A guest blog by L M Thomas Group Marketing Assistant and University of Illinois Class of 2021 Ryan Smith

A successful person lives with intention.

That’s it.

Yes, there are more factors, but at the end of the day, no matter what someone’s bank account says, or social status is, if they are a successful person, they have goals and are actively pursuing them. For example, Conor McGregor, one of my favorite athletes of all time, has been quoted saying, “I am not talented, I am obsessed.” Successful people have a purpose, and realize that reality depends on them, and not the other way around.

You can be successful and unknown: that’s most successful people. There is a very strong argument for wanting to be successful and not wanting to be famous, especially today. I also don’t necessarily believe there is a set income that would qualify or disqualify someone from being successful. I do, however believe that all successful people share similar traits, for example, self-reliance, commitment, positivity, focus on their goals, confidence, and more.

How someone can someone make the switch into adopting this way of thinking and living?

Above all else, successful people don’t make excuses or misplace blame on other people or outside factors even when it could be considered completely rational to do so. You may have heard the phrase, “Everything that happens to you is your fault.” A successful person would agree with this statement while others may not. It is very easy to pick it apart and say, “Well I didn’t go to the gym today because the weather conditions caused too much traffic, so it’s not my fault.” That may be a fair statement, however: since successful people are intentional, follow-through and reaching their goals becomes non-negotiable.

A person acting with intention might instead check the weather the night before and go shovel, so that they are not stuck in that situation. This example applies to many areas of life. And when you start to listen for it, you may hear it coming from yourself or others around you. It is very apparent that many people are willing to concede their goals if their excuses are good enough. The great thing here is that accepting you are fully responsible for being in control of your life is liberating. To me, this mindset seems to be not only the most prevalent quality of successful people, but the easiest quality for anyone to attain who might not already be living a successful life.

When the opportunity arose to start blogging for the site, I wanted to make sure I wrote about something that interests me, but also benefits the readers.  Eventually the series, "Habits of successful people”, was born. The irony of a college student telling people how to be successful does not escape me: in fact, I wouldn’t necessarily say I am a successful person just yet because I have a lot of things I still need to accomplish. Honestly, this series is meant to help me just as much as it is meant to help the reader, so I will be putting in the time to make sure good insights are drawn from this.

 Each blog will focus on a single concept that is shared amongst people who have succeeded in their lifetimes. I may bring up famous people, or regular people from my life that are successful, but they all will have certain attributes/attitudes that align.

Come back for the second part of this series, and if you are interested in anyone specific, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and I’ll research it. Thanks!

Last month, the Congressional Budget Office foretold of an aggressive employment rebound as the vaccine rollout improves and COVID cases continue to dip. Employers will face an extremely competitive hiring market. Top candidates will have several suitors.

Leading as the non-anxious presence aligns our organizations around mission and purpose and increases our change capacity. Therefore, being the non-anxious presence makes the enterprises we lead more sustainable and capable of achieving our goals.

We are going to look at the impacts of non-anxious presence in two areas: change management, and organizational alignment.

Managing Change

“They won’t change, because they hate change.” I have heard this statement more times than I can count. I’ve heard it as an explanation (or excuse) for why an organization has gotten itself stuck. “People just don’t like change. People like routine.” This is taken as axiomatic truth: the world is defined around the fact of change-hating.

Except it is fundamentally not true.

People may hate some change, and fear other change, but it’s not because it’s change. In fact, even some of the most change-averse people look forward to change, and can be some of the most adept in making the sorts of changes that preserve their status quo.

Before you shake your head and quit reading, hear me out. I have some examples:

• I have seen people teach themselves highly complex procedures to be able to continue use out-of-date, unsupported software they are determined to still use.
• During the pandemic, people adapted to using online meetings to get together with family for holidays.
• We have seen entire political movements organize and develop based on nostalgia and “bringing back” something that has otherwise faded or disappeared.

From these examples, we see that people really don’t have an issue with change, generally, per se.

