I Got Skill

I could go on about this one, but I’m going to cut to the chase so that I can get this on the street.  But first let me apologize in advance for any feelings that I may hurt…  I'm sorry!

I’ve known literally dozens of women who have decided in the past couple of years that their new career would be photography.  Let me start backpedaling already and admit that a couple of them have a legitimate eye for photography, but most of them have about as much talent for photography as I have for piano composition.

Here’s the bottom line:  Buying $3000 worth of camera equipment doesn’t make you anymore of a photographer than a $3 million Stradivarius makes you a violinist.  Why does everyone think they can make money being a photographer?  It’s not the only field where this general assumption about “professional” level of skill is ubiquitous.  Graphic design is another one.  Just because you know how to use the “insert picture” function on Microsoft Word, you are NOT a graphic artist.  And yes, I’ll hit closer to home: just because you have a blog it doesn’t mean you’re a journalist!

I’ve seen some very good photography from self-proclaimed “professional photographers”.  In fact, this subject came up in the first place when I asked you, Brad, about who took the recent pics of your family, in particular the girls.  They looked really nice, so nice that I asked if you had them taken by a professional.   She’s really good!  We have a dear friend in Maryland whose photography is amazing to me.  She is so talented, and she has an eye for it.  Did she go to school for it?  No.  In fact, she was a grade school teacher who picked up photography after she decided to stay home to raise her kids.  She’s managed to be very successful in the photography business.

It can be done, but I would say that a very small percentage of the population can actually succeed for any length of time in their new photography business.  Most will last about a year, which is how long it takes for the initial business from close friends and family to run out. 

Now I feel like a jerk.  Eh.  I’ll be over it tomorrow.

Marc on Livestrong

Ed, I agree with most of what you said about Armstrong.  Regardless of whether or not he doped, you don’t dominate the sport like he did without working harder than everyone else.  It’s not like you can sit at home on your ass, ride your bike for an hour a four days a week,  get a blood transfusion, and win the Tour de France.  Still, it’s a bummer to think that Lance felt he needed that extra push.

Jennifer asked me why doping was so prevalent in cycling.  I couldn’t really give a good answer, although I postulated that it’s because cycling doesn’t involve much skill, so it levels the playing field more than other sports.  What I mean by that is that yes, muscle and power helps you on the football field, but you have to bring a lot more to the table than that.  You need to have a good deal of skill to read defenses, read offenses, instincts to follow the play, etc.  And a high level of skill is required for nearly all sports.  Biking doesn’t seem like it to me.  So maybe it’s log-jammed at the top and everybody is looking for that edge, because you can only train so many hours a day, right? 

Your point about remembering not to “iconify” people is well taken.  I’ve always joked that I’ll never be able to run for President or even Congress, because by the time the media drags all of my skeletons out of the closet I’m through!  People are people and everybody’s got junk.  Of that much I’m sure.

LIVESTRONG

The "look back" by Armstrong was one of the greatest moments in all sport, up there with Babe Ruth calling his shot, MJ draining the winning shot over Byron, and Doug Flutie's infamous hail mary.  All you can say when you watch these highlights over and over is .... WOW!

Marc, your post raises some really interesting questions.   I want to compare Armstrong's fall from grace with a couple of other "fallen" as a point of reference.  

What I'm trying to get at is whether punishments handed out in sport ever seem sufficient and appropriate.  All seem hollow in one way or another, at least to me.  

Example #1:

Penn State - The University employed a pedophile and then others employed by the university refused to address it.  The "reasonable person" clearly would have done something to report and address this terrible series of crimes.  

Penalty - Removal of wins for nearly a decade, a 60 million dollar fine, loss of scholarships and then a bunch of other smaller penalties.  Interestingly in this case Penn State didn't get the "death penalty" for their football program, and I saw lots of Penn State fans in Kinnick Stadium on Saturday for their thumping of the Hawks.

Example #2:

Michael Vick - He owned a private dog fighting ring and bred dogs to fight, sometimes to death but more often to serious injury - all for money.  

