What Does 8 Seconds Mean To you?

Life is often about perspective and especially so in performance coaching. Some people find they look at defeats as magnificent learning opportunities that will only improve them in the 'bigger picture', others can't get out of bed for days afterwards replaying the painful experience over and over in their minds. After Lauren Fignon lost the 1989 Tour de France by only 8 seconds he would continually recount the lost 8 seconds over and over in his head. Over time this counting ritual consumed him and he would replay the pain almost daily and at times hourly. Although I acknowledge a huge event in his career he had nonetheless lost perspective on this experience.

Often it is how you look at a situation that defines the meaning you take from it. We coach with the presupposition that you can look at everything from the perspective of a curious child learning. Regardless of your wins or losses the important question is, how much did you learn from the experience? This works for two reasons, the first being when things don't go well it allows you engage your rational and logical thought process and thus attach less emotion to the experience enabling you to be pragmatic; secondly when things go well it keeps you grounded and rational avoiding the potential for arrogance or situational focus loss, once again enabling pragmatism when needed. Which ever race your winning or losing there is always someone winning or losing a bigger race - it's all about the perspective you adopt to view the experience through your frame of reference.

Let me demonstrate....

Read the following extract from top to bottom, as naturally as possible. Once you have done this take an audit of how you feel and also your perspective of this experience.

Today was the absolute worst day ever
And don't try to convince me that
There's something good in every day
Because, when you take a closer look,
This world is a pretty evil place.
Even if
Some goodness does shine through once in a while
Satisfaction and happiness don't last.
And it's not true that
It's all in the mind and heart
Because
True happiness can be obtained
Only if one's surroundings are good
It's not true that good exists
I'm sure you can agree that
The reality
Creates
My attitude
It's all beyond my control
And you'll never in a million years hear me say that
Today was a good day!

Now do the same but read from bottom to the top and rethink your mindset when finished.

Often it is the way we see the world that defines the meaning we attach to an experience, is your glass half empty or half full?

Splitting Hairs - Shackleton Selection Weekend

There is a question I have asked myself repeatedly during the search for the final team member for Charlie Paton's Sub 100 South Pole Team. How can you accurately observe and assess candidates while knowing your presence indirectly influences their behaviour? I’m certain many other selection processes have experienced a similar paradox; you need to see the candidates performing, but while being watched they are likely to modify behaviour to a greater or lesser extent. Having just finished the final selection weekend I think we may have stumbled into the solution to this age old dilemma. 

By chance the final selection weekend left us with 3 similar pairings comprising the final 6, this after the unfortunate withdrawals of Craig & Barry for different reasons. We needed to know how the participants dealt with fatigue, ambiguity, boredom and constant goal shifting, after all these components will be present in the Antarctic with greater consequences.

In this blog I will explain our thought process and also my personal perception of the candidates and their specific behaviours. It is worth emphasising this does not reflect the thoughts of the rest of the selection team.  

It was during the first weekend held at Crickhowell that we noticed very subtle shifts in behaviour when candidates perceived they were under assessment, some did this unconsciously others perhaps more consciously. Some added words to their sentences while others withdrew conversational content and engaged in a ‘poker’ style guarded approach. Some would become more cheerful, others more withdrawn in our presence. I wrestled with ways to dissolve our very obvious contamination of their natural behaviours, which we needed to learn about. Added to this we (myself and Phil Kelly) believed it vital that Charlie should see the candidates at their most vulnerable, which in and of itself was challenging enough to manufacture given their undoubted resilience.  The answer to our challenges actually presented itself in an analogy innocently mentioned to me in passing a few weeks prior to the weekend.

‘It is widely accepted that when a bank robbery takes place with 10 people present the police will be given 11 different stories. The theory being all 10 of the ‘victims’ will tell a different version events, the 11^th story is the ‘true’ account of the security cameras.’

Charlie and me discussing the candidates. 

Here in lay our thought process for the selection weekend. If we removed ourselves from this behavioural equation paradox completely, to the point the candidates thought we were completely detached from their experience, they might act in more natural way - warts and all! Added to this during our small intersections there would be a marked difference in their behaviour that would be very apparent to the members of their own team. This would be the most important ingredient because we weren’t their to 'see' with our own eyes we needed them to 'see' for themselves each others weaknesses; cruel perhaps, clever most certainly.       

