Evolution of the “Right Stuff”

Mary Roach, in Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void, says that the Mercury-era “right stuff” is now the wrong stuff. She says that unlike the tough, independent, maverick behavior of the past, astronauts now “have to be people who play well with others.”

These days, NASA’s recommended astronaut attribute list includes:
• Ability to relate to others with sensitivity, regard, and empathy
• Adaptability, flexibility, and fairness
• A sense of humor
• Ability to form stable and quality interpersonal relationships

Roach continues, “Today’s space agency does not want guts and swagger…The right stuff is no longer bravado, aggressiveness and virility.”

It’s ironic that the change in what NASA is looking for parallels what we now look for throughout many societies, including our own. We look for the above attributes in our families. We seek them in our corporations.

Why is this so? Did our society change, causing us to change along with it? Or did we as individuals change, promoting new attitudes that society is simply reflecting?

It’s hard to know, because we both influence and are influenced by our society. But what we do know is that when personal attributes and society are compatible – when personal attributes match how society has evolved – individuals and their society exist in harmony.

In today’s world, the new attributes of the astronauts, like the attributes that make our families and organizations strong, are the ones that appear to fit the needs of our society.

So was that “right stuff” behavior ever really the right stuff?

Maybe it was for a previous time. But those behaviors are simply the wrong ones for every facet of today’s society. They are not only outdated, but counter-evolutionary and therefore Neanderthal.

Guts and swagger still has its place. But it’s nice to know we have all evolved to an era where quality relationships, empathy, humor and fairness are the new norm.

Bangladesh Wisdom Can Save the World

I was fortunate recently to have dinner with economist and humanitarian Dr. Muhammad Yunus, and Imamus Sultan who is Managing Director of Bangladesh-based Grameen Bank. Dr. Yunus and Grameen Bank (which he founded in 1983) were joint recipients of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. Dr. Yunus also received the 2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom presented by President Obama.

They received the Nobel Prize for their efforts to create economic and social development programs in poverty-stricken Bangladesh. Yunus inspired the effort to give small “micro-loans” to the poor, requiring neither collateral nor legal guarantee of repayment. Yunus and Grameen Bank believed that every individual has the potential and right to a decent life, and that giving a little help was what was needed to change the lives of the poor. They demonstrated that even the poorest of the poor can bring about their own development.

Your Self-Help Guru Can Kill You

Sadly, many people have fallen victim to the misguidance of self-help “gurus”. Three people dead and many hospitalized after a sweat-lodge ritual in Arizona led by self-help guru Arthur Ray (and a previous suicide allegedly due to Ray’s teachings). A 10-year-old suffocated after being tightly wrapped in a blanket in a so-called “re-birthing” ritual promoted by another “guru.” A young male committed suicide after a session with “seer” John of God. At least three deaths from “breatharianism,” denial of food and water.* All of these tragedies occurred as a result of people who were supposed to be helping others.

Good for Society — Did You Say McDonald’s?

When what’s good for business seems to be at odds with what’s good for society.

Society suffers when business practices are geared to maximize profit at the expense of what’s best for the rest of us.  However, savvy leaders find ways to benefit both their enterprise and society at large.

Visionary or Executor? Procter & Gamble’s Gamble

Proctor & Gamble has enjoyed the leadership of a noteworthy visionary, A. G. Lafley. Lafley will soon be replaced by COO Robert McDonald, known more as an executor or implementer than a visionary. Lafley will remain as Chairman.

The fact that Lafley will remain as Chairman may make the transition less of an issue in that what is expected of McDonald may only change incrementally from his former role as COO. In fact, as is true with many COO-CEO relationships, this change may free McDonald to be an even stronger executor, unfettered by being closely second-guessed by the CEO.

What Fritz Needs to Do to Save GM

Business Week reports that Frederick A. “Fritz” Henderson will have to “take a wrecking ball to the automaker’s rigid culture or he could be history.” The article says that this involves delegation — creating a less risk-averse culture where people are willing to challenge the status quo and mavericks, and new ideas are encouraged.

This is a good start in changing a culture.  Clearly there has been a problem of intransigence within GM, and the culture is a prime culprit. I particularly applaud Fritz’s desire for a culture where people are not afraid to tell the truth. (See the Winter 2004 WBW & Associates, LLC Newsletter, A Culture That Encourages the Disclosure of “Bad News”.)