Penalty - Jail time, suspension from the game of football, and probably a fine which I can't recall.  He is currently a starting quarterback in the NFL with a multi-million dollar contract once he had "served his time".  Oh, and the interesting twist on this one?  He now owns a dog as a pet.  Man's best friend right?

Example #3:

Lance Armstrong - Now his case.  I don't know all the details of the accusations and the due process to prove his temporary innocence and now assumed guilt.  

Penalty - Titles removed.  No jury (I know because Armstrong refused) and a process that Armstrong openly stated was frustrating and not fair.  I don't know all he went through, but I know it was a lot.  

So, are the penalties in each of these cases appropriate?  I've picked some of the most colored ones just as a point of reference.  Without question Lance's cheating is the least offensive of the examples I've named.  His doping didn't hurt anyone but him, his foundation and his legacy.  

But in my opinion penalties of removals of titles, wins, etc. are hollow.  And if you finished second in any of the Tours Lance won, congratulations.  How's that feel?  No better I suspect.  

And if I were head of any organization responsible for keeping the sport of cycling clean from doping, international or American, I would declare a death penalty on the whole sport.  Everyone.  All races.  And then I would figure out whether to allow doping and let these cyclists all be on a more level playing field.  Because once thing about this case is clear.  

No one has control over doping in the sport of cycling.  Nobody.  Maybe that should be Lance Armstrong's next legacy.  He can be the poster child for cleaning his beloved sport up!  

I'm a Lance Armstrong fan and always will be.  He was the best cyclist ever - period.  

And while the report that he doped has irreparably damaged his legacy, it doesn't diminish what he accomplished.  Recovering from near death cancer and ascending to the top of the sport with an attitude and fearlessness that made all other riders (including several others that doped) look like amateurs.  I'm just sad that his legacy has come down to this.  

Guess it could mean we shouldn't hold great athletes in as high regard as we do.  The "whole person" argument stands up a little better with Armstrong than it does other sports icons I have always admired, but he's still got lots of skeleton's in his closet on the personal side as well.  

  

I'm not sure what to think

Well, that's not technically true.  I do know what to think, but for some reason my gut wants to fight it.

Another sports hero has fallen off the pedestal.  I tend to agree with Nike when they say that there is "seemingly insurmountable evidence" that Lance Armstrong was doping during his seven year reign at the top of the sport.  It's really sad.

Is it still amazing that he came all the way back from near death to cancer, there's no doubt about that.  But he was a doper like seemingly everyone else in the sport of cycling.  So I guess that makes him just like everybody else.  He's not special anymore.  I don't WANT to believe that he's not special, but what do you do with all the members of his team that have come forward about all the doping stuff?  You could mentally dismiss one guy who claimed it when he himself had been busted for doping (Floyd Landis) but I can't dismiss 11 former teammates saying the same things.  And these aren't no names who are trying to make some quick money.  They are guys still racing who put a lot on the line to testify.  Tyler Hamilton, Levi Leipheimer, George Hincapie, etc.  It makes sense now that Floyd Landis was so devastated by his doping conviction.  He was probably pissed, wondering how Armstrong got away with it for so long and then he got caught.

In the end I know that Armstrong will always be able to say that he never tested positive on a drug test. Does that mean he was just a really good cheater?

I know he's done amazing things in the realm of cancer awareness and research.  I really hope all this stuff doesn't damage that part of his legacy.  His is still an amazing cancer recovery story.

I guess I'm just a little bummed.  One of my absolute favorite, and maybe THE favorite moment in sports was "the look" that Armstrong gave Ullrich on the L'Alpe-d'Huez in 2001.  It has given me chills every time I watched it in the last 10 years.  It's diminished a bit now.

What do you guys think?  Are you writing him off completely?

You're either all in or you're out

I was all fired up, and then Ed stole a bunch of my thunder!  No worries though, I’ve still got some fire in my belly.

