10 Leadership and Management Lessons from John, Paul, George, and Ringo

Unexpected "Bonus Features" from Peter Jackson's The Beatles: Get Back Documentary

Attention: This contains spoilers to The Beatles: Get Back documentary appearing on Disney+

Four hundred sixty eight minutes went by quickly but some reviewers said the run time for Peter Jackson's The Beatles: Get Back was excessive. I wanted more.

This massive three-part "documentary about a documentary," as Jackson put it, envelopes you in the lives and interactions of John, Paul, George, and Ringo during the development of a TV show/film/album/concert in January 1969. It's chaotic, dramatic, eye opening, and inspiring. This crescendo of activity during a tight, self-imposed deadline gives me some fresh insights into the business, personal dynamics, and (unintentional) teachings of the one of the greatest rock and roll bands in the 20th century:

1. Vision, Goals, and Objectives. The initial goal of the project was amorphous. No one really knew what they wanted to accomplish and where they wanted to accomplish it. All they had was a deadline. The lack of direction was exacerbated by the death of their manager, Brian Epstein, often referred to as the "fifth Beatle." Paul tried to pick up the mantle of boss and it was clear that his style generated some resentment with the other "lads." But Paul had perceptive and in a brief period was able to evolve from dictatorial boss to engaged leader. It wasn't perfect but it was easy to see less autocracy and more conversation, more give-and-take. Eventually, Paul successfully gained agreement on what would and would not be acceptable project parameters.

2. Process and Time Management. I mentioned the deadline. Real deadlines are supposed to be hard and fast. As disagreements and confusion to what the end product(s) would be, however, timing slipped. Paul made numerous attempts to corral the attention, creativity, and energy of the band. He tried to emphasize the importance of discipline and the need to string all the individual gems they were creating into a coherent story. But with a combination of mixed messaging and confidence, he noted that "The best bit of us, always has been and always will be, is when we're backs-against-the-wall."

3. Humor. I didn't appreciate how much of a goofball John was until I saw this mini-series. To be fair, they all had their bouts of silliness. Their deep knowledge of rock history and musical versatility really came through during those playful scenes. I found it distracting at times but, thinking deeper, it was absolutely essential to their maintaining a bond and creative process. We all need relief valves; we all need some fun; we need moments to break things up in order to remain fresh.

4. Repetition and Drilling. For all the goofing around (see Humor above), these guys were pros. The Beatles knew they had a product to produce, fans to please, money to make, and increasing musical competition. One way to keep their edge was to perform flawlessly and to exteriorize the musical visions swirling around in their heads. While they discussed developing a set of 14 songs, they pursued quality over quantity - partly because they were diverted by some serious disagreements and blew past their deadlines - and ended up performing less than half of the songs they planned. (The good news is that - many of you know - the other material did get more fully developed later on.)

5. Risk Taking. The group hadn't performed for an audience for a few years by the time 1969 rolled around. Their compositions became more complicated, more physically isolating, and more reliant on technology gimmicks. The new project forced them back into close contact and to develop a playlist where it was all on them, live - no fancy effects, no back-up band. They felt exposed; it felt risky. But they agreed to take it on, which meant the need to iterate and test everything multiple times in order to gain assurance it would all work in a real-world scenario.

6. Compassion. One of the most dramatic moments occurred when George, feeling ignored and bullied, decided to call it quits. John and Paul acknowledged they hadn't adequately addressed "the festering wound" inflicted on George and, together with Ringo - I love that they call him Rich - set up two interventions to patch things up. They knew things went too far and had to acknowledge their part in what could be referred to as the Beatles break-up, Take One. Through the ups and downs, the creative differences, the sometimes heavy-handedness, and now the break up, we feel the camaraderie, the compassion. After all, their lives were entwined for years and one senses genuine affection they shared.

7. Giving and Receiving Feedback. Paul changed after that episode. He was much more careful about the way he delivered feedback. And he at least gave lip service to receiving it, too. But everyone joined in; they all gave each other notes and suggestions. Ringo, being the most placid, the most eager to stay out of the fray, was the most receptive. I'm speculating but the rediscovered collegiately, enhanced communication, and mutual respect might have been helped by a decrease or pause in drug use  --  a diversion caused by their newfound purpose and increasingly rigid schedule.