As mentioned the final 6 fell into 3 similar pairs. 

The first pair, Tom & Callum, fall into the  Transactional Analysis Driver bracket of ‘Be Strong’, both are capable physically and mentally. They also both occupy an unusual 'Alpha' male trait, which is an almost quiet and understated leadership style, reserved predominately by ‘Be Strong’ drivers with high levels of confidence and humility in my experience. Because of their ‘Be Strong’ drivers neither are particularly comfortable during interviews, perhaps their driver characteristic of ‘less is more’ linguistically doesn’t lend itself naturally to interviews? Interestingly in many ways they are similar to Charlie himself. 

The second pair, Mike & Stuart, share a detailed, logical and analysis orientated thought process. Both enjoy individual sports and I suspect both enjoy the detailed planning associated in their respective past times. In every ‘cerebral’ focussed challenge over the two weekends they out-performed the majority of their counterparts. Stuart solved the ‘Sign lines’ game during the middle of the night with limited sleep and in the shadow of Snowdon. Although the success of the task was actually communicated through Mike who understood Stuart’s logical thought process and was able to explain the plan to the group making him a great conduit for Stuart’s analytical solution. 

The final pair are the ladies, Carrie & Hannah. The other males appeared from the outside to hold great respect for both and neither tries to occupy an obvious default position of women in a social group dominated by men – the ‘mother hen’ role. Physically very different although both incredibly strong of body and mind, they share many personality traits including endless enthusiasm and an enduring sense of humour which perceived from the outside does not irritate other candidates, which can sometimes be the case. What was most evident is something that was missing as opposed to something that was present; there was an absence of internal dialogue from either to compete with the males to ‘prove’ their individual credentials.  My thoughts throughout are this behavioural trait absence, often found with women participating in ‘male’ dominated activities, is a major contributing factor to their acceptance from males within the group alongside their individual personalities. Conversely, it is also a major contributing Human Factors in many mountaineering / ski touring accidents in the sense that to ask for help from male counterparts is considered a confirmation of inferiority in strength, either mentally or physically.   

                                       Stuart and Mike at the second campsite.

During a brief interludes with the teams it was important that we observe as much Meta detail, looking closely at the things usually considered benign and meaningless. You can learn an incredible amount by observing someone erecting a tent at the start of the weekend then watching the difference as fatigue sets in. Where and how do they start the job? How long do they look at the task before they begin the sequence? Which order do they choose their pegs? Which way is the tent facing? Do they think logically or do they rush trying desperately to beat fatigue? How many pauses do they take and how long are the pauses? Do they still retain the ability to conduct concurrent activity or is their capacity to dual task reduced? All of this can be observed in one small job. Our job was to see all of these moments with the help of Craig, Clive and Steve who all contributed outstandingly to the information flow to Charlie. This flow of information was relentless throughout the weekend; the detail of discussion was truly phenomenal to be part of. Furthermore I believe we created an accurate blue print of how to really expose personality in candidates of heightened ability and capacity, not something easily achieved.

The final part of the equation was the need to find out exactly what had happened in our obvious absence. I had suspected that some would become frustrated at the lack of external verification of their efforts. Imagine performing at the top of your game with herculean effort while nobody is watching. Its like scoring the winning goal in the FA cup final with nobody bothering to watch the ball hit the back of the net. Mixing this approach with sleep deprivation and information flow restriction, your left with a pretty potent emotional cauldron, not unlike Polar exploration. Our plan was to ask a core of identical questions on how their teammates performed, Phil Kelly provided much of the questioning while Craig took notes and asked occasional questions alongside Charlie’s input. I was concerned mostly with watching their body language, specifically when we asked how they enjoyed our lack of presence and when rating their teammates. This was uncomfortable for some but nonetheless absolutely vital, without doubt we are jointly responsible for a potential life or death decision. It was very necessary, Phil Kelly made a great analogy of having millions of pounds on the table and trying to separate the pennies – effectively by this stage we were down to splitting hairs. All six were good enough at this point; we knew it and so did they. Because of this a certain amount of clinical harshness was needed, added to this we (the selection team) had a duty to Charlie to help him make the right decision. I don’t think we could of provided him with any more information given the short time we all had together. What is certain is that all 6 were amazing and sometimes the smallest things separate candidates at this level, splitting hairs is easier said than done – believe me!  