First, I agree with Ed that we need to first separate professional sports into a category all its own.  Maybe you can include college athletics as well, because as you both well know, I consider college to be the minor leagues for professional sports.  When you start talking about professional sports, you are talking about money, and that changes everything. 

Winning = money, and that bottom line drives a lot of the really poor behavior that you see on the athlete’s side as well as in the fans.  Fans feel entitled too, as if the team owes them something.  When you’re paying thousands of dollars for season tickets to watch a team that sucks and loses all the time, you probably get frustrated and that inevitably will start manifesting itself in behavior toward the refs, the coach, and the players. 

At the professional level there are some good examples, but for every good example, there is a bad one.  For every Mike Tomlin there is a Rex Ryan, for every Peyton Manning there is a Phillip Rivers, for every Troy Polamalu there is a Terrell Suggs (okay, I’m a little biased on that one), and for every Larry Fitzgerald there is a Plaxico Burress.  You get the picture.  In the end even if you’re mean and nasty, if you can still play ball with the best of them you can get away with whatever insane or inappropriate behavior that you choose.  Two examples come immediately to mind for me.  First is Ray Lewis, and yes, I’m the president and CEO of the Ray Lewis Hater Club.  He got away with murder (quite literally in my book) and was voted Superbowl MVP the following year.  What’s an obstruction of justice conviction in a double homicide investigation when you can still knock people’s teeth out on the football field??  The other example is Michael Vick.  He ran an illegal interstate dog fighting ring for five years and was convicted of federal felony charges.  He tortured and executed dogs.  But hey, the man can still throw the rock, so he recently signed a six-year, $100 million contract.  I know I’m not saying anything you don’t already know, but the bottom line in professional sports is performance on the field (or court).  “Good guys” have it a little easier, but even the “bad guys” will eventually find someone who will pay them (i.e. Dennis Rodman, Terrell Owens).  So, professional sports is not about sportsmanship (although you do still see flashes of it).

Youth sports.  Oh lordy where do I begin?  This is one of the few reasons that I’m glad that I don’t have kids.  From what little I know, youth sports is a tragic mess.  And I’m not going to say that it’s all gone bad in the past 10-15 years.  I remember coaching 5^th grade basketball when I was in highschool and they didn’t even keep score.  But I know for a fact that the parents were keeping score in the stands, and I know for a fact that some of the parents were mad at me, especially when I benched the best kid on my time because he wouldn’t pass the ball.  He would shoot every time that he touched it. 

Sportsmanship aside, my frustration with kids and sports is that there is no room for kids to learn anymore, or simply play for the exercise or recreation.  Just like everything else in our society, it’s ALL OR NOTHING.  You are simply not allowed to be no good anymore.  I can remember my first year in Midwest after pee wee league.  I played for Tim’s Tropical Fish, and when I say played, I mean sat on the end of the bench and watched.  To this day I remember how that felt as an 11-year-old (or close to it).  Ed, you bring up a good point about separating competitive leagues from recreational leagues.  With kids, rec leagues should be mandatory equal playing time, REGARDLESS of talent level.

What I can’t quite figure out is how much of the problem with kids and sports comes from the parents.  My first instinct is to say that MOST of it comes from the parents.  Ed provided the perfect example; the PARENTS are the ones making the phone calls to try to finagle a “better” team.  Sixth grade?  Are you serious?  In sixth grade Dad was still trying to get us to keep our hands up on defense and dribble with our opposite hand!  Maybe my memory is skewed, but I don’t have any recollection of wins or losses in sixth grade. 

I’ve said it a million times but I’ll say it again:  People want to blame TV and video games for obesity in children, but I put as much blame on the fact that kids just can’t play sports for fun anymore.  If you’re kid wants to play a sport, he/she better be good at it, because there’s no room for kids who are just doing it for fun.  You have to be “all in”.  For example, it cracks me up when I hear about second grade soccer teams that have practice three times a week and then a game every weekend.  To quote Allen Iverson, “We talkin’ ‘bout practice man.”  Practice?  Do second graders really need to spend eight hours a week playing soccer?  What if you just want to play soccer for two hours a week?  Sorry, you’re not all in, so you’re out.  I can still hear Dad saying, “Everything in moderation,” and it was one thing that I’ll keep with me always.  As incredibly wise as that is, it goes against everything in our culture these days, our culture of extreme, ultimate, epic, humongous, and super.  You’re either all in, or you’re out.

