Remember 1982 and that brain-rut-inducing Thomas Dolby song, She Blinded Me with Science? 

Science can be blinding--and blind--but today let's explore how Emotions can be, too.

(Science, of course, can be blind because it presumes itself to be the determinant of what is real.  It is the great judge, jury and executioner.  And yet, on matters such as art or ethics, science has little if anything to say.  Genomes or no genomes, deconstruction is no panacea.)

But what do I mean by "Emotional Impairment" or "Emotional Blindness?"  Simply put, I mean that emotions can swallow us whole and, once enveloped within their darkness it is virtually impossible to see our hands in front of our face.

There's a great book that describes similar phenomena, but let me attack it this way...

Forget for a moment the limbic system and all the hormones (which play absolutely vital roles in emotion) and let's just focus on two psychological elements: (1)Loss Avoidance and (2)Commitment.

As denoted by the image below, when one's "Opposition to Loss" (loss avoidance) and "Commitment" escalate, we have a recipe to brew disaster.

Examples are ubiquitous, from gambling and airplane crashes to suicide and high-risk behaviors.  Wherever we see an individual tied to high-stakes, we are right if we see trouble.

Let's take a current example, one that I'm sure has universal applications: War.

Whether we look at "Civil" Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq...or the thousands of wars that have been waged non-stop since the dawn of humankind, we see leaders in the crosshairs.  Leaders like Lyndon B. Johnson, who felt a tremendous pull between the war in Vietnam and his commitment stateside to create the Great Society.  Here's a great, representative quote from LBJ in 1968.  At the time, America had 500,000 troops in Vietnam and there had been tens of thousands of U.S. casualties:

“I knew from the start that I was bound to be crucified either way I moved.  If I left the woman I really loved – the Great Society – in order to get involved with that bitch of a war on the other side of the world, then I would lose everything at home.  All my programs, all my dreams to provide education and medical care.  But if I left that war and let the Communists take over South Vietnam, there would follow in this country an endless national debate – a mean and destructive debate – that would shatter my presidency, kill my administration, and damage our democracy.”

What happens when we, as leaders, become consumed by Loss Avoidance while simultaneously Escalating our Commitment?  We go blind.

We send more and more troops into un-win-able wars.  We change mission.  We broaden mission through scope-creep.  We change the game.  We change the rules.  We change the scoreboard.  We sell, we push, we spin.  We beg for more.  We ask and take and dicker and steal and we, along with all those around us, go up in flames.

I have a sweet friend whom everyone calls, "Zippo."  Why Zippo? 

Because every time he opens his mouth, he lights himself on fire.

He has no (in the words of my mother) "governor."  No filter between his brain and his tongue.  Or, perhaps too permeable a filter.

We all know Zippos.  "Did he just say that?" we ask ourselves.  And maybe, just maybe, it occurs to them after they've said what they've said..."did I just say that out loud?"

Beware your emotions.  Yes, they serve a prehistoric purpose, without which you will win the Darwin Award.

As human beings, it is true that our emotions often supersede rational thought.  We are reaction machines, our pulse often telling the story before we ourselves are attuned to our anger.

Be vigilant and self-aware, especially when--while reaching for the prize--you scale to the tippy-top of a precarious ladder comprised of self-justifying rungs named "I cannot lose" and "No turning back."  The air up there gets very, very thin...and where so, we stop thinking, stop seeing clearly and become blind to our own emotionality.

Surround yourself with buddies, fail-safes, ejection seats and fire extinguishers.  People who can say, "What are you thinking?  What are you telling yourself?  Why are you acting like this?  Who have you become, Mr. Hyde?"  And mechanisms designed to break the glass and douse the flames while you extricate yourself from your burning building and all that you have wrought.

While literally countless important questions swirl around us every day, there are few that stimulate me as much as, "What makes a great leader?"

It's a loaded question, of course, because embedded within it is another question, "Are leaders born or made?"  (The short answer, for today, is—"Yes."  But more on that Russian doll another time.)

Leadership is such a perennially important issue and this year is no different.  Every generation believes its time is unheralded and novel, and ours is not unique: we continue to live in undeniably tremendous times—an era of explosive growth, ceaseless change and limitless potential.  (But again, the same could be said 4,000 years ago...2,000 years ago, and again during the Renaissance...it is no less true today.)

As always, we need great leaders and greater leadership if we are to continue progressing in fields and practices as diverse as geopolitics, science, economics, finance, spirituality (yes, spirituality), innovation and sustainability.  From natural to man-made disasters in Alaska, New York, Sri Lanka and India to Thailand, Haiti and Louisiana, the importance and effects of leadership (or its absence) are—if we are fortunate—a broadcast away. 

In future blogs, I commit to writing more extensively about leadership at large, but today I will limit my thoughts to the importance of formal education (e.g., the University) as a mechanism and greenhouse for creating and growing tomorrow's leaders and will then conclude with a rough table differentiating poor from great leaders.

My preliminary comments are inspired today by John Sexton, President of New York University ("NYU").  My later comments are inspired by John Maxwell, author of 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership (among other books). 

Though I believe there are indeed few 'new things' under the Sun, to the extent these men's ideas are held tenably together, I am to blame.

Universities for Tomorrow

Describing the University for Tomorrow requires a few thousand dissertions and years of research, to be sure, so I will simply take a slipshod whack to get your mind whirring.  You, along with millions of others who are already studying this opportunity, can do the remaining 99.9999% by filling in the gaps.

Fact #1: 70 of today's 85 oldest organizations are, in fact, universities.  (Vatican City and Parliament are examples of the other 15.)

