3
Optimism and Reality

Shackleton had a wonderful and rare understanding of the men’s attitudes towards one another and towards the expedition as a whole. He appreciated how deeply one man, or a small group of men, could affect the psychology of the others. Therefore he almost insisted upon cheeriness and optimism; in fact his attitude was, “You’ve damn well got to be optimistic.”¹

—Frank A. Worsley

Keen intellect, business competence, and strong interpersonal skills are essential leadership qualities. But if there is one quality that makes the difference at The Edge, it is the ability to remain optimistic in the face of daunting adversity. It is the capacity to look at odds that are impossible, to believe that it is still possible to win, and to convince others that you are right.

Some critics might say that Shackleton’s entire plight came about because he was too optimistic and never should have embarked in the first place. After all, the Norwegian whaling skippers had warned him that ice conditions were treacherous, and yet he elected to continue when a more prudent course might have been to turn back.

This is an issue I will pick up in this chapter and later in the book. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the expedition was able to prevail against enormous obstacles largely because of Shackleton’s dogged optimism—and his superb skill in spreading this positive outlook to others.

Cultivate Optimism in Yourself

Before you can instill optimism in others, you first need to find it in yourself. Shackleton’s family motto—Fortitudine Vincimus (By endurance we conquer)—sums up the explorer’s personality. His indomitable spirit, however, was more than a family legacy. It was a quality that he worked to develop.

Shackleton spent time nourishing his own spirit of optimism. It seemed to pervade everything he did, especially his reading. For example, he was fond of quoting Robert Browning’s “Prospice”:

I was ever a fighter, so—one fight more,
The best and the last! …
For sudden the worst turns the best to the brave
The Black minute’s at end …²

Shackleton framed the world in an invariably optimistic way. On his first expedition to the South Pole, when the march was stopped by a blizzard, he spent time reading Darwin’s Origin of Species. He embraced Darwin’s belief that natural selection leads to perfection and felt buoyed in spite of his ill health.³

The spirit of the times was unflaggingly optimistic, of course, but Shackleton took it to a new dimension. He was more than just a salesman, although his salesmanship was revealed by his dogged refusal to take no for an answer when he was gathering financing for his expedition. Shackleton believed he would succeed, and his belief spread to others.

Lessons for Leaders

A reasonable question to ask is whether optimism like Shackleton’s is something you either have or not. He was, after all, a charismatic leader with special qualities. Shackleton and other great leaders often seem to have been born with a special belief in their own ability. General George Patton, for example, grew up with a belief in the inevitability of his place in history.

Some may have a difficult time identifying with Shackleton’s boundless optimism and his enthusiastic belief that things would somehow work out in the end. Few of us grew up in families whose mottoes were as inspiring as “By endurance we conquer.” I have one client, for example, who—after reading accounts of the Endurance expedition—volunteered that his family motto was “We meant well.” Not quite so inspiring. Another leader quipped, “It’s easy for me to be an optimistic leader anytime except when I’m depressed.”

For many leaders, questions remain. Is this capacity for optimism an innate characteristic? Can optimism really be acquired or cultivated? How can I develop a more optimistic personality if I do not already have that predisposition?

Optimism is not a natural act for everyone, but there is reason to believe that it is an ability that can be learned and greatly improved. The key lies in the inner dialogue that goes on, often unnoticed, almost all the time for all of us.

I will sometimes ask a group the question, “How many of you talk to yourselves?” Usually, about half of the group members raise their hands. The other half say (to themselves), “I don’t talk to myself.”

The reality is that this self-talk is part of human nature, and the first step in cultivating optimism is to pay close attention to what you say to yourself. If you are aware of this inner dialogue, especially during times of adversity or setback, you will be conscious of the messages you are sending yourself about failure or success. The right messages are energizing; the wrong ones are deflating.

The way to develop a feeling of optimism is to consistently send positive messages that override voices of discouragement and pessimism. Some of the mechanics of sending these positive messages may sound hokey or contrived. I agree: They may seem contrived—but they often work.

One of my clients had the task of leading a team with an extremely difficult assignment. The task was to complete a thorough report in a business field in which no one on the team had prior direct experience. Progress was glacially slow. Operating under a tight deadline, everyone was discouraged, even the leader. The goal seemed unreachable.

Then one day the team leader was looking at a magazine ad that stated, “You can do it!” emblazoned in color across the page. He cut out the words and taped them to the mirror in his bathroom. Every morning, the first thing he saw was his face with the caption, “You can do it!” This optimistic image literally changed the way he began the day. Contrived, yes—but effective, because the team completed a well-received report by the deadline.