Gosh, I haven’t even touched on the money part of kids athletics yet!  Remember the good ole days when $5 got you a t-shirt, one game, and one practice per week?  I have too many friends that are going broke trying to fund their kids’ athletic endeavors.  Maybe you’ve experienced this one Ed!  Why do 8-year-olds have to have complete matching pick-your-sport uniforms with gear bags and a trip halfway across the country to play in some tournament?  It’s ridiculous, and it prevents lots of kids from participating in sports.  LOTS of kids.  But hey, let’s blame Xbox, because it’s a lot easier than adults having to evaluate their own motives when it comes to kids sports.

Why’d you have to bring this up Brad???  I need to take a walk and cool down!

Ed on How Sports Have Really Changed

I'm going to attempt a counter point to Brad's comments although I agree to the principles behind the examples.  I just don't agree with the examples.  First my commentary on the two specific occurrences Brad referenced in his post:

The contested infield fly rule call and throwing bottles and trash on the field.  It's a playoff game, and the call was controversial.  I don't agree with throwing trash on the field as a show of disagreement, nor  in an attempt to injure any player or umpire.  However, the jeers and booing from the crowd would be, in my opinion, perfectly appropriate.  The profanity at times like this is simply fan passion (and often alcohol) getting out of hand.  I know I talk more like a sailor when I'm drinking alcohol.  Passion is part of the game, any game.  In some cases it's internalized and actually enhances performance.  In instances where it's blown off externally it usually ends up being nothing other than a showing of bad sportsmanship.  It's not reflective of the game, or sport in general.  It's more reflective of a more liberal society in terms of behavioral norms that are deemed acceptable.  I can point to lots of examples of this that are much bigger than sport.

The "supposed" cheering for Kansas City Chief Matt Cassel being hurt.  In short, hogwash.  Winston, the aforementioned teammate who claimed to be embarrassed by what he heard, was emotional himself.  He was using very strong language and you could see the intensity in what he was saying.  But many people in the media (ESPN analysts, PTI sportscasters, and 101FOX KC Chiefs announcers) who were also there, reviewed the tapes, etc said that most people were quiet when it was realized that Matt was hurt.  Did the fans want a change at QB?  Yes!  But did they cheer because Matt was hurt or because Matt being shook up meant that Brady Quinn would be coming into the game.  I believe the latter.  Most fans (including Chiefs fans) are loud, and there are always a few really obnoxious ones like the one Brad and Sheila sit next to at Iowa games.  But it's the exception not the rule, and the suggestion that "the crowd" cheered when their own QB was hurt seems to be an exaggeration of what really happened - not a reality.

Professional sports is full of passion and that's the way people want it.  People tune in to see the raw unaltered passion that typically can't be displayed as purely anywhere else.  And that's why people don't act the same on and off the field.  It's different out there and it's supposed to be.

I don't think that professional sports is the best place to go to see how the game has changed.  Instead, my example comes right from home, with my kids.  Now that's where I have realized how sports has really changed.

At the KC Baldwins we've recently contemplated the upcoming recreational basketball league, whether Alex and Luke would want to participate, and whether I would coach Luke's team like I have the previous two years.   The news of the upcoming sign up deadline was learned through calls from parents of the team I coached the previous two years.  Luke's age which is 4th grade two years ago, 5th grade last year, and now 6th grade boys.  These interested parents were inquiring as to whether I was interested in coaching again.  But for very specific reasons - whether I would be willing to do a little roster trimming and then recruit for some better players.  These parents told me that I was likely to lose one or two of my best players to other teams since they had been recruited by other coaches, and that I needed to drop a few of the players on my team from last year so that we could "upgrade".  Placing a few select calls would surely result in a better and more talented team overall.  To be honest the drama of the situation put me off.

