The Samurai Leader

Correction. I am not a servant leader as my last post suggested. I am a Samurai Leader.

I am in a process of applying for senior or middle management positions. Most of those jobs in any organisation call for leadership abilities and examples of your leadership abilities. When I've thought how I'd address these requirements based on an organisational setting, I was stymied.

Leadership is a vexing topic. To paraphrase the father of stress research, Hans Selye, everybody knows what leadership is, but nobody really knows. I have determined what leadership is. Leadership is an ambiguous concept. There are many, many different definitions and explanations of leadership with no consensus. Above all else, leadership is an industry. Countless books and articles are produced on the subject, and countless courses, seminars and programmes are offered all in the name or producing or improving leaders. It is a multibillion dollar global industry. Leadership is also a cult. It is a religious movement where leadership is idolised and revered. Every one is to be or aspire to be a leader.

To cut a long story short that forms the basis of an article I wrote that is going to be published in at least one business magazine, I developed the concept of the Samurai Leader:

'When I considered my leadership abilities and leadership style, I found the focus on leadership distracting and misguided. Why would someone want to be a leader? There are many answers to that question but most involve satisfying personal desires such as power, ambition, prestige, status, material benefits etc. Are these the attributes we want of our ‘leaders’? As Douglas Adams wrote in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe: ‘It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.’

When I considered how I would respond to questions concerning my leadership abilities, I found that I didn’t want to talk about leadership, rather, I wanted to talk about service. To serve means to be of use in achieving or satisfying something, in this case organisational goals. There is a scene towards the end of The Last Samurai where the Emperor asks Algren about the death of Katsumoto: ‘Tell me how he died,’ Algren replies, ‘No, I will tell you how he lived.’

Tell me how you lead. No, I will tell you how I serve. I am more proud of my service than my leadership, and I believe the organisations I served benefited from my focus on serving rather than leading.

Samurai is a Japanese term that is used to refer to the professional warrior of medieval Japan and is translated as, ‘to serve.’ ‘Samurai leadership-management’ is a concept that I have developed to refer to a focus on service and 'getting the job done' to advance organisational goals. Is it a leadership or management style? Who cares? It is a way of getting the job done and advancing organisational goals. ‘Leadership-management’ merges the concepts that some say are different, some say are different sides of the same coin, some include leadership within the functions of a manager, and some use the terms interchangeably. Now the focus is simply on how a person gets the job done and advances organisational goals. 

Do not confuse service for servitude. Samurai serve, but they are not servants. Robert Greenleaf developed the servant-leader model of leadership in 1970. The focus of the servant-leader is nurturing those who are served, generally those within the organisation, and generally those in subordinate positions. That is an idealistic, socially biased model of leadership. It is idealistic and biased because Greenleaf was a Quaker advancing a religious/social agenda. The samurai leader-manager is focused on serving the organisation and advancing organisational goals, not being a servant to other organisational members. This does not suggest sacrificing others for the sake of organisational goals as the US military ‘nobody gets left behind’ philosophy in Black Hawk Down exemplifies.

How does a samurai leader-manager serve? Ideally, through the application of jujutsu. Jujutsu is a Japanese martial art that was derived from the hand-to-hand fighting skills of the samurai. It is made up of two ideographs: ju meaning gentleness or giving way and jutsu meaning art, so jujutsu can be translated as ‘the art of giving way’ with the implication of first yielding to ultimately gain victory. The idea of yielding to gain victory is a philosophy that permeates East Asian culture and the East Asian martial arts, from judo to Mao Zedong’s (Mao Tse-tung) military strategy have recognised and implemented this principle.

The Taoist analogy of the yielding nature of water to overcome obstacles is often used to explain the principle of ju: ‘Nothing in the world is softer than water, but we know it can wear away the hardest of things. The supple overcomes the hard, and the so-called weak, the strong.’ How soft was the Boxing Day tsunami or the 2001 tsunami of Japan? How soft are the monster waves at Teahupoo, Tahiti or Pipeline, Hawaii? Another translation of ju is adaptable or flexible. This is a more useful interpretation of the principle of ju. The most efficient way of overcoming an opponent is to not resist their force but to use their force against them. But efficiency and effectiveness are two different things. Sometimes you simply need to use force to overcome your opponent. The attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbour fits in with this expanded idea of the principle of ju.

...

Shouldn’t we be more focused on service rather than leadership? Shouldn’t we be more interested in samurai leader-managers. Tell me how you lead. I’ll tell you how I serve. Domo arigato gozaimashita.'

What do you think about the concept?

Servant Leaders

The martial arts are often promoted in terms of building 'self perfection' rather than self protection. It is often promoted in terms of developing character, confidence, etc.