8. Seeking and Accepting Help. While they wanted to maintain a fresh, live performance, the group realized they needed some help - a fifth hand to round out some of their new creations. In came fresh-faced Billy Preston, whom The Beatles met during their days performing in Hamburg. (Preston was backing up Little Richard at that time.) Starting with some friendly jamming, John pushed to give him a seat at the table for the rest of the project. Paul worried initially that working with four was hard enough. Now, you can't imagine the song Get Back (or others) without his keyboard riffs.

9. Outside Life. Some of the most touching and humanizing moments came when family members and loved ones spent time in the studio. Yoko was a constant presence, practically joined at John's hip. (When a complaint surfaced about her, Paul voiced an immediate defense saying, essentially, that they were in love and it wasn't their place to judge.) But the biggest surprise was seven year-old Heather, Linda Eastman's daughter. One could see the stabilizing influence they both had on Paul. He was joyous, attentive and, as you probably know, ended up adopting Heather when he married Linda. It can't be work all the time. We need outside interests and outside support to make us whole.

10. Teamwork. While there is a clear need for individual thought, creativity is no one's personal domain. Yes, The Beatles had different strengths and this docuseries put that into plain relief. You need reality checks, pressure tests, and a group capable of refining and sharpening concepts. Baseball Hall of Famer Casey Stengel had it right when he said, "Getting good players is one thing. The harder part is getting them to play together." The Beatles saw the consequence of that - the risk of wasting efforts, raising conflicts, and alienating and demoralizing your most precious resources.

Go ahead and name a great leader or a great teacher and you'll always find flaws. The Beatles, one of the greatest, most creative musical groups in modern history are no different. "There's no goodies in it, there's no baddies," Jackson said. "There's no villains, there's no heroes. It's just a human story." Not just, Mr. Jackson. The resonance with the listening public, the impact of the lads from Liverpool will live on for a long time.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Swine Flu's Teachable Moment

An Opportunity for Public Health and Vaccine Manufacturers

It was disturbing to read about a growing public health threat in "Vaccine Refusal, Mandatory Immunization, and the Risks of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases" in this week's New England Journal of Medicine (Omer et al.). The bottom line is that there is a critical need for new education and policy efforts to protect children (sometimes from their own parents) and the general public.

Here's an example of some of the bad news: In the case of measles, it's been estimated that more than two million cases occurred each year in the U.S. before a vaccine was available. In a triumph of science and medicine, the number of cases dropped to a mean of 62 per year between 2000 and 2007. In the first four months of 2008, however, 64 cases were reported with 63 of those occurring in children who were not vaccinated. Why?

• Past success. With a number of diseases nearly wiped out by vaccines, it seems as though our memories have been wiped out as well. As time marches on, many have forgotten the potential severity of vaccine-preventable diseases. Using the measles example, some cases can cause pneumonia, seizures, meningitis or even death.


• Alternative medicine and junk science. Of course, "western medicine" does not have all the answers. But it's been reported that parents of unvaccinated children "were more likely than parents of vaccinated children both to have providers who offered complementary or alternative health care and to obtain information from the Internet and groups opposed to aspects of immunization."


• Ease of opting out. Although the constitutionality of mandatory immunizations has been upheld, individual states have the ability to set the bar and allow exemptions based on personal or religious beliefs. In another unfortunate example, "the mean annual incidence of pertussis was almost twice as high in states with administrative procedures that made it easy to obtain exemptions as in states that made it more difficult." It was reported also that children with exemptions were 35 times more likely to contract measles.


• Denial. Compared to parents of vaccinated children, significantly more parents of unvaccinated children believed their kids had a low susceptibility to diseases (58% vs. 15%) and that the severity of disease was low (51% vs. 18%).


• Lack of trust. Again, compared to parents of vaccinated children, significantly more parents of unvaccinated children believed that vaccine efficacy and safety were low (58% vs. 17%, 60% vs. 15%).