There are more complex ways of thinking about how to change these self-messages. Psychologist Martin Seligman pioneered one systematic approach called learned optimism.⁴ Seligman studied the effects of optimistic self-talk, or explanatory style, in real-world conditions ranging from selling insurance to surviving plebe (freshman) year at West Point. His conclusions are that optimists do better than pessimists and that their success rate is greater than objective data (such as SAT scores) would predict.

Seligman argues that his ABCDE model is more effective than simply sending positive messages. His process, which I have simplified, involves five concepts and related actions:

1. Adversity. Identify the adversity you have encountered (e.g., a computer crash in the middle of an important project).

2. Beliefs. Note your thoughts and beliefs about the event—that is, your interpretation (e.g., “I’ll never get the report done”).

3. Consequences. Recognize the consequences of your belief (e.g., you feel discouraged).

4. Dispute. Dispute the negative belief with a sound argument based on evidence (e.g., “I have overcome other technology disasters through persistence”).

5. Energy. Generate the energy and feelings needed to overcome the adversity (e.g., “I feel more relaxed and confident that I can deal with the problem and finish the report”).

The learned optimism approach can be a valuable tool, but the process requires rehearsal. Practice using the method to deal with minor setbacks so that it will become second nature under conditions of more serious adversity. And, whatever approach you use, be aware of your inner dialogue. As Henry Ford once said, “Whether you think you can, or whether you think you can’t, you’re right.”

Spread the Spirit of Optimism

Shackleton did more than cultivate optimism in himself. He was able to communicate his positive outlook in a way that had a profound influence on every member of the expedition, even the cynics. He exercised this remarkable power in a number of ways.

Shackleton’s fundamentally ebullient personality was a contagious force that infected others. In large measure, he believed so completely in success that it was difficult not to subscribe to his cheerful outlook. Shackleton also established the attitude that “you’ve damn well got to be optimistic” as a core operating principle of the expedition. It was a discipline to be learned and cultivated.

There were also times in which Shackleton’s ability to inspire confidence lay in his ability to put on a good face—the traditional British stiff upper lip and steely self-control. This was illustrated by his behavior at a ship’s “party” that was held before the other members of the expedition realized the extent of their predicament.⁵

These festive events, held in the below-deck area known as the Ritz, were in keeping with a tradition of polar exploration. They consisted of skits, songs, and whatever makeshift costumes the crew could devise. While the crew was preparing for the fun of the masquerade party, Shackleton met with Frank Wild and Captain Worsley to deliver his grim assessment of their situation. He had become convinced that the ship was doomed, and he gave Worsley the news with no equivocation:

The ship can’t live in this, Skipper. … You had better make up your mind that it is only a matter of time. It may be a few months, and it may be a question of weeks, or even days. … But what the ice gets, the ice keeps.⁶

Immediately after this dire prophecy, First Officer Greenstreet knocked on the cabin door and announced that the crew was ready to begin the party. Minutes later, Shackleton was laughing with “the boys” in the Ritz. No one ever would have guessed the thoughts that must have lain heavy on his mind.

There were times, of course, during which even Shackleton’s dogged optimism flagged under the enormous stresses of responsibility. This was especially true during the time before their escape from Patience Camp to the relative safety of Elephant Island. It was a difficult time for the leader, with his expedition sitting on a dwindling cake of ice, buffeted by wind and weather and threatened by collision and heavy swells. Shackle-ton recalled his feelings at the time:

I confess that I felt the burden of responsibility sit heavily on my shoulders; but, on the other hand, I was stimulated and cheered by the attitude of the men.⁷

Shackleton took heart from the optimistic spirit of the team and, in return, Shackleton’s presence and demeanor engendered optimism among his crew. But the Boss did not simply exhort people to be hopeful. He was masterful in the subtle ways in which he created a pervasive spirit of future possibility and positive energy.

He kept the group engaged, for example, with a lively discussion about—remarkably—the prospect of an expedition to Alaska!⁸ For a group stranded in the middle of a frozen Antarctic sea, the idea of another polar undertaking could have seemed preposterous. But the prospect provided an engaging alternative to dwelling on their predicament or thinking about the potential dangers that lay ahead. Captain Worsley recounted:

We look up all the maps & books on the subject that we can lay our hands on, & are enthusiastic about our next trip before we can definitely settle how the devil we are going to get out of this one.⁹

Planning an expedition to Alaska was clearly a method for entertaining the expedition during the long empty hours. In this sense, it was an “engaging distraction.” But it was more than that. It provided a future focus and a promise that there would be other adventures—with the obvious implication that they would triumph over their present situation. It represents just one way in which the whole culture of the expedition encouraged confidence and hope.