I had agreed to coach Luke's team two years ago because no one else was willing.  But I came to enjoy it and genuinely liked getting to know each of the kids and developing a personal relationship with them.  Taking kids who knew little about the game and how it should be played, teaching fundamentals, and giving everyone nearly equal playing time.  We won some games, and we lost some.

And yes, I wanted to win.  Big shock to you all but I pride myself on being a competitive person.  But this was a recreational league who I thought randomly assigned new players to teams, and whose purpose was to teach kids the game.

Boy was I wrong.  Really?  More competitive parents out there than me?!  You can imagine my surprise and dismay, knowing personally how much I've been accused of a "win at all costs" mentality.

If I was to continue coaching I would be competing with other coaches for the best kids.  Oh, and don't get stuck with the kids that suck too.  Gotta cut those boys quick.  Hopefully they recognize they suck and don't sign up for the league - and if they do at least they'll be a burden for the other teams.  Especially since the league rules promote equal playing time.  Yeah right.

Seeing a kid who sucked develop and advance by leaps and bounds was one of the greatest joys pieces I got from coaching the team.  A surprise great pass, a box out and rebound, a pick and roll producing a layup.  YES!   Seeing the surprise in the players eyes - did I just do that?!  But not any more.

So I bailed.  Luke elected not to play (that was disappointing, and another story) but it enabled me to find my way out to this predicament I'd suddenly found myself in.

I'm not coaching and Luke is not playing.  And the league will continue advancing toward competitive while still claiming to be a recreational league.  Kids who just want to play and learn the game will be shunned if they don't show their talent quickly.  Boy does that suck.

I think there should be competitive leagues.  And I think there should be recreational leagues.  And I don't think you should mix the two.  No false advertising.  If you want to play competitive then knock yourself out.  If you want to play recreational, then sign up.  But don't say one and do the other.

I have half an inkling to call the commissioner and tell him how I feel.  Should I?  Right now that seems like it would be pushing a rope up hill.  The overwhelming majority of parents at least on my team are pushing more competitiveness.  And the kids, where do they stand?  I'm not sure whether they like it or not.  I know the kids that suck don't.  And kids like my son Luke, who I consider to be an average to better-than-average player?  He wants to play with everybody.  And, as he was instructed by his coach last year (me)

"If a kid is open, pass him the ball!"  I don't care whether he catches it, or whether he scores.  The only way he'll continue to try is if he has the opportunity.  We'll win as a team, and we'll lose as one.

Draw your own conclusions from my story, but it planted one of my feet very firmly on the "it's a game and you play the game to learn life lessons" side of the line.  The other foot?  Oh, it's still on the "competition is good and winning is more fun than losing" side of the line.

But my competitiveness is waning in my old age, like most everything else.  Some would say that for me it's a welcome change.

What has sports in America come to?

There were a couple events the past week that magnified how disappointing the idea of sport in our country has become. The first was the baseball playoff game between the St. Louis Cardinals and the Atlanta Braves and a disputed infield fly call. The second and more severe was the Kansas City Chief game yesterday when the crowd cheered when their quarterback was injured.

There are two veins of interest with this topic, the first is fan behavior. I think fan behavior towards sports is despicable. To ever openly cheer for anyone being injured is embarrassing, and unfortunately this isn’t the first time. Read the link above with one teammates comments. As for the baseball game, hundreds of fans throwing beer and soda bottles onto the field in protest is unnecessary at the least and dangerous at worst. In terms of a personal example, Sheila and I have season tickets to Iowa football and we sit two rows from a guy that complains about every play, good or bad. If it is a bad play, the player is a piece of s*!t or the coach is an idiot. If it is a good play, then why doesn’t the coaching staff do that all the time those idiots! What do we make of a society where the importance of sports has transcended the importance of civility?

The second vein is the impact on children. How many stories have you read about brawls at kid’s soccer games, physical altercations between parents and umpires at little league games? Is winning that important? Is success in sports more important that pure decency towards others? What are we teaching our children with a win at all cost mentality?