Let's look at the leadership issue. Modern Western society values leadership. I know. My business education focuses on leadership. I'm currently seeking a job and most I'm looking at require leadership abilities. What is leadership? If you know, then you don't know.

If everybody you employ is a leader, isn't there 'too many chiefs and not enough indians?' This issue does not appear to be considered by recruiters nor management.

What does leadership imply? Followers. Please, please forward me an advertisement that asks for applicants to demonstrate good follower abilities. Please, please forward me an advertisement or any organisational documentation that values followership abilities. What MBA program has a unit dedicated to followship?

Different leadership styles do achieve success. The authoritarian leadership style is much maligned, but it does achieve success in a particular environment. The transactional vs transitional style of leadership is often compared with the latter being described ad the more appropriate. It is more successful depending on the environment.

What leadership style do I adopt? The servant leader (research it). This is the only leadership model that incorporates followship. It is said that to become a good leader you need first to be a good follower. This is but one model of leadership, because dictators have often been successful leaders. The question becomes, what sort of leaders do you want to be and produce?

Many martial arts instructors are dictatorial. Why? Think about what you are trying to produce. Particularly, when you are producing instructors, what type of instructors are you producing and what have they been trained to produce.

'Researchers have found karate masters can anticipate where an attack is coming from before their opponent has even moved'

It was reported that researchers are studying karate 'masters' in order to improve cricket technique because they had found that said masters can anticipate where an attack is coming from before their opponent had even moved.

Is this ability magic? Is it mystical? The martial arts abounds with such magical and mystical myths. What are these magical and mystical myths? They are simply our inability to explain natural phenomenon.

The above article reminds me of Gary Klein's work on intuition. Klein was tasked by the US military to find out how veterans made decisions in high stress environments. His initial ideas were debunked when he observed veteran firefighters and asked them how they made life saving decisions. They responded by saying they didn't know, they just 'knew.'

Eventually, Klein deduced that intuition was a process of pattern recognition. It involved comparison, classification, and analogy - the core of all learning (see my book). Unconsciously, the individual compares the outside experience with the inside experiences which are conveniently classified. This becomes a process of analogy. When a similar experience is identified, action is then initiated. This is all an unconscious process, and is a cognitive ability that was selected for in nature because it conferred a survival advantage on an individual.

Why is it that more experienced people have better intuition? It's because they have more patterns to compare to experiences they experience.

How do karate masters anticipate an opponent's action before they have moved. It's because they unconsciously can see certain stimuli that indicate the attack. This is the real subject of the above study. How can you improve 'intuition.' More experience of course, but also, more specific type of experiences. If you know what the unconscious cues are you can rearrange training around providing more patterns associated with these unconscious cues. Simply training more is an inefficient way of improving intuition. More targeted training with the aid of understanding produces an efficient training model that produces effective practitioners faster.

Crazy Accident

It was reported today that a five-year-old boy accidentally shot dead his two-year-old sister. The rifle was given to the boy as a gift. The rifle used in the accident is a Crickett designed for children and sold under the slogan “My First Rifle,” according to the company's website.

The coroner said it is just one of those 'crazy accidents.' An autopsy was set to be conducted on Wednesday, but the coroner said he expected the shooting will be ruled accidental.

One of the chapters in my book is dedicated to injury science. Injury science is a relatively new science that studies injuries. The main focus of injury science is the prevention and control of injuries, however, as the father of injury science explains, it can also be used to study the infliction of injuries. What does injury science have to say about this incident?

INJURIES ARE NOT ACCIDENTS!

The term 'accident' denotes an unforeseen, unexpected event that is the result of chance, fate or destiny. It is also used to describe human error or mistake, which thereby excludes the person from the consequences of injury. 

When arguing for the need to discontinue the use of the word 'accident' when referring to unintentional injuries, Langley refers to a survey of women whose children had been injured. The results showed that many of them had not taken any action to prevent a reoccurrence of the event resulting in injury. The findings suggested that this was not because such events were perceived as being too difficult to control, or action was inappropriate, or that the event was useful education for the child. Rather, many mothers saw the incidents as something which by definition could not be prevented - an accident.

I've written before about the Japan Judo Accident Victim's Association which has been established in response to 108 deaths from training judo in school. An internationally renowned martial arts authority discussing the JJAVA experience commented, 'accidents will happen.' What impetus is there to find a solution to prevent and control fatal and serious injuries among students training judo if they are the result of accidents and accidents will happen? By definition they are unpredictable and unpreventable.

