthier, happier lives the world would be different. 

Making money is a skill. It’s not a purpose. If at the end of our lives we look in the mirror and say I spent my life learning how to make money rather than doing something that actually created a better future that’s just a waste. So what do you think? Can our world thrive with business leaders hiding behind the wall of amoral choices?

Do we really think our best future will come because we’ve created a special activity know as business that celebrates any legal way of making money even if it causes people to suffer? 

Do you ever wonder…”what in the hell are we doing?”

When It’s Bad To Be Great

Posted on by Will Marre

Based on current standards of business leadership, David Novak is a superstar. He is the CEO of Yum! Brands. The company that brings you the great foods of Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut. They have nearly 40,000 locations worldwide and open a new one every 14 hours. David is a star because he really knows how to make money for shareholders and he knows how to build a team of high-performing leaders to operate a complicated global business.

For shareholders, he’s turned Yum! into a money machine. Yum! restaurants have some of the highest operating margins and lowest costs in the business. He had the vision and the guts to move into countries like China and India full force before the rest of his competitors got wind that every human being likes salty, greasy food. So now Yum! operates in 130 countries selling pizza, mashed potatoes, tacos and rivers of soda to billions of poor people.

The good news for Yum! shareholders is that this is highly profitable. Yum! stock has returned 16.5% compounded annually since 1997. That’s pretty yummy. His blow-away financial results makes Novak an executive rock star. Fortune magazine (August 12, 2013) just published a gushing piece about how great a leader Novak is. And he is. I’ve only met David Novak once.

I was assisting with a leadership training, which he attended. He is a warm and sincere person who genuinely cares about his managers and the quality of the culture of the company he leads. That is the substance of the Fortune article… that David Novak is one hell of a great leader. All I can say is what a waste.

What a waste of talent, brainpower, creativity, and financial resources.

What a waste of time and effort of tens of thousands of people who wake up every morning to make the world just a little bit worse. If that sounds harsh, it’s meant to.

In a world of 7 billion people, can we enthusiastically condone a business operating in a moral vacuum in which employees get up every morning and work their guts out to make and sell stuff that is actually designed to hurt people? 

And as Charles Kinney writes in Bloomberg BusinessWeek, there’s no disputing that 1,000 calorie lunch made up of popcorn chicken, honey mustard dipping sauce, potato wedges and a 20 ounce Pepsi isn’t harmful. As he points out, obesity and heart disease is exploding in high-growth emerging markets where American fast food companies have seduced millions into habitually eating junk. 45% of Chinese men are now overweight. In every single new market that American fast food has penetrated, obesity has gone up, along with diabetes.

Is it really an overstatement to point out the emerging vicious cycle where global food chains make billions through ruining the health of people while spending on diabetes medicine to treat them skyrockets?

Maybe I’m missing something. Yum! Brands congratulates itself by saying it puts the health and nutritional needs of the customers first. After all, they discontinued their kids meal at Taco Bell. Wall Street analysts commented on what a clever PR move this was since kids meals accounted for less than one half of one percent of Taco Bell sales. Does that sound cynical to you? Of course, if you asked an executive of Yum! Brands how they sleep at night, they would say very well.

They would say if their meals are consumed only occasionally or in the proper amounts, that fried chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy can be part of a healthy diet. Hmmmm… but that’s not the business strategy of fast food companies. Marketing people try to identify heavy, repeat customers because theses are the customers most valued by retain food chains because In over 35 years of working with executives, I’ve never been in a business meeting where the discussion centered on how to get people to use less of their product. Never.

Perhaps my concerns are nonsense. I frequently listen to economists and others who claim that the role of the capitalist is not to make decisions for consumers, but rather to provide them with what they want. So the theory is if people want to eat themselves to death or lose all their money in Las Vegas or smoke cigarettes that’s their business.

But is preying on human weakness a legitimate business model?

It certainly isn’t a moral one. The first law of morality is to do all that you can to prevent avoidable suffering. So how can we celebrate super competent leadership of big companies whose business success relies on people making bad choices… creating suffering. Is that really the best we can do? Really? There are so many lousy leaders that it is very frustrating for me to see someone who is truly gifted like David Novak spend his life building a great company that sells shit. Haven’t we lost the whole point?

If each one of us is invested in our talent, energy, creativity and capital in products and services that help people live healthier, happier lives the world would be different. 

Making money is a skill. It’s not a purpose. If at the end of our lives we look in the mirror and say I spent my life learning how to make money rather than doing something that actually created a better future that’s just a waste. So what do you think? Can our world thrive with business leaders hiding behind the wall of amoral choices?