Lessons for Leaders

Leaders who are successful at The Edge are able to instill in others the belief that the organization will achieve its goals. But just how does a leader radiate optimism? How does a leader spread “the spirit” when survival is not at stake?

Leaders must convince their teams that success is both necessary and possible. They must challenge people’s beliefs without personal criticism, and—when change is called for—demonstrate that it is feasible to change course. Finally, they must find a way to create a sense of personal connection throughout the organization. These are the critical ingredients of inspiration.

Shackleton often used a personal approach with members of his crew, and was tenacious in winning them over. This persistent approach worked for Shackleton, but there is another question that surfaces for me as I think about optimism at The Edge: Just how candid should leaders be in sharing their uncensored doubts and inner feelings when faced with adversity?

There are those who believe that personal authenticity demands complete openness, and that leaders should reveal the depths of their emotional inner life. They argue that anything other than this level of disclosure is patronizing—and that openness creates space for others to be similarly revealing.

My perspective is different. I believe there are times in which leaders need to maintain their composure, despite the natural inclination to express feelings of discouragement, fear, or even despair. This is not to say that they should shield others from reality or withhold basic information about the situation. Rather, it is to say that there are times at The Edge in which the perceived attitude of the leader is a powerful force that can create energy and optimism or fear and pessimism: It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

When fears and doubts are expressed openly, it may be difficult or impossible to rekindle the optimism that is so important for success. Therefore, I believe the role of the leader demands that personal fears are best controlled or dampened until negative information is digested. Then a discussion of concerns can be coupled with potential solutions and a positive message of hope for the future.

Build the Right Team “Optimism Quotient”

After hearing the story of the Trans-Antarctic expedition, some people conclude that the success of the expedition can be traced to the initial selection process and Shackleton’s ability to assemble such a capable team. In fact, Shackleton’s interviews were often cursory and haphazard. But he did succeed in filling several critical roles with extremely competent individuals and in making the best use of those finally selected.

His knack for putting the right team members in the right job showed itself in technical tasks, but Shackleton was also sensitive to having the right mix of temperaments and outlooks. In particular, he seemed to have a sense of the threshold level of what might be called the “OQ”—the optimism quotient, or ratio of optimistic to more pessimistic team members—needed to take on arduous tasks.

Probably the most important team choice Shackleton made was his second in command, Frank Wild. Shackleton had endured extreme hardship with Wild on their previous expedition to the South Pole and, consequently, had a complete grasp of the man’s character. Wild was not only steadfast and loyal. He also shared Shackleton’s fundamental belief that obstacles existed to be overcome.

Wild’s optimism was important on numerous occasions. After Shackleton’s jarring pre-party announcement about the fate of Endurance, for instance, Wild saw that Captain Worsley was shaken. Wild immediately rose to reassure the captain with softly spoken but confident words: “ … We are not going to let the ice get us. Poor little Endurance may go, but we won’t.”¹⁰

It was the perfect remark, and Worsley was comforted. Worsley later remembered:

… [Wild] had said just [the] right thing. To an old seaman like myself, the very idea of giving up a ship is something like having an arm or leg amputated; but Wild’s words made me realize that in spite of the importance which the ship might have in my eyes, there were human lives at stake … and that our job was to see that the ice didn’t get them—even if it got my ship.¹¹

This was not an isolated event. Wild’s ability to maintain an optimistic spirit was an anchor that remained solid throughout the ordeal. And it was a quality tested dramatically after Shackleton sailed with the James Caird for South Georgia. Shackleton left Wild in full command of the twenty-two men left behind on Elephant Island. Managing the emotions of the “castaways” was an enormous leadership challenge. In fact, it may have been even more difficult than that faced by the Boss in his run to South Georgia.

Shackleton’s fate was unknown for 128 days, and Wild had the daily challenge of maintaining hope in the face of the obvious possibility that disaster might have overtaken the rescue party. There were also other potential sources of despair. Orde-Lees, ever the pessimist, predicted that their supply of penguins would disappear, and conditions continued to become more and more desperate. They all suffered, especially Blackborow, the stowaway, whose foot had to be amputated from the ball joint forward.¹² Given all this (along with the extreme dismay when the tobacco supply ran out), an atmosphere of doom easily could have prevailed.