Now having two children of my own, I at times think about and hope they don’t play sports. It feels hypocritical to have these thoughts when sports were a central part of my childhood and responsible for so many learning opportunities for me. Yet, I grew up in a different time and place (wow I feel old) and I’m not sure my children can have that same experience anymore. If they do pursue sports, I hope it is in a sport, if it exists, that teaches both competition and rules of engagement as well as the idea of winning. I hope that my children can learn the value of teamwork, doing your best, and enjoying and “the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat”.

Brad on risk management in business

Ed, I agree with your corporate sentiment about doing something and analysis paralysis. As usual, neither of you disappoint with your fancy jargon and inspiring quotes. I've had similar experiences...

The idea of risk management v. risk avoidance is something I have had to work through repeatedly in my career. Many times I've had to remind supporting services that we are in the risk business. At AEGON that conversation happened frequently with the pricing actuaries who were attempting to eliminate risks in the product, but in doing so were pricing it such that it wasn't competitive in the marketplace. I've also encountered this risk avoidance mentality with legal/compliance support. I've found the best legal support I've received have always been lawyers that understand there is a business to run and that we should seek to plan for and mitigate risk, not eliminate it. Our inside counsel as well as outside counsel we use for labor matters are both fantastic to work with at MediRevv.

Ed on Navy Motivation, Employee Engagement

I prompted Marc to put this post on the blog because of how radical it was as a concept, but also because I know how important motivation and employee engagement are to businesses.  My first thought when Marc shared this gem was, really?  I thought Marc was pulling my leg.

It is interesting to me that oftentimes the business world takes a cue from innovative military principles and practices and applies them in a corporate context to the collective chant of "business is war".

Not really, but it is a compelling battle cry.

So employee engagement, motivation and morale are at the heart of improving most businesses of today.  Pick up any newspaper, business journal, industry conference or business book and you'll see "employee engagement" being touted as one of the most important and prominent topics to be educated on and improved.  The importance of conducting employee engagement surveys and employee attitude surveys is all the rage right now in the executive board room.

So ... innovative practices that spur employee engagement can quickly go viral and become widely promoted and utilized.

Probably not at much risk is Marc's sharing of a "don't get a DUI for six months in the command and everyone gets a day off" practice.

Brad said it best ... WOW!

I want to add my two cents on things I believe are crucial to employee motivation and engagement.

1. Transparency - the more of it you can provide the better.  In Marc's Navy case maybe this isn't practical because you are dealing with intelligence matters of high national security.  But in most businesses leaders can and should share more about their strategies, their intent and what they are doing to grow and improve their businesses.  When people know what's going on it's easier for them to get behind those ideas and support them.

2. Investment - the more you invest the better.  I'm not just talking financially as investment can also be in time and energy.  Often, the latter investment means more than the money.  If your employees feel you are investing in them then they are more likely to invest in your company, and you as a leader.

These two tips can make huge payoffs in employee engagement, morale and motivation.  Easy to say but hard to do.  And if you do them well as a leader or owner of a business then you will be differentiating your company.  The huge corporations of today have an even tougher time delivering on these two elements.  Look deeper into some of the most innovative new employment practices that target increases in employee engagement and you'll find one or both of these key concepts as core ingredients.

You reap what you sow, and in this case the harvest can be spectacular if you're willing to extend the effort.

Ed on Risk Management

Thanks for prompting this dialogue Brad.  And for pressing the risk envelope a bit more than your wussy sibling brother ... Marc!

Ok, I'm going to try to sustain the same passion from our email dialogue yesterday in crafting my response.  No cute circular graphs, pretty pictures of mountains, and no throwing Grandma under the bus.  Just good ole 100% me and my opinions ...

and quotes!

Yesterday Marc took the "risk management is good" argument to the summit (pun intended) and started throwing all kinds of acronyms and terminology out there for us to consider.  Now I'm exaggerating some to make a point, but I'm not exaggerating when I say that in hearing it I puked a little in my mouth!

