Chester Barnard said, "We hire people for their skills, but the whole person shows up for work." I first heard this quote at the opening of a weeklong leadership training at Microsoft. It was an upleveling quote, reminding us that this week was not supposed to be about our current products or our current team "drama" (remember "drama" from Monday1?). This week was about becoming more aware of our own potential and our team's potential.
Satya Nadella similarly highlights the importance of the "whole person". Shortly after becoming CEO of Microsoft, he published "Hit Refresh", and every employee received a copy. The quote I remember the most from this book is one that has now been incorporated into new employee orientation: "Realize your personal passions and use Microsoft as a platform to pursue that passion. … Identify your innermost passions and connect them in some way to our new mission and culture."
When employees bring more of their whole selves to work, they are unlocking their full potential. They are better for it. And their teams, their company, and the industry are all better for it.
Nature and Nurture
Are you a product of genetic inheritance (nature) or of environmental factors (nurture)? The problem with the Nature versus Nurture debate begins with the name itself, which presents this as a binary choice. It's not Nature versus Nurture. It's Nature and Nurture.
You are a grand synthesis, a unique blend of your genes, your family, your friends, your town, your primary education, your college, your hobbies, your sports, your jobs, your relationships, etc. etc.
And just as you continually bring in additional influences and inputs, your grand synthesis continually evolves.
Unique Value Proposition
My favorite song in Lin-Manuel Miranda's Hamilton is "Wait For It". There are two lines in particular that are the reason this song resonates with me. The first line will be the topic for a future post. Here, I want to focus on the second line that caught my attention: "I am inimitable, I am an original." Every time I'm singing along to this song, I yell this line, sometimes even louder than Burr is yelling it. This isn't about just being different for its own sake. This, to me, is about celebrating your grand synthesis.
Gordon MacKenzie, in his wonderfully unique book "Orbiting the Giant Hairball", nails the potential that arises at the intersection of your uniqueness with your company's mission: "When you come into an organization, you bring with you an arcane potency, which stems, in part, from your uniqueness. That, in turn, is rooted in a complex mosaic of personal history that is original, unfathomable, inimitable. There has never been anyone quite like you, and there never will be. Consequently, you can contribute something to an endeavor that nobody else can. There is power in your uniqueness -- an inexplicable, unmeasurable power." (bolding mine … there's that word "inimitable" again)
Once you notice your own synthesis, then it's time to start leveraging it. What is the individual potential that comes from, in Gordon's words, your "complex mosaic"? This isn't what your parents did their best at. This isn't what your hero brought to the world. This is 100% you.
Recognizing Your Synthesis
Per the quotes I've already shared, it's obvious that Chester, Satya, Lin-Manuel, and Gordon are all part of my synthesis. And from my three intro posts I've also shown ways that James Clear, my Mom, my Dad, Stephen Covey, Albert Einstein, Daniel Pink, Bill Gates, Henry David Thoreau, and Robin Williams have influenced me. But this list is woefully incomplete, and I don't have the space to detail the thousands of other influences that have shaped me. But that doesn't stop me from trying. I have an extensive external brain (thanks David Allen) captured in OneNote, and I'm constantly documenting the influences that I spot. This has been invaluable as I try to construct the story of my own synthesis.
The more aware you are of what sources have had the most influence on you, the more intentionally you can set your future direction by selecting additional sources that are the most aligned to your goals. And here it's important to not stick to one narrow field. Tangential influences are the real magic of your synthesis.
From when I started college until my late 30s, I thought of my cycling as a standalone hobby that I set time aside on my calendar to go out, do it, come home, and then leave it until my next outing. But shortly after becoming a father, I realized the value of cycling on the rest of my life. The general fitness benefits are what I was after from the start. But the extended time to reflect on solo rides became hugely important to me, and gave me a space amongst the busy-ness of work and family for uninterrupted pondering. This is what led to my annual retreats turning into five days of biking. On the bike for hours at a time, I can easily find a "meditative flow". And even short outings began to unlock my mindfulness. For my last two years at Microsoft, my lunch hour was spent on a bike, following the same weaving route that I constructed that allowed me to stay entirely on campus but still spend an hour in pedaling pondering.
1% 100 Things
A couple of years ago, I was talking with a friend of mine who was just laid off from Microsoft. I applauded her ability to be "very Zen about the situation". This took us down a short aside where she described her exposure to Buddhism. "My high school boyfriend was Buddhist. I was curious and learned a lot from him. I self-studied Taoism in college. I don't fully embrace it or believe in it, but a lot of it resonated with me. Like many religions, there are some great nuggets of wisdom within."
I replied, "I'm not 100% 1 thing. I'm 1% 100 things." I liked the sound of that, even if it's off by at least an order of magnitude (0.01% 10,000 things?).
This explains why I hate labels and generalizations. When I label someone, I'm turning one of their 1%s into a 100%. Instead, I stay vigilant of all the 1%s someone is sharing. The more I learn about someone, the greater the chance I have in discovering a 1% (or 0.1% or 0.01%) of them that I can make mine.
We are not single-belief people. We are each our own grand synthesis. And together we're a wonderful diversity, a grander synthesis2.
Uplevel U
Now let's get concrete, with a little homework. See how far you can take this progression:
Level 1) How aware of your own synthesis are you?
Start with a manageable number, like 20. What are 20 aspects of yourself that combine to make you different from anyone else you know?
Level 2) Where do you want to go?
What is one aspect you want to add to your own synthesis?
Level 3) Go deeper on connecting your uniqueness to your mission. HBR has a great exercise in From Purpose to Impact.
Footnotes
My post from last Monday hit on the levels of construal, with drama being the lowest level: What's in a Name?
My second intro post called out my goal of Uplevel being "A living dialogue. A progressive rendering. A grander synthesis." Play the Pause
So may great points you touch on here Jeff! Intentionality. Having a great Support Network around you (and being intentional about that). Each of our unique designs and how that fits with our PURPOSE in life. Each topic deserves much discussion and I hope to see these continue to be mined in future posts!