Do we really think our best future will come because we’ve created a special activity know as business that celebrates any legal way of making money even if it causes people to suffer? 

Do you ever wonder…”what in the hell are we doing?”

Beyond Black & White: The Hybrid Spectrum

Posted on by Jacen Greene

Have you ever watched The Wizard of Oz while listening to Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side of the Moon, you know, just to see if they actually match up? They do, but only once – when Dorothy first steps into Oz, the movie changes from black and white to color, and the track “Money” kicks in at that exact moment. You’re seeing in color, and it’s actually all about money, man! (Stick with me, this is actually going somewhere.) For a long time, we’ve viewed organizational types in black and white: the old binary banality of “nonprofits do good, for-profits make money.”

It’s time for us to see organizations in color, recognizing the entire spectrum that now exists, and it does, in fact, have a lot to do with money. The Hybrid Spectrum, developed by Kim Alter, categories organizations by their mission, primary stakeholders, and use of income. The spectrum encompasses five main categories:

  • Traditional nonprofits with no earned income
  • Nonprofits with some earned income activities
  • Social enterprises (for-profit or nonprofit)
  • Socially responsible businesses
  • Corporations practicing CSR
  • Traditional for-profit corporations

Professor Michael Porter [the Bishop William Lawrence University Professor at Harvard University, (pictured above)] has a more recent approach: shared value, which fits neatly within the right-hand side of the Spectrum. Shared value describes the ways in which for-profit companies can generate both competitive returns for shareholders and broader social and environmental value.

In a sense, the Spectrum depicts how much of the value generated by an organization is shared with society as a whole: on the far right, very little; on the far left, nearly all. However, it’s important to understand that the Spectrum is not meant to portray any organizational type as inherently superior; instead, each type is useful in different situations and in pursuit of varying outcomes.

Focusing on a comprehensive shared value strategy may not be the best way for a microentrepreneur to lift her family out of poverty; likewise, not every nonprofit should charge for their services (especially in areas such as disaster relief). For those organizations operating in the middle of the Spectrum, the recent adoption of Benefit Corporation legislation by many states now allows them to incorporate as a legal entity befitting their approach.

New organizations – and new subsidiaries or business units within an existing organization – can finally select a legal entity explicitly designed to support their creation of shared value. It’s time for us to move beyond black and white thinking about for-profit vs. nonprofit. Society and government now embrace a spectrum of organizational types in pursuit of shared value, and business leaders should welcome the introduction of a little color into their approach.

 

Beyond Black & White: The Hybrid Spectrum

Posted on by Real Leaders Inc.

Have you ever watched The Wizard of Oz while listening to Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side of the Moon, you know, just to see if they actually match up? They do, but only once – when Dorothy first steps into Oz, the movie changes from black and white to color, and the track “Money” kicks in at that exact moment. You’re seeing in color, and it’s actually all about money, man! (Stick with me, this is actually going somewhere.) For a long time, we’ve viewed organizational types in black and white: the old binary banality of “nonprofits do good, for-profits make money.”

It’s time for us to see organizations in color, recognizing the entire spectrum that now exists, and it does, in fact, have a lot to do with money. The Hybrid Spectrum, developed by Kim Alter, categories organizations by their mission, primary stakeholders, and use of income. The spectrum encompasses five main categories:

  • Traditional nonprofits with no earned income
  • Nonprofits with some earned income activities
  • Social enterprises (for-profit or nonprofit)
  • Socially responsible businesses
  • Corporations practicing CSR
  • Traditional for-profit corporations

Professor Michael Porter [the Bishop William Lawrence University Professor at Harvard University, (pictured above)] has a more recent approach: shared value, which fits neatly within the right-hand side of the Spectrum. Shared value describes the ways in which for-profit companies can generate both competitive returns for shareholders and broader social and environmental value.

In a sense, the Spectrum depicts how much of the value generated by an organization is shared with society as a whole: on the far right, very little; on the far left, nearly all. However, it’s important to understand that the Spectrum is not meant to portray any organizational type as inherently superior; instead, each type is useful in different situations and in pursuit of varying outcomes.

Focusing on a comprehensive shared value strategy may not be the best way for a microentrepreneur to lift her family out of poverty; likewise, not every nonprofit should charge for their services (especially in areas such as disaster relief). For those organizations operating in the middle of the Spectrum, the recent adoption of Benefit Corporation legislation by many states now allows them to incorporate as a legal entity befitting their approach.