You often see coroner's findings as to the cause of death being accidental, even though there is an entire discipline that studies injuries, fatal and nonfatal, intentional and unintentional, whose mantra is: 'injuries are not accidents.' Findings of accidental absolve all involved of any responsibility. Is nobody responsible for the death of that young girl? Are not the parents for buying a four-year-old at the time of purchase a rifle? Is not Crickett for manufacturing firearms for children? Are not the law makers for allowing children to possess lethal weapons? Apparently none of them are responsible because it was an accident. By definition, nothing can be done to prevent or control injuries from similar events in the future because they are accidents and accidents are unpreventable.

Here is another idea. Direct coroners to study injury science - the science that is dedicated to the study of injuries. The science whose mantra it is - INJURIES ARE NOT ACCIDENTS.

 

Do We Need Explicit Knowledge of Techniques?

One of the shodan gradings in Jan de Jong's jujutsu grading system is a theory grading. The theory grading is an oral examination of the candidate's technical knowledge. A common question De Jong posed was: 'What are the forces involved in a tai gatame ude kujuki (body set are breaking)?' The candidate was required to answer the question verbally with no physical demonstration.

This is an example of explicit learning or explicit knowledge. The Australian Institute of Sport provide the following explanation of explicit learning which is contrasted with implicit learning:

Explicit learning can be related to traditional coaching approaches where verbal instruction is used to coach a learner about how to perform a skill. This process typically results in the learner being able to verbalise how to perform the skill, although it does not guarantee the learner can physically execute the skill. In contrast, implicit learning methods typically contain no formal instruction about how to perform the skill yet result in a learner being able to perform the skill despite being unable to verbally describe how they do it.

Do we need explicit knowledge of techniques? De Jong obviously thought so given he included an explicit knowledge grading within his shodan grades. The 'traditional' teaching method of Asian martial arts involves implicit learning where techniques are demonstrated and the student attempts to imitate them. Does the student need to be able to verbally describe techniques in addition to being able to perform them? Does the instructor?

De Jong saw his dan grades as producing instructors in addition to practitioners. He expected his instructors to possess an explicit understanding of techniques. Many others in the martial arts do not expect either their students or instructors to possess an explicit understanding of their techniques. One possible explanation for the traditional Asian martial arts teaching model being based on implicit learning may be because the instructors did/do not possess an explicit understanding of the techniques. If you come up under an implicit learning model, where do you gain the explicit knowledge?

Why would an instructor need to have an explicit understanding of techniques if they use implicit learning methods when teaching? One reason is that it provides a through understanding of the mechanics of the technique. It enables the instructor to analyse techniques and provide instruction to correct errors and improve performances. The problem is that an explicit explanation of techniques is hard to come by in the martial arts.

Let's return to De Jong's question; 'what are the forces involved ...?' De Jong intuitively knew that forces are important in understanding how a technique works. Unfortunately, neither he nor the candidates knew much about forces. My work remedies that shortcoming.

Forces are what causes every technique taught by every martial art work. The good thing is that forces is a simple concept for the layperson to understand and apply. First you identify all points of contact between the 'defender' and the 'attacker.' Next you determine if the force applied at each point of contact is a push or a pull. Then you describe the direction and relative magnitude of each of the forces. Finally you determine the intended effect of the applied net forces. This approach provides an explicit understanding of every technique taught by every martial arts.

A very good and rare example of this approach at work is with Jigoro Kano's Kodokan Judo. When you understand the concept of forces and adopt the approach described above, you'll see that Kano consistently describes all his methods in these terms. In this way, Kano focuses on the important elements in the techniques to provide an explicit understanding of judo techniques for the reader.

'Trust your instincts'

'Trust your instincts' - this is advice that is often proffered by activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter (e.g. martial arts, self defence, etc.). Sound advice, but what does it actually mean?

Instincts are often equated with intuition. Far from being a mystical, magical 'sixth-sense,' intuition is seen as being a product of knowledge and experience.

Gary Klein was commissioned by the US military to find out how experts made decision during periods of high stress. He initially studied veteran firefighters and has since gone on to study military, fighter pilots, oil riggers, air traffic controllers, nuclear power plant operators, etc, and how they make decisions during times of high anxiety-fear (although he refers to the ambiguous concept of stress). Much to his surprise, he found these experts could not tell him.

We'll take a step back. It has been found that the 'core to all learning' is the identification of similarities and differences. Four forms of identifying similarities and differences have been found to be highly effective: comparison, classification, creating metaphors, and creating analogies. Far from being literary or linguistic devices, these four forms of identifying similarities and differences are seen by cognitive theorists to be fundamental ways of thinking.

Klein found that experts, compared to novices, made decisions not through a conscious, analytical process, but rather based on 'pattern recognition.' Something in the situation they were experiencing was unconsciously matched with something from their experience which prompted a decisive action.

This pattern recognition involves comparison, classification and analogies (or metaphors which for all intents and purposes is the same thing). The expert compared the experience 'out there' with their past experiences, which have been conveniently classified (albeit unconsciously), and an analogy was drawn that enabled them to understand the unknown (the current experience) with the known (past experience).