After asking him whether he was a BS touting LEAN SIX SIGMA guy himself (jab, jab, jab) I hit him with my big left hand saying,

Can we actually get on with taking action and take the inevitable risk of actually accomplishing something?

Risk analysis is way over-played, at least in most of the corporate circles I've run in over the past decade or so.  Maybe we should blame Jack Welch.  Because everything, and I mean everything he did while at the helm was a MUST DO for all companies far and wide.  But I like Jack so I'm not going there.  If people were foolish enough to believe that what works for GE would work for them, well then they got what they deserved.  But I digress ...

I'm a firm believer that risks must be taken.  The boys in the risk management department agree and tack on that dreaded word - calculated risk.  Now I recognize the merits of planning as much as anyone but the word calculated for me and calculated for them are not the same thing.

In most business and personal environments we don't deal with "unwilling to recognize this and people will die" levels of risk, but we do deal with risk none-the-less.  And in most cases we're not even dealing with "business game over" risks.  The companies I've worked for were contemplating strategic moves, markets to penetrate, clients/projects to pursue, and business lines to expand.  The risk tolerance for me in these areas, often as a means of creating company differentiation and separating yourself from the pack, is to take the risk.

No war implications, no likely death and destruction.  Just plain ole business where you make more or less money based on your choices.

So my view on this is slanted.  Slanted to reject the large risk management teams in corporate giants advising of risks and scaring the hell out of executives to the point that they arrive at "analysis paralysis".

Another excerpt from my email yesterday to Marc and Brad on the subject:

What's the risk of shoving your Six Sigma analysis up your ass?!  Do the calculations on that and let me know, but I'm pretty certain it's a risk I'm willing to take!

So I too will end with a couple of quotes.  The first is better for my argument because it speaks to the realm of risk management that most people have to deal with in their lives - not climbing mountains or dealing with war time implications.  

To laugh is to risk appearing the fool.

To weep is to risk appearing sentimental.

To reach for another is to risk involvement.

To expose your ideas, your dreams, before a crowd, is to risk their loss.

To love is to risk not being loved in return.

To live is to risk dying.

To believe is to risk failure.

But risks must be taken, because the greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing.

The people who risk nothing do nothing, have nothing, are nothing.

They may avoid suffering and sorrow, but they cannot learn, feel, change, grow, love, live.

Chained by their attitudes, they are slaves; they have forfeited their freedom.

Only a person who risks is free.

        - Dear Abby

And the last of my quotes IS from an infamous military general who went out in a blaze of glory, perhaps scoffing at risk just a little to much in his zealous attempt to overcome his chronic case of short-man syndrome.  But I like it because it errs on the side of action.  That's where I lie on this matter.

Marc makes a good point regarding recognition of the time you have to make a decision.  But I'm tainted by my past experience in the corporate world where not enough value was placed on speed when it came to making a decision and going with it!  

The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided.  It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny.  

       - Napoleon Bonaparte

Marc on Risk Management

Brad, did we get you fired up today?  You're throwing haymakers right out of the gate.  Before you crucify those who are concerned for your safety, at least give them some credit for having good intentions… and then light em' up!

I agree with you on the main stream media, though.  "Mount Everest Mountaineering Team Assesses Risk and Forgoes Summit Attempt" is not a headline that you'll ever see anywhere, except maybe one of those 115 adventure blogs that you subscribe to.  But since you brought it up…

People who become famous for accomplishing crazy feats, IN GENERAL, get there by taking incredible risks.  Adventurists, thrill seekers, or whatever you want to call them, accept a lot higher levels of risk than the average human being.  Climbing Mount Everest, for example, even with the highest level of preparation and planning, is a greater risk than most people are willing to accept.  

So how much risk is too much risk?  Well, there in lies the key to risk management: weighing benefit vs. risk.  Everything is life has risk, so you can't avoid risk altogether.  There are many complicated, entrenched methods for evaluating risk, such as Lean Six Sigma, Operational Risk Management (Navy), or Plan Do Check Act (PDCA) but the basic questions that must be answered are, "Is it worth it?" and "What can I do to mitigate the risk?"  