Although the hearts of parents who withhold vaccinations from their children for non-medical reasons might be in the right place, their brains are not. In the "rugged individualism" that many Americans use to define themselves, there is a consequence of putting others in harm's way. Those who are unvaccinated put their communities at a higher risk of disease outbreak.

Now, there's a race to develop another vaccine -- this one against the swine (H1N1) flu. Although no one wants a new disease to contend with, there may be a silver lining -- a chance to reengage the public on the importance of immunizations. No doubt there will be an educational push when the vaccine is available. But at the same time, a campaign should be tied-in to reverse the dangerous growth of vaccination exemptions.

No vaccine is risk-free and not every mind can be changed. Still, the CDC (with their reach and clout), vaccine manufacturers (who can gain sales and reputation) and health care providers (who are a trusted source and carry influence on family health care decisions) should join forces to develop a new dialogue with the public. And let's sustain the discussion, let's put the science and evidence in perspective, and let's build some trust.

Betting on Vetting

This article also appears in odwyerpr.com.

Why We Need To Ask (and Answer) Questions
It happens every four years but also in lots of places in between. It’s the political vetting process.

Despite the development of an unprecedented process of detailed queries by the Obama administration (including a seven page survey with 63 separate requests for information), it’s been a banner year for viewing some high-profile nominees go down in flames. These include Tom Daschle for HHS Secretary and Bill Richardson for Commerce Secretary. Either the answers to the questions were inadequate or the vetters themselves were inadequate or both.

Sarah Palin, who remained on the GOP ticket after a much maligned shotgun-wedding-of-a-vetting process, might have been the most talked about case. Yes, there were the serious issues of her readiness to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, the ethics investigation in Alaska, her husband’s DUI arrest and her unwed teenage daughter’s pregnancy. But it communicated more. Reputations suffered. The unraveling episode was a reflection of the McCain team, and of the man himself and his judgment. Some argue that the Daschle and Richardson picks (and throw in Timothy Geithner and Nancy Killefer) cast similar doubts on the President.

Of course, this isn’t new. I’m not a political historian but just off the top of my head I can remember Thomas Eagleton for Vice President in 1972, John Tower for Secretary of Defense in 1989, Zoë Baird for Attorney General in 1993, Bernard Kerick for Homeland Security Secretary in 2004 and Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court in 2005. The reasons for these falls from grace are various, including mental health issues, tax problems, outright corruption and limited qualifications.

Politics is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the lack of vetting – just ask those who were ripped off by Bernard Madoff. It’s clear that questions should have been asked but I don’t have an answer on how to overcome blind faith or greed that blinds.

There are several points here:

Taking the time to ask questions – good questions – is essential. But equally essential is the need to receive good answers – truthful answers – in a timely fashion.

The truth will out. Being transparent and honest is the first, best – the only – approach. And, let’s face it, our 24/7 on-line world is relentless in its pursuit of a good story.

We must accept, however, that decisions must get made eventually and that time is often an enemy. The best decision-makers know when collecting more and more information leads to diminishing returns. We need to learn how to manage and accept risk.

If we are to wear an ethical mantle, then we must commit to ethical standards… all the time, not just when it’s easy or convenient or in public. And, we must ensure that those with whom we work or hire also adhere to those principles.

These lessons are not new to professionals in the communications field. Strategic communicators ask questions and gain insight through rigorous analysis of information. They look around the corners, predicting outcomes and the potential unintended consequences of a particular course of action. They prepare scenarios (from those with high probability but little impact to those with low probability but a high potential for damage) and engage in “wargaming” exercises. They develop comprehensive Q&A documents, and pay attention to language and tone. They determine, in advance, who might be an advocate and who might be an adversary. Once prepared, they move forward.

The call from Washington for more transparency and higher standards is a good thing. Openness and sharing information is what democracy is about. Perhaps some day down the road we might learn that sweeping bad or embarrassing news under the rug is bad business. If not, someone will always be around to ask, “What’s that lump under the carpet? Let’s see what’s there!”

Do the Facts Matter?

Of Course They Do, Of Course They Don't
We receive, provide and use facts all the time. Facts inform our choices. Facts support our points of view. Facts help us find new facts.