Then what is the problem, exactly?

People hate loss. We fear it. Change requires loss in exchange for something else. The challenge arises when the “something else” isn’t as desirable than the status quo for whatever reason: and in this case, perception is more important than the reality.

These fears often operate at the fundamental level of our psyche. If change risks our livelihood, we fear having enough to eat, being able to provide for family, and so forth. We fear loss of face – shown to be incompetent, wrong, or foolish. Perhaps we fear loss of our reputation, carefully crafted over time. We fear anything that makes us feel vulnerable, inadequate, or superfluous.

Most organizations and leaders never name these fears out loud, so they become underlying organizational anxiety: unspoken, unacknowledged, ever-present. This tends to make people more reactive and defensive, ready to create turf they can hold on to.

When we enter into this sort of situation as a non-anxious presence, we can help others navigate change. Being non-anxious allows us to name the fears we see around us. By naming these fears, we can help people validate and respond to their existence – thus building resiliency. When people feel like what they say and do matter, they are more likely to open up to the ideas and actions of others, and become less defensive of their own territory.

Being non-anxious in change management allows us to be empathetic with others. This empathy creates space for people to resolve their emotional blocks toward the change everyone is experiencing, and move toward active participants in the work together.

Organizational Alignment

When working toward organizational alignment around a common purpose, goal, or vision, there is always change involved. Our vision is bigger than we are now; anything we do to achieve it changes what we do and how we do it. The very act of pursuing vision is itself a change.

As we work to align around our vision, mission, and purpose, we ask people to change to meet the objectives we laid out. Being non-anxious in getting people aligned helps them deal with the fears that come from the new and the unknown – and the potential for failure.

Emotional Intelligence

Sustainable companies develop non-anxious leadership as a part of their emphasis on overall emotional intelligence: the ability to be aware of emotions (ours and others’) and manage those emotions in a constructive way.

Would you like to chat about being a non-anxious presence in your enterprise? Let's find a time.

Sustainable companies choose collaboration over competition because we know that we are in an infinite game. This means we also know that building upon relationship on common ground is more sustainable than carving out our own territory so we can overwhelm and overtake another’s territory.

The Role of the Infinite Game

As we have shared before, here is how we define finite vs. infinite games, based on the work of James P. Carse:

“Finite games have known players, set rules, a point at which they begin and end. They have winners and losers.

Infinite games have known and unknown players, constantly changing rules, and continue forever. There are no winners in infinite games. A player’s sole objective is to stay in the game as long as possible. When a player runs out of the resources and/or will to play, they lose.”

Being in an infinite game means that we make decisions based on our values – since our goal is just to stay in the game as long as possible, rather than to stay in the game to win. Working from values means that we are always looking for ways to promote and expand our values – which means we are more open to partnering, collaboration, and developing processes and systems to increase the impact of our values.

This does not mean that we ignore success and its metrics, or its key performance indicators; to the contrary: we measure, encourage, and celebrate what truly matters, not what is merely easy to measure, encourage, or celebrate.

In an infinite game, we stay in the game because we have a cause for being – something that not only is the “why” of our origin story, but the vision that pulls us forward. Our origin sets up our vocation. Our vision draws us up into a future that is not yet. Along the way, we collaborate with this vision to shed those things that prevent us from being drawn into it, and build those processes and structures that make that vision possible.

While it might seem, at first glance, being in an infinite game sounds like a survival match, our usual survival tactics and survival perspectives typically don’t do well for us in an infinite game. If survival means to fight, flee, freeze, or shut down, we tend to move into finite thinking, into us vs. them, into winners and losers. If survival means just making sure we have enough, frankly, we humans aren’t very good at defining what “enough” really is.

In a finite game, collaboration becomes transactional: what can we get from each other to advance what we are trying to do. We end up dividing up the winnings. In an infinite game, we find that collaboration becomes work to benefit shared values, which actually multiplies the space, and therefore expands what we both had to start with.