New organizations – and new subsidiaries or business units within an existing organization – can finally select a legal entity explicitly designed to support their creation of shared value. It’s time for us to move beyond black and white thinking about for-profit vs. nonprofit. Society and government now embrace a spectrum of organizational types in pursuit of shared value, and business leaders should welcome the introduction of a little color into their approach.

 

Losing Is Normal

Posted on by Will Marre

I just finished reading Eleven Rings, the book by the brilliantly successful basketball coach Phil Jackson (pictured above). True stories are always the most interesting ones to me and it was fascinating to read his story of winning an NBA championship as a player and coaching his teams to win 10 more. One thing that stood out is that losing is normal!

Professional sports are not just competitive, they are radically so. By that I mean there is only one world champion In many ways it’s the ultimate zero-sum game. For every one winner there are scores, or even hundreds, of losers. And winning is extremely difficult. Winning consistently is almost impossible. That’s because when you get to the championship level of pro sports the talent is so even that luck is often the final differentiator.

I know, you probably don’t want to hear that, yet when you read the story of all the championship seasons, what is remarkable is the number of games lost by one point, two points or in overtime. It’s astonishing how often a single missed free-throw or a careless pass can make the difference between winning the game or a championship.

What struck me was how many times Jackson’s teams lost in the playoffs or the finals – often with the same players he would win championships with. Still, he won 10 NBA champions coaching teams with a few great stars and a constantly changing cast of role players who had to play the best basketball of their lives. The leadership lessons and the importance of personal resiliency in the face of failures were striking. Here are some of the things that struck me.

1. When you win is far more important that how often you win. Many teams who win 50 or 60 games during a regular season never make it to the finals. When it really counts they collapse. In life, not all goals or relationships are equal. Some are life-changing. In sport it’s easy to know what games are the most important. In life, it requires reflection. The only way I know how to keep my head in the game of life is to ask myself each day what’s matters most that will matter a year from now, and then make that my priority.

2. Being excellent at the detail is often the difference between success and failure. In sport the bounce of a ball often separates victory from defeat. All you can do is put yourself in a position to win if the ball bounces your way. Being excellent at the important details of life and leadership is usually the difference between happiness and regret. We don’t control all the big things in our lives. Sickness, betrayal, job loss, business failure and plenty of other nasty things are beyond our control. The one thing we do control is our response to everything that happens. And therein lies our power to turn losing into winning.

3. Spirituality matters. Perhaps the most powerful element of Phil Jackson’s story was his commitment to spirituality. Phil became famous as the “Zen” coach, and for good reason. He’s a sincere believer in the power of unseen energy to bind people together and create a deep level of relationship chemistry. He believes this is so vital to team success that before every game his entire team would sit in a dark room in silent meditation.

Every season he gave spiritual books to his players to read as they traveled the country. He never forced his beliefs on his team but he had the courage to invite everyone to participate. Most of his players thought he was a little weird yet recognized the positive impact of the silent energy their joint meditation created. It’s important to note of course that Jackson wasn’t trying to convert anyone to any religious dogma or even a philosophy.

What he was tapping into is now considered brain science. Our thought patterns create electrical energy. Our thoughts influence the electrical energy in the brains of others and together, people create group patterns of thinking and feeling. In sports this is know as team chemistry. It is often the difference between winning and losing.

What Jackson wanted his players to do is to be intentional about creating positive team chemistry.

To do this he sometimes had them practice scrimmage in silence. He always had them sit together in silence before the game and invited them to meditate on their roles and how they might support each other’s strengths. Since this is not common practice, it took a lot of courage to institute this way of being together.

4. A major leadership lesson for me is that great leaders teach people how to learn from losing. 

One thing for sure is that we will all lose and continue to lose throughout our lives. By losing I simply mean that things never go as planned… that small disappointments are normal and large disappointments are to be expected. What matters is not that we have faced difficulty but that we stay on our path. And I believe that ultimately our paths are as individual as our fingerprints. Our paths are not easy. Losing is normal. It’s how we respond that makes us extraordinary.

Yet we all have one thing in common. As Aristotle once explained, “Our best life is one in which we fulfill our nature in the pursuit of noble purpose.” For Phil Jackson his noble purpose was not to win an astonishing 11 championships. That was simply the effect of what he was up to… which was to help extraordinary athletes experience the miracle of genuine oneness.

Jackson believes that when we transcend our individual egos to accomplish something amazing together, we experience human connectedness in ways that are far more meaningful than winning. Is this just mumbo-jumbo? What do you think?