Yet we see that facts matter little when it comes to risk and behavior. People can recite the facts but they smoke cigarettes, overeat, abuse drugs, don’t exercise, don’t take their medicine, and don’t wear motorcycle or bicycle helmets.

There are other circumstances where people just refuse to acknowledge a fact as fact. Have you noticed that some arguments are never won despite having solid, unassailable facts? If the facts don’t fit the person’s worldview or “frame,” as the cognitive linguist George Lakoff terms it, the facts bounce off like bullets shot at Superman’s chest. Your opponent deflects all the data while you get blue in the face.

Certainly there are internal and external forces at play. There may be inertia: “That’s the way we’ve always done things.” There may be no consequences: “Who’s going to notice, who’s going to care?” We may feel powerless: “I don’t have the resources, I don’t have the access.”

Still, we pump out what we think are compelling facts in the hope of persuading people to take some sort of desired action. That’s what prompted me to write this entry.

Another public health alarm was sounded this week with the release of a survey that said very nearly everyone (83 percent) at risk for type 2 diabetes in the US is not getting a simple blood glucose test or taking the appropriate actions as a result of their test. This joint effort between The National Changing Diabetes(R) Program, sponsored by Novo Nordisk, and Fleishman-Hillard points to some special concerns in Hispanic and African American populations. “Fifty six percent of Hispanics should be tested and 59 percent of African Americans are at risk for diabetes and should talk to their doctor about being tested.”

Dana Haza, senior director, National Changing Diabetes Program (NCDP), said, “This study clearly demonstrates the need for greater education and awareness, especially among people who are at risk.” And Martha Boudreau, president Mid-Atlantic, Fleishman-Hillard, added, “In working with our National Diabetes Goal partners to release this information and help create awareness about type 2 diabetes, we hope it will serve as a call to action for at-risk Americans to get tested and respond accordingly."

The NCDP is a very worthwhile initiative, don’t get me wrong. But if facts were all that mattered, we’d be done. Insight alone does not produce change. Those who came after Freud quickly discovered this truism. Indeed, a whole new genre of psychotherapy (cognitive) came to life based on the knowledge that knowledge doesn't bring change.

It’s the desire to change that brings change. To the at-risk person we must ask: “Why don’t you care, what don’t you understand, who might help you, what resources do you need, can you imagine what your future would look like if you changed?” Gaining these insights will help us place more effective calls for those desired actions.

Let's Get a Little More Serious

Enhancing Corporate Reputation By Playing It Straight

I held a session on risk preparedness, issues management and crisis communications, last week in my Strategic Communication class at NYU. One of the truisms I talked about was how, so often, damage to reputation, morale, operations and financial performance is self-inflicted.

The pharmaceutical industry, unfortunately, serves as a prime example. In my view, some of the fights to differentiate products and gain market share have fanned the flames of antipathy toward the industry. DTC advertising has helped a number of brands become household names but these efforts have not always enhanced the public trust. We’re not making our best effort to properly set expectations or adequately communicate the balance between risk and benefit when animated characters or claymation body parts are used to sell medicines. I’m sure these ads test well in focus groups but this environment calls for a more serious approach to marketing and education.

This doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t be creative. We just need to redefine what creative means. The default definition of “creative” can’t be hosting big events or using celebrity spokespersons. It has to be more encompassing and it has to involve real analysis – a clear link to the needs of stakeholders.

Pfizer represents an interesting yin and yang on this subject. On the one side, they have Chantix(R), the smoking cessation product, with its ads using the tortoise and the hare to illustrate the importance of perseverance and compliance. But how seriously should we take the safety warnings when we see a petting zoo on TV? On the other side is the retooled Lipitor(R) campaign featuring an actual heart attack survivor who now takes the cholesterol reducer. If this guy is giving me the good and the bad, I’ll pay attention.

But what really interests me is the Company’s recently launched Medicine Safety Education web site. I don’t have any knowledge about how well this has been promoted, received or utilized, but this site looks like a good start in both communicating and collecting information on drug safety. And, beyond the attempt at putting safety in perspective, there’s another critical element – a step toward educating the public on risk perception. It’s a small but worthy – and creative – step toward rebuilding trust and reputation.