I think the four principles of Operational Risk Management say it best:

1) Accept risk when benefit outweighs the cost

2) Accept no unnecessary risk

3) Anticipate and manage risk by planning

4) Make risk decisions at the right level

When I taught Operational Risk Management in Navy leadership school I would use an example from my flying days.  The EP-3E is an old airframe, and it wasn't all that unusual to lose an engine.  It's a four-prop plane so you still have three engines, but things get a little more risky at that point.  So peace time operations called for us to abort our mission and return to base due to the increased risk.  However, during the Kosovo bombing campaign, when we were flying to provide indications and warning support (intel support) to the strike aircraft that were dropping bombs on the Serbs, things changed.  When we lost an engine (increased risk) we stayed on station.  The benefit of us staying there to provide that support outweighed the additional risk associated with us flying on only three engines.  

"Damn the torpedoes!  Full speed ahead!"  - Admiral David Glasgow Farragut at the Battle of Mobile Bay

Unfortunately, Brad, there will always be people who don't want to accept ANY risk.  The way to handle those people is to explain the benefit, and what you are doing to mitigate the associated risk (if possible).  I've found that explaining all the other things that are MORE risky than what you're doing doesn't usually work.

Ed and I had a conversation on the phone today about when risk management becomes obstructive or restrictive to operations.  That certainly can happen, but it doesn't have to do that.  The Navy's tool, Operational Risk Management, uses three levels to fit the situation: in-depth, deliberate, and time critical.  The key is to choose the right level based on the time given to make a decision.  Forcing an in-depth risk management process onto a time-critical decision is what will cripple a business (or a military force).  Perhaps the larger issue here is planning.  Risk management should be a part of the planning process, but not so much that it inhibits it.  I'll end with one of my favorite military quotes:

"A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week."  - General George S. Patton  

Risk management - adventure travel and beyond

As you likely know, I will be heading to Tanzania in January for 12 days to climb Mount Kilimanjaro. Although requiring no technical mountaineering skills (it is considered a walk-up mountain), the elevation (19,341 feet) itself makes the journey difficult. For comparison, the highest point in the continental US is Mount Whitney in California at 14,505 feet.

Many people erroneously believe that an adventure such as this is an inappropriate risk, especially considering I have two small children. I find this quite an ignorant perspective for three reasons:

1. So many people's "knowledge" about adventure travel or mountaineering is based on mainstream media. Accounts and coverage of mountaineering by most media is contained to disasters, see this link for a blog post from a reputable adventure blog on the topic.

2. Disasters such as the 1996 tragedy on Mount Everest chronicled by John Krakauer in his best selling book Into Thin Air are the result of a number of factors including poor decision making by people on the mountain. Rarely does a "freak accident" occur on a mountain that results in the loss of life. Typically there are circumstances driven by human weakness and poor decision making that drive tragedy in a physical environment where the margin of error is incredibly small.

3. If you objectively evaluate the risks of most adventure travel, the highest risk activity is being in a car in a foreign country. See this link for another blog post from an adventure traveler and physician who writes extensively on the topic.

If you are interested in the idea of risk management in high altitude mountaineering I would highly recommend the book No Shortcuts to the Top by Ed Viesturs. Viesturs is by most accounts the most accomplished American mountaineer in history. His longevity in the sport is unique, and a large part of the book is dedicated to his ideas why. He does not consider himself a risk taker, rather a risk manager. Many times he has made a difficult decision not to continue high on a mountain with a summit in sight. He attributes this careful calculation of risk and unwillingness to push the envelope as the primary reason he has experienced both the success and longevity he has in mountaineering.

So before you pass judgment the next time you read about a tragedy in a "high risk" activity such as mountain climbing, make sure to educate yourself about the root cause of the issue. You might find that the activity itself isn't to blame, but as with most failures, the human inability to properly assess and mitigate risk.