So what? If you know the process by which experts make intuitive decisions, you can devise ways and means to expedite and enhance this process. This is precisely what Klein has done and his intuitive decision making (Recognition-Primed Decision Making) is being used by various organisations around the world (including the military of various countries) to enhance decision making during periods of high anxiety-fear.

Before I leave this post, I will make one point. The intuitive decision making model is heavily weighted in favour of experience. The more 'patterns' that a person has developed and classified, the more comparisons are available to be fitted which produces a decision. However, despite the experienced-biased proponents within the martial arts, it is not experience alone that produces faster and more high quality decisions. It is also the ability to identify similarities through comparison, classification and analogies. If we train these abilities, we leverage experience and experience produces the benefits it promises.

Implicit Learning vs Explicit Learning

The previous post looked at Being Taught vs Learning. This post looks a little more at learning, which an understanding of is important for both teacher and student of the martial arts.

Learning comes in two guises: explicit and implicit learning.

Explicit learning can be related to traditional coaching approaches where verbal instruction is used to coach a learner about how to perform a skill. This process typically results in the learner being able to verbalise how to perform the skill, although it does not guarantee the learner can physically execute the skill. In contrast, implicit learning methods typically contain no formal instruction about how to perform the skill yet result in a learner being able to perform the skill despite being unable to verbally describe how they do it.

Hurst, in Armed Martial Arts of Japan, suggests that in Japanese medieval times when fighting skills were still practical, the head of any martial arts school instructed his disciples in a manner analogous to that of many religious teachers. That is to say that transmission of the teachings occurred largely by example and not through verbalisation. Hurst is describing implicit learning as being the traditional model for martial arts transmission.

It has been found that athletes who are given instructions (explicit learning) were found to more likely preoccupy themselves with thoughts about how they were executing the skill, which in most sports is detrimental to performance. Under pressure, the players were found trying to consciously control normally automatic, implicit or subconscious processes, commonly termed ‘paralysis by analysis’. In other words, they were more susceptible to choking. Alternatively, players who did not have any instructions to refer to (implicit learning) were less likely to think about how to execute the skill because they did not consciously know what they actually did. That is not to say their bodies did not know what to do, they simply left the brain out of it.

The explicit-implicit distinction is not as defined in most modern day martial arts training. Instruction is provided, but that instruction focuses on the how-to with very little, if any, instruction provided as to the why-to. That is to say that instruction is provided as to how to do the technique with none provided as to why the technique works.

As with everything, there are costs and benefits. A benefit of implicit training is increased resilience to detriments in performance under pressure. A benefit of explicit training is that it is a faster way for a learner to acquire information. A cost of explicit training is the increased potential for choking. A cost of implicit training is that it does not provide the tools for a learner to self correct. I would go one step further, it does not provide the tools to teach others.

It was once explained to me that traditional teaching of Chinese or Japanese martial arts was for the teacher to provide 'one corner' and it was up to the student to find the other corners. All very mystical and philosophical, but does it not also reflect the fact that the traditional martial arts model provides the student with how-to knowledge and not why-to knowledge. That they do not understand why something does or does not work, only how to do it, and then only for them.

Most martial arts instructors can be viewed as being great tennis players. They know how to play the game. Andre Aggassi was asked to describe the wrist action of his forearm stroke. It was found with the aid of slow motion cameras that his description of his wrist action was incorrect. He could perform the action brilliantly, but he didn't understand it and couldn't verbalise the action. Who do you want to be taught by? Roger Federer or Roger Federer's coach who you've never heard of and is not an elite player?

This raises the issue of what a black belt (or any senior grade by whatever description) means. Should a black belt be able to instruct the tactics and techniques of their martial art? If so, what model do they adopt: implicit or explicit learning? By default, if they are expected to be able to teach, they must adopt the implicit learning model? They will be limited in their problem solving abilities because they have learnt the how and not the why of techniques. Looking back on my martial arts experience, I've known many instructors who knew how to do the techniques, and some who were very good at doing them, but very, very few who knew the why of techniques. They had a 'follow me' approach to teaching and were limited and less flexible in their problem solving abilities for individual students.

Related to the above question, what percentage of a black belt should be given to teaching/understanding compared to proficiency? Right now, most black belts focus on proficiency, which then fallaciously is used to suggest teaching ability. Would you award a black belt to a person who knew the why of techniques and could teach but was an average practitioner? It depends on what you think a black belt means, or what it means to you as an instructor or head of a school. What are you producing - teachers or practitioners?

This is where my work is directed. To fill that gaping chasm that is the lack of understanding of why martial arts techniques work and how to teach them.