Fact #2: If you want to create a vibrant 'center of thought,' create a great university and wait 200 years.

Fact #3: The universities-within-walls which brought us this far will not lead us into the future.

What NYU is doing in Abu Dhabi is right on the money: it's primarily about people, programs, teaching and research (and just so happens to serendipitously be what my doctoral program was, but on steroids to the 100th power).  I attended the modest Union Institute & University, the first "University without Walls" and participated in classes hosted in Brattleboro, Montpelier, Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Sacramento and Miami.  We regularly embraced eccentric professors on sabbaticals from the Ivy League who operated 'unfettered' from many of the restraints they described occurring in Cambridge, New Haven, Providence, Princeton, Philadelphia, Hanover, Ithaca and NYC. 

...but I digress...

What encouraged me about Mr. Sexton's comments was the notion that tomorrow's university is an open, diverse, ecumenical, organic circulatory system of ideas and best practices that will focus on creative, exploratory thought and nuanced discourse.

I couldn't agree more. 

Indeed, any university, even the ones mired in the past (the ones we revere, historically) are mandated to help students learn to think (and critically) for themselves.  But my impression, far too often, is that university life can quickly become High School 2.0, packed to the gills with memorizing facts, completing rote work, regurgitating information or defending knowledge.  Unquestionably, we should possess societal standards of 'minimum knowledge,' but I expect this work to occur more fully in grades K-12.  The undergraduate years can round-out this process, but the fact that today's ACT and SAT tests still emphasize standardized knowledge, facts, reading, mathematics—and some writing (though many admissions boards admit they don't quite know what to do with this element yet)—I remain concerned that our perspectives are deficient.

While the United States is proceeding toward national standards in 48 of the 50 states, China is migrating toward a more exploratory curriculum designed to create great THINKERS and INNOVATORS rather than fact-regurgitators.  The ideal approach is, of course, a hybrid that includes the best of both.  We need a hygiene-oriented 'bare minimum' (which should be rigorous, not minimalistic; a 'threshold knowledge base' if you will) combined with strong creative and critical thinking skills.  IQ has never been a predictor of leadership success and it never will be.  Similarly, while standardized admissions are undoubtedly sufficient at predicting university success, they are representative solely of the coursework comprising undergraduate schoolwork—which illuminates my point and the 'smallness' of what we expect today.  Moreover, IQ and standardized metrics will never wholly predict a leader's ultimate societal contributions, service to humankind or general performance, so whatever the University of Tomorrow intends to look like, it must quickly learn to shed historic metrics in favor of indices that get at meaning, contribution and potential.

The single greatest determinant of student performance in the classroom is the teacher's expectations.  Knowing this, we should ourselves have the highest expectations for tomorrow's teachers, educators, instructors, professors...and each and every one of them should be well-versed in the Pygmalion Effect.

Finally, the university of tomorrow should be a bastion of deep discourse, not soundbytes.  Mr. Sexton described at length the disadvantage that today's thoughtful politicians start from when they find themselves embroiled in conflicts with opponents adept at dumbing down exceedingly complex issues.  The media loves sticky slogans ("It's the economy, stupid."), but we must have an appetite for prolonged, nuanced, systemic dialogue if we are to more fully understand issues, one another and create students and leaders capable of doing the same.

Poor vs. Great Leaders

Perhaps contary to popular opinion, the leader at the helm of such a university is not terribly dissimilar from the sort of leader who thrives in enterprise.  In the comments of John Sexton and the work of John Maxwell, I see similar threads regarding how students, university officials and tomorrow's leaders interact with the world around them. 

In this light, I conclude today's very embryonic blog with the following table differentiating 'poor' and 'great' leaders.  I trust that it might prove handy somewhere along the line.

More on these and adjacent thoughts in the weeks to come. 

It has been raining for several days now.  The weather is cool, there's a breeze in the air and the skies are overcast.

Our entire family is recovering from what feels like 'weeks' of events, parties, evening meetings and Saturday-Sunday commitments with no end.

But today was different. 

We relaxed, read, turned on the television and tuned out.

Somewhere in the afternoon, however, our daughter Lauren (who turned eight last month) gathered her pillow, some blankets and her pink journal...and created a really cozy 'nest' in the bathtub of the bathroom adjoining our bunker for the day.

This evening, over dinner, she shyly shared her notes with me.

I found them to be wonderfully encouraging and thought perhaps you might, too. 

Here we go; her 'entry for the day,' unfettered and unvarnished. 

The Story of Life, by Lauren Leath

8 Years Old

Life is a simple message. 

People think that if they try, they will get it right.

Sometimes that's not true.

But people can change over time.  They are not always the same.  Maybe when they are 9, they like sports.  When they are 35, they don't like to be outside.

People don't always change, though.

So, here are my 10 Rules for the Road:

1. Life is to enjoy (so enjoy your life, instead of just having a boring old life)

2. Take your time

3. Be positive (make one choice and stay the course)

4. Be bright (shine, show people what you can do, help others)

5. Stand up for yourself (if someone's not treating you nice, don't take it, use your voice)

6. Look at everything around you (don't focus on yourself, pay attention to other people)

7. Encourage others

8. Be your true self (don't try to be cooler than you are, because then something bad can happen)

9. Always believe (just because the vet says Daisy's not pregnant doesn't mean she's not)

10. Figure out who you are (don't spend your whole life wasting your time, figure out who you are and what you like and do it)

These are my 10 Rules for the Road.

...to be continued