Shackleton’s confidence in Wild’s ability to hold the party together was well founded. Wild not only maintained the routines that had served the group so well in the past but also kept the men infused with the positive attitude that they had exhibited under Shackleton.

In the absence of the Boss, it became clear that Shackleton’s optimism had become embedded in the ethos of the team, and it was nourished constantly by Frank Wild. He refused to entertain even the slightest possibility that they would not be rescued. As an unwavering symbol of his conviction, Wild roused the men every day with a cheery shout of, “Lash up and stow, boys, the Boss may come today.”¹³ Even the morose Orde-Lees was forced to admit that Wild’s ability to maintain the spirits of those likely to be despondent was “a fine thing.”

Shackleton’s choice of Wild was central to the crew’s successful return, but there were other instances in which optimism seemed to be an explicit selection factor. When choosing a crew for what was to be the most arduous and dangerous part of the journey thus far—the voyage to South Georgia—Shackleton looked for men with a number of qualities. He seemed to have an innate understanding of the importance of having someone he could rely on to keep up the spirits of the team.

Shackleton filled one of the five scarce billets on the James Caird with Timothy McCarthy, an “able seaman” whose good-natured personality had endeared him to everyone on the expedition. True, McCarthy could contribute physical strength, but his most important contribution was probably his ability to maintain a positive outlook under the worst sea and weather any of them had ever experienced.

“Macty” maintained his cheery outlook throughout the sixteen-day journey. Worsley recalled one vivid example:

Macty [McCarthy] is the most irrepressible optimist I’ve ever met. When I relieve him at the helm, boat iced and seas pouring down your neck, he informs me with a happy grin, “It’s a grand day, sir, I was feeling a bit sour just before….”¹⁴

McCarthy’s indomitable good spirits undoubtedly buoyed the morale of the soaked sailors. He was a good choice for such an arduous voyage.

Lessons for Leaders

When selecting people for key roles, it is natural to think about the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for top performance. Other personal qualities, such as the ability to work with others, and values, such as integrity, are often considered carefully. But it is less obvious that an individual’s characteristic tendency toward optimism or pessimism might be an important—in some cases, the most important—factor in a particular role.

This is not to suggest that everyone take a personality test as part of the selection process. But it does argue for looking carefully at the way individuals respond to adversity and for explicitly including those with optimistic attitudes in difficult team assignments.

From my perspective as a frequent flyer, one of the most difficult assignments I can imagine is contending with exhausted, weary travelers. At Southwest Airlines, building the right optimism quotient starts with the hiring process.¹⁵ As Herb Kelleher, the former CEO of Southwest Airlines, once said, “We want people with positive attitudes, who enjoy helping others.”

To foster optimism, training exercises are structured so that everyone must contribute in order to complete the exercise. In discussions following the exercise, the trainer points out how each person contributed and notes differences in personality and temperament. By hiring employees who have positive attitudes and building on that through training and acknowledgment, Southwest has been successful in fostering both diversity and optimism in its workforce.

Exactly what should the team OQ be? The answer is not a team composed solely of individuals who view the world through rose-colored glasses. As I will discuss later, there is value in diversity in this dimension. However, the team OQ should be high enough to sustain the belief in success, even when the task seems insurmountable. Every team needs a McCarthy!

Know How to Reframe a Tough Situation

Optimism can be sparked by leaders who reframe disastrous events in positive, empowering ways. An example comes from the survival story recounted in the book Alive.

On October 13, 1972, a group of Uruguayan rugby players and their families crash-landed high in the Andes Mountains. In their struggle to survive, there were many setbacks and challenges. One of their consolations was the daily radio broadcast on the progress of the rescue effort. After eight days, however, the search was called off. Three of the group, upon hearing this news, discussed whether to tell the rest of the group. Finally, Gustavo Nicolich, one of the emergent leaders of the group, insisted that they must tell the rest of their predicament:

He climbed through the hole in the wall of suitcases and rugby shirts, crouched at the mouth of the dim tunnel, and looked at the mournful faces which were turned toward him. “Hey boys,” he shouted, “there is some good news! We just heard it on the radio. They’ve called off the search.” Inside the crowded cabin, there was silence. As the hopelessness of their predicament enveloped them, they wept. “Why the hell is that good news?” Paez shouted angrily at Nicolich. “Because it means,” he said, “that we’re going to get out of here on our own.”¹⁶

The optimism and confidence exhibited by Gustavo Nicolich helped the group get through one of the most depressing and potentially debilitating events since the crash. By reframing the situation in an empowering way, he was able to rally the group. Then, they, as a whole, began to take responsibility for their own rescue.