Visit our website to see what else we're involved with?  

  

Success – The Butterfly Effect?

Recently a good friend of mine conducted a small experiment, for two days he would be as vigilant as possible to any kind of butterflies inhabiting his reality. He would consciously be alert, throughout the two-day period, to the presence of anything relating to butterflies. This experiment, to really test validity, would be conducted in winter, deep in the South Atlantic Ocean! You might ask why would he commit his time to such a ‘meaningless’ and unlikely task? The reason is simple, everything has meaning, and its how you interpret the meaning around you that determines your destination – or is it?

Synchronicity is the belief in NLP that everything is connected in some way; it’s how you use those connections that define your outcomes. Some people see the proverbial glass as half empty, with this model of the world they may never see the opportunities that surround them every second. Others see the glass as half full and are waiting, to pounce at the chance to top the glass up, thus seeing the glass only temporarily half full, with the opportunity to top up coming along at any second. Perspective is everything, and at the same time nothing; in fact does perspective even exist – as we say in NLP ‘the map is not the territory’? The world that I see is not the world you see, and this is the same for everyone. I am unsure whether this statement strengthens or weakens the theory of perspective, it does however make it fascinating. I do know one thing hover, there are things I know I don’t know, which is absolutely fine with me – in fact not knowing is what gives us curiosity and invention. It does, however, lead to an interesting notion, what do really successful people know, which perhaps unsuccessful people don’t?

Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events as meaningfully related, where they are unlikely to be casually related. The subject sees it as a meaningful coincidence as apposed to a chance occurance. This theory was first explored by Carl Jung in the 1920’s; it was not published in a research paper however until 1952 by Wolfgang Pauli.

Confusing as all this may be I think at this point it might be prudent to agree on the elements of the equation that are undeniable.

• ·      We all breathe oxygen.
• ·      We all have similar genetics, which gradually decline with age eventually leading to death.
• ·      We all have the same basic needs to survive.

Outside of these constants I like the idea that the ‘canvass’ is blank, for sure there is an infinite amount of external factors each having a finite influence on our individuality, but if we could influence our destiny by altering our perspective then surely this means we can, by virtue, alter our successfulness? Can I think abundance into my life without taking any physical action, perhaps not? However, if I am ‘looking’ in the right direction I can give myself the best start.

I have heard that when teaching students to down hill mountain bike the single most effective coaching point is ‘look where you want to go’. If your concentration and awareness is placed down the trail and towards your intended goal the bike will naturally ‘flow’ in that direction. Conversely if, for a split second, you focus your intention on the ditch running next to the trail the result is inevitable.

This poses an interesting theory, are life’s losers always looking towards the ditch and are the winners looking down the trail? What are the variables outside of their awareness that influence the individual perspective, and more importantly can you teach people to ‘look where you want to go’.   

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

This is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and knowledge of reality. With this theory in mind let me reword the metaphor.

“If there is an amazing opportunity and no one sees it, does the opportunity exist?”

Synchronicity teaches us to be mindful of the things right in front of us; the opportunities to achieve abundance surround us all. However all the opportunity in the world is irrelevant without the ability to connect the dots, these dots interpreted through our individual model of the world define our behaviours, in turn these behaviours shape our future.

My friends experiment proved incredibly interesting. First he saw some butterfly tattoos on a women’s hand when boarding his flight, not long after that on the flight there was an article which contained pictures of butterflies, after this when arriving at the airport in the Falkland Islands he saw a painting by a school child of a butterfly on a wall in the airport, lastly on his first night when flicking through some DVD’s he ‘noticed’ one – The Butterfly Effect.

Were these butterflies always there, of course they were, however; had he not ‘noticed’ them they would never have existed in his model of the world – or would they?