Doing better than your best

When we watch the top athletes at the Olympics, we take it for granted that they all have coaches. We see so many pictures of the athlete leaving the field and walking straight into the arms of a coach that we stop seeing them. We don't take the message that people who have reached the very top levels of performance at relatively simple activities still need a coach (when you compare even the most complicated sports to teaching a classroom or running a company, you'll find that the sports involve many fewer variables).

Coaches provide two things that the athlete cannot have in the same way: experience and perspective. If it is not practical for you to have a coach available to you whenever you need to hit your best performance, then you need to think about how to reach the best resources in your own experience and how to stretch your perspective.

Here's the rub: when you have looked with "a colder eye" at your own performance state, you will suspect that it could be fine-tuned, that it would benefit from some ruthless editing, that it could be stronger and more sustainable. And you will pull back, viscerally, from making changes in the state that has driven your best achievements. Your eye and your gut will have strongly different opinions.

The coach has an alternate state of experiences that allow him/her to negotiate (not necessarily resolve) this difference. You only have your own experience. It takes huge will power to decide that you are going to plow through this really basic incongruence to go from good to better. Your instincts won't support you because your instinct is to do what you have done to get what you have gotten.

If you don't have a coach, you need friends and anchors and external support. You need limits on the extent to which you are willing to be self-destructive in order to build a stronger, more resilient, more elegant - SELF. You need to protect the seeds of yourself so that whatever happens, good or bad, you can grow again when necessary.

Change is easy when it means moving from bad to good. When it means moving from something that is working to something that we only hope will work better, change is really, really hard. Being better than your current best is hard.

I congratulate every athlete who experienced a personal best at the Olympics. But if you are reading this and working alone on a difficult change, know that I am also cheering for you. What you are doing is hard and brave and worthwhile and possible. Climb up into the stands and watch with me for awhile. See what I see. Then take that perspective back onto the playing field and do what you need to do to do better than your best.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The hypnotic contract

Under what conditions would you allow someone else to tell you what to think?   If you have watched a stage hypnotist, you have seen what looks like one person exercising remarkable control over the thoughts and actions of another. It is fascinating, in part, because we have all seen it happen in real life. Suddenly someone we know seems to be relying on someone else to do the thinking.  Even if the influence is good, it is a little frightening. The secret is that there are no magic words.  In order to lead someone into hypnosis, that person has to be willing to go there. Often the people you see on stage are more than willing. For whatever reasons, they are enthusiastic about giving up self control and allowing someone else to take charge. They know that there are limits to what can happen on stage and they are only agreeing to give up control within those limits. What you see in hypnosis is an agreement between two people. Like all agreements between human beings, it stretches as far...
Read more

Good with people

What do you think of when you hear the phrase "good with people?" When a wine is good with steak, it means that both the steak and the wine taste better when enjoyed together. If you are 'good with people' that could mean that both you and they perform better when you work together. "Good with people" should not be confused with charm or grace. Many famous leaders have, in the absence of any obvious charm or eloquence, managed to get people to produce at high levels. Some introverts fail to be influential; some extraverts fail to be effective. The most useful criteria for "good with people" is the performance that results when an individual is working with others: does the sum exceed the total of the parts? Or would they all have been better working from separate cubicles? We are entering the season of networking: it's a perfect time to observe the difference between the people who are working the room and the people who are making the room w...
Read more

The fine line between observations, suggestions and commands

I have been watching Tony Robbins this week in the documentary called " I Am Not Your Guru ." You can read a nicely ambivalent review in the Financial Times here.   I think the ambivalence is built into the process, which might be surprising given the loud celebration that characterizes the Date with Destiny in the film. For those of us whose work has evolved from NLP, there are lessons to be learned from modelling the most famous and successful practitioner of NLP (Robbins has far surpassed all the founders by all measures of success). Because he does so much so well, Robbins lets us see how fine the line is between observing and suggesting. Let me explain. Robbins frames his "interventions" both with the exercises and performances we do not see in the film and with his invitations. The film opens with an intervention with a young man who says he is suicidal; it is only later that we see Robbins say he is looking for someone who is suicidal to work with. Since...
Read more