Lessons for Leaders

I had read that the Chinese character for crisis, Weigee, incorporates two figures: The upper character represents “danger,” the lower one “opportunity” (see Figure 3-1). I first doubted this was true, so I asked a Chinese student at Yale what the real story was. He hesitated, drew the figure, and looked at me with a smile. It was true, he confirmed, although he hadn’t really seen it until I asked him the question.¹⁷

Effective leaders are able to look at adversity and see the opportunity, even if others see only the danger. This perspective may be resisted. A standing joke in one organization I worked with is that people were tired of “major opportunities” and would be satisfied just to have a few “minor problems.” Nevertheless, a leader who is able to reframe events in a positive light, and stick by that point of view, can turn the tide.

Figure 3-1. Chinese character for crisis.

Lieutenant General Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller was a master of reframing tough situations. Often adding a healthy dash of humor to encourage his troops, Puller served in the U.S. Marine Corps for forty years and is the most decorated U.S. Marine in history. He led Marines in some of the most important engagements of the twentieth century, including the legendary battle at Henderson Field Guadalcanal in World War II, and the Chosin Reservoir Campaign during the Korean War.

In the fall of 1950, General Douglas MacArthur pressed for a decisive end to the Korean War. Vowing to crush the North Koreans, MacArthur sent the forces of the United Nations, including Puller’s First Marine Regiment, across the Thirty-Eighth Parallel toward the Yalu River. MacArthur was convinced that the Chinese would not intervene and that victory was at hand.¹⁸

As MacArthur was optimistically predicting a swift end to the war, the PLA Ninth Army Group, consisting of some hundred thousand men in ten divisions, crossed the Yalu. Marching at night to avoid detection, they were intent on stopping the advance of the Marines.¹⁹ The Chinese were following Mao Tse-tung’s playbook, luring their enemy to penetrate deeply because it was their most effective move when faced with a strong opponent.²⁰ The tactic worked: Puller’s regiment, and the entire First Marine Division, were trapped in the bitter cold of the North Korean mountains.

The Chinese army had resolved to destroy the American Marines. A pamphlet distributed to the Chinese troops declared, “Soon we will meet with the American Marines in battle. We will destroy them. When they are defeated, the enemy will collapse and our country will be free from the threat of aggression. Kill these Marines as you would snakes in your homes!”²¹

The Chinese attacked at night, without regard for casualties. With bugles blaring, their human wave attacks were repelled only by hand-to-hand fighting, and it was clear that the Marines were surrounded. Caught in –40°F temperatures, heavy snow, and wind, the division was isolated from air cover and in danger of being overrun. The situation was grim, and the outcome potentially disastrous. Puller, however, was not discouraged. When he realized enemy forces were on all sides of his men and outnumbered his troops eight-to-one, Puller famously said, “We’ve been looking for the enemy for several days now. We’ve finally found them. We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem….”²²

The Chinese attacks continued for days. Each evening, Puller would disappear—going from hole to hole, checking on his Marines to make sure that they had enough food, that they were prepared for the next assault, and that they knew the “Old Man” was looking out for them. He continued to reframe their dire situation. In one radio conversation, when asked how things were going, Puller remarked: “Fine. We have contact with the enemy on all sides.”²³

When Puller finally left his position at Kotori, he walked alongside his troops for miles before climbing into a jeep. He wanted to make absolutely sure that his Marines had escaped the trap set by the Chinese. When the breakout was complete, Puller spoke with reporters before boarding a ship in Hungnam Harbor. His framing of the situation was the same as it had always been: “Remember, whatever you write, this was not retreat. All that happened was that we found more Chinese behind us than in front of us so we about-faced and attacked.”²⁴

It is important to note that the concept of reframing is not simply saying blithely that things will be all right. There are three steps to the process. The first step is to take a difficult situation and envision all the possible outcomes, both positive and negative. The second step is to focus on a positive way of thinking that is consistent with the reality of the situation. This positive view may not, in a statistical sense, be the most likely outcome. But it must be a conceivable scenario. Finally, this positive outlook must be maintained in spite of resistance and cynicism.

