Overcoming adversity. Yes, it’s a cliché. But that doesn’t make it any less important for leaders who are committed to succeeding.

Just ask the New York Giants. With a 6-6 record on December 11, and down by 12 points on the road with under six minutes to play, they were on the brink of oblivion. But a stirring comeback win kept their playoff hopes alive.

They needed to win their final two regular season games just to get to 9-7 and hope that they might make the playoffs. A sliver of a hope because in 2010 their 10-6 record wasn’t good enough. The Giants responded and won both games handily.

Then after a playoff victory over Atlanta they faced the task of having to defeat the top two teams in their conference on the road to get to the Super Bowl. And they did. Finally, they faced the most dominant team of the past decade in the big game. They suffered the letdown of squandering an early lead by giving up 17 straight points … but maintained their composure and came back for an inspired win.

When asked how his team could crawl out of the grave so many times, Coach Tom Coughlin said simply, “Anything is possible for those who believe.”

Look in the mirror and ask yourself: How do I respond when the chips are down? How do I want to respond?

To be 100% committed 100% of the time regardless of the circumstance requires complete, total, absolute, unwavering belief that you can achieve your goal.

Do you believe?

Your thoughts?

Michael

Last week I wrote that you as a leader don’t cause motivation. You hire people who are motivated, then you create the right environment to help channel and unleash that motivation.

So what’s the right environment? You’re not going to like the answer.

Law #2: Motivation is not one-size-fits-all

It depends. Sure, there are some universals: people want to feel respected, they thrive when they have a sense of purpose, and they feel good when they accomplish things. Beyond that almost anything goes. Some want you to point them in the right direction and then get out of the way. Some need your approval after taking each step. Some like to try different approaches, some like to conform. Some like to interact with others, some want to be left alone. Some want to lead, some want to be led. Some want to be recognized on the big stage, some want to be recognized in private.

The bottom line: know your people. Different people respond to different environments for different reasons. That’s human nature and that’s OK.

Your thoughts?

Michael

Is your organization continuously improving? Are you evolving your products and services? At a pace to not only keep you in the game but help you win the game?

Google makes around 100 upgrades to its search engine each quarter. At any given time they’re running between 50 and 200 experiments to test potential improvements. How do you measure up?

Think of your organization as a science lab. You encourage your people to think and to generate hypotheses about how to do things better, how to make things better. They test the most promising hypotheses, many of them, but one at a time so as to control for the effect of other variables. They draw conclusions and implement the most promising ideas. Maybe they develop broader theories which lead to the testing of new hypotheses.

Hypotheses, testing, control, conclusions, theories … this is the language of innovative organizations as well as science.

Your white lab coat awaits, professor.

Your thoughts?

Michael

If you’re a regular reader of this blog you know my core philosophy regarding organizational performance, execution and change: ruthless consistency. Organizations that develop the right focus, get the right people and create the right environment are organizations that win.

Now some might think that ruthless consistency means doing the same things the same way all of the time, taking a mindlessly repetitive approach to whatever it is you’re trying to accomplish.

Let me be clear: what ruthless consistency means is that your intentions and actions, however varied they may be, always are consistent with winning.

Different situations call for different approaches. Organizations should be flexible. They need to experiment and innovate. And they should cultivate freethinking. If a reasonable expectation is that a different approach will produce better results, that’s ruthless consistency.

Both ruthless consistency and intentional flexibility are desirable. And consistent.

Your thoughts?

Michael