If we are playing a finite game, we are always looking at competition, because we have a game we have to win. We have to beat the competition. We have to win; they have to lose. The problem with this approach is that the competition isn’t playing our game. There is no common referee and rulebook for the competition between us.

In an infinite game, we don’t know all the players, and the rules are constantly changing. We collaborate because we know that in that kind of environment, going it alone is unwise, or just hubris.

The infinite game means that we are in a game that is beyond us – and so working together almost becomes compulsory. Think about the “humanity against the other” kind of literature: whether aliens, zombies, natural disasters, or whatever, being up against something so much bigger than us requires us all to come together to solve the problem.

Sustainable companies and their leaders know this. They see our place in the world – our size, our real influence as humans. They refuse to other-ize other humans and human organizations and seek the common ground first.

Why Collaboration?

Because of the rules of the infinite game, we see collaboration becomes the most sustainable stance. Let’s look at this from the three parts of the definition of infinite games: known and unknown players, constantly-changing rules, and going on forever.

Known and Unknown Players: we don’t know all the players. We can’t know all the players. Discovering a new player or players – or having them revealed to us – will change how we approach the game. Best to find ways to work with the known players through whatever common ground there is, since we never know what unknown players might emerge – players who might not be as amenable to working with us, or who might only work with us because we have enough common ground with others as to make a relationship possible.

Constantly-changing rules: In an infinite game, rules creation and enforcement is complex. Rarely, if ever, do we get to set the rules ourselves. In fact, most of the rules are beyond our control – things like lifespan, natural occurrences like weather and viral mutations, macroeconomic factors, “what people like”, and so on. Very few of us have anywhere near the kinds of influence to make and change the rules we make on purpose – regulations, mores and taboos, and the like.

This means that, despite our efforts, most rule-creation and enforcement in infinite games is external to us, and beyond us. And the rules change all the time. But that means that the rules are also external to the other human players in the game, too. Faced with a common challenge (although likely a diversity of solutions, goals, and desired outcomes), what makes the most sense: going it alone, taking on others facing the same challenge, or finding a way to collaborate to the degree possible? Sustainable companies choose to collaborate.

Perpetuity: Many of us mistake perpetuity – something that goes on forever – for something that doesn’t change. Others see perpetuity purely as cyclical: seasons come and go, there is a time to be born and a time to die, and so on. In an infinite game, though, perpetuity is neither unchanging nor necessarily cyclical. Remember, the rules are ever-changing.

Thus, in the perpetuity, we have shorter dramas that take place, birthed in challenge, developed to a climax, drawn down in denouement, and then brought to a conclusion. And while we are in that drama, another side plot, sub plot, or completely different story develops, often unexpectedly, which may leave the original drama to the side, unresolved, or may mask the conclusion beneath the new story that is emerging – so the conclusion occurs, but is forgotten in light of the next situation.

If perpetuity, then, is story, we are all in interim space – the space between the beginning and the end. And interim space is inherently collaborative: we are taking up what was left by the previous person and carrying it forward to the next. While we may try to outshine our predecessor and may, in reality, outshine our successors, the winning or losing isn’t about them, but rather about us – whether we connect before and after well.

Why not competition, though?

Our systems speak in terms of competition all the time, though.

Competition is good for the marketplace, we hear, because it keeps prices down and pushes quality up.

We avoid anti-competitive practices of driving others out of the marketplace since that is illegal.

In collaboration, we are not setting aside the need for competition in the tussle for the best ideas and practices, and the freedom of players to enter and leave the game. We are suggesting, though, that “beating the competition”, or, in the case of many industries, reducing to a duopoly or oligarchy of companies – this is not the end goal. Control and dominance cannot be the end goal, since the rules often change externally.

Sustainable companies know that control and dominance aren’t goals, and that often when they occur they are a double-edged sword. Being in an infinite game, these things too, shall pass. The relationship with the players, rather than winning a perpetual game, becomes the value that sustains us for the long term.

Want to dig deeper? Let's chat!