Stay Grounded in Reality

Shackleton’s insistence that “you’ve damn well got to be optimistic” was one of his most admirable qualities as a leader. But the relentless optimism that Shackleton exuded also had its costs. There were times when this singular focus seemed to blind him to reality, and it created dissension among the crew.

One such occasion was Shackleton’s conflict with his crew over stockpiling food. First Officer Greenstreet was convinced that the expedition needed to be prepared for an extended time on the ice. Shackleton thought that a month’s supply was sufficient and was content when a hunting party returned with four seals. When Orde-Lees skied into camp and announced that he had killed three more, Shackleton refused to allow additional slain seals to be brought into camp. Greenstreet wrote:

… [T]he present shortage of food is due simply and solely from the Boss refusing to get seals when they were to be had. … His sublime optimism … being to my mind absolute foolishness.²⁵

Shackleton was recklessly optimistic, and he was also angered by Greenstreet’s argument, interpreting the first officer’s behavior as an act of disloyalty. Had this become a habit—had Shackleton continued to reject people’s alternate views of reality—he might have lost the confidence of the expedition.

Lessons for Leaders

A Fortune article titled “CEOs in Denial” sounds an ominous note:

There’s something in the nature of CEOs—pride, vanity, a primal need for control, an obsession with success, good old-fashioned idealism—that makes many smart, well-regarded chief executives into idiots when the world turns against them. They rationalize. They justify. They circle their wagons, build their bunkers, mollify their troops. They claim themselves “victims” of their “situations.” In these trying times for executives, denial is more popular than ever.²⁶

Optimism is an important leadership quality, but denial is deadly. Harvard Business School professor Richard S. Tedlow explores the problem of excessive optimism in his book Denial: Why Business Leaders Fail to Look Facts in the Face—and What to Do About It. He argues that now—more than ever—CEOs need a realistic outlook: “What is different today is that the cost of denial has become so high. We are living in a less forgiving world than we once did.”²⁷ With stakes this high, leaders must balance optimism with reality checks.

One way of thinking about the paradox is that leaders at The Edge need to engage in Janusian thinking.²⁸ Janus, the Roman god of gates, was able to look in two directions at the same time. Effective leadership in demanding situations means being able to see the optimistic view and, at the same time, deal with stark reality.

This duality is often difficult to achieve. Under stressful conditions, no one wants to hear bad news. Movie mogul Samuel Goldwyn Jr. once commented, “I don’t want any yes-men around me. I want them to tell me the truth, even if it costs them their jobs.”²⁹ Leaders often send similar messages.

Refusal to hear contrary points of view can have disastrous consequences. The story of Robert Haas and Levi Strauss & Company controlled by his family provides a compelling example.³⁰ Following an organizational restructuring, Haas became accountable only to three people, his uncle and two cousins. Haas invested time and energy in creating a socially conscious, values-driven organization. The goals were admirable. The business results were not. Although programs designed to create an enlightened workplace flourished, product innovation lagged, costs soared, internal battles raged, customer service dropped, and competitors encroached. In three years, Levi Strauss’s market value shrank by some $6 billion.

How could this happen to a great American brand such as Levi’s? It appears that Haas simply had the power to ignore reality. A Fortune article argues, “Levi Strauss is a failed utopian management experiment. It’s a story of what can happen when well-intentioned but misguided managers run a private company answering to no one.”³¹ Free from accountability, Haas lost touch with the business focus needed to achieve commercial success.

Fortunately, in recent years Levi Strauss has successfully reinvented itself and recaptured market share. By facing reality, and using such tactics as courting more sophisticated customers, recruiting executive talent, and aggressively opening new stores, the company recovered from its slump.³²

The lesson is clear: Resist the temptation to exclude contrary ideas; stay in touch with reality. Find people who will tell you the truth, and reward them for doing so.

Expedition Log

1. How do you typically react when faced with adversity or potential setback? What do you say to yourself—what goes on in your inner dialogue?

2. Are there changes that you can make to this “self-talk” that will create a more optimistic view and enable you to bounce back more quickly?

3. Think about a current business challenge you are facing. What are you doing to instill optimism in your team or organization? Does your language communicate confidence and hope? Have you been able to reframe this situation in a convincing way?

4. Think about your most difficult individual or team assignments. Is the optimism quotient high enough to ensure success?

5. What are your mechanisms for staying in touch with reality and getting the full picture? Are people comfortable in giving you bad news? How do you know?